Help with "Diversity" class!

[aball1035]

I had my first day of classes today, and one of the classes I’m taking is a “Diversity” class. The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. He then asked if anybody had studied every faith, and come to the conclusion that their religion was the correct one. Of course nobody (including me) raised their hands. While I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church, and all the traditional, dogmatic Catholic views on other religions, I admit I have not studied every religion on the planet to see if it’s “correct”.

I have 2 questions on this:

1. What should I say when people tell me that unless you have studied every religion, how do you know whether you’re in the right (or “fullest”) one?
2. What should my “role” be in that class? I disagree with about everything he said about religion, but am still a student.

 

[Calgar]

Get yourself a book on apologetics, specifically tactics and techniques. You’ll need it if you’re young and dealing with a professor.

By the way, what do you mean by “I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church”?

 

[Allegra]

I had my first day of classes today, and one of the classes I’m taking is a “Diversity” class. The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. He then asked if anybody had studied every faith, and come to the conclusion that their religion was the correct one. Of course nobody (including me) raised their hands. While I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church, and all the traditional, dogmatic Catholic views on other religions, I admit I have not studied every religion on the planet to see if it’s “correct”.

I have 2 questions on this:

1. What should I say when people tell me that unless you have studied every religion, how do you know whether you’re in the right (or “fullest”) one?
2. What should my “role” be in that class? I disagree with about everything he said about religion, but am still a student.

How much does one need to study a rotten egg to know it’s no good? I can reject the vast majority of religions on face value because the big picture makes no sense to me. No deeper analysis is required. Some religions I have taken the time to look at more in depth. That is what I would say if such a thing was said to me.

 

[joanofarc2008]

I would suggest a good reading of all documents of Vatican II especially those that talk about ecumenicalism and what we can learn from other faiths. God bless.

 

[Ontheway]

Hi ALex,

Love the trip journal and the photos on your blog. One question: what are you doing in a “diversity” class. Is it a requirement? If not, why pay for something like this?

The professor starts out by asking a question for which there is no answer and he knows it. This is a way to put everyone down and eliminate any discussion. Now he/she can present their “philosophy of diversity”. Since your prof attacked religion first, I am guessing that this class is more about gender diversity than racial/ethnic diversity.

I think you could probably spend your time and talents on something more constructive than sitting in that class for a semester.

Best wishes and God bless you.

 

[Ender]

I had my first day of classes today, and one of the classes I’m taking is a “Diversity” class. The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc.

There is an element of truth here but the statement itself is untrue inasmuch as there are (e.g.) Catholics in every part of the world. Clearly certain religions are predominate in different locales and to that extent people are influenced by their neighbors, but to claim that religion is based on geography is silly and a real disservice to those who have converted even in the face of overwhelming adversity (think Christians in China).

I have 2 questions on this:

1. What should I say when people tell me that unless you have studied every religion, how do you know whether you’re in the right (or “fullest”) one?

You don’t have to know what the right answer is to be able to recognize a wrong answer and if you accept that there is a “right” religion then all those who believe it are right even if they haven’t studied anything.

1. What should my “role” be in that class? I disagree with about everything he said about religion, but am still a student.

Making an assumption based solely on what you have described may be unfair but it is not unreasonable to guess that an underlying theme of this class is that pretty much all opinions and behaviors are equally valid and there is no justification for saying X is right and Y is wrong. You need to decide immediately how you want this semester to go. You can sit quietly, get your credits, and move on or you can challenge his assertions and see what happens. He may welcome your objections … but I wouldn’t put even money on it. I’ll echo what others have said: you might want to rethink why you’re taking this class.

Ender

 

[aball1035]

Get yourself a book on apologetics, specifically tactics and techniques. You’ll need it if you’re young and dealing with a professor.

By the way, what do you mean by “I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church”?

Thank you all for your help-and Calgar, I’m just maintaining Catholic Dogma:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"

 

[joanofarc2008]

Thank you all for your help-and Calgar, I’m just maintaining Catholic Dogma:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"

And then as understanding has further increased as writings have been studied we get the writings of Lumen Gentium which are more recent and take place as Catholic Doctrine which by the way those comments from Pope Eugene were not from the Seat of Peter and therefore not infallible but to be taken in obedience at the time until further understanding could be reached:

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

 

[joanofarc2008]

(cont)

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

 

[aball1035]

Joan of Arc, where is that quote from? Also, why wouldn’t my “no salvation” quote not be infallible? Even if it isn’t, there are countless other infallible ones, and it’s the universal opinion of the saints

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I had my first day of classes today, and one of the classes I’m taking is a “Diversity” class. The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. He then asked if anybody had studied every faith, and come to the conclusion that their religion was the correct one. Of course nobody (including me) raised their hands. While I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church, and all the traditional, dogmatic Catholic views on other religions, I admit I have not studied every religion on the planet to see if it’s “correct”…

Suppose you go to the library looking for the book “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”. You find it without too much difficulty and check it out. Then as you are coming out of the library, someone comes up to you and says “There sure are a lot of books in that library! Did you look at every one of them and come to the conclusion that the book you now hold in your hands is the correct one?”

 

[joanofarc2008]

Joan of Arc, where is that quote from? Also, why wouldn’t my “no salvation” quote not be infallible? Even if it isn’t, there are countless other infallible ones, and it’s the universal opinion of the saints

The quote is from Lumen Gentium which is from the Second Vatican Council which is doctrine that must be accepted by any obedient Catholic. The reason the above statement that you mentioned is not infallible is that a Pope only speaks infallibly when he speaks from the Seat of Peter which has only happened twice in history - both having to do with the Dogma of Mary - one for the Immaculate Conception and one for the Assumption. It is a bit more complicated than this - I am speaking quite simply but there are numerous reasons - mainly above that the Pope in question must be speaking as Pope and not strictly a theologian - there is a difference. Also it is impossible for any infallible statement to have been overturned. In this case it was because the Pope in question fails to mention several things like invincible ignorance which is a underlying principle in the quote from Lumen Gentium which is doctrine and is infallible.

You can find this information here: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[edwest2]

Were you given a summary of what your Diversity class will cover in terms of all subject matter?

Religion?
Sexual orientation?
Alternative lifestyles?
Cultural differences?

And by the way, I’ve seen it written down that we - everybody - should “celebrate diversity.” How do you do that?

If one premise of this class is that all religions/belief systems are man-made and are kept alive mainly by which geographic location you were born in, then this is a denial of all faiths, and, at best, turns them into cultural artifacts or political power structures. If you are required to take this class, please keep us posted about further statements.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tenofovir]

I had my first day of classes today, and one of the classes I’m taking is a “Diversity” class. The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. He then asked if anybody had studied every faith, and come to the conclusion that their religion was the correct one. Of course nobody (including me) raised their hands. While I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church, and all the traditional, dogmatic Catholic views on other religions, I admit I have not studied every religion on the planet to see if it’s “correct”.

I have 2 questions on this:

1. What should I say when people tell me that unless you have studied every religion, how do you know whether you’re in the right (or “fullest”) one?
2. What should my “role” be in that class? I disagree with about everything he said about religion, but am still a student.

Professor is correct in saying geography of your birth can influence your parents’ religion and so your own. But the rest does is debatable. I think he’s trying to bring about tolerance in some imperfect way. I’d say that religion is outside the scope of the course but different religions can live in peace side by side.

Most religions don’t try to convert you to their faith. Assuming they were true, their gods, don’t really care if you convert or not, meaning you’re saved either way or they don’t want to save you. Being a good Catholic or Christian would automatically make you a decent Buddhist, so no worries there. This mainly leaves Islam, Judaism and Christianity, or rather Judaism and Islam. Islam does try to convert people to itself. The choices are pretty limited. Of course atheism and fairy tales like trans-humanism will damn you if the Monotheistic religions are true and prove of no utility or worth if atheism is true. You don’t need to be a hedonist to be happy.

The other thing to remember is that you don’t need to decide everything for yourself. One does not know the proof for Einstein’s Theory of Relativity yet one believes that it is correct. Most people wouldn’t be able to understand such a proof anyway, therefore most people should not believe that Relativity is True if they can’t figure it out for themselves. Obviously this is false, and is a good analogy for your professor. Of course many people (Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, Theologians, Philosophers, Mathematicians, Scientists) have concluded that Catholicism is true.

