Chronology 2 — Religion Clarity Campaign

Pope warns of ‘seductive’ role of science

   The West Australian, http://www.thewest.com.au , p 19, Wednesday, January 30, 2008
   ROME – Pope Benedict has warned of the "seductive" powers of science that relegate man's spirituality, reviving the science-versus-religion debate that forced him to cancel a speech after student protests.
   "In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it's more important than ever to educate our contemporaries' consciences so that science does not become the criteria for goodness," he told scientists.
   Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going", the Pope said.
   "Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions," Pope Benedict told a meeting of academics sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
   The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since he was elected in 2005, for mankind to be "respected as the centre of creation" and not relegated by more short-term interests.
  [Picture] Pope Benedict: Views questioned.  
   But the German-born Pope's public stand on issues such as abortion and embryonic stemcell research have led critics to accuse him of holding antiquated views on science.
   Students and teachers at Rome's La Sapienza university, which was founded by a pope more than 700 years ago, cited these views when they protested so loudly that a papal speech scheduled for January 17 was cancelled.
   They criticised the Pope's views on science, saying a speech he gave in 1990 showed he would have favoured the Church's 17th century heresy trial against Galileo.  The Vatican said the protesters misunderstood the speech, made when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. #

Abraham bought Hebron, not Shechem, tombsite

   John C. Massam of Perth, john. massam@ multiline. com.au , March 17, 2008
   Did St Stephen (the first martyr) err, or did the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures make an error when recording the speech of Stephen, in retelling some Hebrew Scripture stories ?  Yes, they did.  Get out a Bible and read The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 7, verses 15 to 18.  Check the following commentary, which puts Bible words in italics:

And were carried over into Sychem (16); i.e. Shechem.  Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gn. xlix. 29ff); Joseph was buried at Shechem (Jos xxiv. 32).  In the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem (16).  Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah at Hebron from the Hittites (Gn. xxiii. 16); Jacob bought the land at Shechem which he gave to Joseph (and where Joseph was buried) from the sons of Hamor (Jos. xxiv. 32).  Not only separate quotations (see verse 7n.) but separate incidents are conflated in Luke's summary of Stephen's speech. -- Bruce, F.F., article author in: F. Davidson, A.M.Stibbs, and E.F.Kevan, editors; The New Bible Commentary, 1959 (orig. 1953), The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, p 908.

   "Conflated" is a high-flown term here for "mistakenly mixed two sets of facts."  The Acts says, wrongly, that Abraham bought a tombsite at Sychem / Shechem.
   Confused?  Get a piece of paper, and write down the important words and places in Acts 7:15-18: "Jacob, Egypt, bodies, buried, Shechem tomb, Abraham had bought, sons of Hamor, Shechem."
   Then contrast with the following -- Genesis 23:16-19:  "Abraham, Ephron, Hittites, 400 shekels, Machpelah, Mamre, wife Sarah, Mamre now Hebron." (i.e., Abraham bought Hebron)
   Genesis 49:1 and 29 and following:  "Jacob, bury, Ephron the Hittite, Machpelah facing Mamre, Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite." (i.e., Abraham bought Hebron)
   Joshua 24:32:  "Bones of Joseph, Shechem, Jacob had bought, son of Hamor father of Shechem." (i.e. Jacob bought Shechem)
   Conclusion: The Acts is wrong in saying that Abraham bought Shechem.  One would have thought that those who wrote down the stories of the supposed continuation of God's dealings with humanity could have spent more time checking back to the Hebrew scriptures to get their quotations right.  This is not the only such mistake in the New Testament.

German Catholic Church used Nazi forced labour

   CathNews (from the RCC Church Resources, Australia), www.cathnews. com/article. aspx?aeid= 6590 , April 09, 2008
  [Picture] Man in spectacles reading book, and book cover.   
   GERMANY – German Cardinal Karl Lehmann says the Catholic Church must face up to its past after a newly published history revealed the Church in Germany used 1,000 prisoners of war and nearly 5,000 civilians as slave labourers in hospitals and monasteries during World War II.
   "For too long the Catholic Church turned a blind eye to the fate and suffering of men, women and children from across Europe who were sent to Germany as slave labourers," Cardinal Lehmann said, according to a Euronews report.
   In 2000, the Church acknowledged its use of forced labour under Hitler, and has paid 1.5 millions euros in compensation to foreign workers, but the report Forced Labour and the Catholic Church 1939-1945 is the most thorough look at the issue so far, according to a report in The Australian.
   Most slave labourers came from Poland and the then-Soviet Union, and their work was vital for Hitler's regime.
   By the end of the war, forced labour made up more than a quarter of the workforce as Germany collapsed. This is latest in a series of reports from firms including Volkswagen, Siemens and Deutsche Bank, acknowledging their past.
   The 703 page official report documents the fate of 1,075 prisoners of war and 4,829 civilians who were forced to work for the Nazis in nearly 800 Catholic institutions, mainly hospitals, homes and monastery gardens to boost the war effort.
   The Earthtimes quotes the main historian behind the report, Karl-Joseph Hummel, as saying only a limited number of Catholic facilities had used forced labour. It had not been typical, Hummel said. At the same time the Nazis had been persecuting the Church.
   Most labourers did not work in churches, but typically in Catholic hospitals and cemeteries, on farms run by monasteries or in domestic service. Most hailed from Poland, Ukraine and the Soviet Union, according to the study.
   In a radio interview, Hummel said the Church had failed by not speaking out forthrightly against Naziism. "It should have clearly said how its interpretation of loyalty, honour and the fatherland was not the same as the Nazis' view," he said.
   The German Catholic Bishops' Conference said it had also spent 2.71 million euros on 200 reconciliation projects in eastern Europe.
   Cardinal Lehmann of Mainz said the report was not aimed at achieving closure. More reconciliation efforts were planned."It's a burden of history that our Church will keep facing up to in the future," he said.
   "It should not be concealed that the Catholic Church was blind for too long to the fate and suffering of men, women and children from the whole of Europe who were carted off to Germany as forced labourers," Cardinal Lehmann said at the book's presentation.
   He told a televised news conference in the western city of Mainz the term "cooperative antagonism" summed up the Church's strategy at the time.
   Catholics and Protestants were subject to oppression under the Nazis but aside from some notable figures from both churches who voiced opposition, they broadly went along with the regime.
   Hitler's feared SS expropriated more than 300 monasteries and Catholic institutions between 1940 and 1942 and thousands of Catholics were sent to concentration camps, Hummel added.
   SOURCE
   German Catholic Church "exploited" slaves for Nazis (Euronews, 8/4/08)
   Church forced 6000 to work in Nazi era (The Australian, 9/4/08)
   Catholic Church lists its 5,900 forced labourers under Nazis, (Earthtimes, 8/4/08)
   LINKS: Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Wikipedia)
  HAVE YOUR SAY   Click here   

Did God tell a lie?  Forbidden fruit story.

   Thinking Citizen , April 9, 2008
  PERTH, W. Australia – After explaining this Bible Old Testament point about Adam and Eve, "Thinking Citizen" asked "Did God tell a lie?" 
   Read the Hebrew Torah, Genesis 2:16-17:

¹⁶ But the Lord told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, ¹⁷ except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong.  If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!" -- The Bible for Today, Contemporary English Version (CEV), © American Bible Society 1991, re-published 1998, The Bible Society in Australia, Ingleburn, NSW, Australia; page 3.

   Genesis 3:2-4:

   ² The woman answered, "God said we could eat fruit from any tree in the garden, ³ except the one in the middle.  He told us not to eat fruit from that tree or even to touch it.  If we do, we'll die."
   ⁴ "No you won't," the snake replied. ... -- CEV

   Those who know the tale (punny!) remember that, instead of Eve and Adam dying that day, God assigned alternative punishments to the human pair and to the serpent, the pair were driven out of the garden, Adam "knew his wife Eve," and they had children whose names like Cain, Abel, and Seth come readily to mind.  All this took years and years -- instead of "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17, Authorised Version, i.e., King James Bible, Crown Copyright 1611).
   Want modern English?   Read: "... for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Revised Standard Version, © 1952) 
   Not an Anglican, Orthodox, nor Reformed supporter?  Try Catholic readings: " ... For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." (Douay-Rheims, 1609).  Or this: "... for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die." (New Jerusalem Bible, RC edition, © 1985)
   Original language: If you like, check the Hebrew original at < www.mechon- mamre.org/ p/pt/pt 0102.htm#17 >.  Or read a Judaist translation into English by visiting < www.torah productions. com/laam/ main.jsp >:-

2:17   "...but as for the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die."

   Or, try it in the Septuagint Greek at < http:// septuagint. org/LXX/ Genesis/ Genesis2. html >.
   International language: Check it in several other languages, or in an international auxiliary language, Esperanto, < www.jesus. org.uk/cgi- bin/bible/ bible.cgi? BIBLE= Esperanto& BOOK=1& SEARCH=++& CASE=ON& HILITE=ON& FIRST=OK& R1=I&CHAP=2& SUBMIT= Read#15 >:-

   16  Kaj Dio la Eternulo ordonis al la homo, dirante: De ĉiu arbo de la ĝardeno vi manĝu;
   17  sed de la arbo de sciado pri bono kaj malbono vi ne manĝu, ĉar en la tago, en kiu vi manĝos de ĝi, vi mortos. (L.L.Zamenhof translation, 1927)

   Unorthodox? Or, don't fully trust the major Churches?  Try this translation:

   17 ... for in the day you eat from it you will positively die. (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984, New York)

   "Thinking Citizen." a fortnight after first asking if God had lied, wondered aloud if the snake was the only one telling the truth !

Has the Church obscured or defended women?

   The Record (R.C. Perth, W. Australia, weekly), By Miriam Diez i Bosch, ZENIT, p 12, April 16 2008
Spanish priest Father Fernando Rivas Rebaque spoke with ZENIT about why women's roles in early Christianity are little-known and the challenge the Church faces regarding the promotion of women today.
   Father Rivas specifies three types of female protagonist roles within the Church in his Spanish-language book Banished Daughters of Eve: the protagonist roles and marginalisation of women in early Christianity.
   Perpetua, Felicity, Blandine, Melanie the Younger - why do so few people remember the roles of these women as protagonists in the Church?
   Father Rivas: Very few people remember these women of the early Church because history, in general, and that of the Church, in particular, focuses preferentially on the great events that "changed" history - wars, reigns, leaders - and tends to forget daily life, the events that make up the existence of every day.
   This means that the history of the Church tends to be the history of Popes, bishops, leaders, saints and theologians who have "marked" the life of the Church, leaving forgotten or underappreciated the other people, laypeople in the first place, more so if they are women, due to their reduced possibilities of social influence.
   Only a few women who exhibited particularly outstanding behaviour in one field or another passed into the memory of history.
   In what spheres did feminine protagonists stand out in the early Church?
   Father Rivas: Women's protagonist roles in the early Church varied according to historical times and places. Summarising them, it may be said that there are three types of protagonist roles common to all periods and regions: that of ascetics, expressed mainly in virginity and monasticism, that of martyrdom, and that concerning the role of wealthy benefactors of the community, very highly appreciated in the Church.
   Furthermore, a type of protagonist role that developed considerably in the Eastern world is that of deaconesses, which did not have a counterpart in the Western world.
   Are women gaining visibility in ecclesial spheres?
   Father Rivas: To begin with, one would have to distinguish between visibility, protagonist roles, authority and power.
   Christian women are present and visible in everyday ecclesial spheres - celebrations, groups, activities. What's more, I would say that, in these cases, they are not only a majority but, in some cases, practically the only visible component.
   On the other hand, in the measure that we go climbing the ladder of directors, the presence and protagonist roles of the woman remain practically reduced to a few ecclesial spheres - despite the fact that they could enter into posts that are not united to ministerial roles - to the point of practically disappearing in ecclesial cupolas.
   This situation is far more worrying because it grows increasingly distant from what is occurring in the social field, where women's visibility, presence, protagonist roles and power are daily on the rise.
   However, the Holy Father has recently denounced macho attitudes and the vulnerability of many women who suffer just for the fact of being women.
   What concrete action is the Church undertaking to counteract this?
   Father Rivas: The Church has struggled for women's dignity ever since its origin because it has united salvation to a personal and non-transferable option made by each human being in relation to God and neighbour.
   In this way, it broke away from other religious patterns in which the ethnic-racial, national, class, gender, or cultural factor was important, and has forced a sphere of fundamental equality between men and women.
   Moreover, the Church shows a marked preference or option for the poor, which in many cases enables it to come in contact with the world of women, many of whom are victims of this condition; this has given rise to a number of institutions, resources and measures in favour of people in need, among which women have been and are a majority.
   The Church has even empowered women's participation in many spheres of protagonist roles - asceticism, education, associations, relationships - in which women have been able to show the best of themselves, without restricting themselves to the domestic sphere.
   This does not change the fact that in every case, the dominant culture, marked in great measure by patriarchal tints, has coloured many of her expressions.
   More specifically, and within the spheres of my everyday life, which are the parish of a working neighbourhood and the university, the Church has enabled many women to attain levels of knowledge, relationships, activities, and protagonist roles higher than those of the majority of institutions they find around them.
   It serves as a platform for the great majority of women who have come into contact with the parish or the university, enabling their personal development and, their progress as believers. #

