Pope says no religion immune from fundamentalism

[BrethrenBoy]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the KKK yet.

What I’m seeing here from certain posters is a “sure Christians did that in the past, but nobody does that now” mentality. To be honest, that is my default reaction to these kinds of things. I can admit we screwed up in the Middle Ages, but anytime in the past century or so I want to immediately deny it, or try and justify it. I don’t like to admit that any person who considers himself or herself a Christian would do such things. I want to think that we’ve grown out of that. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. While the vast majority of Christians would never dream of doing type of the atrocities described, unfortunately some fringe groups and nutcases would and would claim God’s blessing. As the Pope pointed out, all religions have this problem. And even if it wasn’t happening today, that doesn’t stop it from happening sometime in the future.

 

[iohannes13]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the KKK yet.

What I’m seeing here from certain posters is a “sure Christians did that in the past, but nobody does that now” mentality. To be honest, that is my default reaction to these kinds of things. I can admit we screwed up in the Middle Ages, but anytime in the past century or so I want to immediately deny it, or try and justify it. I don’t like to admit that any person who considers himself or herself a Christian would do such things. I want to think that we’ve grown out of that. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. While the vast majority of Christians would never dream of doing type of the atrocities described, unfortunately some fringe groups and nutcases would and would claim God’s blessing. As the Pope pointed out, all religions have this problem. And even if it wasn’t happening today, that doesn’t stop it from happening sometime in the future.

Nicely said BrethrenBoy. I myself am to quick to say, ugh ugh, Christians are all too human and are never beyond being bad.

 

[anthony022071]

The word fundamentalist is being used to mean an irrational, violent religious fanatic,but that is not the definition. The main definition of fundamentalist is a protestant who upholds certain religious doctrines : the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, the Virgin birth of Jesus, Christ’s death as atonement for sin, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus. These doctrines are true. The errors of fundamentalists have to do with the original false doctrines of protestant religion : the rejection of the Catholic Church and its sacred traditions, the idea that faith alone saves, the idea that scripture is sufficient for doctrine, a presumptuous view of predestination, and a falsely narrow view of God and who he will save. These views cause some fundamentalists to speak and behave irrationally and without due charity.

But if we scorn fundamentalists, thinking of them as irrational, violent religious fanatics, we should be careful not to scorn speech and behavior that we also find in the Jewish prophets, many Catholic saints and Jesus himself. To be a fanatic is to be zealous, and zeal for the true God and true religion is good, and sometimes zeal is justified in acting violent.

 

[anthony022071]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the KKK yet.

What I’m seeing here from certain posters is a “sure Christians did that in the past, but nobody does that now” mentality. To be honest, that is my default reaction to these kinds of things. I can admit we screwed up in the Middle Ages, but anytime in the past century or so I want to immediately deny it, or try and justify it. I don’t like to admit that any person who considers himself or herself a Christian would do such things. I want to think that we’ve grown out of that. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. While the vast majority of Christians would never dream of doing type of the atrocities described, unfortunately some fringe groups and nutcases would and would claim God’s blessing. As the Pope pointed out, all religions have this problem. And even if it wasn’t happening today, that doesn’t stop it from happening sometime in the future.

How did Catholics screw up in the Middle Ages? If you are referring to the Crusades and the Inquisition, they were not bad in themselves. They were justified. The European Catholics were right to wage war against the Muslims, who had taken over the Holy Land and were killing and persecuting the Catholics there. Innocent people ought to be defended from evil persecutors, and the persecutors ought to be confronted and defeated. The Inquisition was set up to protect innocent people from persecution by secular rulers and mobs and to protect Catholic society from heretics.

God does not forbid the use of violence or physical punishment completely. He ordered the Jews to wage war against pagans and violently punish people who committed serious offenses. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their abominations. Jesus did that, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[BrethrenBoy]

How did Catholics screw up in the Middle Ages? If you are referring to the Crusades and the Inquisition, they were not bad in themselves. They were justified. The European Catholics were right to wage war against the Muslims, who had taken over the Holy Land and were killing and persecuting the Catholics there. Innocent people ought to be defended from evil persecutors, and the persecutors ought to be confronted and defeated. The Inquisition was set up to protect innocent people from persecution by secular rulers and mobs and to protect Catholic society from heretics.

God does not forbid the use of violence or physical punishment completely. He ordered the Jews to wage war against pagans and violently punish people who committed serious offenses. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their abominations. Jesus did that, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I was not intending to take a jab at the Catholic Church, and if it came across that way I apologize. I severely disagree with your second paragraph, but to be fair that is at least partially due to my Anabaptist Pacifist background. Regardless, when I was writing the previous post I was thinking more of the internal corruption, particularly among the clergy and monastics, that set off the Dominican and Franciscan movements. And I believe this very site was not afraid to mention the failings of past popes just before the Reformation.

 

[philipl]

Went back and read them all

I’ll take a fundamentalist catholic over and fundamentalist muslim any day. One of those two would want to kill me.

 

[clem456]

Went back and read them all

I’ll take a fundamentalist catholic over and fundamentalist muslim any day. One of those two would want to kill me.

What’s the difference? Both idolize themselves. When you are your own idol, anything is possible in the name of your god, including the atrocities that fundamentalists of every kind commit.

Are you going to persist in your demand for literalist proof that Christians can be fundamentalists? Or can you read the Pope’s actual words and take something of value from them. Here they are (again):

“No religion is immune from its own fundamentalisms. In any confession there will be a small group of fundamentalists, whose work is to destroy in the interests of an idea, not of a reality. Reality is superior to an idea. God, whether in Judaism, in Christianity, or in Islam, in the faith of those three peoples, accompanies God’s people with His presence. In the Bible we see it, Muslims in the Koran. Our God is a God of nearness, which accompanies. Fundamentalists push God away from the companionship of His people; they dis-Incarnate Him, they transform Him into an ideology. Therefore, in the name of this ideological God, they kill, attack, destroy, and calumniate. Practically, they transform this God into a Baal, into an idol,” Pope Francis said.

Fundamentalists like to deflect from the saving truth, to demand the truth fit their own rigid personal interpretations. The problem is, the truth cannot be contained in the tiny fundamentalist box.
What specifically is the problem with the Pope’s words?

 

[Alan55]

As noted in that font of knowledge, Wikipedia, the term “fundamentalism” describes a movement in Protestant Christianity in response to modernist theology. The “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy” appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the U.S. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals”: (1) biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this; (2) the virgin birth of Jesus; (3) belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin; (4) the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and (5) the historical reality of the miracles of Jesus.

More generally, the term “fundamentalism” indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. This tendency is most often characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which it is believed that members have begun to stray. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established “fundamentals” and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency. A person or group does not need to be violent to be described as fundamentalist.

I think it is safe to say that some Catholics are fundamentalists, at least in the general sense.

 

[HCTC]

More generally, the term “fundamentalism” indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. This tendency is most often characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which it is believed that members have begun to stray. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established “fundamentals” and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency. A person or group does not need to be violent to be described as fundamentalist.

I think it is safe to say that some Catholics are fundamentalists, at least in the general sense.

I agree. In my humble opinion, fundamentalism describes the behavior of a group of people who obdurately believe that their own understanding of God’s will, of faith, and of correct behavior is absolute - a group who takes their religion so literally that they lose sight of the very basis of their faith and believe that principals are more important than people and more important than whatever negative outcomes may result for their own faith community or for others as a result of their intractability. I think that fundamentalism, generally, grows out of a very ego-centric viewpoint, and its first victim is frequently humility.

 

[philipl]

What’s the difference? Both idolize themselves. When you are your own idol, anything is possible in the name of your god, including the atrocities that fundamentalists of every kind commit.