 

[Raskolnikov]

This professor seems to be trying to extrapolate a non sequitur from an obvios fact: that where we are born influences aspects of our lives. The same, however, can be said of many thngs outside the realm of religion. People of different cultures in different regions, for example, understand science differently. Most would say some understand it better and some understand it worse. But what would your professor say of that? Is a typical Congolese farmer just as right as the typical western European or American when eachh tries to explain why the planets behave the way they do? The latter would use (in some measure) what he knows about science, while the former most likely would not? Does this geographical difference mean each view is equally correct?

The argument is really absurd taken to its logical conclusion. Every view that is more likely to be held in one region than another is to be dismissed as merely one equal but not uniquely true point of view? The fact is, ideas spread geographicall, even in the age of the internet, especially because they must be spread through languages, and languages are regionally based constructs. Also, factors like education (and factors that effect education, like wealth and standard of living) in a society effect the access its people have to truths; we accept this as a matter of fact for scientific and historical truths, transmitted mainly through education, but why not philosophical or religious truths? It is an arbitrary double standard.

It is also worth noting that your professor’s point may be more valid for ethnic religions, like the various ancient paganisms or perhaps Hinduism or Judaism, but not so much for universal religions (i.e., Christianity and Islam), which are not especially tethered to one particular culture, which is part of the reason why they tend to exist in various cultures all over the world.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and I was in college (in the 1970s) the argument may have held a bit more merit. . .but AFAIK over the last 30-40 years there has been a much greater geographical movement, not just in the U.S. but worldwide.

Places which in the 1960s were heavily Italian, say, are now heavily Muslim; places of historically Swedish ethnicity are now a mixture of at least 5 other nationalities. . .

Plus, not only have many children of college age been raised by parents who are non practicing, or have changed their OWN (parents’) religion, the children even if they were raised in one religious tradition have often rejected it for another, or for nothing.

So tell me please how a person born say in 1990 in an area of the country that in 1980 was ethnically Protestant eastern European (Balkan) but by 1990 had become much more heterogenous, of parents who themselves were non practicing nominal Christians, now one atheist, and one Wiccan, who himself is a practicing Buddist. . .was influenced by where he was born? What exactly was the geographic influence in his case???

I can assure you the above scenario is far more common in the average East/West coast colleges, at least, than is the idea of some little ‘Italian Catholic’ born in Toledo because everybody in his family since great-great grandda came over to a highly “Catholic” geographical area is ONLY Catholic based on said geography. . .

 

[essie7777]

I had my first day of classes today, and one of the classes I’m taking is a “Diversity” class.

I am curious what course of study are you taking?

The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. He then asked if anybody had studied every faith, and come to the conclusion that their religion was the correct one. Of course nobody (including me) raised their hands. While I maintain that nobody is saved outside of the Catholic Church, and all the traditional, dogmatic Catholic views on other religions, I admit I have not studied every religion on the planet to see if it’s “correct”.

Your professors comments are not as “off base” as you would think. Geography absolutely impacts what your faith is as a child, as where you are born will be reflected in the beliefs of your parents an such your faith as a child. For example the likelihood of being born and raised Catholic in a rural area of India is very slim, based on geography you are more than likely to be born and raised as a Hindu in that case. Thus demonstrating his point.

Having taken a number of diversity classes (cultural, religious etc) i would suggest that maybe the professor was trying to point out more that ignorance of some one else’s beliefs is based, usually on a lack of knowledge, rather than discrimination. Again i am guessing but that would make sense.

Diversity classes can be very useful depending on why you are studying them and what the premise of the course is … so again i am curious to know what your main course of study is and why you are taking this option.

I have 2 questions on this:

1. What should I say when people tell me that unless you have studied every religion, how do you know whether you’re in the right (or “fullest”) one?
2. What should my “role” be in that class? I disagree with about everything he said about religion, but am still a student.

For your first point you don’t have to justify not being knowledgeable of all religions; simply explain why you believe in Catholicism. What about it makes sense to you? Debating all faiths gets murky and pretty counter-productive. The rightness of the Catholic faith is explained by our beliefs, the one church, the morality we live by, the lessons and truth i Jesus.