Survival tactic

     The West Australian, Letter to The Editor, p 22, Thursday, July 24, 2008
   I am a Catholic unhappy with the direction my church appears to be taking. World Youth Day was essentially about an old Catholic clergy trying to convince an uncertain Catholic youth of the relevance of Catholicism and thus ensure the survival of the church.
   The relevance of the Catholic church today is not demonstrated by exercises in self-propagation.  Its relevance is measured by its contribution to the wellbeing of all humanity regardless of religion.
   Early Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth was committed primarily to the wellbeing of the hungry, the homeless, the poor, the sick, the disabled, the young and the old of all nations.
   The Catholic church is losing its relevance if its clergy and laity identify more with the wellbeing of the church and less with the earthly wellbeing of the whole of humanity regardless of religious faith or absence thereof and tell their youth that as "missionaries" their role is to propagate the church and its teachings before being volunteer social welfare workers in their countries and elsewhere. Graham Cooney, Butler.

[The Evidence of the Equal Role accorded to Women in the early Church]

   Catholica, Extract from "The more important role of women in early Christianity: The evidence of the equal role accorded to women in the early Church…, " http://www.catholica.com.au/specials/first500/025_tl_250808.php , Part 7.2, by Tom Lee, linked in an e-mail dated August 25, 2008
   In her book Women Officeholders in Early Christianity (Liturgical Press 2007), German epigraphical scholar Ute Eisen demonstrates there is widespread evidence of titles for women priests and presiders (presbytera, presbytides, presbyterissa) who served in both the Eastern and Western churches from the second to the ninth century. Yet churchmen consistently maintain, without any evidence, that these women were merely the wives of priests, not priests themselves. This does not explain why burial sites of single women have the presbytera inscription, nor does it explain why married women with the presbytera title are buried alongside husbands with no title. It does suggest that there were single women and married women whose husbands were not office holders who were given the title of priest, as priesthood was understood at the time. Burial-sites in which a female presbytera is buried alongside a presbyter spouse indicate that both husband and wife functioned as priests.
   In Romans 16:7, Paul greets, "those outstanding apostles Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and fellow prisoners who became Christians before me". For centuries Junia was mistakenly translated as the masculinized Junius, and still is in the Jerusalem Bible, because it was considered impossible for a woman to be an apostle even if acknowledged as one by Paul himself. But the name Junius is not found in any ancient text while the female Junia is common.