Niceness, The New Religion

William Hogarth, "In The Madhouse"

From Father Z’s blog, a barely believable – if we lived in normal times – story about a canadian Catholic school. In said Catholic school the idea of having a crucifix in every classroom was in the past considered – for reasons I do not even want to think about – not really necessary. I know, I know…..

This year, this state of things changed and every classroom was equipped with his crucifix.

Thinking that this would make some explanation necessary (a crucifix: what will then that be, one wonders….), a teacher (and principal of the school) decided to give some “explanations” to every class in the school.

The explanation centered about Jesus not having physically risen from the dead. Not only Easter, but the entire concept of divinity of Christ, and with that of Trinity, goes herewith out of the window as I can’t understand why God would decide that he can resurrect, but prefers not to and tells us a lie about it instead, clearly allowing this lie to be believed for some 20 centuries before a Canadian minus habens comes along.

Because this is, according to one brave girl who immediately challenged him, what is all about: Jesus “never resurrected”, the whole thing is “like a metaphor that you follow” and, you know, “people have taken the Bible too literally”.

In the view of this “enlightened” teacher in a Catholic school, the “moral” that Jesus died is right but hey, “the story is wrong”. The man is, at this point, launched toward the creation of a completely new religion and dutifully delivers: “Because He died in our honour we should be nice to each other,” or if you prefer to put it another way “the crucifix represents helping others” and when the students look at it “that’s all it’s supposed to mean”.

And there, a new religion is born. This new religion, “BeNiceAnity”, has a vague flavour of Christianity and actually can even tolerate a Crucifix, but not without an explanation that says: “hey, don’t take it all too literally with this Christ: the chap is still six feet under (at which Mundabor would have asked: “where’s the body? Who has stolen it? Who has lied about it? Why?”) and you must just relax, be nice to each other and try to be helpful” (and, no doubt, inclusive).

I don’t want to think what private issues a man can have to want to blasphemously offend Christ in this way, in his role as teacher, in a Catholic school, but one doesn’t have to be a genius to see that they must be huge.

One would wish the chap all the best in his chosen new professional path. Whatever that is, I’m sure he’ll be better at that than he was at teaching.

Mundabor

About these ads

Posted on June 12, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. We had a ‘nice’ priest as religion teacher. Naturally none of my old friends from school practice their religion.

    • Very well said.

      You had religion lesson at school as we did, I suppose? “Call me Thomas” (instead of “Father Thomas”) and the like? Alas, I know the type all too well…

      M

  2. In primary school we had “Alive O”. In secondary school, the religion teacher (also the school chaplain) taught it himself. Mostly we shared anecdotes or read bits of scripture. There was nothing doctrinal at all.

    This was what my parents were taught:

    http://lxoa.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/maynoothcatechism.pdf

    Not bad eh?

    • couldn’t open the pdf file, Shane, though I don’t doubt maynooth in th epast was very fine.
      No idea what “!live O” is.

      By me it was even worse, no reading from the bible at all; the priest “Vincenzo” would come in the class and ask “what do you want to debate about today”. Generally it was politics. Christianity was to him an embarrassment to be avoided.

      M

  3. Mundabor, does this link work for you?

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Flxoa.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fmaynoothcatechism.pdf

    “Alive-O” was the religious course. It was awful. I learned nothing from it doctrinally speaking.

    Was Vincenzo formed before VII?

    • Interesting question, Shane.

      “Vincenzo” was “a modern priest”…

      He was mid-forties in the mid-eighties, and must therefore have gone to seminar at the beginning of the sixties. Whilst I think he got much more Latin et alia then the following generation of priests, he had V II written all over him.

      M

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,961 other followers

%d bloggers like this: