One for the Vatican
While I don't continue to carry on about it, I have been known to be critical of the Catholic Church. And I did spend at least one post here detailing why I could not remain a catholic. A lot of that post dealt with what I feel is hypocrisy between teaching and actions.
Well, it would be hypocritical of me not to acknowledge what I see as a positive statement from the Vatican; one that is reasonable and one that indicates to me that there is hope here.
I especially agree with the warning that religion risks turning into fundamentalism if it ignores scientific reason.
Now if they'd only stop telling me for whom to vote.
Well, it would be hypocritical of me not to acknowledge what I see as a positive statement from the Vatican; one that is reasonable and one that indicates to me that there is hope here.
I especially agree with the warning that religion risks turning into fundamentalism if it ignores scientific reason.
Now if they'd only stop telling me for whom to vote.
posted by (jim) Bo Ba Log at 10:22 AM
5 Comments:
I too would classify myself as an upset/struggling Catholic, though I have yet to actually post about it. I was interested in the article you pointed to and what I have the most trouble with is this line: "But he said science, too, should listen to religion." On some level, I can see where he's coming from in the elemental sense of sorting out what is "right" and "wrong" and using science for the good rather than the bad. But on another level it seems extremely impositional and impractical and the church just trying to make a grab for another realm that they can have tremendous power over.
I hear what you are saying. The actual quote he had was;
"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."
Now what he means by the expert voice in humanity is certainly up for debate, but I took it as saying that we should consider spiritual guides when it comes to deciding what we can do as opposed to what we should do. I believe that, but I don't believe that a particular religious view should consider itself as always having sway.
i am certainly no authority on catholic church teaching nor on science. but i do just want to point out that this is nothing new for the catholic church. "this" meaning the statement that bo ba log cites from the catholic church saying that the church should listen to what science has to offer. i want to just mention a few things about the church's historical stance on biological evolution which will demonstrate that in the past the church has made statements that are pro- the integration of science and faith.
pope pius xii in 1950 made the first formal church statement on evolution in the encyclical letter humani generis which said that the human soul was not the product of evolution, but that the evolution of the human body from lower animals could be investigated as scientific hypothesis, so long as the conclusions were not made rashly.
then, in 1996, based on more evidence coming from the field of science, pope paul ii acknowldeged that the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis." but he continued to affirm that the human soul was a spiritual matter "immediately created by god."
these are just 2 examples that i got from a discussion at my church tonight and they come from one article by stephen m. barr, the design of evolution. this is certainly not the end of the discussion. but i just wanted to post this info so folks don't think this is some radical and new statement from the catholic church.
and i'm not saying that this statement didn't need to be said. i definitely think that more clarification about these controversial issues and the catholic church's stance need to be reiterated. and, one last aside, i've learned that when the mainstream media mentions something (positive or negative) about the catholic church, that i should try to go to the horses mouth, so to speak, just to be sure that the media isn't misconstruing the church (which they usually are). just my 2 cents:)
I don't think I said, or intended to imply that this was a radical stance for the church. What I intended was to point out that the church verbalized what I consider to be a reasonable stance on this particular issue, an issue that some more fundementalist churches take a much different position on. As I said in my original, I have been critical of the Catholic Church, but wanted to point out when I think the church take a position I consider to be correct.
I feel that in the light of the discussion of creationism and intelligent design, I see this as a positive for the Catholic Church. Not necessarily something new, but a positive sign that Catholicism is still open to discussions where science and religion may not exactly see eye to eye.
In this day and age, that says something for the Vatican.
oh, i didn't mean to imply that you were implying that bo. but i just wanted to put it out into the blogosphere to futher clarify to all your adoring readers for 2 reasons.
reason 1: there was an op-ed article in the ny times in july by a catholic cardinal saying that the catholic church should not look to science as much as previous statements suggested. this has led to further confusion on what the church officially says (which is obviously not this).
reason 2: i live in the bible belt. so catholic issues such as science and evolution are not as cut and dry here as they are in the north. you'd be surprised at how many catholics i know who are not comfortable with the catholic church looking this closely to science.
so again, not saying anyone here was surprised at this statement, but just adding on to the conversation.
Post a Comment
<< Home