Are you going to persist in your demand for literalist proof that Christians can be fundamentalists? Or can you read the Pope’s actual words and take something of value from them. Here they are (again):

Fundamentalists like to deflect from the saving truth, to demand the truth fit their own rigid personal interpretations. The problem is, the truth cannot be contained in the tiny fundamentalist box.
What specifically is the problem with the Pope’s words?

Because they are subjective in nature. Its boils down to an opinion.

I have know hundred of fundamentalist catholic in my life. To a person they were all very peaceful, many of them would peacefully protest outside abortion clinics.

 

[philipl]

You find a very few example of radicalised Christians in modern history and then you paint them with the same brush as radicalised Muslims. Where as the radicalised christian has to go hide in the woods the radicalised muslim can be the one working right next to you at your office.

 

[Path_Finder]

You find a very few example of radicalised Christians in modern history and then you paint them with the same brush as radicalised Muslims. Where as the radicalised christian has to go hide in the woods the radicalised muslim can be the one working right next to you at your office.

This question was well-answered in another forum, even when Christians act out in this manner, it is in spite of what the Bible says, not because of it. This is not so much as so with other faiths in reading what their religious writings state.

 

[Lormar]

Why do some always judge what Catholics did in the past by the way we think today?

As for fundamentalism, the OT God would be considered one, and His Son could be quite zealous too.

 

[clem456]

Why do some always judge what Catholics did in the past by the way we think today?

As for fundamentalism, the OT God would be considered one, and His Son could be quite zealous too.

Let me just point out that terms are being confused in this thread.

Fundamentalism is not the same thing as traditionalism or conservatism or orthodoxy.
Very different things.

Christ is obviously orthodox and full of zeal, but Christ is not remotely a fundamentalist.

 

[Lormar]

Let me just point out that terms are being confused in this thread.

Fundamentalism is not the same thing as traditionalism or conservatism or orthodoxy.
Very different things.

Christ is obviously orthodox and full of zeal, but Christ is not remotely a fundamentalist.

That’s how it is being interpreted though.

I do not see how it is possible for a Catholic to be a “fundamentalist” in the true sense of the word.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That’s how it is being interpreted though.

I do not see how it is possible for a Catholic to be a “fundamentalist” in the true sense of the word.

I guess St Augustine saw it in his day.

He wrote something to the effect of, there are those having found themselves Catholic remain so because they find the doctrines and rites attractive, but have yet to become Christians.

Then there are those who found Jesus Christ and became Catholic in order to grow closer to Him.

The former follow rigidly the letter of the law while missing the spirit of the law.

As Pastor Rick Warren once said to a reporters question on what is a fundamentalist, he answered, " a fundamentalist is one who has stopped listening."

In other words, they read the word and figured that’s all the needed and stopped listening for the deeper meanings behind the text they had read.

Jim

 

[Lormar]

I guess St Augustine saw it in his day.

He wrote something to the effect of, there are those having found themselves Catholic remain so because they find the doctrines and rites attractive, but have yet to become Christians.

Then there are those who found Jesus Christ and became Catholic in order to grow closer to Him.

The former follow rigidly the letter of the law while missing the spirit of the law.

As Pastor Rick Warren once said to a reporters question on what is a fundamentalist, he answered, " a fundamentalist is one who has stopped listening."

In other words, they read the word and figured that’s all the needed and stopped listening for the deeper meanings behind the text they had read.

Jim

Catholics stop listening for many different reasons, and only God knows their heart.

I’ve known “spirit of the law” Catholics who use that to throw out any laws at all.

We don’t need any more subdivisions to describe Catholics. Aren’t we divided enough?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Lormar;

Catholics stop listening for many different reasons, and only God knows their heart.

Well only God knows their heart while we suffer from their attitudes and behaviors.

I’ve known “spirit of the law” Catholics who use that to throw out any laws at all.

Which is why we must listen to the Church when it comes to understanding the teachings properly.

We don’t need any more subdivisions to describe Catholics. Aren’t we divided enough?

Which is why Pope Francis is calling us to move away from a fundamentalist practice of Catholicism.

Jim