will
dana tierney wrote:
> k thanks! Here is a partial answer, all I can do for now.
>
> Dana
>
> Will has done a fairly good job of providing a response to this essay.
> This will then not be my focus although I may comment on a couple of
> things. I am trying, Lord help me, to answer the question �why is this
> offensive?�
>
> Before I begin I should specify my background as it may be relevant to
> what I say here. Many would say I am not actually Catholic. I am
> divorced, for one thing. I do not believe that the Pope is infallible.
> I have not received sacraments in many years. Thus my views do not
> represent the catholic church in any way, but are again merely an
> answer to a specific question as to MY reactions.
>
> Nonetheless, I attended a convent school in Canada and for a time
> wanted to be a nun. I took Church teaching very seriously and read a
> great deal on the topic. So I know enough to say a little although I
> may not say all there is to say or say it all correctly.
>
> So. You know, I just re-read this essay and Mike may be right� if you
> cannot see how offensive it is, it is hard to know what to tell you.
> What we have here are a lot of assertions about a religious faith
> which are a) wrong and b) make it look silly and even stupid.
>
> The heart of Catholicism as I know it is a sense of wonder. God is not
> knowable, anymore than the sun is knowable by a mayfly. The mayfly may
> see the effects of the sun and even give praise for them but it cannot
> understand the sun nor can it hope to influence it, although perhaps
> it is the nature of the mayfly to want to do so.
>
> This does not mean that God is not present in our lives. God is
> everywhere, literally all of the time. If I look up from my computer
> and look out the front door of the office to see the leaves of the
> tree there dancing in the sunlight, I see the grace of God in the
> beauty of the world he has given us. To see that grace is a blessing.
> To attain a state of grace oneself, to become a manifestation of the
> glory and goodness of God, and to remain so, is to achieve sainthood.
> Sainthood is becoming a vessel for the grace of God.
>
> Has the Church ever declared someone a saint who in fact was not? No
> doubt. The Church is made up of men and men cannot ever fully know the
> workings or the reasons of God. For hundreds of years the Catholic
> church was unquestionably a corrupt political organization. Does this
> mean that truth cannot be approached through its teachings? I think not.
>
> Would the Church agree with me on this? No, because it teaches that
> the pope is infallible. Not that he is God, just that he has special
> knowledge of how God manifests himself and that he cannot be wrong on
> this subject. I think that this teaching has been very convenient for
> the Church over the years. Does this mean that all of the people over
> the centuries who have devoted themselves to God through the centuries
> have done so in vain? Perhaps by doing so they furthered a corrupt
> regime. But if I sit in a cathedral built to reach up to the heavens
> and listen to the soaring voices of a choir I believe that perhaps I
> may glimpse the hand of God.
>
> Saints may be prayed to but are not worshipped. Perhaps I feel an
> affinity to a certain saint or feel that he or she would understand
> the particular problem I am facing. I may pray to that saint to
> intercede for me with God. I don�t think I have ever done this myself,
> but it is done, and it is done because the saint is closer to God than I.
>
> I hope that the above may give some insight into what it is to be
> Catholic. I think that many Catholics do think about these issues in
> shades of grey. Faith is complex and involves knowledge of the
> unknowable as well as rational thought about the teachings of the
> Church. So there are probably many people out there who feel that the
> Church is wrong on this issue or that, but who still believe in its
> teachings. Kerry manages to consider himself a Catholic and yet be
> pro-choice, apparently. For example. I do not believe this to be an
> example of wishy-washiness as my beliefs are similar. I believe that
> abortion is a sin and perhaps it is murder. Nonetheless I cannot
> believe that a compassionate God would damn all women who have had
> one. Perhaps, maybe, the women who did so lightly and with no respect
> for the sanctity of life. And ultimately, that woman has to take
> responsibility for her own immortal soul. I cannot do so for her and
> it would be wrong for me to impose my beliefs on her and to force her
> to suffer their consequences.
>
> I do not think that it is possible to mindlessly accept the teachings
> of the Church in this day and age. Almost anyone who is Catholic will
> know of abortions or divorces and will have to reconcile what they
> know of those people with the teachings of the Church.
>
> Now. Perhaps by talking about what Catholicism is I make it clear why
> it is offensive to portray it as something ignorant. �Those times are
> over and the idols should be taken down.� Excuse me? Is �idol� not an
> offensive term? Does it not mean a false god of a false religion?
> First of all, the statues in a Catholic Church are not repeat NOT
> gods. They represent the human forms of Jesus, Mary, and the saints.
