Why Relying on "Tradition" is Dangerous

Throughout the braying of the anti-gay marriage forces one hears the constant refrain that society should not deviate from the alleged "traditional" structure of marriage. Along side of that whining is the claim that "God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman." Of course, a review of the Bible shows that polygamy, not monogamy was the true biblical norm. But beyond that, the mere fact that something has been done a certain way for a long period of time or that a certain form of discrimination has long existed does not make it right. Using that analysis, slavery should still be the rule of the day given the centuries that the evil practice was allowed to exist. More recent examples of dangerous and simply wrong headed "tradition" are likewise available. One comes via Good As You where Jeremy looks at "traditional marriage" circa 70+ years ago in Maryland. What was the dangerous change then before the Maryland legislature? Raising the marital age above 12-years for females God forbid, the proposal was to require females to be 16 and males 18 to marry. Today the change is a no brainer and, indeed, anyone trying to marry a 12 year old girl would be deemed a sex offender. But some in the legislature did not want to stray from "traditional marriage."
*
Another recent example of a foul tradition belatedly being laid to rest? That the Jews bore personal responsibility for Christ's death. After all, a passage of two exist in the Bible that would support this bigotry (about as many as allegedly condemn homosexuality). It was only fifty years ago that the Roman Catholic Church threw aside this "tradition" after centuries of violence and discrimination against Jews. As noted in the Washington Post, the Nazi Pope, Herr Ratzinger, has restated the abandonment of this "tradition." Here are highights:
*
Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.
*
In "Jesus of Nazareth-Part II" excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.
*
Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the persecution of Jews.
*
While the Catholic Church has for five decades taught that Jews weren't collectively responsible, Jewish scholars said Wednesday the argument laid out by the German-born pontiff, who has had his share of mishaps with Jews, was a landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.
*
"Holocaust survivors know only too well how the centuries-long charge of 'Christ killer' against the Jews created a poisonous climate of hate that was the foundation of anti-Semitic persecution whose ultimate expression was realized in the Holocaust,"
*
The bottom line? Citing "tradition" or the Bible is the lazy bigots way of justifying evil without having to engage in a serious analysis of one's true motivations and to cloth such bigotry in a cloak of false respectability. As Chritianist demonstrate daily, nothing is more abhorrent to them than having to exercise independent thought and run the risk of upsetting their house of cards faith traditions.

A Catholic's View on Episcopal Fundamentalists Taking Their Toys and Running

Michael J. Bayly, the executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities and the editor of The Progressive Catholic Voice, and author of the "Wild Reed" blog (http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/12/episcopal-fundamentalists-take-their.html) has kindly referenced my post on the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin's vote to leave the Episcopal church as well as the VNS column relating to that issue. As a thinking Catholic, he has some very interesting reflections on the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of gays and it;'s reluctance to accept new knowledge. I highly recommend you read the entire post. Here are some highlights from his post, "In Catholicism’s case, the fundamentalists are not, to use different imagery, “jumping ship.” Rather, they’re very much in control. Indeed, they’ve barricaded themselves on the ship’s bridge - all the while declaring that such an arrangement is God’s will." (emphasis is mine):

Interestingly, Roman Catholic Coadjutor Archbishop John Nienstedt, in a recent letter-to-the-editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, cited biblical rather than doctrinal reasons for the Catholic Church’s “teaching” on homosexuality. I say “interestingly” because although some, including Archbishop Nienstedt, often argue that the church’s doctrinal stance is based on the “witness of scripture,” the Catholic Church tends to emphasize and rely more on “tradition” rather than “scripture” in justifying its prohibition on “homosexual acts.”

Why? Well, I think part of the reason is that most Catholics, including those within the hierarchy, know that the vast majority of scripture scholars question the appropriateness and validity of using ancient biblical texts to condemn our modern-day understanding and acceptance of homosexuality. On a range of issues, people realize that the Bible can’t be taken literally. Accordingly, even the Catholic Church has come to condemn biblical fundamentalism. Put another way, it no longer teaches that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Yet what the Catholic Church claims, instead, as inerrant (and thus unchangeable) is its “tradition,” by which is generally meant its teaching on faith and morals. As a result of this claim, dialogue on any number of important issues is effectively shut down. Of course, what’s happened is that one form of fundamentalism has been replaced by another: biblical by doctrinal. The end result is the same: the Spirit, present and active in the lives of all – yes, even gay people – is denied, and the church’s living tradition becomes mired in hubris, intellectual dishonesty, and the fear of change.

Fundamentalists, I’ve discovered, are incredibly insecure. The mere thought of development, growth, and change can send them into a frenzy. They have forgotten that religion should point to God, not be God. Yet sadly, aspects of their religious lives have become their god. Any threat to these idols is met with hostility fueled by both arrogance and fear.

In Catholicism’s case, the fundamentalists are not, to use different imagery, “jumping ship.” Rather, they’re very much in control. Indeed, they’ve barricaded themselves on the ship’s bridge - all the while declaring that such an arrangement is God’s will.