I don’t know why both last forum discussions and some of our later class debates ended up revolving around the issue of homosexuality. Apparently, this seems to be a topic that involves deeply rooted feelings and beliefs, all of which seem to easily move people towards debate and confrontation. Taking into account the potential violence that underlies such emotional discussions, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the respectful tone in which all these debates were carried out so far.
Everything started with our second Forum, which was meant do discuss the possible schism in the Anglican Church. Although the key point was the ambiguous proximity between Anglicanism and Catholicism, what seemed to have caught most of the attention was the acceptance of homosexual bishops by the English church. Among the positions expressed in the forum, there were two clear visions that prevailed:
- On the one hand, it is possible to identify a tendency to consider homosexuality as contrary to the Scripts, and thus to understand that accepting homosexual priests is an unavoidable contradiction for any Christian creed. According to this view, homosexuals cannot be integrated within Christianism, but should build themselves their own set of religious values.
- The other point of view prevailing in this forum was that, although one may accept homosexuality within Christianism, it’s not possible to introduce this radical change within an established church without creating something new. According to this view, we cannot go on talking about Anglicanism if we accept homosexual priests. For this view, then, schism is logical and expectable.
It called my attention that no clear opinion acknowledged the possibility of institutional evolution. Even within such a traditional field like religion, a historical perspective can bring to light the existence of constant change and transformation. As we mentioned in our last L&C III class, the Catholic Church is perhaps the clearer example of this constant transformative inertia that no institution can avoid. We could mention the radical changes that this church underwent in relation to wealth, forgiveness, witchcraft, heresy, slavery, education and even the interpretation of the Bible. To anyone, it is clear that the church that promoted the Inquisition was based on principles and beliefs that radically differ from those hold by the current Catholic Church. But this which is clear for the Roman church because of its long history and tremendously huge institutional apparatus is also clear for any religious institution provided that we look closely at their historical development.
This third point of view is a historical one, which in a way opposes to both views defended in the forum, since it acknowledges that religions can change, sometimes even radically, without necessarily turning into something new or without necessarily finding a problem in opposing to what they had been in the past. This is called evolution. Since religious institutions are at the same time social institutions, it seems logical that they evolve and adjust their values and principles to the changes and the evolution of the societies in which they are immersed.
8 comments:
I agree with the idea that religions may evolve, but, as a catholic, I think that changes within the catholic church have been very slow. In fact, I think that, nowadays, the ideology of this church is old- fashioned and, to me, that´s why more and more people don´t believe in this church any more. Of course the question of power has always been present, but, however, if this church tried to get closer to people, accepting things such as homosexual priest or newer contraception methods, things may change for the better.
Being also a Catholic, I do not attend the Church since I was a child. I acknowledge that sometimes one needs spiritual assistance. Actually there are many religions to follow, some of them worshipping the same God. What calls my attention is that the number of people disbelieving in such a church and labelling it as old fashioned is increasing. Obviously, they might have their reasons. In this sense, I wonder myself if the concept old fashioned is appliable when dealing with ideology or dogma. By contrast,I tend to consider, as far as I can observe year after year from the Lujan Pilgrimage, that the number of Catholics sympathisers is increasing rather than decreasing. Last year, 2 or 3 million people walked to the Cathedral in just one day, constituting this event one of the greatest pilgrimages of the world, after The Meca. I wonder if the other religions can gather this amount of people in a day. frankly speaking, I doubt it. Bye..
Being also a Catholic, I do not attend the Church since I was a child. I acknowledge that sometimes one needs spiritual assistance. Actually there are many religions to follow, some of them worshipping the same God. What calls my attention is that the number of people disbelieving in such a church and labelling it as old fashioned is increasing. Obviously, they might have their reasons. In this sense, I wonder myself if the concept old fashioned is appliable when dealing with ideology or dogma. By contrast,I tend to consider, as far as I can observe year after year from the Lujan Pilgrimage, that the number of Catholics sympathisers is increasing rather than decreasing. Last year, 2 or 3 million people walked to the Cathedral in just one day, constituting this event one of the greatest pilgrimages of the world, after The Meca. I wonder if the other religions can gather this amount of people in a day. frankly speaking, I doubt it. Bye..
I think that we, human beings, are those who change our point of view. Therefore, we change everything in our society. Though God and his word endure forever, Religion changes because of our different interpretations of the Bible. As a result of this, there are different religions over the world.
Yes totally agree with you Ruth. It is usual to hear that the catholic church is becoming old fashioned. However, if this Church like many others base their teachings in the word of God, which endure forever as you said in your comment, so can this become old fashioned when it is guided by principles that are ethernal? On the other hand, it seems as if there would be a change of paradigms, paradigms that are human rather than divine, where the new models replace the old ones. In any case, does this way of labelling the catholic church imply that the other religions can offer me something better? Honestly, I doubt it.
I do have faith in God but I don´t think the Catholic church as an institution is closely following the principles that Jesus spread around the world. I think we have to take into account that Catholicism was created by men and the Bible written by them as well. As regards the pilgrimage Nestor talked about, I really don´t think that all that people go to Lujan because of faith, I think that many of them go just because, although I cannot be sure which group is the largest.
Well, it is hard for me to believe that 1.5 or 2 million people march year after year to the Cathedral as though they were running a marathon. The majority of them go to ask God either for their health or a relative's, to help them overcome a situation of unemployment so natural in these days and to help them resolve other conflicts. I'm plainly convinced that 2 million people do not move just because, but they do it because of faith. According to the Bible definition: Faith is the certainty of what is expected. In this sense, supposing that ones relative is terribly ill and Doctors can't find a cure. Well, many catholics believe that by walking 70 km from Liniers to Lujan, they can expect God's or Jesus mercy and help this ill person to recover. So, I think that this movement of people express more than the mere practising of a sport. They expect for something in change, they expect that Jesus can intercede in their toubles. The certainty of what one expect from God is called faith. Bye
[URL="http://alwayspromoting.info/o"] ppc[/URL]
Post a Comment