> They are no more idols than is the Mona Lisa.
>
> If a Catholic prays to a saint or to the Virgin Mary he does so in the
> humble knowledge that he cannot apprehend the mind of God, and the
> hope that someone holier may be able to intercede for him. Comes a
> born again Christian, many of whom seem to conceive of God as some
> sort of bearded guy in the sky, and he tells me that the cathedral of
> Notre-Dame is an abomination because it contains graven images, and
> this is not offensive? It is like saying that� that a beautiful and
> innocent child is sinful because he touched his mother�s knee. The sin
> in my opinion is in the failure to appreciate the beauty that is there.
>
> This woman does not quite say that. But let us look at the words she
> does use, in this paragraph alone. Let�s start with �illiterate.� And
> �those times are over.� So Catholicism is a product of primitive and
> ignorant minds, and we are much more sophisticated now. So
> sophisticated, in fact, that we are able to know the mind of God. Bah.
> Perhaps we cannot conceive of it; perhaps we reduce it to a travesty
> of its beauty and wonder by thinking we can do so.
>
> And where do we get �should�? Should. Should, because some
> �non-denominational� �Christian� church, one which may have been in
> existence as much as a decade, has decided in its infinite wisdom that
> it knows, that it is possible to know, how God wants us to worship
> him. I am not sure that he cares whether we do or not. God simply is.
> To say that he will somehow get his feelings hurt if there are statues
> in a church built in his name and in his praise is utterly
> incompatible with my concept of God and reduces him to a vengeful old
> man. To take this caricature and use it to pass judgement � �should�
> now, this is clearly a normative statement � on a complex layered and
> multidimensional concept of his being is breathtakingly wrong. And
> insulting. I will not even ask who �should� be taking these images
> down. What if we refuse? �Should� they be taken down for us?
>
> Let�s take �should be destroyed.� Granted that I do not think that
> Jesus was blond and blue-eyed, what exactly is being advocated here?
> Destroyed? Not taken down. Destroyed. And why is the Catholic church
> responsible for Hollywood�s portrayal of Jesus? I think that the blond
> Jesus is more likely a product of the thinking that if we can see
> ourselves in the human form of Jesus (or Mary) we will be more likely
> to be able to apply the lessons of their lives to our own. And thus we
> have the Virgin of Guadeloupe. It is a cultural not a religious
> phenomenon in my opinion.
>
> The writer asks why we pray to images. We do not. We pray to those the
> images represent. She says �Some say that these statues are not
> worshipped. Then why do people bow down to these idols and pray to
> them instead of to the living God?� There is a subtle point here.
> Essentially she is asking, �if you do not pray to these statues why
> then do you pray to them?� Again, we do not. This seems to be an idea
> that she has already encountered. And yet, she is curiously unwilling
> to accept it. Because, after all, we pray to them. There is a more
> than a soupcon of invincible ignorance in the circularity of this
> argument, and I sincerely hope that I am wrong about that. The
> referral to the Book of Judges is irrelevant because ---once again --
> these are not idols, nor is what we pray to �lifeless.� How could God,
> the source of all being, possibly be lifeless? And is lifeless not a
> derogatory term?
>
>
> Let me stop there for now. I think I have proved my point. But then, I
> would have thought that the point did not need to be made, so clearly
> we have differing perceptions.
>
> I realize that I have portrayed some Protestants as rather shallow in
> their religious beliefs. I do not make this as a blanket statement and
> would avoid the portrayal at all if it did not underlie my perception
> that those who are so vastly oversimplify not only Catholicism but the
> nature of God himself. I have tried to explain without offending,
> which may be difficult considering the subject matter� but I have
> tried. I hope I have succeeded. If there are further questions I will
> attempt to answer them, but will have to do so slowly as the subject
> matter is such that you really have to try to do it justice.
>
> Dana
>
> =Idol worship. See Exodus 20:3. Some say that Catholic statues and
> icons =were created to tell stories to an illiterate public. Those
> times are =over and the idols should be taken down. Especially the
> =Hollywood/Renaissance picture of Jesus should be destroyed. Check out
> =Isaiah 52 and 53. The Messiah was/will be not comely to look at. He
> was =marred beyond any other man. Some say that these statues are not
> =worshipped. Then why do people bow down to these idols and pray to
> them =instead of to the living God? See the book of Judges and how
> many times =the Lord tried to get people to turn back to Him from
> lifeless idols. We =all need to check with the Lord as to what people,
> matters for things are =modern idols in our lives and turn to God from
> idols.
>
> >LOL, it does go through and chides you at the same time.
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
