Hier stehe ich

Let me clarify that my earlier Protestant protest against the notion that the forgiveness of sins is exclusively available through the mediation of church officials shouldn't in any way be taken as an objection to the practice of priests hearing confession. I love the idea of confession. Whether via the Catholic model or the AA model, confessing to somebody else -- some-body else -- helps us humans accept that we've been heard. Such confessions can also help to free us from the "let's all pretend we're perfect" hypocrisy and the anxiety that fuels it. (David Bazan neatly summed up that anxiety in an album title, When They Really Get to Know You They Will Run.)

I love G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories. Father Brown's claim to fame as a detective is that he understands people due to having heard, for years, the confessions of his parishioners. The beautiful thing in these stories is the little priest's generosity of spirit -- the more he comes to know and understand people, the more he loves them.

That's immensely important with regard to the anxiety mentioned above. We humans need to be loved. To be loved without being truly known doesn't count, but we're terrified that being truly known would disqualify us from being loved. That fear can make us hypocrites, turning every Sunday into a kind of awkward first date with God. Such hypocrisy is exhausting and unsatisfying, preventing us from being -- or at least from feeling -- truly known or truly loved either by God or by any of God's human surrogates here on earth.

So I rather like the idea of confession.

I do, of course, disagree -- respectfully but strenuously -- with Roman Catholic doctrine on several points. I couldn't very well be a Protestant or evangelical or Baptist if I didn't. Likewise, an orthodox Catholic will, unsurprisingly, disagree with me. It wouldn't occur to me to regard such disagreement as evidence of "anti-Baptist" or "anti-Protestant" chauvinism on their part. "Non-" =/= "anti-." And so it didn't occur to me either that my comments on feeling really, really non-Catholic during that confirmation homily could or would be interpreted as anti-Catholic.

I can't help but wonder if I stepped in it a bit because, coming from a tradition that accommodates and celebrates dissent, I'm accustomed to discussing such disagreements in a way that sounds hostile to those coming from a tradition that, you know, doesn't. If so, then I've probably just stepped in it again.

In any case, it's Thursday, so please feel free to disagree -- respectfully but strenuously. (Or to disregard this topic altogether and just consider this a Thursday flamewar open thread.)

Comments

[twig]

Any religion with its own country and an armed Swiss guard has no right to get defensive.

(Lapsed Catholic. I like the music, the Latin Mass and the hats.)

[Brian]

Yeah, I didn't see it as being particularly anti-Catholic at all, but hey, I'm an ex-Catholic (now Episcopalian) in part because of the idea that a priest is required for forgiveness of sins (except in special cases, blah blah blah.)

The treatment of women by the Catholic Church is really what pushed me out the door in a hurry, though. But I have to admit, it is fun to watch them tie themselves in knots trying to explain how they don't treat women as second-class citizens.

[elef]

Actually all that arguing and disagreement sounds more like the tradition of my forefathers - Judaism. Actually, it might even be said to be part of my present tradition - atheism. Come to think of it, it's certainly a part of the slacktivist tradition. So what's the problem?

[hapax]

Never been Catholic. Kept trying, but the authoritarianism, sexism, and folk masses keep defeating me. Agree wholeheartedly with twig, but I'd add the ruby slippers.

[Praline]

Being the child of two lapsed Catholics, with a kind of race-memory free-floating guilt, I'm staying out of the Catholic debate. Not touching it. Uh-uh. I'm what I call 'osteo-Catholic': secular head, Catholic bones.

Here's a reading recommendation, though: Antonia White's Frost In May. (And its sequels, The Lost Traveller, The Sugar House and Beyond the Glass. ) They're the semi-autobiographical novels of a woman whose father converted to Catholicism when she was seven and sent her to a convent school, 'Lippington' (the real school was called Roehampton); her first novel is about the extraordinary, terrifying and fascinating experience as seen through a child's eyes. White suffered horrific writer's block all her life, so those four books are all she completed, alas, but they're truly exceptional. Go read 'em.

(As a piece of trivia, in case anyone's interested, three of my grandmother's sisters apparently went to that school. I asked if they were as extreme as White depicts; Gran said matter-of-factly, 'Well, they had some Jesuitical ideas about forming character.' Apparently one of her sisters loved the place; another one hated it so much she ran away. Which sort of confirms White's ambivalent feelings about it, I guess.)

On another subject, what is it with the Thursday flame wars? Is it an acquired habit, that makes people particularly keen to say controversial things/tease each other on a Thursday? Or is everyone just tired at the end of the week and snapping at each others' ankles?

That priest was incorrect. According to orthodox Catholic doctrine, a priest is not essential to the forgiveness of sins.

A priest is merely the sacramental conduit which the Church believes Jesus established to channel divine grace into the world. A sacrament is an external symbolic form that manifests the functioning of internal grace.

It is God who forgives sins and it is God who absolves sins: the priest acts as the agent of God:

"God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

The priest does not grant absolution on his own authority; rather he does so through the ministry of the Church in the name of God.

Confession to a priest is the preferred means by which sins are absolved. In extremis, however, if there is danger of death and no priest is available, a lay person can hear a confession and absolution is trusted to the mercy of God.

The priest does not actually do anything himself. He is merely the symbolic conduit. It is God that imparts salvific grace in baptism -- symbolized by immersion. It is God who absolves and forgives sins through the symbolic channel of confession. It is Jesus himself who manifests his presence in the breaking and sharing of the bread and wine in the Eucharist; since someone needs to actually break the bread and share it, the priest stands in for Jesus in that regard.

(Jewish convert from Catholicism who was very nearly a Jesuit)

[nieciedo]

That priest was incorrect. According to orthodox Catholic doctrine, a priest is not essential to the forgiveness of sins.

A priest is merely the sacramental conduit which the Church believes Jesus established to channel divine grace into the world. A sacrament is an external symbolic form that manifests the functioning of internal grace.

It is God who forgives sins and it is God who absolves sins: the priest acts as the agent of God:

"God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

The priest does not grant absolution on his own authority; rather he does so through the ministry of the Church in the name of God.

Confession to a priest is the preferred means by which sins are absolved. In extremis, however, if there is danger of death and no priest is available, a lay person can hear a confession and absolution is trusted to the mercy of God.

The priest does not actually do anything himself. He is merely the symbolic conduit. It is God that imparts salvific grace in baptism -- symbolized by immersion. It is God who absolves and forgives sins through the symbolic channel of confession. It is Jesus himself who manifests his presence in the breaking and sharing of the bread and wine in the Eucharist; since someone needs to actually break the bread and share it, the priest stands in for Jesus in that regard.

(Jewish convert from Catholicism who was very nearly a Jesuit)

[Richard Hershberger]

For what it is worth, while I am not Catholic and am not in the least tempted to convert to Catholicism, I am married to one and I have a long history of defending Catholicism against the ignorant. (Or, to put it another way, many people criticize the church for the wrong reasons.)

Also for what it is worth, Fred's post did not set of my "jump to their defense" reaction.

(I also once went to some effort defending Baptist doctrine against a uninformed Catholic criticism. Me defending the Baptists: that was very weird.)

[rejiquar]

I guess I'm lapsed cuz I haven't filed the paperwork to be actively excommunicated, as I'd prefer, since like Brian I loathe RCC's stance on women, which like seemingly everything else has been going downhill ever since I was child. Plus there's the whole `belief in God' issue.

But I was certainly raised Catholic, went to catholic schools (quite willingly, well, except for the uniform thing) and whose debates about this stuff with my mom, who used to take classes at the local seminary for fun, were among my fondest teenage memories. The Catholicism my parents raised me in taught that we were to use our hearts and minds to ultimately decide right and wrong, and take responsibility for it. Debate was seen to be one of our church's *strengths* (not like those other churches or faiths, heh, heh, heh.)

So I couldn't help but being amused by this post:)

[David]

Hmm, I didn't read the comments on the Catholic post...

As a Catholic, I didn't take your comments to be inflammatory. Actually, my reaction was more to the homily you heard, since "without priests there is no forgiveness of sins" is not really Catholic doctrine at all... that is, there are elements of it that could seem that way, but that description is so oversimplified as to be completely misleading. It would make much more sense (and be more characteristic of vocational calls I've heard before) to say, for example, that without priests we can't partake in the body and blood of Christ. That's something I'm sure you disagree with, too, but it's closer to what the church actually teaches, and I imagine both of us can agree that a difference on that point isn't quite as serious as saying that sins can't be forgiven without a priest.

I can't help but wonder if I stepped in it a bit because, coming from a tradition that accommodates and celebrates dissent, I'm accustomed to discussing such disagreements in a way that sounds hostile to those coming from a tradition that, you know, doesn't.

Well, that comment more than your earlier one sounds a bit anti-Catholic to me, but I'll let it go this time ;)

(And if you want to see things that "sound hostile," go check out a doctrinal debate on a Catholic forum sometime. That's hostility. I tend to avoid those sorts of things entirely...)

But, there's actually a lot of dissent throughout the Catholic church (cf. "sounding hostile" above). There are church officials who publicly teach against official church doctrine, and don't really face consequences for it. It's not that no one cares, but things usually need to get fairly extreme before there will be an official / public response. There are plenty of Catholics who are not quite as convinced of, say, the absolute grave moral consequences of all birth control, as some parts of the church hierarchy seem to be. You can't have a church that's as huge as Catholicism without having an awful lot of variation. Some regions / parishes are even nearly Evangelical in their sensibilities (you know, if you go for that sort of thing...)

On the other hand, you will encounter a lot of very loud Catholics on, say, Internet forums and weblogs, who are convinced that they know everything about Correct Doctrine, and are thrilled to be able to tell you all about your errors. Those sorts of Catholic Fundamentalists, who agonize over doctrinal points so fine as to be nearly imperceptible, and often know more about correct doctrine than the pope (you will find many of them who are horrified that the pope approves of taking mass in the hand, for example. Also, many of the American ones support the war in Iraq -- what does the pope know about just war, anyway?), share the persecution complex of other stripes of fundamentalist (think of them as the Jenkins and Lahaye of Catholicism), so even a minor comment like Fred's that rather innocuously pointed out a doctrinal disagreement would be liable to get them riled up.

It's really all rather unfortunate, since converts are especially liable to fall into catholic fundamentalism... I'm a convert myself, and I can't stand to read books by most other converts, since they're usually just so very smug, it just makes me ill. And I hope I'm not being smug here :-P...

[Tonio]

Any religion with its own country and an armed Swiss guard has no right to get defensive.

I imagine the country getting into an arms race with San Marino and Monaco. But Luxembourg could kick all their asses. (Why am I suddenly talking like a WWE announcer?)

[Praline]

I'm a convert myself, and I can't stand to read books by most other converts, since they're usually just so very smug, it just makes me ill.

Hey David, while I'm recommending Antonia White, you might like her book The Hound and the Falcon. It's a series of letters reflecting on the problems of faith - in which she, a convert who lapsed and then converted back again - talks very interestingly. And also can't stand smugness. Well worth a look.

[hapax]

Plus there's the whole `belief in God' issue.

Well, it apparently wasn't necessary to become

whoops

Necessary to become Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Tonio]

(Or, to put it another way, many people criticize the church for the wrong reasons.)

What reasons would those be?

I suspect the Church makes a handy target because of its authoritarianism and its size, which makes its faults seem magnified. In that sense, I can understand why some of the people who are concerned about sexism would focus more on the Church. They may also condemn the wife-beating apologia of James Dobson, but he's merely a self-appointed spokesperson with no real ecclesiastical authority in his particular faith. I can understand why someone outside of Catholicism might assume that the Pope could do away sexist doctrine with the stroke of a pen. I'm outside of Catholicism too, but I suspect it's not nearly that simple.

[Ursula L]

Well, since the homily in question was given, not by a layperson, not even by an ordinary priest, but by a bishop/cardinal, it strikes me as completely reasonable for a non-Catholic to accept it as an official-enough statement of Catholic beliefs.

In the same way, I'd consider the contents of a sermon at a Protestant church to be representative of the beliefs of that church - even if members of other congregations of the same denomination disagree, that's what is being taught there. But a Protestant minister, in most denominations, hasn't been singled out as an authority for the larger church in the same way that a cardinal has been granted title by the Catholic church.

[Froborr]

My issue was not that you disagreed with the doctrine presented to you, but the way in which you presented that disagreement. It seems now likely that it was simply a tongue-in-cheek reference, but when I read it it seemed like you were saying, "That sort of thing makes me want to commit an act of vandalism." Sorry, guess I was being oversensitive.

[Keith]

"Non-" =/= "anti-." <.i>

This is the point I've been trying to make for years in regards to Atheism. We Atheists are non-believers, not anti-believers or anti-belief. The matter sometimes gets muddled and I'll freely admit that it's due as much to our own strenuous objections as it is to sloppy language choices. Contrary to the Hitchenses and Harrises in our ranks, most Atheists are just fine cohabiting the planet with believers. It's when the wild accusations start to get thrown around that we get antsy. But those accusations are usually the result of meddling by politicians pandering to the red meat set, or by authoritarians masquerading as spokesmen for an inherently subjective phenomenon (numinous experiences) that cannot be packaged for general consumption without loosing everything that makes it worthwhile.

All apologies for being thoughtful and even tempered in a designated flame throwing area.

Your preferred club of sports players preform at a sub par level! Or something.

[Keith]

Oh, italics, I stab at three!

[M Groesbeck]

Here's the thing about disagreeing with Catholic doctrine: despite what the Vatican may like to think, Catholics do it too. Constantly. Now, Catholic doctrine may call this unacceptable, but that's one of the doctrines most widely and proudly ignored by actual Catholics.

Ignoring the Pope, in fact, is one of the most valued traditions of my very Catholic family.

[Jon]

Praline: Or is everyone just tired at the end of the week and snapping at each others' ankles?

I think that tempers just begin to flare as our patience wears thin from waiting for LB Friday.

[David]

Ursula L:

Well, I don't think anyone here is criticizing Fred for accepting the statement at face value. And even the cardinal might not have been really trying to teach something that doesn't mesh with the church's official teaching, he might have just been phrasing it in a very poor / oversimplified / easily-misunderstood way (which is certainly a problem, but one of a different nature).

On the other hand, the Catholic church isn't as rigid as your comment seems to assume (not to say it isn't rigid, it's a matter of degree...) -- yes, a cardinal has been "singled out as an authority" in a certain sense, but you also have to keep in mind, first of all, how ridiculously huge this church is -- without being far more authoritarian than it is, it would be impossible to force total conformity (and the act of doing so would likely lose a lot of that size in the first place).

Then even on top of that pragmatic obstacle, you aren't required to give an explicit point-by-point agreement on every issue of doctrine before being given any authority. (As a parallel example, I don't think very many Lutheran church officials really believe that the pope is the antichrist, even though strictly speaking that is still a point of dogma.) Nor, once you receive authority, are you instantly defrocked the instant you teach something that goes against official doctrine -- usually it would take many years of consistently teaching very serious deviations from dogma despite repeated warnings, if it ever even happens at all.

My point is just that it's not reasonable or practical to expect everything that every church authority says at a particular time and place to be really representative of the church at a whole. I'd have to say that in my few years with the Catholic church, I've encountered a lot more doctrinal variation (most of it amicable, until you get to the extreme ends) than in my whole life up to that point in Evangelicalism. There are definite common threads that separate it from a lot of protestant groups, but even when it is possible to talk about "church teaching" in a formal sense, that's very different from talking about what individual church authorities teach, or what individual church members believe...

(Disclaimer: Neither am I saying the whole thing is a free-for-all. Some things are taken very seriously and are pretty consistent, e.g.: the creeds, the eucharist, etc... but the area we're peripherally touching on in the context of Fred's post, that is, the significance of the sacraments [confession is a sacrament in Catholic teaching], and their connection to people outside the church, is one about which there are a lot of misconceptions...)

[MikhailBorg]

Contrary to the Hitchenses and Harrises in our ranks, most Atheists are just fine cohabiting the planet with believers. It's when the wild accusations start to get thrown around that we get antsy.

The atheists I know also get twitchy when someone insists that government and society should be run for the benefit of one selected group of believers, and everyone else will just have to deal with it. I suspect that's what produces some of the Hitchenses and Harrises.

[Ursula L]

David - my thought was that there are, at most, a couple hundred cardinals, out of millions of Catholics. However huge the church is, if you can't count on those few people to get it right, you might as well write the entire idea of any Catholic authority off as a complete figment of imagination. Which is nonsense, otherwise you'd be able to get proper emergency treatment for rape in the emergency room of a Catholic hospital.