Defending out beliefs does not rely on either knowing what everyone may believe or disputing it.

Even though you are a student, this should never prevent you from disagreeing with your professor. Obviously in any academic environment you need to be respectful of the professors’ position, but not quiet when you disagree.

Experience has taught me that an educator appreciates being challenged and questioned. Any good academic will relish an opportunity to open good discourse on any topic. Being that you are in an academic environment, depending on your professor, i would suggest questioning rather than attacking their position. This will allow for better understanding and appreciation for both of your points of view.

 

[St_Francis]

The quote is from Lumen Gentium which is from the Second Vatican Council which is doctrine that must be accepted by any obedient Catholic. The reason the above statement that you mentioned is not infallible is that a Pope only speaks infallibly when he speaks from the Seat of Peter which has only happened twice in history - both having to do with the Dogma of Mary - one for the Immaculate Conception and one for the Assumption. It is a bit more complicated than this - I am speaking quite simply but there are numerous reasons - mainly above that the Pope in question must be speaking as Pope and not strictly a theologian - there is a difference. Also it is impossible for any infallible statement to have been overturned. In this case it was because the Pope in question fails to mention several things like invincible ignorance which is a underlying principle in the quote from Lumen Gentium which is doctrine and is infallible.

You can find this information here: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The article to which you linked points out that the decrees of an ecumenical council, when approved by the pope, are infallible also, thus Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is an infallible doctrine of the Church. However, altho in English it is usually translated as outside the Church there is no salvation, this is not quite what it means in Latin, where extra can also mean without.

Additionally, the second Vatican Council was not a doctrinal council but a pastoral council. It did not claim or intend to promulgate doctrine but to recast the teachings of the Church in ways more familiar to those outside the Church. Nothing taught by this council should be seen as changing or going against anything taught previously.

EENS is usually taken to mean that one must be united with Christ, Whose Body the Church is, at the moment of death. Christ taught us how to attain this unity, and His teachings have been preserved in the teachings of the Church. God, however, is not bound by the sacraments and so God would be able to accept into Heaven those who were ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own but who fully cooperated with the graces they were given.

This must have always been the teaching of the Church because it has never even been suggested that we should refrain from praying for the souls of non-Catholics.

 

[joanofarc2008]

The article to which you linked points out that the decrees of an ecumenical council, when approved by the pope, are infallible also, thus Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is an infallible doctrine of the Church. However, altho in English it is usually translated as outside the Church there is no salvation, this is not quite what it means in Latin, where extra can also mean without.

Additionally, the second Vatican Council was not a doctrinal council but a pastoral council. It did not claim or intend to promulgate doctrine but to recast the teachings of the Church in ways more familiar to those outside the Church. Nothing taught by this council should be seen as changing or going against anything taught previously.

EENS is usually taken to mean that one must be united with Christ, Whose Body the Church is, at the moment of death. Christ taught us how to attain this unity, and His teachings have been preserved in the teachings of the Church. God, however, is not bound by the sacraments and so God would be able to accept into Heaven those who were ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own but who fully cooperated with the graces they were given.

This must have always been the teaching of the Church because it has never even been suggested that we should refrain from praying for the souls of non-Catholics.

Except that you are forgetting that those that do not hear the message of Christ through no fault of their own most certainly can receive Salvation. To say Vatican II was not a doctrinal council?? I think there have been more than enough threads on this as well as apologetists statements that support what I am saying I will not derail this thread by arguing this further.

 

[raaucoin]

. The professor started talking about religion, and said that religion is based on geography. If we were born in another place, we’d be a good Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc…

That doesn’t seem to hold water considering Christianity is found on every inhabited continent. If he were correct that it is a matter of geography- how does he explain that everyone in the United states is not a Christian. For that matter everyone on my block is not a Christian. And especially if you consider indiginous peoples, and the religious practices they had when the europeans got here- shouldn’t we all be practicing some form of Native American spirituality here? Religion is carried by hearts not rocks, land masses,bodies of water or other.It is not confined to any particular area on the earth.