Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:39:01 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Excerpts from catholic: 16-Oct-92 Re: Homosexuality Len
Howard@PEGASUS.COM (6205)

> From: Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

> > Len wrote:
>       Many things, among them that the priest who is teaching our
> theology course in making reference to the need to counstantly
> reevaluate theology said that..
> > >writing older than 20 years is out of date...The Bible must be
> > >constantly revaluated in light of new information.

> > Eric wrote:
> > >HA!  What a joke!

> Another member answered:
> > Eric, if what you say were true, there would be exactly and only
> >one version of the bible and it would be in Aramaic, Hebrew, and
> >Greek.

> Eric continueth..
> |That's not quite what I meant.  I believe the suggestion of the
> |original post was not that we need to produce more accurate
> |translations and more precise manuscripts, or even that we need to
> |understand better the context in which a book was written so that
> |we may understand it, but the suggestion, to me, appeared to give
> |us liberty to interpret the Bible in the context of popular
> |culture and dismiss much of what has been traditionally believed,
> |and also the liberty to come up with new theology according to
> |current social belief and "reinterpret" the Bible.

> Eric, you read into what I wrote what you wanted to hear, lumping
> me with many of the New Age "Theologians" who wish to redo
> Scripture.  The entire post mentioned that culture was ONE of the
> six factors in theology that must be considered in establishing
> your theology.  I hope you have read my longer posting which goes
> into more detail.  Please do not be so quick to jump to conclusions
> until you know the total point of view of the person you are
> pigeon-holing.  I did not, nor do I advocate interpreting the Bible
> in the context of popular culture and dismissing much of what has
> traditionally been believed.  Tradition, as you might know, is one
> of the three sources of revelation for Episcopalians.  We do not
> ignore it.  And change, if it comes, comes very cautiously and
> slowly.  But we are not encapsulated in the third centry language,
> customs or social mores.  We live in the 20th century, we
> experience 20th century society, we must have a theology that
> speaks to 20th century people.

I apologize if I misunderstood you.  But you suggested that any theology
over 20 years old is out of date!  Maybe you should have qualified this
(I'm not sure I saw your response), but while theology may be
"developed" or clarified, rarely does it get "out of date."  Much of our
Roman Catholic theology is based on St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and is
still useful today.

> | For example, there is a tendency today to explain the
> |Resurrection not in terms of a real historical event, where a man
> |died then rose from the dead to eat and drink, but rather as
> |merely a myth that represented the uplifting of the disciples, and
> |the joy that Christ brings us.  In the process they deny the
> |historicity of the Resurrection.  This is an example of a bad
> |reinterpretation of Scripture.

> I agree, Eric.  You did not read me suggesting that.  You are the
> one who is providing that example.

Good, just trying to clarify what you meant, not accusing you of
suggesting anything. . .

> |   It is preposterous to suggest that all of Christian belief and
> |doctrine is obsolete and must be reevaluated every once in a
> |while.

> No one is suggesting that ALL of Christian belief and doctrine is
> obsolete and must be reevaluated every once in a while.  Fr Baker
> was suggesting that a text on theology was out of date after 20
> years, and what it contains must be reevaluated.  And it does not
> hurt anything to read Scripture in the light of contemorary
> experience, culture and language.  You are not required to change
> anything, Eric, just have the ability to question it....that's all.

This is the original quote:
Excerpts from catholic: 13-Oct-92 Re: Homosexuality Len
Howard@PEGASUS.COM (1924)

> I hold the positions suggested by Owen Thomas and John Macquarrie,
> that theology is a dynamic issue, and needs to be constantly
> reevaluated to keep it in contact with current social thought.  Our
> teacher of theology in the Diocesan Institute went so far as to say
that any theology writing older than 20 years is out of date.

What bothered me is that "any theology writing older than 20 years is
out of date."  And, that theology was "dynamic" and "needs to be
constantly reevaluated to keep it in contact with current social
thought."  This could very well be a euphemism for "Let's get rid of all
the traditions and base theology on today's social thought," which is
what a lot of people are doing, it's called Modernism.

Theology really doesn't need to be harmonized or "kept in contact" with
social thought, except for moral theology, which needs to be applied to
new situations (not the reverse).  More accurate to say that social
thought should be kept in contact with moral theology.

But I am glad that this is not what you meant.

> |   The idea expressed about throwing out theology every twenty
> |years assumes that truth is determined by popular culture and
> |human opinion.

> In the first place I did not mention throwing out theology every
> twenty years.  I said that our instructor had suggested that a 20
> year old theological text might be out of date, and need to be
> reevaluated.  You are making the assumption about what he meant,
> and your assumption is similar to most assumptions, very wrong.

"Reevaluate" often means "throw it out" in Modernist terms.  Too many
theologians today claim to be "reevaluating" Scripture when in fact
they're merely replacing it with their own opinions.  Take Bishop Spong.
 He claims that he's "rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalists" and
reevaluating it when in reality he's embracing Modernist heresies.

> |I'm sorry, theologians are not infallible.  All Christian truth
> |has been revealed to us already and we are not free to throw it
> |out and change it.

> Oh?  If ALL Christian truth has been revealed to us already, what's
> with all this stuff about Fatima, and Lourdes, and the various
> appearances of the Holy Family all over the world.  Is that NOT
> Christian truth?  Which is it Eric, truth or not-truth?

What doctrinal truths have Fatima, Lourdes, and Medjugorje revealed to
us that we didn't already know?  None -- they merely affirm what we
already knew.  Maybe they give us greater insights, for example views of
Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, or relative proportions of people who go to
those places.

> I am going to delete all the discussion of YHWH and the spilled
> ink.  It is interesting, but not germaine to our discussion.  I
> hope you read my follow-up reply to John O, Eric.  And please don't
> jump to more assumptions.  Only read and discuss what I post.  If
> you have problems with it we can discuss it calmly.  That way we
> all get new ideas presented instead of insisting that there is only
> ONE WORD.

Again, sorry I jumped the gun, but the words you used sounded like
euphemisms for Modernist heresies.  Perhaps you can give me examples of
how theology needs to be reevaluated in light of current social thought.

> Shalom, Eric                      Len Howard
>                                   tas@pegasus.com

Shalom,
Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic