Richard Rohr comments about this in one of his daily emails (slightly shortened)
https://cac.org/incarnation-instead-of-atonement-2016-02-12/
Franciscans never believed that “blood atonement” was required for God to love us. Our teacher, John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), said Christ was Plan A from the very beginning (Colossians 1:15-20, Ephesians 1:3-14). Christ wasn’t a mere Plan B after the first humans sinned, which is the way most people seem to understand the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Great Mystery of Incarnation could not be a mere mop-up exercise, a problem solving technique, or dependent on human beings messing up…
The substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it
is) seems to imply that the Eternal Christ’s epiphany in Jesus is a mere
afterthought when the first plan did not work out. I know there are many temple
metaphors of atonement… but do know they are just that—metaphors of
transformation and transitioning. Too many Christians understood these in a
transactional way instead of a transformational way.
…why would God need a “blood sacrifice” before God could
love what God had created? Is God that needy, unfree, unloving, rule-bound, and
unable to forgive? … it creates a nonsensical theological notion that is very
hard to defend. … A violent theory of redemption legitimated punitive and
violent problem solving all the way down… If God uses and needs violence to
attain God’s purposes, maybe Jesus did not really mean what he said in the
Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), and violent means are really good and
necessary. …
… Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about
humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God. This grounds
Christianity in pure love … It creates a very coherent and utterly positive
spirituality, which draws people toward lives of inner depth, prayer,
reconciliation, healing, and even universal “at-one-ment,” instead of mere
sacrificial atonement. Nothing changed on Calvary, but everything was revealed
as God’s suffering love—so that we could change! (Please read that again.)
Jesus was precisely the “once and for all” (Hebrews 7:27)
sacrifice given to reveal the lie and absurdity of the very notion and
necessity of “sacrificial” religion itself. Heroic sacrifices to earn God’s
love are over! That’s much of the point of Hebrews 10 if you are willing to
read it with new eyes. But we perpetuated such regressive and sacrificial
patterns by making God the Father into the Chief Sacrificer, and Jesus into the
necessary victim. Is that the only reason to love Jesus?
This … allowed us to ignore Jesus’ lifestyle and preaching,
because all we really needed Jesus for was the last three days or three hours
of his life. … The irony is that Jesus undoes, undercuts, and defeats the
sacrificial game. Stop counting, measuring, deserving, judging, and punishing,
which many Christians are very well trained in—because they believe that was
the way God operated too. This is no small thing. It makes the abundant world
of grace largely inaccessible—which is, of course, the whole point.
It is and has always been about love from the very
beginning.
"Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God."
ReplyDeleteYup, there it is!
Thanks for the Rohr piece, Anne. Atonement theology has never made any sense so me, either. I agree with Rohr, the incarnation was always Plan A.
ReplyDeleteThanks for Rohr. Atonement theory always clashed with God's prescience, in my mind.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anne, for this post. I recommend the whole week of posts. You can find a very brief summary here On this page there are links to each of the separate posts.
ReplyDeleteI like the title of the series "Alternative Orthodoxy" because it presents Franciscan spirituality (as an alternative to other Western spiritualities, Catholic and Protestant) while also being very much into tune with Orthodox (i.e. Byzantine) spirituality.
The East was were all the great Christological debates occurred so that the Byzantine tradition really emphasizes the Incarnation. Mary is so important in the Byzantine tradition because of her "yes" to the Incarnation. The Byzantine tradition saw this as not only as transforming humanity but also all of creation. Hence the deep resonances with Franciscan spirituality of the humanity of Jesus and the love of creation.
Of course the Byzantine tradition did tend to overemphasize the divinity of Christ even while affirming his Incarnation. Their spirituality is more in tune with the Gospel of John than the Synoptics. Rohr's presentation of Franciscan spirituality is a good corrective to that while at the same time criticizing much of Western spirituality. Realize that the Orthodox do not regard Augustine as a saint. They don't accept his theory of original sin. In fact some regard his thinking as heretical. And, of course, Augustine has so influenced Western spirituality, e.g. Luther and Ratzinger. Fortunately Franciscan and Dominican spirituality (Aquinas) have given us more positive spiritualities.
Thanks for the link to the summary, Jack.
DeleteIn this age of Trump's never ending Hate Week, extinction of species and unbalancing of the atmosphere, I can't help but think there's still a place for Augustine. After all, God sent His only begotten Son and we know what happened. Then God countered that horrid act not by raining asteroids down on the perpetrators but with a new act of life creation. We still keep doing our best to screw things up. Even employing advanced scientific knowledge to help. But we're still here. Wonder why. I don't know if we believe what Rohr says, but I think God does.
ReplyDeleteAt least Trump's not as bad as Bolsonaro, letting them torch rain forests. Though that's probably just because we don't have any.
DeleteBolsonaro kissed rings with Trump shortly after his election and was declared an incredible leader. One of my dependent-on-conservative-web-site friends assured me that at that meeting Trump gave Bolsonaro the green light to throw Maduro out of Venezuela and annex it. Funny that it hasn't happened yet.
DeleteMaybe I'm impenetrable but I never, even in pre-Vatican II childhood, had the atonement theory in my head. Original sin, I believe in it totally, though not taking Genesis literally.
DeleteThe only way you would understand atonement theory as it was explained to us in grade school is if you had a really bad dysfunctional family witb an abusive father. I didn't, so it didn't make any sense to me.
DeleteOriginal sin, yeah, I totally believe in,but not literal Genesis. I think original sin was a feature, not a bug. It's all those not-praiseworthy traits that enabled our survival until we got to the point of sentience. Traits like aggressive, horny, competitive, and selfish. Trouble is, they didn't go away after we got sentient. And Baptism is just the first step towards addressing them.
I don't see how some of the opinions expressed here conform to Catholic teaching. If the death of Jesus was not sacrificial, then why is its commemoration called the Sacrifice of the Mass? I confess I have long questioned why Christianity can't be viewed as a succession of failures on God's part. His creatures (Adam and Eve) disobey him. His Chosen People keep falling away. Jesus is sent to the Jews and they reject him. But the sin of Adam and Eve is described as a "happy fault" (felix culpa). The Catechism says the following:
ReplyDelete412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away." And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'"
David, you are right. Much of this does not conform to official Catholic teaching (or, in the case of atonement, to "orthodox" christian teaching in general) My disagreement with many Catholic teachings finally pushed me to admit that I am not a "believing" Catholic, and so I have attended an Episcopal church for the last 10 or so years.
ReplyDeleteI am not any other denomination either, although attend an Episcopal church to support my husband who likes to go to church on Sunday. Mostly because of the good music at ECs I suspect. I am one of those who are much ridiculed by the officially religious - spiritual but not (really) religious.
I look for spiritual guidance from many sources. Many are Catholic - I have followed Richard Rohr for 20 years, have several of his books, listen to some of his talks on tape (now MP3), heard him speak in person several times, and even took a week-long class from him at a Jesuit college once, meant for people working for the church, but people like me could audit. I wanted to be in a forum where real discussion, questions and answers could take place, and since there were only 40 people in the week-long seminar, it was ideal. . I have have subscribed to his daily emails ever since he started them I think. Richard Rohr is still a Catholic priest in good standing, even though he has been reported to bishops (and probably Rome) countless times by temple police who see his views as heresy.
I was formed in the RC church and spent the first 60 years of my life as an active Catholic. But I started feeling guilty about staying when I disagreed with so much, I had also beenreading widely for years (everything except heavy theology), well beyond Catholic sources. (this isn't the only linked-to-a-religious group website I frequent) So my spiritual reading includes Catholics like Rohr (and DeMello, and Chittister, and Nouwen, and Keating and a bunch of others) but it also includes "emerging church" protestants like Marcus Borg, Brian McClaren,Diane Butler Bass, Jim Wallis and some others. It includes Anglicans, and an Episcopal priest named Barbara Brown Taylor. It includes people like Anne Lamott, Kathleen Norris, Eknath Easwaren (a Hindu who taught meditation mostly to christians), as well as Buddhists, especially Thich Nhat Hanh (one of my favorites - I have several of his books too). I even follow a Kaballah group on Facebook. Not even sure how that happened (clicked on a suggestion accidently?) but I like it so have continued it.
Dogma and doctrine interest me less and less all the time. Spirituality is a different story - it is very important to me.
I am going way above my pay grade here, but does atonement theology represent "Catholic teaching" or merely "an explanation of Catholic teaching"?
DeleteTom, isn't atonement theology, or "substitute atonement" kind of Anselm of Canterbury's thing? And John Duns Scotus is a Blessed, which you wouldn't think he would be, if he was a heretic. Like Anne said, Rohr is still a priest in good standing. Then there is Teilhard de Chardin, whom I don't think they have burned in effigy yet. My point in mentioning all these is that theologians have been kicking this around for a long time, there are nuances of teaching. None of these people have denied the divinity or humanity of Christ, or that he gave himself for our salvation. Which if they did, really would be a big time heresy a la Arianism or Albigensianism. I'm talking way above my pay grade, too, but the above mentioned people apparently didn't agree in every particular, either.
DeletePS to above; maybe I'll get burned for heresy for saying this, but to me the Catechism, either Baltimore or the present version, is a reference work. It's not a thousand-plus pages of ex cathedra statements.
DeleteNow you tell me, Katherine.
DeleteAndrew (never an unpublished thought) Greeley wrote a sociology book call Religion as Poetry in which he argued that religion works in people lives (i.e. as spirituality) more like poetry than like philosophy.
DeleteAll these philosophical theologies are really nothing (Aquinas called his straw)in comparison to Scripture, liturgy, and spiritual experience.
People put together Scripture, liturgy and personal experience as the poetry that describes their lives (spirituality).
Jack, some of his published thoughts were worth having. I think that may be one.
Delete"Andrew (never an unpublished thought) Greeley wrote a sociology book call Religion as Poetry in which he argued that religion works in people lives (i.e. as spirituality) more like poetry than like philosophy."
DeleteYes, he believed that Catholicism fosters a poetic, or as he called it (I think) a sacramental or analogical imagination, as opposed to the philosophic, or as he called it (again, IIRC) a didactic imagination, which he thought was characteristically Protestant. I believe he attributed his notions of a Catholic imagination to David Tracy.
I recall a concrete instance of Greeley's that illustrates this. There are two small, Catholic colleges in suburban Chicago, both founded by religious orders. They used to be called Rosary College and St. Procopius College. In recent decades, both were renamed, to Dominican University and Benedictine University respectively, presumably to better reflect their religious-order identities. Greeley deplored these renaming decisions. He considered rosaries and saints to be examples of how Catholics approach God, sacramentally, indirectly and by analogy. The plain conveying-of-factness in the names "Dominican" and "Benedictine" were names that he considered imagination-impoverishing. For similar reasons, he was very critical of the minimalistic tendencies in religious architecture; he loved much more the older churches that were crammed full of artwork, crucifixes, statues of saints, stained glass windows, and other imagery that fed the imagination.
Interesting conversation. Meandering thoughts:
ReplyDeleteAs David notes, the "fortunate fall" in Eden is an old idea--Adam and Eve sinned so God could send us Jesus to save us once and for all. But does that preclude the Plan A idea, that Jesus's death and resurrection was changing our mind about God? He didn't come back with an army to smite his killers. He came back to show forgiveness.
Katherine touches on family: I grew up in a "difficult" family, so I shut down sermons that blather on about mother-love and care of the father. Substitionary atonement--taking licks for your brother or making your brother take your licks--is a completely understandable concept of you were raised a certain way.
But if you know that's essentially a sad thing in human terms, it seems nothing short of tragic on a cosmic scale.
I resist thinking of Jesus as the Son standing between us and an angry Father. Because, of course, Jesus IS God. His will is in perfect accord with the Father's. He is here to further God's will, not to thwart it or turn it aside by taking our licks.