And this wasn't any time and place - it was a public homily, a prepared speech, in a setting where one is expecting correct teaching. Not offhand statements, where one might reasonably state private opinion as private opinion.

[Tonio]

Husband: "Look at them. Bloody Catholics! Filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed."
Wife: "What are we dear?"
Husband: "Protestant, and fiercely proud of it!"

[hapax]

Ursula: my thought was that there are, at most, a couple hundred cardinals, out of millions of Catholics. However huge the church is, if you can't count on those few people to get it right, you might as well write the entire idea of any Catholic authority off as a complete figment of imagination.

Except that the cardinals' primary function is liturgical; their secondary function is judicial. These are explicitly distinct (in Roman Catholic understanding) from doctrinal and pastoral functions.

It's a very hard notion for Protestants, who are used to a more unitary style of authority, to wrap their brains around.

[David]

However huge the church is, if you can't count on those few people to get it right, you might as well write the entire idea of any Catholic authority off as a complete figment of imagination.

But I could similarly argue that if I take a couple hundred top protestant theologians, and can't count on them to get Biblical exegesis "right," I might as well write off the entire idea of Biblical authority. First off, the argument assumes unanimous agreement where none exists -- just because the Catholic church remains (more or less :-P) unified and has certain "official" stances doesn't mean there is no disagreement, or that disagreement is never tolerated. Second, it assumes that there is no room for interpretation -- just as the Bible must be interpreted in some way, so Catholic doctrine must be interpreted when it is taught, there is no final absolutely correct doctrine that covers every possible question and perspective. Third, it assumes no misstatements will be made in "prepared speeches," when in fact these prepared speeches are being given continuously, and can't be -- ha ha -- infallible. This particular misstatement, about priests being necessary for forgiveness, is something that stands out a lot to protestant ears, but less so to the speech's intended audience. Not because the intended audience really believes forgiveness without priests is impossible and protestants are all going to hell, but because they have some familiarity with the church and (hopefully) have been taught enough to know what the cardinal was really getting at -- that is, they could easily just accept the issue he was alluding to without being entirely literal about how he phrased it.

One additional point: saying that in a public prepared speech one can expect "correct" teaching is fair to some extent, but also runs into the issue of what the homily is for. While it's common for a homily to have theological content, the purpose of the homily isn't theological exposition. Or rather, insofar as how one lives is informed by theology, there will be theological exposition, but you won't usually hear homilies that are analogous to, say, passages out of Systematic Theology. (In my experience, this wasn't the case in a lot of evangelical circles.) The homily isn't considered a forum for teaching precise abstract theology, but for meditating on the day's scripture reading and talking about its relevance to our lives. The issues that come up are usually relatively practical, and in that context, bringing up the practical and relatable (for catholics) issue of having priests who can hear confession will frequently trump the more precise but lengthy issue of the full theology underlying confession. There are other, more appropriate, forums for that sort of thing.

Again, I'm not saying there is no issue here, I do think that sort of statement should be phrased differently. But I also think that arguing that the possibility of such a flub (or theological misconception, or even deliberate dissent, if that's what it was) undermines the whole concept of church authority is missing the forest for the trees...

[Jon]

Somewhat on-topic: Pope Returns To Vatican With Comprehensive Plan To Blow Up United States
(From The Onion, of course)

The atheists I know also get twitchy when someone insists that government and society should be run for the benefit of one selected group of believers, and everyone else will just have to deal with it. I suspect that's what produces some of the Hitchenses and Harrises.

Posted by: MikhailBorg

Sure, but I file that under the Wild Accusations heading. Usually when someone insists that government and society should be run for the benefit of one selected group of believers, there are Wild Accusations implied as well, mostly of the "Atheists shouldn't be considered full citizens, therefore..." variety.

I'm sure most people can see why that drives us Atheists a bit bonkers at times.

[David]

Hmm, hapax makes another reasonable point, though I might have phrased it a little differently (I suspect protestants can in fact wrap their head around it pretty well, they just aren't familiar with the distinctions a priori)... but yes, actually cardinals are rather a special case for the reason hapax says.

On the other hand, it's pretty common for a cardinal to be / have been a bishop or archbishop, so that doesn't really explain this situation. But since we're talking about an issue that, from a pragmatic Catholic perspective, is a fairly subtle doctrinal point (one that would come up most in specifically ecumenical contexts), it is relevant to point out the specific church role of the person who made the statement...

[Richard Hershberger]

Tonio: "What reasons would those be?" [to criticize the church]

That's a big subject, so take this as a partial answer. What strikes me, from my position of looking in from the very-nearby outside, is the church's demand of obedience for its own sake. Take, for example, the meatless Fridays in Lent rule. What is the doctrinal basis for this? There really isn't any, and if you dig a bit the church will admit it. The ultimate reason why a good Catholic goes meatless is a matter of obedience: acknowledging the churches authority to make up stupid rules just to see if you will follow them.

The meatless Fridays rule is actually very bad theology, as it is all about Law, and quite contrary to Gospel. But the church has long been more comfortable with Law than Gospel. Martin Luther commented on this extensively.

In practice, the church's demand for obedience mostly takes petty forms, since it lacks the power to make non-petty demands. So that meatless Friday rule is waived in dioceses with large Irish populations, in those years when St. Patrick's Day falls on a Friday. The lay folk will ignore the rule anyway, so a dispensation is granted to save face.

Another illustration of the principle is the idea of a Holy Day of Obligation: days when Catholics are required to attend mass. First off, which feasts are days of obligation varies depending on what country you are in: a totally weird concept in most ways. Second off, you would think that Christmas, for example, would make the list, but it doesn't. The days of obligation are second tier festivals: Ascension, All Saints, etc. Why not Christmas? My cynical answer is because even marginally observant Catholics attend Christmas (or at least Christmas Eve) mass: no need to make up a rule for that.

On the positive side, I recreationally remind Catholic co-workers of Days of Obligation. A casual inquiry that day about the co-worker's plans can be quite entertaining: Yes, I am a bad person.

[Steve]

That fear can make us hypocrites, turning every Sunday into a kind of awkward first date with God.

Reason #49 Why I Love Fred Clark: Every now and then he offers a sentence that is laugh out loud funny or irreverant, and at the same time profound.

[Nina]

I'd like to second some of the comments up-thread about the individual Catholic response to authority, especially that of the Pope. My Catholic in-laws are quite vocal about their dislike of the current Pope, and my lapsed-Catholic husband has been going on for years now about how the Pope should be elected by the laity. Despite the authoritarian structure of the Church in its organization and doctrine, individual Catholics (especially American Catholics?) have plenty of room for dissent. After all, for most of the world, Rome is pretty far away.

[MIchael]

Um, Richard, you're wrong there on the Days of Obligation. I don't kniw how to link but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Day_of_Obligation#Latin_Catholic_Church

Technically, all Sundays are Days of Obligation. Christmas is a DoO, and Easter is covered under that first provision. As for the other days, I'd say you've got a pretty big argument on your hands if you're suggesting that things like the Immaculate Conception are second-tier. The conception of the mother of God is a pretty big deal.

[David]

Take, for example, the meatless Fridays in Lent rule. What is the doctrinal basis for this? There really isn't any, and if you dig a bit the church will admit it.

Well, you don't really have to dig -- no one is claiming that this is a moral / doctrinal rule in the sense that there is some inherent spiritual quality of Fridays that means you shouldn't eat meat. The particular days and the particular means of fasting are in a sense arbitrary, in the same sense that the carefully-scheduled cycle of scripture readings that the church goes through is a liturgical and to some extent administrative requirement, not a moral one.

Having said that... yes, the church does have a liturgical calendar that institutes certain days for fasting, others for feasts (Though it isn't just pandering to the Irish: it's very common to be released from lenten vows for the feast days of certain saints, especially patron saints of a parish or region. Celebrations are an important part of the calendar too, not just "arbitrary" fasts.). Calendars of this kind are a long-standing part of communal worship, going back past the beginnings of the church straight through the old testament. At some point, if you don't make some arbitrary decisions, you simply can't have any kind of church calendar. And a lot of the more evangelical protestant churches don't, but I think it's a big leap from saying "I don't see the point of this" to saying that it's actually counter to the gospel...

It's common from a protestant perspective to look on these sorts of institutional fasts as legalism, empty ceremony, etc., but it's important to keep in mind that "ceremony" doesn't imply emptiness. The cycle of the year and its instituted commemorations can be very significant and meaningful if you approach it as a means of communal worship with the whole body of believers(*), rather than a meaningless imposition.

