ARCC Life  

ARCC Board
President's Messages
Join
Identity
Activities
Online News
ARCC News 2012 ARCC News 2013 ARCC News 2014 ARCC News 2015 ARCC News 2016 ARCC News 2017
25 January 2017 Changing the Conversation (170509) Celebrating More Than 50 Years (170509) Conscience-Based Moral Judgments (170509) Dignitaries Humanae (170509) False Views on Jesus' Views on Divorce (170509) Mission and Human Rights (170509) Jesus and the Ordination of Women (170516) 29 May 2017 How much of Church Doctrine do we really believe? (170602) Trump Pulls Out of Paris Agreement (170602) 05 June 2017 Thoughts on Religious Vocations: An Open Letter to Pope Francis (170605) I can't get the institutional church out of my system (170618) 25 June 2017 Just War? Enough Already (170703) What would Teilhard say? Evolve or be annihilated (170710) Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time (170719) Religion's Wax Nose (170726) American Civil Religion (170731) A Heresy of the Times (170807) Cardinal Calls for Global Church (170818) The Price of Being a Prophet (170821) The Implosion of the Roman Catholic Church (170902) Reflection on Racism in America (170913) Who am I? Where am I going? (170918) One Priest's Hopes for the Mass Translation (170925) The Edge of the Inside (171002) Selective Christianity (171016) Theology at the Cutting Edge: Healing the Political and Social Divide in America (171016) Resisting Islamophobia Is The Catholic Thing To Do. (171023) It Started With a Letter to the Archbishop (171030) Why Do We Still Tolerate Mass Stipends? (171106) Their Cross to Bear: Catholic Women Told to Forgive (171113) Papal loyalists become dissidents (171120) Echoes of Theocracy (171127) Will Pope Francis Remove the 'Warning'? (171204) Gumbleton on Nuclear Deterrence (071211)
Changing Power Relationships
ArCC
ARCC-ive

   

How much of Church Doctrine do we really believe? (170602)

How much of Church Doctrine do we really believe?

Details

ARCC banner 2

 

 
But I believe there is a deeper, and more fundamental, problem than any of the above. Some of the very basic doctrines of the Church no longer make sense to the modern mind, and are being quietly rejected even by people who still attend church. Some of these doctrines are not Scripture based, but came out of the early centuries of the Church, a time when there was a very different understanding of the world and of humanity, and, probably most significant of all, a very different language which is still used to proclaim these doctrines. (And here I am not only referring to 'consubstantial'!) Our understanding of the universe and of the human person, through science, has greatly influenced the way we look at ourselves and the universe, and Church doctrine has not adapted to this. So it becomes increasingly meaningless to the modern mind. I will give some examples of doctrines that are no longer credible.

The traditional understanding of God in Catholic teaching is of a male individual, resident in the heavenly realm in the skies, a dwelling we are told we will attain to if we live well and keep the commandments. There are a whole range of problems with this understanding of God and his relationship with us, not least being the notion of God as male. Modern science, and maybe especially quantum physics, has opened up for us the wonder and mystery of the universe, and how creation was not just an event of ancient history, but is an ongoing reality. In this context it makes more sense to many to view God as the spirit/energy/consciousness/presence in the whole of creation, a being that is in and with all aspects of creation including all humanity. This understanding opens us up to wonder and mystery in a way that the traditional understanding never could. And it also helps us to realise that all of creation is bound together in a wonderful unity, and that we must learn to live in harmony with all life.

Church doctrine has told us that the sin of our first parents broke the connection between humans and God, that God was angry with humanity, and that the gates of heaven were closed against them. Then eventually he sent his son, Jesus, whom he decreed would have to die a horrible death in order to appease his anger and open the gates of heaven again. The main problem with this teaching is that it paints a picture of a horrible God, vindictive and tyrannical. We now know that humans inhabited this earth for many thousands of years before Jesus. Are we to believe that all those people were shut off from any relationship with God and denied heaven, and that they had to wait in some limbo state for Jesus to come and rescue them?

There is no indication in the Gospels that this was Jesus' understanding of his mission. He clearly saw his task as attempting to build what he called the 'Kingdom of God', a way of living and relating that would create a world of peace and love, not just in a heavenly existence, but here and now in this world. The manner of his death was an inevitable result of his life and teaching, in that he challenged both the civil and religious ruling classes, and they needed to get rid of him. Equally it is clear that Jesus didn't see the people of his time as being shut out from God; quite the opposite, God, he told them, was as close to them as a parent.

We are burdened with doctrine from the past that has tried to explain the nature and existence of God in a way that we now know is impossible. We are told to believe in a three person God dwelling in heaven, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, predominantly if not exclusively male. Along with being a futile exercise, trying to explain God, and worse still, making it a doctrine of the Church, was a big mistake. The wonder and mystery of the universe, that we are now beginning to glimpse, is only a small insight into the far greater wonder and mystery of the creator. It should have been left at that, and leave us free to gaze in awe at the mystery in the many ways in which it reveals itself to us in our lives and in the world.

Maybe the most problematic area of all Catholic doctrine is the teaching on Mary. I wonder how many of us really believe in the nativity stories and the virgin birth, and that Mary remained a virgin all her life and had no other children? And what exactly does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception mean in today's understanding? The Gospel of Mark, the first of the gospel accounts to be written, gives a very different idea of Mary, and the difficulties she experienced in dealing with this son she clearly could not understand.

I know that theologians and Scripture scholars, reading something like this, will immediately talk about the importance of story and myth, and how they can be understood as opening up deeper truths. I fully accept that. But the problem is that theologians and Scripture scholars have mainly spoken to each other and have not engaged with the ordinary believers, who were left with the understanding that these stories and myths were historical fact. Church authorities, by imposing strict discipline on teachers of the faith, did not allow them to enter into the type of discussion necessary to help people to understand the difference between myth and historical fact. It was easier to leave people with their stories, which uneducated generations accepted. That no longer works, and people are rejecting these doctrines as childish fantasies, and walking away from it all.

Unfortunately all of this doctrine, much of it embedded in ancient language that makes it even more inaccessible, is presented in the Code of Canon Law and the recently revised Catechism of the Catholic Church, as something that must be accepted and believed by all catholics. Many of the accretions of history are now installed as unchangable doctrines, and are an obstacle in trying to get to the real person of Jesus and his teaching.
 

 

   
© ARCC