Sacrifice: Jesus made a sacrifice in dying, but it wasn't a human sacrifice to a bloodthirsty God. It was a willingness to die to give the lie to that whole punisher God image. Can communion, therefore, be seen as us sharing in Christ's sacrifice and being prepared to continue by being as Christ to others? To witness that God is not, in fact, a scary S.O.B. but the source of mercy and forgiveness?
I guess these are the things I want to believe, though it seems like some bishops embody God the S.O.B., what with their insistence on rules, laws, and denying communion.
Won't know in this lifetime. I try to take Christ's mission of mercy seriously through action and prayer. But legions of Christians would tell me that nothing I do will save me from an eternity of torment no matter what I do here. So I will be eternally amazed if the Curtain of the Hereafter doesn't open immediately in Hell.
One thread on "real presence" and the eucharist prompted me to start thinking again about atonement theology. I was taught that the mass is a "sacrifice" - that Jesus is consumed literally as flesh and blood disguised under the accidents of bread and wine. The focus on the eucharist in the mass is on blood sacrifice, one that resulted in humankind being "saved", without which all would be doomed to hell for all eternity.
ReplyDeleteJesus may have lived in order to "save" us from sin, but I think it had nothing to do with his dying, except as a bitter lesson for us - standing up for truth and good can sometimes cost people their lives. So his death was part of the lessons he was teaching throughout his LIFE and preaching. He didn't have to be a sacrifice - his death was the result of how he lived - in truth, even when "speaking truth to power" could cost him his life.
The standard theology doesn't seem to account for this very often. As Rohr pointed out, "This … allowed us to ignore Jesus’ lifestyle and preaching, because all we really needed Jesus for was the last three days or three hours of his life. …"
Even though the EC liturgy also is centered on the echarist, on the "real presence" (but not transubstantiation), I still listen to the same language invoking blood sacrifice, Jesus "died" for our sins,to redeem us. To atone for us.
Like Stan, I don't think I was ever taught Atonement theology, so I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I am not even sure I completely understand it - is it the notion that a wrathful God was ready to blow us all away, and Jesus more or less dove in front of the bullets on our behalf?
ReplyDeleteI think that idea lives more in some fundamentalist circles than it does in Catholicism. That said, the idea that God is wrathful has plenty of OT warrant. But .. his sending his son was an act, not of wrath, but of love. Jesus taking our sins upon himself was an act of love. That act of supreme love lives on via the Eucharist.
Everything about the death and resurrection denotes (and connotes) love, not wrath.
I actually think the more relevant spiritual danger today is sort of the opposite of atonement theology. It is the faulty notion that we're all saved, sort of by default, and our decisions and actions have no bearing on our ultimate destiny. The notion would hold that Jesus has no role to play in our salvation, because salvation itself is not necessary. Not only is original sin not believed in; actual sin is not believed in. In my view, many, many people these days live their lives as though what I'm describing here is the reality of things.
I was never taught atonement theology as a youth, and most of the times I've encountered it have come while somebody was dismissing it. What I WAS told is this: Adam sinned against God, and since the sin was directly against God, it could only be atoned for by God's son. (OK, that part was sort of circular. But it gets worse.) The Son could have done it by shedding one drop of blood. Because He was God. And He did shed blood at the circumcision. (Try explaining THAT to a mixed class of eager fourth grade boys and girls.) And that was why we celebrated the Circumcision while everybody else was watching the Cotton Bowl. Everything after the circumcision (one day was all we needed, RR) was for our edification.
DeleteKatherine is right that the CCC is not an infallible document. But it does represent official church teaching.
ReplyDeleteMy kids were taught from the catechism in their Catholic high school in the 1990s. It clearly says that Jesus was sent to die as part of God's "mysterious" plan of salvation for sinful humans. IOW, to atone for human sin.
Jim, have you never pondered the language of the mass - the "sacrifice" of the mass? It recalls that Jesus died on the cross to atone for human sin - as a blood sacrifice - emphasized by teaching that the eucharist is literally the flesh and blood of Jesus disguised by the accidents of bread and wine.
From the CCC
All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion
598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
…Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. ….
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392
II. CHRIST'S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION
"Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God"
599 Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."…
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396
"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"
601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401
continued in next comment
I agree, the Catechism does represent church teaching. What I have against it is that some people use it as a cudgel, to ride whatever doctrinal hobby horse they favor.
DeleteI'm told that the present deacon formation program in our archdiocese uses the Catechism as a textbook, and aspiring deacons are supposed to read and study the whole thing before they're through. We're not involved in formation classes anymore, so I can't say how they do it. I hope they go to original sources at least some of the time, otherwise one's knowledge is a mile wide and half an inch deep.
"For our sake God made him to be sin"
ReplyDelete602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404…
Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world",439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".440
614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442
Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience
615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445
Rohr says that this can be seen as Plan B, for it would only be necessary if "Adam" and "Eve" sinned. He is arguing for Plan A - that God would join the human race in the person of Jesus, who would teach us how to live in goodness and truth - which may have fatal consequences. Jesus - the martyrs, people like Deitrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King and all who try to live in goodness and truth, knowing they might end up sacrificing their own lives in this pursuit. But christianity, including the CCC, mostly teaches that Jesus HAD to be executied to atone for human sin and be "reconciled" to God (IOW, to gain God's forgiveness).
So the focus is on the last 3 hours of his life - the preplanned execution for Jesus to "atone" for our sins and make "satisfaction" to the Father.
Tom, you definitely were taught atonement theology - maybe they just didn't call it that. But Catholic teaching has been, and still is, that Jesus's death was meant to "atone" for our sins, to "redeem" us from our sins, to "reconcile" human sinners with, one assumes, an otherwise unforgiving God. Anyone who believes literally the words of the Catholic mass is accepting atonement theology as "truth".
ReplyDeleteAnne, thanks for pasting (or typing!) all those sections for the Catechism. As you addressed it to me, are you thinking that those passages contradict what I wrote? Or that they contradict what Rohr said? I have to admit, I don't see the contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I don't agree with your personal point of view, which seems to be that Jesus was the first martyr (or maybe not the first, for presumably the list of others before him who died for speaking truth to power is not short). Ok, if you want to think of him as a martyr, fine, but that's a pretty slimmed-down version of the significance of Jesus's death. One needn't be divine to be a martyr.
Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church infallible? Yes and No. It certainly contains many doctrinal and dogmatic statements, and those certainly are de fide, as the church used to say (perhaps still does).
ReplyDeleteIn addition, John Paul II, in promulgating it, stated that it is an authoritative guide. We're to accept the church's authority that it is a sure guide for us. Whether that constitutes infallibility could be an interesting question (although, admittedly, not that interesting to me), but whether or not it possesses the characteristics of infallible teaching, it is authoritative teaching, and we should accept it as such.
The authors themselves recognized that there are different 'levels' of authority throughout the Catechism. They even tried to illustrate that by using smaller typefaces for those portions that are of lesser authority.
Personally, I think the Catechism is a great gift. It's interesting that Francis seems to view it as a living document. That seems right, too. If Francis ever decides that a new edition is needed, we can be sure that the sections on care for creation, and on business and the economy, would be added or expanded.
"It's interesting that Francis seems to view it as a living document." Yes. And that would seem to go against the idea that it is carved in stone for all time. The idea that it is a living document, that is to some degree a work in progress, appeals to me, because religious thought has evolved over time.
DeleteThis conversation seems very topical since this is the week that the scribes and Pharisees catch three days of unshirted hell from Jesus -- channeled by Matthew -- for hitting people over the head with their (to quote Eliza Doolittle) words, words words.
DeleteI've been hanging with these two score, or so, guys for almost 20 years. (We have a long necrology, too.) Two of them are deacons. One tends evangelical (he recommended the Left Behind series to me, but that was before he went to the seminary). The other leans Jesuitical, but he mostly quotes Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day. (Gene, he'll love Ellsberg's book when I give it to him.) Two of the lay guys are unabashed Vincentians. One is a convert who loves to be baffled, and takes the meeting home to his (wonderful) wife, who authenticates us. WhadI'mtryin'tasay is, nobody marches in lockstep. Now, having said that, I have to say I have never heard any indication from anybody that atonement is giving them problems or that any of them even think about it. But they do show up at 6:30 a.m. once a week, and it isn't for the Dunk'n Donuts coffee.
So, y'all can wear yourselves out with the Catechism. We'll get on with it.
I guess I could describe myself as an "agnostic Catholic" or perhaps just as an agnostic who had a pretty good Catholic education, so I am in no position to lecture people on what they "have to" believe, but I am a bit startled that some have expressed such a feeble perception about the Catholic teachings on sacrifice and atonement. It seems to me as a core doctrine. Also, some seem dismissive of the Catechism, which is an authoritative summary of Catholic teaching and as such—it seems to me—of great significance. Benedict explained that nothing in the Catechism carried any more weight by being included in the Catechism than it already had before. But it is all Catholic teaching!
ReplyDeleteI was raised on the old Baltimore Catechism, and here is a Q&A from one version:
Q. Did God abandon man after he fell into sin?
A. God did not abandon man after he fell into sin, but promised him a Redeemer, who was to satisfy for man's sin and reopen to him the gates of heaven.
It was right there in my grade school education mumblety-mumble years ago. It is not some obscure bit of theology.
OK. Is that what atonement theology is? I thought the notion of wrath needed to be part of it - that God killed his only son as a sort of blood wage to appease his wrath. I guess maybe the word "satisfy" in that sentence could be read to mean "appease". Is it really, though? Couldn't it be more understood as the settling of a debt? I truly don't know what some of these hoary formulae actually mean. In a similar vein, there is neat bit of Latin, ex opere operato or some such, used to explain a sacrament is. That phrase is usually tossed off as though its meaning is self-explanatory, and maybe it is, to everyone in the world but me, but I'm stumped.
DeleteHere is an excerpt from the old online Catholic Encyclopedia which I doubt is as dates as some of the other material found there:
DeleteAnselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all mankind.
As I understand the entry, Protestants adopted Catholic views but fell into error in two respects, as noted here:
• The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
• The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.
I can see why some (including me) would find it difficult to understand the difference between "satisfying God's justice" and appeasing his wrath.
It may seem (and in fact is) abstruse and "technical," but it seems a bit strange to me to wave it all away when it is the Catholic explanation for what Jesus did when he "died for our sins," and it is the underlying explanation for the sacrificial death of Jesus and the sacrifice of the mass.
I don't "wave away" the Catechism, but I have to admit that I haven't opened our copy of it for at least ten years. On the other hand I recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday. The relevant passage to this discussion is, "For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures." I do believe that, and the rest of the Creed. The Incarnation and Redemption are mysteries which I accept and believe . I just don't see the point of stressing out about all the Catechism passages concerning them. Tom B. mentioned yesterday at 4:34 PM about the scribes and Pharisees hitting people over the head with words. How does that help anyone's faith?
DeleteDavid, thanks for these catechetical passages. In my view, we're on more solid ground thinking in terms of massive, unpayable death which is gratuitously and loving paid back, than we are with unappeasable wrath that demands to be requited by blood. At least there are a couple of parables that use the debt metaphor (as the servant whose debt is forgiven by his master but who doesn't forgive his own debtors). The parable of the laborers in the vineyard, all of whom receive the same wage, even those who didn't go to work until the end of the day; and the parable of the prodigal son, who receives the same (and more!) reward than the faithful son, also speak to this notion of gratuitous love, albeit from a slightly different angle.
DeleteSo sorry - "massive, unpayable death" should read 'massive, unpayable debt"! Somehow, I don't think, as written, it went in the direction I intended ...
DeleteThanks, David. I too am surprised that the still Catholics on this board seem either unaware that the RCC teaches atonement theology, even if not using that specific term in RE and/or don't really care about it and what it implies about God’s nature (see Tom's post about he and his friends".) I never questioned much until I was in my late 40s. A "good", Catholic girl who accepted it all with "docility" until then even though I had questioned teachings since childhood. I simply ignored my own questions.
ReplyDeleteJim, read the catechism selections again. It definitely says that Jesus was sent to be the sacrificial lamb to "save" us from God's ...what? Wrath might be an appropriate word, even though you don't like it. If it took the torture and death of Jesus to "reconcile" humanity and God because of human sin - it does sound like a pretty angry, vengeful God. Only a "perfect" blood sacrifice would do - no more innocent little lambs, but a human sacrifice.
That is why I became increasingly troubled by the mass, by the teachings about the eucharist. I accepted it all pretty blindly most of my life, but in mid-life, I really started to think about it all.
Is God a God of love? Of mercy? Not the God of the OT, smiting Israel's enemies (including innocent women and children) right and left. Could what I was taught really be true - that God would not forgive human sin (disobedience), would not reconcile God to humanity without the torture and execution of Jesus?
That's the teaching. The focus on the Passion implies, as Rohr points out, that the teaching and preaching and Jesus' way of living were really just extras - the only point of Jesus's life was his death according to standard Catholic (and most christian) teaching.
So, is God a God of love? If not, if God planned the incarnation so that Jesus could be the demanded perfect sacrifice - Jesus' torture and death - what is God's nature? The wrathful God of old-line Presbyterians and Calvinists and evangelicals? Or the God of love that Jesus revealed. If a God of love, why the need for the torture and death? Perhaps it wasn't a "need", maybe the catechism is not truth after all. Perhaps the acceptance of torture and death were simply part of the teachings of Jesus shown by how he lived - including the lesson that standing up for truth and good may mean suffering and even losing one's life.
If God is not a God of love and mercy, and "heaven" is an eternity with God, then is "heaven" really a desirable place? An eternity with a God who would not be "satisfied" until Jesus' cruel death served as the perfect sacrifice? Sounds pretty hellish if that is what God is like.
People might come to different conclusions, but it did shock me that it seems that some have never even thought about it, whether their thinking is Jesuitical or Vincentian or whatever.
As David notes, it's a core teaching of the RCC.
Katherine, christianity has moved from one explanation to another over the centuries. Ransom theory, and the substitutionary atonement theory, being two of the more prominent. Not just Anselm and Abelard, but others. But, I came to reject the current teachings (based on Anselm I believe), finding Duns Scotus to be an improvement. Richard Rohr's understandings - his talks and books, opened up a whole new way of thinking for me, and, kept me Catholic for a bit longer than I might have been. However, I couldn't reconcile my conscience and many Catholic teachings, not just atonement, so I finally said good-bye. I'm not an agnostic, nor an atheist, but I no longer believe that the path to God is exclusive to the Roman Catholic church, or even to christianity.
When I say the Nicene Creed, I stop quickly - "I believe in God, ...Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen:" After that, I remain silent. (Some people I know cross their fingers when saying the Creed)
Anne, thanks, I still don't see anything in there about appeasing a wrathful God.
DeleteThe starting point for wisdom in all this is to recognize that the chasm between us and God is our own fault. We turned away from him. We did this by misusing the freedom which he gave us. He surely must have foreseen the possibility of this happening.
He could have left us to, quite literally, rot in hell. But he didn't. He sent his Son to us, and his Son, again in perfect freedom, agreed to take our sins upon himself.
Could God have handled this situation - brought about a reconciliation - in some other way? Presumably, yes. But this is the way that God chose to do it - by giving of himself so much that he was willing to become like us and even taste death for our sakes. That is an act of pure love. It is the essence of giving - of self-sacrifice. It's not anger. It's love!
It may have been an act of pure love on Jesus' part, but not so sure about the God who demanded that death in order to reconcile with humanity. Doesn't sound much like love to me. So much wrath, that his "son" had to suffer a hideous death in order for this God to forgive sins.
ReplyDeleteIt's all there, Jim, in the catechism that you agree is authoritative teaching.
Anyway, as Jean noted, the "God the Father" image varies for all of us partly due to our own nuclear family experience. Some experience true paternal love. Others, including Jean and I, did not. So, our perceptions of a "father" God image are different from those of someone like Katherine, and you also I believe, who apparently grew up in a close and loving family, including a loving father. Norman Rockwell style.
Perhaps that's one reason we can read the same words in the catechism, hear the same words at mass (Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world - a human blood sacrifice instead of an animal) and interpret them so differently.
Atonement theology IS the theology of Catholic teaching at the current time. One hopes that there are people more influential and powerful than Richard Rohr in the church who might someday be able to evolve that teaching to show that God is a God of love, and not of wrath. I am far more open to accepting Rohr's take than RC official teaching.
One astonishing thing, one that is a hopeful sign I think - when Richard Rohr's newest book hit the market this summer, it immediately rose to #11 on the NYTimes best seller list (non-fiction, which is usually full of politics and other tell-all books). Amazing - a Franciscan priest, little known even in Catholic circles, denounced among many Catholics who do know of him, has apparently reached a lot of people. Perhaps those people include SBNRs like me - searching for a spirituality that is seldom be found in institutional religion.
https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Christ-Forgotten-Reality-Everything/dp/0281078629/ref=asc_df_0281078629/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=333095631510&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9378232031957267830&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9007779&hvtargid=pla-851896904592&psc=1
I have not read this one yet but plan to order it.
RR beginners should probably work up to it by reading a couple of his earlier books - Everything Belongs, and Falling Upward perhaps.
"but not so sure about the God who demanded that death in order to reconcile with humanity. Doesn't sound much like love to me. So much wrath, that his "son" had to suffer a hideous death in order for this God to forgive sins."
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to show me where in the Catechism God "demanded" his Son's death as the price to appease his wrath. I don't see it in the passages you quoted.
Does God get angry with us? Yes - and justifiably so! I'm sure anger isn't his only emotion; there is disappointment, grief, frustration - it all has to be in there.
Anyone who has been a parent, especially of teens or young adults, should be able to understand that. Some children even break off relations with their parents and their families - that sort of thing has happened in many families (including my extended family). Some parents then wash their hands of those wayward children and write them out of their wills. They may attach conditions to reconciliation: "I'll be willing to resume our relationship if you admit you're wrong." or "... if you get that bum your boyfriend out of your life." Other parents never stop trying to repair the breach - reaching out to children who don't want to hear from them, getting rebuffed time after time after time. (Worth noting today, the feast of St. Monica.) God is like those latter parents. I don't know how anyone can hear the parable of the Prodigal Son and suppose anything else. All of God's anger that seethes in the Pentateuch - all of that has to be read in light of that parable.
