"...we're just as guilty anyway."
I really like Kate Marie's post "Catholicism meets the therapeutic culture" over at What's the Rumpus?
But what the nontherapeutic hell is a "rumpus"? (It's this, you lazy ignoramus. -ed.) Anyway, I'm innocently, dreamily stealing some of her post:
My husband, Catholic-in-training, was told during one of his recent theological rap sessions that there are no wrong answers -- that when it comes to the Gospel, every interpretation is valid. We amused ourselves last night by thinking up statements Sadeeq could make to test just how far this "diversity of interpretations" doctrine would stretch.Sounds like an utterly debased priesthood-of-all believers perspective that they're teaching to poor Sadeeq. What's the point of becoming Catholic if that great church is descending to an ecclesiology so low that you'd have to turn over a rock to find it? Sounds like the pope will need a new job soon -- or will need to get his old job back.
Anyway, here are a few of the diverse interpretations that Kate Marie and her Sadeeq have come up with during their brainstorming session:
"For me personally, Judas is the true hero of the Gospel."I can imagine just how well that one about St. Peter -- the foundational rock of faith for the Catholic Church -- will go over in the next rap session. I believe that Sadeeq will find the limits to the therapeut's diversity sentiment.
"What I think the Gospel is telling me is 'Choose Barabbas.'"
"Don't you just hate Peter?"
"In my opinion, 'love thy neighbor as thyself' is really more of a suggestion than a commandment."
"I think Jesus shows us that there really is no such thing as sin."
Kate Marie invited readers to post their own suggestions, so here's mine:
I think that when Christ said, "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," he means that we should go ahead and have a good time by physically consummating the adultery that we already have in our hearts because we're just as guilty anyway.That ought to help Sadeeq in his turn toward Catholicism. Meanwhile, readers are free to post their own suggestions, here with Gypsy Scholar or there with Kate Marie.
6 Comments:
Hey! If KM would just out that feel-good parish of hers, I'd sic the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on them in a New York minute.
KM is only a click away ... and would be thrilled to hear from you, Holy Father.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Jeffery's right, Your Holiness. Stop by Rumpus any time. Maybe we can arrange for you and Sadeeq to attend his next session together. I wonder if anyone will recognize you.
Jeffery, thanks for the shout out.
Here's the crazy thing about your suggestion ("we're just as guilty anyway"). It's starting to make a weird kind of sense to me . . . Help!
Ah ... my subtle plan is beginning to work...
Listen further, KM, for you must also understand that "This Tree is not as we are told, a Tree Of danger tasted, nor to evil unknown Op'ning the way, but of Divine effect To open Eyes, and make them Gods who taste..."
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I'm torn between three responses:
A) The Paradise Lost version: "Okay, I'll bite."
B) The Paradise Regained version: "Get thee behind me, Satanic Gypsy Scholar!"
C) Sadeeq's Sunday School teacher's version: "Thank you for sharing, Jeffery. Your perspective is both fascinating and valid. Anyone for another round of Kumbaya?"
Choose alternative B, my dear. In doing so, you will be uttering a coded rejection of St. Peter and thereby be turning your back on the entire Catholic Church.
This choice will thus entail both A and C.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home