Fringe beliefs
November 20, 2008, 10:27 am
Posted by Mollie Wilson O'Reilly
On the topic of what counts as kooky fanaticism, The Onion has a funny editorial this week: “I’m Not One of Those ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Christians.”
My faith in the Lord is about the pure, simple values: raising children right, saying grace at the table, strictly forbidding those who are Methodists or Presbyterians from receiving communion because their beliefs are heresies, and curing homosexuals. That’s all. Just the core beliefs. You won’t see me going on some frothy-mouthed tirade about being a comfort to the downtrodden.
(It’s a little careless about the denominational details, but what else is new.) I wonder if Janet Cosgrove, Christian, would be interested in joining us at dotCommonweal?
Mollie, if you were to just comment on this article, which is somewhat muddled, which beliefs do you think are, “fringe”, and which beliefs do you consider consistent with your Catholic Faith?
Oh my. Nancy, The Onion is a satirical newspaper.
Grant, I understand that, and in my own personal opinion, not a very good one. I am just wondering what type of Christian Molly thinks they are trying to mock?
I think they’re trying to entertain, Nancy.
“Oh Lord God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of men,
even like these Liberal, Cafeteria Catholics. I pray the entire
rosary (all 20 decades) each and every day. I come to all
the novenas that the parish has. I never miss First Fridays.
I don’t associate with Protestants (especially the evangelical
kind), I have memorized most of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, and I can quote the law and doctrines of the Catholic
Church—especially to the ignorant Catholics (who seem to be
multiplying more and more each and every year).
I do not associate with gays, and lesbians (none of these
will be admitted into heaven. So says the Catechism—)
and I believe all that the Holy Magisterium says and teaches
because Jesus established the Magisterium when he made
Peter the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’s Church.
Yes, Lord, I thank you that I am not like the rest of men.”
If you are into role-playing card games you might want to check out this little bit of “entertainment” from The New Humanist
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1915
It sort of fits, at least in my opinion.
Mollie, is that your answer to my question?
Hello Little Bear (and All),
“I do not associate with gays, and lesbians (none of these
will be admitted into heaven. So says the Catechism—)”
I know that you and most of us are trying to be light hearted on this thread, but visitors to this site who are not Catholic or who are Catholic but had the misfortune to be catechized by the sorts of teachers I had as a youngster might get the wrong impression. The cathechism doesn’t say that.
Although upon reflection maybe the point you were trying to make was that this fictitious character claims to have memorized most of the cathechism but in fact does not really know what it teaches.
Peter, that is exactly the point that I was making. I wasn’t referring to the little Baltimore Catechisms that children learned in the 1930′, ’40′s and ’50′s (some even into the mid-sixties). I am referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that came out in 1992 (English version) and memorized it (a formidable task to be sure), and quote it to everyone whom they see as spouting “heretical views”. They reverence it like the Sacred Scriptures. The CCC is an excellent reference book—without doubt. But it is not Sacred Writ.
Little Bear, describe a “liberal”, “cafeteria’, Catholic. Isn’t a Catholic, a Catholic?
I am glad to hear that you believe in Prayer, (we could all use some Divine intervention) Christ spent much of His time Praying to His Father in Heaven, so Prayer must be a Good thing, don’t you think? You don’t associate with Protestants? Why not?
I am glad to hear that you use your Catechism, how can one profess to be Catholic if they do not know what Catholics believe? Speaking of the Catechism, where does the Catechism say that, “gays and lesbians”, will not be admitted to Heaven. (I’ll save you some time, it doesn’t say that) What it does say is that Christ is the Light, (Life), Truth and Way to Love, God, Eternal Salvation. He, the Word Made Flesh, is the very definition of Love itself. No one can change the definition of Love, the Word Made Flesh.
Jesus did establish the Magisterium when He established His Church with Peter as first Pope. This was to insure that the Word of God, Love, would remain consistent, Yesterday, Today, and Always.
To Love someone in the fullness of Truth is to desire Salvation for them.
. . . .The cathechism doesn’t say that.
Although upon reflection maybe the point you were trying to make was that this fictitious character claims to have memorized most of the cathechism but in fact does not really know what it teaches.
Peter,
No, the Catechism doesn’t exactly say what the fictional woman says. It says this:
I suppose you could argue that people who perform acts of grave depravity are not necessarily gravely depraved themselves. Or make any number of other arguments to try to make the language above not sound so ugly. But to a lot of us, if it is not hate speech, it borders on it.
It is nice to know that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their [the homosexual person's] regard should be avoided,” but of course not all discrimination (like barring gay people from being teachers, coaches, or priests) is unjust.
So I don’t think the fictional lady is too far off the mark.
So David, under what circumstance do you believe homosexual, sexual acts should be approved?