If Atonement Theology means "God's Son died to save us", then I plead guilty to being an adherent of it. But as I hope our conversation has illustrated, there is more than one context to understand that salvific act.
Regarding your point (which I guess is Rohr's point) that Jesus's entire life and ministry seems to be sort of beside the point: I can only speak for myself, but I've never looked at it that way. Jesus's Death, Resurrection and Ascension can only be understood in light of the Incarnation - Jesus's becoming man and living among us encompasses all of that. Everything that Jesus did and said is of significance to us.
Jim as a parent, if one of your children committed sins (and most people do, mostly "venial" sins), would you have a plan from birth that you would require that one of your other children be tortured to death in order for you to forgive your wayward child? Otherwise, no forgiveness and no reconciliation?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the catechism, this was God's plan from the very beginning.
"This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."…
"Jesus atoned for our faults and satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445
But, I won't repeat any more of this, because it is pretty clear that we perceive the meaning of these words very differently. It doesn't matter that I think, since I am not a "teacher" in the RCC as you are. However, it still might be helpful to your ministry to begin to those who are leaving the church for any number of reasons. Others see this (and other) teachings in a very different light than do you. You may not agree, but it could be useful in your vocation to understand why some reject the doctrine. And perhaps why some also reject the doctrine that the bread is human flesh and the wine is human blood, no matter how much the explanation is confused.
Millions of people have left institutional religion. More leave the Catholic church than any other, as a percentage of the total membership. For every new adult Catholic, six leave. The faithfully religious wring their hands, blame those who left, and continue to turn a deaf ear to what they say about their reaction to, and understanding of, formal religion, from doctrine to hypocrisy in how the words are spoken but not lived. Not just the RCC, but all formal religion in the west.
Most who leave still seek God, many are on a very intentional spiritual journey, but they aren't finding what they seek in the formal institutions. So perhaps they should simply shut down their minds and consciences and "accept with docility" all that they are taught, whether or not it makes sense? Maybe they should shrug their shoulders when the official doctrines don't make sense and let the explanation that it's a "mystery" suffice? But it's not working as well anymore. People were mostly afraid of God, of hell, in the not very distant past. After all, if God would not be reconciled to humanity except through the blood sacrifice of his own son (according to theology), how on earth could they trust in God as love, God as merciful?
An enlightening discussion (at least for me). Thank you all.
"Jesus atoned for our faults and satisfaction for our sins to the Father."
DeleteYes - "atoned" means "made reparation for". As in - paid our debts on our behalf. He did this freely. For us. Out of love. If that is what is meant by atonement theology, then we are having a vehement agreement.
I will say, I don't think there is any getting around items such as the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, which changed everything between God and humanity; and that Jesus' death was sacrificial. But note that he is both victim and priest. I'll try to continue in the next pane.
Here is what one intelligent fellow had to say on the matter:
DeleteObjection 1: It would seem that Christ Himself was not both priest and victim. For it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim. But Christ did not kill Himself. Therefore He was not both priest and victim.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ has a greater similarity to the Jewish priesthood, instituted by God, than to the priesthood of the Gentiles, by which the demons were worshiped. Now in the old Law man was never offered up in sacrifice: whereas this was very much to be reprehended in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, according to Ps.105:38: "They shed innocent blood; the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan." Therefore in Christ's priesthood the Man Christ should not have been the victim.
Objection 3: Further, every victim, through being offered to God, is consecrated to God. But the humanity of Christ was from the beginning consecrated and united to God. Therefore it cannot be said fittingly that Christ as man was a victim.
[Continued]
[Continued from previous comment]\\On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph.5:2): "Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim [Douay: 'sacrifice'] to God for an odor of sweetness."
DeleteI answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5): "Every visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice." Now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers his spirit to God, according to Ps.50:19: "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit." Wherefore, whatever is offered to God in order to raise man's spirit to Him, may be called a sacrifice.
Now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for the remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God. Hence the Apostle says (Heb.5:1) that it appertains to the priest "to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." Secondly, that man may be preserved in a state of grace, by ever adhering to God, wherein his peace and salvation consist. Wherefore under the old Law the sacrifice of peace-offerings was offered up for the salvation of the offerers, as is prescribed in the third chapter of Leviticus. Thirdly, in order that the spirit of man be perfectly united to God: which will be most perfectly realized in glory. Hence, under the Old Law, the holocaust was offered, so called because the victim was wholly burnt, as we read in the first chapter of Leviticus.
Now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. For, in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according to Rom.4:25: "Who was delivered up for our sins." Secondly, through Him we received the grace of salvation, according to Heb.5:9: "He became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." Thirdly, through Him we have acquired the perfection of glory, according to Heb.10:19: "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the Holies" (i.e. the heavenly glory) "through His Blood." Therefore Christ Himself, as man, was not only priest, but also a perfect victim, being at the same time victim for sin, victim for a peace-offering, and a holocaust.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own free-will He exposed Himself to death, according to Is.53:7: "He was offered because it was His own will." Thus He is said to have offered Himself.
Reply to Objection 2: The slaying of the Man Christ may be referred to a twofold will. First, to the will of those who slew Him: and in this respect He was not a victim: for the slayers of Christ are not accounted as offering a sacrifice to God, but as guilty of a great crime: a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of the Gentiles, in which they offered up men to idols. Secondly, the slaying of Christ may be considered in reference to the will of the Sufferer, Who freely offered Himself to suffering. In this respect He is a victim, and in this He differs from the sacrifices of the Gentiles.
(The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original manuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above. -- Ed.)
[*Some editions, however, give the following reply:
Reply to Objection 3: The fact that Christ's manhood was holy from its beginning does not prevent that same manhood, when it was offered to God in the Passion, being sanctified in a new way -- -namely, as a victim actually offered then. For it acquired then the actual holiness of a victim, from the charity which it had from the beginning, and from the grace of union sanctifying it absolutely.
https://biblehub.com/library/aquinas/summa_theologica/whether_christ_was_himself_both.htm
Anne, I realize from your closing remarks that you mean them as closing remarks. But, naturally, I have one more thing to add. It is this: The fact that people are "leaving" organized religion, especially Catholicism, proves nothing. Almost half of the people in the democratic republic into which most of us were born have rejected and turned their backs on it. The Elks, Moose and Eagles aren't doing all that hot at retention. There is a huge F-you attitude abroad in the land that sums itself up with "What's in it for me?" and is not interested in answers because it is not really asking.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, what you said.
Tom, my mind doesn't work the same way that other people's minds usually work. This discussion is an example. It was often obvious while I was going to school - through college.
ReplyDeleteIn school, I was the only 3rd grader asking my nun-teachers (religion) questions that clearly made them very uncomfortable and unhappy with me. I learned to shut up while in parochial school. My 8th grade teacher made me stand in the corner once. When my mother heard about it and asked "why" (she was surprised that this had happened because I was the #1 student and pretty much of a goody two shoes), he said it was because I asked too many questions that he couldn't answer and he had been frustrated. It happened a lot as I went through school (not the corner again though). My Prof of Thomistic Synthesis would have loved to make me stand in the corner, but I guess that wasn't considered appropriate philosophy professor behavior towards a student. I could regurgitate with the best of them though, and, looking out for my own GPA, dutifully answered exam questions the way he wanted them answered.
I read the teachings in the catechism about God's plan that Jesus would be tortured to death in order to bring about reconciliation with sinful humans as a sign of an angry God. The plan was that a human being named Jesus would become the ritual blood sacrifice intended to "please" (or appease?) God and soften God's enmity towards humanity. The meaning seems very clear to me.
Others read the same words and don't see it that way at all. They have the weight of orthodoxy supporting them. I don't.
Aquinas didn't convince me of much when I was in college. An interesting and creative thinker, no doubt, but that does not mean that he was always "right'. Even he said so at some point and told everyone to ignore everything he had ever written.
Yes - "atoned" means "made reparation for". As in - paid our debts on our behalf. He did this freely. For us. Out of love.
So, at least you accept that you were taught atonement theology.
Jim, I'm not questioning Jesus' love, I'm questioning the nature of the person of the Trinity (another mystery of course) who is known as Father. What kind of father refuses to forgive some of his children unless his only perfect child suffers an excruciating death? The teaching is that it had to happen. It was the plan.
A focus on incarnational theology appeals more to some than does atonement theology. In that view, Jesus did not have to suffer in order for the Father to forgive humanity its sins. Jesus’s life and teachings help to free us from sin, not just the death.
A loving father would not require one child to suffer a tortured death in order for him to forgive another child who has sinned. The God who supposedly did plan this sounds like a tyrannical father who is so affronted by a child's disobedience that he is full of .....wrath.
Tom, as you are well aware, doctrine develops. In the current age, far more people are well-educated than in previous eras. Those who worry about the rise of the "nones", seem not to realize that it might mean that churches should be more open to non-orthodox understandings. .It shouldn’t have taken centuries to finally acknowledge that Galileo was right and the church was wrong. People study the world, with access to all kinds of knowledge and experiences never before readily accessible to normal people, and there is a cognitive dissonance that they can't get past. They leave the churches and begin looking for a different spiritual path - they seek God, but it's not surprising that they might not be attracted to a God whose plan was that his son be tortured to death before he would forgive human beings who sin.
Done. (And the board says...Yay))
Anne, for my part, I don't say Yay - I found it a stimulating discussion. It's not something I've ever been asked to think about before.
DeleteI think Kung is one of the theologians who rejects substitutionary atonement. He has been through his trials with the Church, but as far as I know, he has not been excommunicated.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that many Catholics in my purview, including one of the Church Ladies (!), sees Jesus dying *because* of our sins, not *for* our sins.
The Crucifixion is where we confront our own collusion in the ongoing sins of the world, a world that would reject God. I suppose this is a holdover from my Unitarian upbringing, but this is what I continue to believe.
"The Crucifixion is where we confront our own collusion i the ongoing sins of the world..." That's a good way to think of it, IMO.
DeleteI agree with the point re: collusion.
DeleteI'm not certain what the distinction is supposed to be between "Jesus died *for* our sins" and "Jesus died *because of* our sins". Depending on the intended meanings of the prepositions, the two statements may actually mean the same thing. But to the extent they're saying two different things, I think both are true. We can't lose sight of the "for": by his stripes, we are healed.
I don't want to split semantic hairs about the Mysteries. Everyone here knows I am a half-baked failed Catholic with a lot of luggage from other faith traditions. I am not trying to persuade anyone, just saying that this is how I see things.
DeleteJim, I would say that we are not healed by Jesus's stripes if they don't move us to confront our own sin. For those who believe that the Crucifixion has nothing to say to them, Jesus died in vain. Or perhaps they live in vain.
Holy Moley, the gavel keeps banging down, but people keep talking. I have been thinking about these words from the chair:
ReplyDelete"People study the world, with access to all kinds of knowledge and experiences never before readily accessible to normal people, and there is a cognitive dissonance that they can't get past." There is nothing new about a cognitive dissonance in a God who can suffer and die, or in a God who can put his flesh and blood into bread and wine, or in a God whose death can restore life, in a sense, to the world. Those were all cognitive dissonances way back then, starting B.C. from "my ways are not men's ways." Christians were able to live with cognitive dissonance among the mysteries of God for two millenia before this generation of snowflakes.
OK, gavel down! Tom is sick of us snowflakes, so everybody shut up if you have doubts and questions.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Tom, but you really can be insufferable at times. If the conversation fails to charm or interest you, you could just stop viewing the comments.
Sorry to offend you, Jean. I have no trouble with people discussing cognitive dissonance. I have trouble with people attributing it to how smart we have become in relation to folks in the past. Who were no dumber than we will look to people 1,500 years from now.
