Admitting You're a Sinner

[Catholic_Lady]

It seems what some people here fail to grasp (or perhaps they do understand and are being purposely obtuse, that would be my guess), is that it is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism to take either a literal or allegorical approach to Genesis and Original Sin. So long as you accept the underlying message.

The funny thing is, Khem seems to have a soft spot for the allegorical interpretation, yet all he seems to do when you bring something like this up is shove the Catechism in your face. I like the allegorical interpretation.There is a nugget of truth in it: once an organism becomes morally aware, it also becomes morally responsible. If one accepts this proposition (as I do, tentatively and with caveats) then the story of Adam and Eve becomes a meaningful allegory. We were once animalistic organisms who had no moral awareness. Once we became morally aware-- evolved a capacity for reason-- we (metaphorically) ate from the tree of knowledge and had bestowed upon us all the curses of knowledge of good and evil. At that point, we became morally responsible, which really is a curse if you think about it. We sometimes have to struggle against our instincts now that we are morally aware. That's a pain in the ass.

I remember when I was first having doubts about Catholicism (and Christianity in general). I had been a wavering atheist for a few years but began to consider remaining Catholic while holding an allegorical interpretation of things. I didn't want to discuss my atheistic inclinations with our priest because I liked him a lot, and I don't think I could have beared any admonishment from his direction. 

So I talked it over with a young upstart who was finishing his last year of seminary. (Probably not the best idea, as he was a bit hot-headed and inexperienced as clergy.) Anyway, I wanted to take communion symbolically because I could not bring myself to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. He had already told me that my accepting evolution and the big bang held no conflict with the Catholic faith, but on the issue of transubstantiation he told me that 1) it was a sin for me to accept communion without first accepting transubstantiation and 2) because I didn't accept the doctrine, I was "not Catholic." In hindsight, I'm too much of a freethinker to have remained Catholic anyway, but this guy's remarks could have turned away genuine Catholics who have trouble accepting "spooky metaphysics." Inasmuch as this guy was wrong, so to is Khemikal wrong.

That's why people like Father Foster are such a breath of fresh air to me. He speaks against "the official Catholic doctrine" yet he is of the cloth. If Khemikal has a point CL, it's this: the Church has an official doctrine and many practicing Catholics reject it. But Khem doesn't have as strong a point as he thinks. I think he sounds more like the young upstart who told me that people who reject an official Church position aren't Catholic. 

Thomas Merton is an extraordinary Catholic thinker. He rejected a great many Catholic precepts and he was a trappist monk! How much more Catholic can you get? Khemikal doesn't seem to realize that just because the Papacy has an official interpretation on things that there can't be diversity among Catholics concerning the matters upon which the Church takes an official stand. 

I understand that you make an effort to follow the official doctrine, CL. So I'm not lumping you in with people who oppose it so much as pointing out that aligning perfectly with Vatican expectations is in no way a prerequisite for being Catholic. Khemikal's assertions rest upon this premise and are therefore false. I know I might get a tl;dr in reply, but the reason I said all this is because I didn't argue against Khemikal when he said these things in the first place (as I should have). This post is an attempt to set that right. 

Personally I adhere to the faith, except for that part about how I just told everyone I don;t adhere to a core and foundational doctrine of the catholic church..original sin. 

Please read the above response to CL's quote. You made the above statements to mock CL, but I make the case that your mockery is misplaced. You ought to commend CL's allegorical interpretation rather than insinuating she doesn't adhere to the Catholic faith. Give her a fucking break, man. I'll take a rational theist over an irrational atheist any day. I think you share this attitude with me.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Vulcan. There's a reason why Khem is the only person I have permanently blocked.

The thing I wanted to clarify again is that it's not "rejecting Catholic dogma" to take an allegorical approach to Genesis/Original Sin. Doing so is acceptable so long as the underlying message stays the same. Thats what i was trying to explain. One can believe in evolution... so long as we believe God is still the creator. The underlying message of Original Sin is that humans have an inherent inclination to sin and are guaranteed to do so if given the chance. We must believe in those things to remain in line with Church teaching.