Straight from the catechism:
Only the Pope and the bishops can interpret the Word of God. They teach the faithful the truth to believe.
The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By self-mastery they can approach Christian perfection.
Contraception is morally unacceptable. Periodic continence, as a method of birth regulation, is objectively moral.
Some forgo marriage in order to care for their parents or brothers and sisters, to give themselves more completely to a profession, or to serve other honorable ends. They can contribute greatly to the good of the human family. Being married but forgoing children in order to care for one’s parents or brothers and sisters or spouses is morally unacceptable if done by contraception, morally acceptable if done by periodic continence.
Divorce is immoral. Remarriage is worse.
Prostitution is a social scourge. It is gravely sinful. It usually involves women.
Part of the Church’s mission is to pass moral judgment in politics.
We must give due honor to authority. Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God. He who resists the authorities resists God.
Prayer, being unproductive, is useless. (Paragraph 2727)
So David, under what circumstance do you believe homosexual, sexual acts should be approved?
Nancy,
Oh, come on! I know better than to try to match wits with you!
Claire,
This is probably not the place to discuss the teachings you present — and sometimes misrepresent — in your little bill of grievances. But it was a mistake for you to give a citation for that final howler. You made it so easy to look it up and see that you are quoting out of context. Here is the section, in its entirety:
“We must also face the fact that certain attitudes deriving from the mentality of ‘this present world’ can penetrate our lives if we are not vigilant. For example, some would have it that only that is true which can be verified by reason and science; yet prayer is a mystery that overflows both our conscious and unconscious lives. Others overly prize production and profit; thus prayer, being unproductive, is useless. Still others exalt sensuality and comfort as the criteria of the true, the good, and the beautiful; whereas prayer, the ‘love of beauty’ (philokalia), is caught up in the glory of the living and true God. Finally, some see prayer as a flight from the world in reaction against activism; but in fact, Christian prayer is neither an escape from reality nor a divorce from life.”
Whatever the infelicity or ambiguity of the English here, the writer’s intention is fairly clear. To those who prize production and profit too much, prayer is bound to seem unproductive and therefore useless. This (obviously) does not mean that the church thinks prayer is either unproductive or useless.
My goodness, I seem to have a knack for starting arguments lately, or at least for letting them take me by surprise. I will have to try to harness that power for good in the future. I certainly didn’t intend to provoke an argument about the merits of the Catechism. Although that section on prayer is rather beautiful, so maybe I have done some good here?
Molly, you are such a troublemaker! :-)
It was for fun, in the spirit of this thread, and that last quote was going to make that clear, at least, I hoped…
Hello All,
Oh dear, I’ll bet Mollie is quite surprised that what began as a humorous thread has turned so deadly serious so quickly. But the subject of mortal sin is deadly serious. (Ouch! That is a bad pun even by my standards!)
In my earlier post I assumed that the fictitious character was referring to all homosexual people. David N. points us to a passage that summarizes a relevant teaching of the CCC, namely, that homosexual acts are grave matter. One might take issue with this claim, and I agree with David in finding the language offensive. But I’ll assume the truth of the claim for the rest of this post. So do the people who commit homosexual acts get excluded from Heaven? According to the CCC, only those people who (1) commit acts that are of grave matter, (2) know these acts are of grave matter, and (3) freely choose to commit these acts are liable to be excluded from Heaven (assuming they don’t repent). I think I’m safe in saying this set does not include the set of all homosexual people. (Catholics are also permitted to believe this set is empty, since we can’t know if anyone actually satisfies all three conditions.)
I also wonder if it might help to note that the CCC uses comparably strong language is describing a great many other acts. For instance, the CCC declares that cheating in a game of chance is gravely immoral if the stakes are not trivial. Interestingly, in the immediately preceding paragraph the CCC declares slavery to be sinful but does not explicitly state that slavery is gravely immoral — I think the authors leave it to their readers to figure that one out. (Sorry, I can’t give citations – I’m in my office and my copy of the CCC is at home.)
Others overly prize production and profit; thus prayer, being unproductive, is useless.
Matthew,
The clear meaning seems to me that prayer is unproductive, but those who overly prize production and profit would consider it useless. So it clearly doesn’t mean that prayer is useless. But it does seem to mean that prayer is unproductive. I am not quite sure what it would mean to say that prayer is productive, so I am not taken aback at the idea that it is unproductive.
I would be deeply grateful (to anyone reading this) for a recommendation of a book or two that answers the “practical” questions about prayer. For example, does making the sign of the cross before a free throw increase your chance of scoring, or perhaps is it wrong in principle? If it is God’s will that a very sick person should die, can God’s mind be changed by prayer? Does it make sense to pray that you will do well on a test? Does it make sense to pray after a test that you did well on it? A somewhat related question is, when the tornado spares your house but wipes out the one across the street, if you thank God for sparing your house, does the person across the street have to accept that God destroyed theirs? I guess something that covers both is whether or how God intervenes in everyday events.