DeleteI continued the discussion after the "gavel," apparently to your annoyance, but I don't recall using the term "cognitive dissonance" or making any points about how smart we are now compared to 1,500 years ago.
DeleteSo I'm not sure why you cut loose on my post.
As a lapsed Catholic, I realize I am here on sufferance. I do try to be respectful of orthodoxy and Church teaching. I stopped initiating posts here some months ago, and I will certainly refrain from participating in threads devoted to Church teaching in the future.
Jean, I value your thoughts and opinions. They are just as worthwhile as anyone's. Often they are better than most. I hope you will continue to respond to posts, and will consider resuming posting. I presumed you had abandoned posting for health reasons.
DeleteI want to offer an apology to everyone I've offended. I don't mind the 'status' of anyone who participates here. I like the comments from everyone here. Sometimes I don't fully engage because there is such a tendency in these forums, at the appearance of disagreement, to have it escalate to full-scale conflict. I find myself clinging with ever more certitude to propositions that I'm really quite tentative about. It's not a good cycle, and I don't always do a good job of staying out of it.
ReplyDeleteThis forum belongs equally to all those whose names are listed as contributors. It is not officially Catholic, otherwise I couldn't be administrator!
ReplyDeleteAmen to what Jim said, except I am not as good as he at not shooting from the hip. Jean, I wasn't cutting loose at you; I was "cutting loose" at Anne C, who managed to push several of my buttons, including my most recent one ("If you think the Catholic Church is losing its faithful, take a look at American democracy"). In any event, all of my comments are offered in the spirit of the Stratford Bar, where I used to engage in conversations like this. And where I was wrong as often as I was right. Yeah, and probably as obnoxious as I was helpful. As Jim would say, ;-)
ReplyDeleteWhew! The things I miss when I duck out for awhile.
ReplyDeleteOK, I had finished. But,now I'm not.
ReplyDeleteI lost a comment previously where I had expressed my gratitude for this board. Why am I grateful for it? Because it is pretty much the only place I've encountered people, especially practicing Catholics, who are open to discussing doubts, questions, criticisms.
When I have tried to engage with Catholics - in small groups in my parish, in adult RE, with priests, they would get that deer caught in the headlights look and then parrot back the very teachings I was struggling with. For most of my life I was very active in my parish - more than 30 years. The priests even knew me, in a parish with 4000 families.
The people here, including Jim who is as by-the-book Catholic as they come (have always seemed open to listening. I learn a lot from everyone here. Even when I disagree, or someone's comments don't really address my questions (for example - nobody here has yet responded to my observations/questions about what kind of father demands death for one child to atone for the sins of another), there are insights I gain. So I have been grateful.
If this is just to be a politics only board, it is still of interest, but I am more interested in the discussions on religion and spirituality than those on straight politics. I am interested in serious discussions that relate christian values to politics, so I read America, and Commonweal, and NCR. I also read Sojourner's and the Christian Century. I have subscriptions to most of those sources. So, politics, yes. But religion too - in my ideal forum.
Jean, I absolutely love your comments. You are the most original thinker here. You almost always have a different take on matters, religious and political, that I have never thought about before.
Tom, I like your war stories. I had no intention of pushing your buttons in order to anger you. Since that is your response, perhaps the problem isn't what dissenters or critics say about the church, but the response.
Which leads into the comments about people leaving church. Not just the Catholic church, but christian churches across the board. It's worse in the RCC though - six leave for every new adult member.
Those of you who worry bout the losses (I have read countless articles on this subject, the professionally religious wringing their hands about the bleeding out, trying one new program after another, one gimmick after another?, and still the bleeding out).
Perhaps some listening is in order. The answers as to the "why" of the bleeding are out there, in study after study. And among the reasons for it, even if it makes some squirm, is that Catholics and christians in the west, in the developed nations are far more educated than were the churchgoers of centuries past. Add to this unprecedented access to knowledge and information at the touch of a keyboard, and people with doubts and questions have to figure out what to do with all of the contradictions, all of what comes across as near superstition, and as hypocrisy. Few of the committed religious are even willing to hear them out. They get angry instead.
Those who get angry when hearing this may want to sit in meditation and contemplate the ostrich.
So, I have to go now. My husband spent the end of our vacation in hospital and ever since we have gotten home it's a round of doctors and tests. So, carry on.
If this forum is to be limited to committed, practicing Catholics, then I will bow out with Jean.
If the forum were limited to committed, practicing Catholics, it wouldn't be worth reading. And anyone who wanted to read it would have found satisfaction at Father Z or some other place where all the answers are potted, and the authors of the answers are mulch.
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer if everyone stayed. In any group of humans this side of the Parousia, there's bound to be some friction.
ReplyDeleteMe too!
DeleteAnne, I hope your husband is doing better.
ReplyDeleteMe, too.
DeleteAnne, I am sorry about your husband. I hope he will be OK.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I didn't say anything about flouncing out of the group, but just staying away from discussions on Church and spiritual matters. I have had my lifetime fill of listening to people insist that other people are wrong--Unitarians, Anglicans, Catholics, and the weirdo sects my in-laws belong to.
Istm, that once people get much beyond "praise God as you understand Him/Her/It, and be alert to opportunities to be good to each other," the knives come out.
I hope everyone stays, and I hope we are willing to discuss and disagree on religion and spirituality.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the word Church, especially Catholic Church.
As a social scientist I prefer the word Catholicism because there has been and is great diversity within Catholicism about beliefs, teachings, and practices over time and across cultures. I am interested in spirituality, Christian spirituality, and the many forms of Catholic spirituality. In fact I think Catholicism’s strength and attractiveness consists in all that variety.
However when anyone says or implies “the Church teaches” either to justify their own beliefs or to criticize someone else (e.g. a pope or hierarchy in general) we are in the same realm as “the Bible says.” Appeals to authority lead to arguments not discussion.
Again, thanks Anne for a great post topic. I really enjoyed Rohr’s articles.
"...In fact I think Catholicism’s strength and attractiveness consists in all that variety."
DeleteMe too, Jack.