Even faithful struggle with religion (Cindy Richards Shallow End of the Pool Alert)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | Nov. 5, 2003 | Cindy Richards

[Rutles4Ever]

Religion is big news these days. This week alone, it's made the cover of Newsweek and prime time network television. The two media events serve to illustrate our national dichotomy over religion: Most of us want to believe in some sort of higher being; beyond that we find little to agree about.

The Newsweek feature, ''God & Health: Is Religion Good Medicine? Why Science Is Starting To Believe,'' asked whether faith could improve one's health. The ABC report on Primetime Monday, ''Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci,'' asked whether the Bible told the whole truth about Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Thus we see that while we want to believe faith can help us, we don't always want to believe what faith leaders tell us. On the one side, we want to know that God is there, should we need Him. On the other, we wonder whether organized religion is everything it wants us to believe it is.

So it was with fascination that I read the Newsweek story discussing the pros and cons of praying for folks who are sick. Maybe there are scientific questions about it, but who among us couldn't agree with the parents of a sick baby who, according to the magazine, told a nun: ''Do your thing. We're Jewish, but whatever will help.''

I figure that same sort of ''whatever will help'' attitude was the basis for the headline on a separate story about a military raid in Iraq. It quoted a soldier as saying, ''Lord, Just Help Us Kill 'Em.''

Like that soldier, I have been known to turn to prayer in times of great stress. ''Please, God, let me pass this math test.'' ''Please, God, bring down my son's 107.6-degree fever.'' ''Please, God, let my mother survive her heart attack.'' In most cases, my prayers were answered, my belief in God affirmed.

I have always been a bit more skeptical about religion. Having watched the way men rewrite history to fit their own needs -- whether they happen to be the dictator of a rogue state, the leader of communist China or the head of the free world -- my skeptical self has to ask why the men who wrote the Bible (or any other ancient religious document) would have done things any differently.

After watching Elizabeth Vargas' report Monday, I am more convinced than ever that organized religion is worthy of skepticism. It turns out Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute after all. The Catholic Church now says she wasn't. It's not clear that she was married to Jesus, as the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code claims, but it is clear that she was a key figure in Jesus' life and in the earliest days of Christianity.

Why did most of us grow up believing she was a pathetic excuse for a woman upon whom Jesus took pity? Because that historical rewrite served a church that wanted to keep women in a subservient role.

No doubt, many people considered the show to be a frontal assault on their beliefs. Sadly, despite a Constitution that guarantees us the right to challenge religious beliefs in America, it remains a difficult thing to do.

Perhaps those people will be comforted to pick up a copy of Newsweek and see the flip side of this coin: We may question the historical accuracy of Christianity, but we continue to revel in the miracle of faith.

Update and correction: Three pro-choice groups filed a preemptive lawsuit on Friday aimed at keeping the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 from being implemented. The bill, which President Bush is expected to sign today, would outlaw dilation and extraction abortions.

In last week's column about the bill, I attempted to show that very few abortions are performed late in pregnancy. Ironically, it appears that I may have inflated the number of abortions performed after 24 weeks, the point at which a fetus generally is considered to be viable. The statistic I quoted -- 2,200 -- refers to all dilation and extraction procedures performed in 2000. The majority of those were performed in the second trimester. No one seems to know how many were performed after 24 weeks. I apologize for the error

[Rutles4Ever]

After watching Elizabeth Vargas' report Monday, I am more convinced than ever that organized religion is worthy of skepticism.

Please read this statement over and over again until you are ready to throw yourself through a plateglass window.

[tbpiper]

Please read this statement over and over again until you are ready to throw yourself through a plateglass window.

I did what you said, but so far all I want to do is throw Cindy Richards & Elizabeth Vargas through a plateglass window.

[mountaineer]

It turns out Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute after all. The Catholic Church now says she wasn't.

If the writer is so sceptical of organized religion, does this mean she does or does not accept the Catholic Church's alleged pronouncement on the issue of Mary Magdalene? Or does she just accept whatever suits her agenda? I'm confused. Better pray about it.

[AD from SpringBay]

Gee Cindy, you're so smart. Do you think there's room at the altar of the unknown god for me too?

[Rutles4Ever]

Here's another winner:

"Having watched the way men rewrite history to fit their own needs..."

Doris Kearns Goodwin has no comment.

[PeterPrinciple]

"Because that historical rewrite served a church that wanted to keep women in a subservient role. "

Where is the rewrite??

[Snowy]

I watched the special too. It was said that no where in the bible does it say that Mary was a whore (this came from a Catholic Priest). So what if she was close to Jesus or even married to him? How would that hurt the church?

[Constantine XIII]

Hmmm, who's smarter...Elizabeth Vargas or God...

These people make my head hurt. :/

[Constantine XIII]

Hmmm, who's smarter...Elizabeth Vargas or G_d...

These people make my head hurt. :/

[Rutles4Ever]

I don't recall an actual pronouncement on Magdalene. There has been debate over whether she was 'the harlot' (let he who is without sin case the first stone...etc.), but that's not exactly news. She is still accepted as being a woman of ill-repute who found forgiveness and friendship with Christ. She was extremely important in that she was both at the Crucifixion and the first to discover the empty tomb at the Resurrection. From her low standing among her peers she was given immense privelege in her standing with Christ.

Unfortunately, the tradition of Magdalene has given way to a number of liberties in the world of academia. Such as, "Well, if she was at the Crucifixion and Resurrection, why not the Last Supper?" or "She was a romantic interest of Jesus [gag]". It's really quite incredible how feminists have taken one of the most graced and honored women in the entire Bible and attempted to diminish her into an ordinary Jesus groupie.

Ain't it ironic?

[ArGee]

Having watched the way men rewrite history to fit their own needs -- whether they happen to be the dictator of a rogue state, the leader of communist China or the head of the free world -- my skeptical self has to ask why the men who wrote the Bible (or any other ancient religious document) would have done things any differently.

The problem is that everyone assumes that for G-d to have a hand in men's affairs He must do so in a spectacular way. It is recognized as a miracle if a cancer victim gets up out of bed cured without a doctor's intervention, but not if a doctor has done his best. Most Christians recognize both as equally miraculous. In one case G-d worked without a doctor, in the other case He let the doctor be a part.

The same holds true in writing the Bible. People might readily accept a book that fell from the sky, entirely written in perfect English (or whatever the native language is) but they have trouble with a book "inspired" by G-d. (Actually, most would have to have seen the book fall with their own eyes, and many then would still not believe it.)

But G-d works His miracles His way. Whether you understand how it came to be, the collection of books we call the Bible has many miraculous elements that cannot easily be explained away. The most satisfactory answer is that G-d was working through men. And if G-d could work through men to write the books of the Bible, He is equally capable of working through men to preserve them.

Anyone who accepts the role of Esther as being as fully G-d directed as the role of Moses has no problem understanding this.

The problem with the others is that their god is too small to perform miracles in any way that isn't a special effects blockbuster.

Shalom.

[Salman]

Or does she just accept whatever suits her agenda? I'm confused. Better pray about it.

Don't be confused. She's confused.

[Rutles4Ever]

It was said that no where in the bible does it say that Mary was a whore (this came from a Catholic Priest).

He is correct in this statement. And there's nothing wrong with her being "close" to Jesus. She was. Being married, though? That's theologically impossible. Christ's bride is the Church and no one else. He had no need of a mortal marriage. He is already the union of body and blood, the Eucharist, which marriage is intended to reflect.

I find it even more incredible that those who are quick to believe what is not written in the Bible (Jesus got married) typically refuse to believe what is (The mother of Jesus was a virgin, Jesus fed the multitudes with 7 loaves and fishes, etc.)

Peculiar.

[Gritty]

This isn't a sophisticated writer.

This is a blind woman.

[Snowy]

He is correct in this statement. And there's nothing wrong with her being "close" to Jesus. She was. Being married, though? That's theologically impossible. Christ's bride is the Church and no one else. He had no need of a mortal marriage. He is already the union of body and blood, the Eucharist, which marriage is intended to reflect.

I find it even more incredible that those who are quick to believe what is not written in the Bible (Jesus got married) typically refuse to believe what is (The mother of Jesus was a virgin, Jesus fed the multitudes with 7 loaves and fishes, etc.)

Peculiar.

I'm not sure if Mary not being a whore or being married to Jesus is true or not. I don't see anything sinful or contradictory if Jesus were married. I'm assuming that the reason why Catholic priests don't marry is because Jesus allegedly wasn't (meaning being celebate means being closer to God). I believe it's natural for people to get married and procreate. If priests could do the same thing, maybe there wouldn't be as much pedophelia or homosexuality in the priesthood. I would be interested in knowing when and how 'sex' got such a bad rap in the Catholic religion. Do you know the answer?

[Snowy]

He is correct in this statement.

He's another question. If nothing is mentioned in the bible about Mary being a whore, who started that rumor and why? Where did they get that information? Why has this thinking been allowed to continue if it says nothing of it in the bible?

[Rutles4Ever]

I'm not sure if Mary not being a whore or being married to Jesus is true or not. I don't see anything sinful or contradictory if Jesus were married. I'm assuming that the reason why Catholic priests don't marry is because Jesus allegedly wasn't (meaning being celebate means being closer to God). I believe it's natural for people to get married and procreate. If priests could do the same thing, maybe there wouldn't be as much pedophelia or homosexuality in the priesthood. I would be interested in knowing when and how 'sex' got such a bad rap in the Catholic religion. Do you know the answer?

I understand you don't see anything sinful or contradictory because, with all due respect, you don't understand Catholic theology.

It's natural for people to get married and procreate, but Christ was natural and supernatural at the same time.

Priests are called to be reflections of Christ and his ministry on Earth.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that celibacy leads to pedophilia or homosexuality! That's a comical notion based on nothing but unscientific witch-hunting (if a witch weighs the same as a duck, then...).

Homosexuality leads to homosexuality, and pedophilia leads to pedophilia. Celibacy may lead to temptation, but it does not lead to crimes against children. Two EXTREMELY different concepts.

Sex never got a "bad rap" in Catholocism. It's an act of elevated holiness in the marital state. It gains merit for the participants. Sex without marriage is a different story.

[babyface00]

If priests could do the same thing, maybe there wouldn't be as much pedophelia or homosexuality in the priesthood. I would be interested in knowing when and how 'sex' got such a bad rap in the Catholic religion. Do you know the answer?

I was raised Catholic. Seen a lot of priests. There's no way that you can be committed to your parish and committed to your wife (and likely family) at the same time. I've seen pastors of other Christian religions - they don't appear to me to have the same level of devotion to their parish that a priest does (I could be wrong).

So, if priests were to marry, than either the marriage and family would have to suffer when the parish requires, or the parish would have to suffer when the family requires. Since both are regarded as sacred devotions (i.e., you either devote your life to your wife, or devote your life to the church), doing both is by definition not possible.

With regards to "sex getting a bad rap", you might reflect that birth control essentially didn't exist until the middle of the last century. There are plenty of people alive today who remember what it was like before the pill, and even before reliable condoms were available. The Church is over two millenia old. Extramarital sex has been discouraged in virtually every western and most eastern societies, for many reasons, but largely because it led to illegitimate children. The church doesn't have a problem (and actually is quite enthused with) sex within the context of marriage. In spite of all that, the Church's teaching on extramarital sex really has nothing to do with birth control, and thus the Church has no real reason to change teaching to reflect that recent development.

In my experience, the issue with homosexuality and pedophilia is the same one - nearly all pedophiles in the church are victimizing boys. It has little to do with marriage and virtually everything to do with the acceptance of homosexuality - something that occured shortly before the explosion of pedophilia in the church (what a coincidence).

With regards to Mary and the Bible, the Bible was simply a collection of the sacred works in existance at the time. There are plenty of other works, both sacred and otherwise, as well as tradition that all compose the teachings of the Church. Example: Jesus doesn't marry anybody in the Bible, nor did the early church for several hundred years, yet today virtually every Christian church does it, even the "Bible-based" ones. I can't speak directly to Mary Magdalene, but the Bible isn't the only source for information, at least in the Catholic church.

Don't take my words for it though. If you want to know more about what and why the Church teaches what it does, the Catechism, which is essentially the handbook to being a Catholic, is published all over the web.