(*) (Yes, not all "believers" follow the Catholic liturgical calendar -- though the Orthodox and a good number of protestants have analogues. Yes, not even all Catholics are on the same schedule, as calendars differ between eastern and western traditions. My point isn't that all Christians must follow the exact same arbitrary schedule, but that the motivation behind these cycles can be very positive...)

[Richard Hershberger]

"Um, Richard, you're wrong there on the Days of Obligation."

D'oh! You know, I even checked that very page to make sure I remembered correctly, but I skimmed the list quickly and went right past the "Nativity" bit, as well as the parenthetical "Christmas". Mea culpa.

As for Immaculate Conception, I stand by my characterization of it as "second tier". That is not at all the same as "insignificant". The first tier is Christmas/Easter/Pentecost. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think it is controversial to characterize those as the three most major Christian holidays.

As for fasting, I don't deny its spiritual benefits for some people under some circumstances. I doubt that ordering the shrimp because you were told not to order the beef conveys these benefits. For some it is a spiritual exercise. For most it is a cultural exercise. (I'm German Lutheran: our culinary cultural exercise is periodically getting together and eating bratwurst and sauerkraut. I am thankful that I am not Norwegian Lutheran, with their mandate to eat lutefisk.)

[hapax]

The first tier is Christmas/Easter/Pentecost. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think it is controversial to characterize those as the three most major Christian holidays.

Mmm. You're wrong about that.

Traditionally (and we're talking about two thousand years of a tradition, here) Christmas is a fairly minor holiday; compared to, oh, Ascension, All Saint's Day, Epiphany. And that's not even getting into the Marian holidays like Annunciation...

[Ursula L]

But I could similarly argue that if I take a couple hundred top protestant theologians, and can't count on them to get Biblical exegesis "right," I might as well write off the entire idea of Biblical authority.

The Protestants, however, wouldn't claim to be agreeing with each other or speeking for/about the position of a single organization, church or denomination. To talk about "the protestants" at all makes no more sense than talking about "the Christans" as including a Catholic Cardinal as speeking for the UCC.

You might get one or two Protestant authorities claiming they have the one true authoritative take on Biblical authority - but the rest would agree that, even though they disagree with each other, anyone thinking they've got it 100% right is wrong.

The Catholic church as a whole, though, does claim that it is the place to go to get the authority right - yet also claiming that even the highest authorities within the church (someone who is both a bishop and a cardinal) can't be trusted to have it right, seems tautological - we're right, but if any one of us is wrong, then that one is wrong, and you've got to figure out which one is right, and which one is wrong, but if you don't take the right one as right, then you're wrong, and good luck figuring it all out.

[David]

I doubt that ordering the shrimp because you were told not to order the beef conveys these benefits.

Well, of course not :) But that is, in fact, a legalistic interpretation of a tradition that is not meant to be interpreted so legalistically. If in fact you are only conforming to the minimum letter of the law, for the sake of the law itself, then you're missing the point. And, of course, many people do exactly that. But that doesn't invalidate the meaning or legitimacy of the tradition, it just means that it should be practiced in spirit as well. Which is something the church quite frequently emphasizes -- you won't find much polemic about the evils of eating meat on Fridays, in fact I don't remember ever hearing that come up at all in any serious sense in my presence. But you can very easily find homilies or writings emphasizing the meaning and purpose of lenten fasts, and you would be hard pressed to attend mass throughout lent without hearing a message on that exact topic...

[Michael Cule]

That's a big subject, so take this as a partial answer. What strikes me, from my position of looking in from the very-nearby outside, is the church's demand of obedience for its own sake.

Well, there lies my problem with all 3 of the Abrahamic religions: that they emphasise obedience above virtue.

I think it goes back to the unfortunate consequences of the legend of Abraham and Isaac: God says, 'Go and sacrifice your son to Me' and apparantly the right response is 'Sure, Boss. You want fries with that?'

I have this awkward intuition that ethical behaviour doesn't change with where you are on the cosmic scale. If a human ruler were to pull this on one of his subjects we would call him a monster, no matter if he did turn out not to mean it. I can't see why this judgement doesn't apply to God. (There is a more or less orthodox viewpoint that directly contradicts this presumptious belief of mine: I can't recall the technical theological name but I think of it as God's reusable Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card. He's God so he can do what he likes and we don't get to complain.) To quote the Victorian poem: "Not love, quoth he, but vanity Sets love a task like that."

Worse is the effect this has on followers of the Abrahamic religions throughout history. Some of them are bound to think that being arbitrary, whimsical and dictatorial are all ways to be more like God.

I'm told that there is a rabbinical theory that God was indeed testing Abraham and that Abraham flubbed it: God was hoping he'd have the guts to tell the Almighty to take two asprin and call him again in the morning if He still felt the same. Sometimes I can take comfort in that theory....

[Lauren]

I doubt that ordering the shrimp because you were told not to order the beef conveys these benefits.

Or ordering beaver.

Personally, I think Judaism and Islam have much better fasting traditions.

[David]

we're right, but if any one of us is wrong, then that one is wrong, and you've got to figure out which one is right, and which one is wrong, but if you don't take the right one as right, then you're wrong, and good luck figuring it all out.

Well... okay, that's a fair point :)

On the other hand, neither does the church teach that an individual has to correctly "figure out which one is right" in order to be a RTC. Theology (again, once you reach the level of abstractions that go well beyond the practicality of showing love for God and neighbor) is important, but not the Most Important thing. Catholicism encompasses not just Thomas Aquinas, but also St. John of the Cross.

[Tonio]

The meatless Fridays rule is actually very bad theology, as it is all about Law, and quite contrary to Gospel. But the church has long been more comfortable with Law than Gospel. Martin Luther commented on this extensively.

For decades I assumed Catholics believed that God or Jesus required meatless Fridays, simply because of the nature of Jewish dietary restriction. It didn't occur to me that the practice might have any grounding in church law, or that it might have any significance in spiritual practice.

[MikhailBorg]

And that's not even getting into the Marian holidays like Annunciation...

Whoa. I speed-read that as the "Martian holidays".

[Ursula L]

I doubt that ordering the shrimp because you were told not to order the beef conveys these benefits.

It conveys great benefits for non-Catholics in largely Catholic areas, as it gives the local restaurants a reason to sell fish frys, and a good fish fry is a wonderful indulgence. The local burger joints all sell great fish frys...

[Jon]

Whoa. I speed-read that as the "Martian holidays".

Same here, and in so doing I formed a mental image of J'onn J'onnz, drunk on Martian Egg Nog, wearing a Santa hat, and making the ill-considered decision to try to corner Fire under the Martian Mistletoe...

[Tonio]

But you can very easily find homilies or writings emphasizing the meaning and purpose of lenten fasts, and you would be hard pressed to attend mass throughout lent without hearing a message on that exact topic...

My mother's family included both Lutherans and Baptists, and in our house we never had meat from land animals on Good Friday. My mother never attempted to explain the practice, but simply offered it as what the family was supposed to do. I don't even know if she even thought about any meaning or purpose to fasting. In fact, my parents almost never discussed religion at all.

[Tom]

"It conveys great benefits for non-Catholics in largely Catholic areas, as it gives the local restaurants a reason to sell fish frys, and a good fish fry is a wonderful indulgence."

Amen, amen! The fish fry was one of my favorite discoveries when I left Dixie for the northeast 14 years ago. Now if I could only make the damn Yankees understand the importance of the hush puppy, I'd be in heaven.

As far as what the "fish on Friday" thing is all about, the local Catholics all seem to think it had more to do with the church helping out struggling fishermen than anything spiritual to do with fish vs. meat itself.

As a former Baptist, all I care about is the beer batter.

[hapax]

Michael Cule: there lies my problem with all 3 of the Abrahamic religions: that they emphasise obedience above virtue.

And thereinlies my problem with your problem -- that you apparently don't think that obedience IS a virtue.

Obedience to a immoral command is of course not a virtue. And everyone has the responsibility to use all of their gifts -- reason, emotion, tradition, and gut instinct -- to determine whether a particular command is immoral or moral.

But sometimes you just can't know. And obedience is, in the end, the humble acknowledgement that "y'know, it's not all about me and what I think."

[hapax]

Jon: a mental image of J'onn J'onnz, drunk on Martian Egg Nog

Oreos, surely? But the Santa hat would work nicely on the conehead form.