I would also like to read a good book on the Lord’s Prayer — not a meditation, but an explication of how it would have been understood at the time.
Peter,
On a closely related matter, I just found this, which is also from The Onion (which truly is the world’s finest news source):
Catholic Church Condemns Metrosexuality
MAY 19, 2004 | ISSUE 40•20
VATICAN CITY—Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said Monday that metrosexuality, the trend of heterosexual men co-opting the aesthetics of homosexual men, is strictly prohibited under Catholic doctrine. “The truly faithful will avoid the temptation to adopt this hip urban lifestyle,” Navarro-Valls said. “The devout Catholic must remain on the path toward salvation, no matter how good he’d look in an Armani pullover, and no matter how much he might covet his neighbor’s set of Williams-Sonoma lobster forks.” Karl Weis, director of the New York-based activist group Freedom From Religion, responded to the ban by stating that “metrosexuality is so 2003.”
Sorry, I can’t give citations – I’m in my office and my copy of the CCC is at home.
Only one copy? Some Catholic you are!
There are several sites that provide the Catechism online.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/
David,
Good questions all, some of which may be unanswerable on this side of death. There’s a moment in Primo Levi’s IF THIS BE A MAN where he hears a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz chanting a prayer of thankgiving because he has been spared while another prisoner has just died a terrible death. Levi remembers cursing this man and his prayer in strong terms.
One more word about “unproductive.” It pretty clearly means more than one thing. If I may borrow Nancy Danielson’s technique for a moment, my American Heritage Dictionary (Commonweal’s go-to dictionary, for good or ill) gives two meanings for “unproductive.” First, “Not productive, idle.” Second, “Adding nothing to exchangeable value.” In the first sense, “unproductive” is hardly different from “useless.” But those who prize production and profit excessively are more likely to have the second meaning in mind when they dismiss prayer as unproductive “and therefore” useless. And no one would disagree that prayer is unproductive in this second sense.
Hello All,
I have finally converted! Er, to a Mac, that is. I am testing this brand new computer today and this is my first attempt at a post on the new system.
I know Molly, shame on me. My fiancee has had her copy for some time and I was using hers. Now I have my own. (She would not like it if I colored in her copy.) Interestingly, the new copy I bought proclaims that over eight million copies have been sold. This is an impressive sales total, but even if we assume that nearly all these sold copies are in different households, it must be the case that only a relatively small fraction of Catholic families own a copy of the CCC. That suggests to me that at least so far, the influence of the CCC has been mainly indirect. That’s not a criticism — almost no one reads Henry Sidgwick’s “The Methods of Ethics”, the greatest treatise on ethics of the 19th century, unless they enroll in one of my ethics classes. And this work is still hugely influential indirectly because some of the most widely read works on moral and political philosophy today were authored by some of those plucky few who did read their Sidgwick.
It’s great that the CCC is available online. But I tend not to use online texts unless they have search engines. You can’t color an online text with a Sharpir highlighter.
Hello David N. (and All),
I forgot to thank you for the May 19 reference to the Onion. Indeed, I need to start reading the Onion more regularly.
Nancy, Nancy—we meet on other Catholic web sites too. But you need to ‘lighten-up” a bit. I do not believe that God is so serious as to not laught. Jesus had a sense of humor—although most folks would not know it from our translations of the Bible. By the way, I not only use my Catechism of the Catholic Church—I have taught it many, many times.
“David, under what circumstance do you believe homosexual, sexual acts should be approved?”
Perhaps one would engage the average liberal American better in a moral debate if one asked: “Under what circumstance do you believe homosexual, sexual acts should NOT be approved?”
My My!! If the shoe fits…..
This piece by Cosgrove is above and beyond. It is satire while at the same time describing most church going Christians. Attending church has become a cult coupled with gay bashing and condemning divorce and remarriage. Although divorce and remarriage is a mixed bag since there are abundant divorced and remarried Catholics who receive communion every Sunday.
While one of my church going relatives went about bashing and calumniating other people my non-church going uncle quickly pointed out such lovely habits of “church people.”
Cosgrove is telling like it is. Deception is key. Not without reason did Jesus say:”Many will say when Lord did I see you naked, hungry or in prison and did not help.”
On the other hand those who aided Jesus also were surprised: “When did is see you….and did help?”
Those who see the Lord in others can never do enough good.
Powerful stuff and a mighty lesson.
Peter,
Also not to be missed are videos from ONN (Onion News Network). For example, check out Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are.
They occasionally have “adult content,” so any non-adults reading this should stay away.
Bill M: Just to be clear — “Janet Cosgrove” is not a real person (which is good news for dotComm, I think).
I think this discussion has pretty much run its course…