Catholic guilt is a myth

Bags, I think the scripture stories are always a means of understanding the truths of life. They were never written as 'history'. As people's understanding of science, or any other discipline, develops they understand great truths differently. But stories are a way of helping people to come to an understanding of deeper ideas if they cannot access philosophical or other 'technical' language.

I think your final paragraph is a good summary of the idea.

Galen. I'm no theologian. I wish!

Just a humble historian. Who likes stories...

Typo. My aunt was CNO for Herts and Beds!

Or any other county for that matter?

Micelf did you teach theology at uni by any chance? My old head teacher was a MA oxon with a degree in theology.
She wanted me to follow in her footsteps. When I asked what would I do with a degree like that? Her response was to become a missionary.!
Moi?
The only missionary I'm likely to be is a position in beds,

Thanks, MiceElf. What you say!

Thanks, micelf. I get the bit about accepting evolution and other scientific discoveries, and the re-wording or re-interpretation of scripture based on new understanding of science. I think. (My father was brought up by jesuits).

So, essentially, my interpretation of that much is that the stories in christian scripture are to be taken literally until it is proved that they can't be taken literally and then they should be understood as allegory. OK. Fine with that. Sort of.

Regarding the bit about original sin, am I right in thinking, then, that the essential problem is deciding things for oneself without reference to god's will? That the idea is christians should always try to do what they understand as god's will rather than their own, even when their own will conflicts with what they (or some theologians somewhere) interpret as god's will?

Or am I way off the mark there?

There are some iPad word manglings here, but I think it's decodable.

Assuming that the enquiry about 'original sin' is just that, and not another pop at the perennial aunt Sally of this forum, aka the RCC, and with the caveat that I'm not in any way attempting to persuade, change or alter anyone's belief I'll attempt to provide a little enlightenment.

The key is understand is the word reatus. It doesn't mean sin or even guilt in the sense of personally responsible but rather in the sense if 'being liable' for the consequences of a situation. The Tridentine doctrine is about protecting the notion of the necessity if baptism to remedy the effects, rather than to assert a personal culpability.

But - there has been four hundred and sixty odd years of theological development since the Tridentine synthesis and one of the defining characteristics of the call to theologians at Vatican II was to try to recover the Chistocentric heart or purpose of Christian theology. This area was one in which there had been a great deal of work even enforce V II. Important among those working in this area was the German Jesuit Karl Rahner.

Rahner's contribution here is to offer a synthesis which accepts the authority of Scripture and the tradition of the church while taking into account the understanding of human origins as understood according to modern scientific models.

This attempt is heavily dependent upon being able to produce a new vocabulary to express those tings which the church hold to be true. He demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to see human descent fromasallgroupof tee arrest human beings but still hold to the sin of Adam (the very word means not one man, but mankind) had damaged original justice once and for all. Our participation comes about by the very fact that each individual is a human being born into a single closely united race. The aboriginal assertion of human free will against the will of God, determines the whole of human future in which each individual participates by preventing human nature from being the very vehicle through which zgod's grace is mediated to each new human being by their generation as was, in Rahner's view, the original plan. This approach preserves the key element of St Thomas' theology of original justice in a way that understands that humans are not simply a biological reality with a biological inheritance but a social reality with a social conscience. A key insight that is entirely congruent with the current understanding of te development and function of the human genome.

This post is really too long for a forum of this type and I shall not do it again. But as a response to what I hope was a genuine question and not a 'prod', I hope to show that the question is taken seriously, and that the primitive religious instruction of fifty or sixty years ago is really no guide at all to modern theology. Anymore than than studying the red map of the British Empire is a guide to modern historical or geographical realities.

Joan you're absolutely right that Christian activity in Western Europe and you say, in Australia as well, has declined since the mid 20th century. It isn't in decline in Africa, for example, or possibly the USA as well and there is little evidence of other world religions being in decline. There is some evidence of what they call 'new religions' being on the increase and of certain kinds of Christian sects, as you suggest, doing rather well. It seems to me that Western Europe (big revival of Orthodox Christianity in Russia, for example) is going through the same kind of upheaval as we had in the 15th and 16th centuries in terms of theology and philosophy. Interesting.

You know, it is really only older folks like most of us who really think about religion. I'm an atheist, but I know my bible stories and fully understand the ideas I've rejected through science and logic. I never felt much guilt, even when I was trying to be a believer, unless I'd done something to hurt someone. But I guess that is a sort of secular guilt.

Many, of not most younger people around here (Australia) are non-theists. They would not understand our discussions because they know nothing about religion and are not remotely interested. In my last job I remember being surprised that a young woman there did not know that Jesus was a Jew. I mentioned this to someone else, and they had no idea either.

Of course, a few folks join the happy clapper versions of religion, such as the Assemblies of God, because these churches use effective marketing strategies. But the old churches are being sold off for business or other uses. Daft as it seems for an atheist, this makes me sad. I might not be a believer, but I respect tradition and history. I'd like to see them used for Sunday Assemblies, as in that former London church, which has philosophy and music instead of sermons and hymns.

Sorry -I'm rambling off subject again.

Have to go and make some cheese sauce the noo.

I'd be glad of an explanation of what original sin is, lily, should you feel inclined. You can pm me if you prefer, or explain on this thread. I may ask questions but I will try not to 'prod' (too much ).

Stop prodding, Bags! No, it doesn't bother me because that's not what original sin is.

Doesn't it bother you, lily, that the whole idea of sin being visited onto further generations is actually completely immoral?

BTW, was it Ratzinger or the previous chap who abolished limbo? Good marketing strategy in Africa where lots of babies die young and where the competing Abrahamic religon (Islam) allows that newborns are innocent and not tainted with original sin so if they die they go straight to heaven.

Wonder where all the limboese went? I hope they got a proper upgrade without any delay.

Oh. I'm so glad. Does that mean I'm on the "Safe Side"?

You do know I'm taking the piss, don't you, lily, though out of amusement rather than unkindness

Doesn't matter if you don't believe in the HG, Bags.

Bags, I am of the same mind as you on this issue.

Only if you believe in the holy ghost, though, lily. I don't have room for ghosts in my life.

All of this nit-picking about man-made rules and regulations completely overlooks the fact that there is always room for the activity of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is presented as often ignoring or flouting rules and contradicting the party line. In other words, a lot of this - baptising poorly babies, annulment of marriages (loved that story Elegran) - is all to be on the safe side. Perhaps that's why Roman (and Anglo) Catholics are more relaxed about interpreting the rules?

I think the catholic theologians would respond to that question, ginny, that the baby, just by being human, is tainted with the stain of original sin, or some sort of crap like that (which primitive idea, don't forget, we are supposed to 'respect').

When my DS2 was in SCBU for a while after he was born, a well-meaning friend came round and asked if he had been christened. No, he hadn't and he never has been.

First half of last post taken from Bags post.

We were taught in infant classes at school how to baptise a baby. This was so that in an emergency, if it died, it would go to heaven and not into limbo.

This is just the sort of thing that turns me away from 'religion'. Why would an innocent baby be denied a place in heaven just because it had not been baptised? It's not even as if the baby had any choice in the matter.

My Jewish ex boss and I once had a hilarious argument about which was the strongest - catholic or Jewish guilt!. As we were both atheists from Catholic and Jewish backgrounds the debate was sort of academic.

Fun though.

He won on points.

Frankly, the whole thing is BAnanas!