The fact is, there is an agenda, a worldview, that is being pushed by this mandate. This worldview is contrary to that promoted by the teaching of the Church. Basically, the administration is trying to snuff out opposition by restricting the Church’s ability to promote its worldview. That’s contrary to the free exercise clause of the first amendment, and hostile to the Catholic Church. If it were about giving women the important ability to plan their families, exercising responsible parenthood, then the administration would be leave the Church alone here, being happy that it promotes other methods of family planning (that is, NFP). But its not about responsible parenthood. It’s about promoting a worldview in which procreation and sex, and hence marriage and sex, are separated so that sex can be a recreational activity rather than a responsible act of self-giving love. They want sex to be “safe.” But sex is not “safe” and will never be “safe”. Sex is not “safe” because it is the giving of one’s whole self to another person. Such a dispossession of one’s self is fraught with danger.

That’s my two cents. Thanks!

You are right that it is not a sound argument if I say that just because the Church has been around long enough, it correct. What I meant by that is not so much that it makes the Church correct, but that if you search, you will probably find that your questions have already been asked before and answered. I have questioned aspects of the faith, but I prefer to let the Church have its say before rejecting certain aspects of its long-held tradition as I examine and arrive at the truth of the matter. I eventually find that her answers are actually pretty well thought out, based on sound theological and philosophical principles, and have retained the validity of logic. I think it cardinal Bernadin who said that the church’s moral teaching is like a seamless garment woven together. I think this this holds true for all of the Church’s teaching.

“What you’re saying is that, if tradition had ever contained anything untrue, then said untruth has by now been replaced with whatever product emerged from dialectical engagement between tradition and opposing viewpoints. But if you want to argue that no such dialectical engagement is possible, since tradition is true by virtue of its status as tradition, then your claim that there is “nothing wrong with questioning tradition per se” doesn’t make any sense.”

I also apologize. maybe you misread me because I myself am not clear. This is not to say that new questions never come up. For example, a lot of the questions today deal more with moral theology, since most objections to the Church today are not so much of the nature “There was a time when the Son was not,” as much as stuff like contraception, gay rights etc. Even then the Church has its position and response, but there are certain things that have yet to be fleshed out through time and further debate that can give it a greater understanding. Its a classic case of development of doctrine. (If you have not yet, I suggest you read Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s essay on the development of doctrine. It deals with this matter of change and debate within the Church really well)

Also, I do not think there is nothing wrong with questioning tradition IF you are sincerely searching for truth AND you allow her to respond. (of course, my belief is that if you do so, you’ll eventually line up with tradition :-D). We are all on our journeys towards God, and sometimes it takes twists and turns that may lead us away only to lead us back. Like I say, I have questioned tradition before. In many ways I still do. I myself have questioned the Church’s stance on homosexuality, contraception, its claim to be the only true Church, papal infallibility, etc. I still sometimes question its discipline on priestly celibacy (though I also understand her wisdom in the matter). But questioning means that, just questioning. It is not the same as rejection, at least not at first.

“In discussing the historical reliability of biblical accounts, you say that we should assume they are reliable unless it would be “very difficult to do so without stretching the meaning of the text.” You furthermore ask why we must “begin with an air of skepticism that is equally unfounded.” Why is skepticism unfounded? The historical method operates precisely in reverse of how you describe; one assumes that a text is not historically true until one finds corroborating evidence. In other words, the burden of proof is on the person arguing that the text is factual, not on the one arguing it isn’t.”

Interesting. I will say this in your defense. Upon thought on this matter, I see myself holding something a bit circular here. I guess, for me, the reason I have dealt with it differently is probably because it is not solely a historical text, but also a sacred one that theologically holds true for me. And I guess because I believe in that historicity is essential to Christianity, I would also assume its reliable. The problem is that then I turn around and show that Christianity is true by pointing to the text (not just that, but i have pointed to it). I will have to think about this a little more.

But, and a big but, the fact that assuming that something is not historically true is also logically unfounded. Let me explain what I mean by this. If one argues that a text is not factual, would he not actually make a case for it? This could be by referring to the genre as non-historical, by showing that there are obvious discrepancies within the text and between it and other sources, etc. I would rather begin with an air of agnosticism rather than skepticism. Is the text historical? I do not know; let’s find out. Let’s look around and see first what other texts near to its time might say about it or things related to it to establish its context, for one, and then look into the text itself. For the NT, that may be early Patristic texts, Josephus, Tacitus etc. Assuming something (either way) before you begin investigation already colors your interpretation of the facts.Claiming that something is false (or even non-factual) simply because there is no evidence for it is a logical fallacy. Such an argument is ultimately based on very limited induction, especially since historical records cover only a fraction of what occurred in the past. If this hermeneutic of doubt is what the historical method is, then I already have a problem it and think it ought to be radically altered.

What I would have to say is this so far. when it comes to texts like these, you do not necessarily have begin with complete historical credence, but at least, assume the honesty of the person to an extent, unless we have proven that the guy is a maniacal liar. Look at the circumstances around why he would write such a thing, look at references to the work coming from more established reliable sources (and examine what might affect their position on it as well), or at least passing references made by others close in the time period. For example, church fathers such as Irenaeus was a disciple of the disciple of John, and attributed traditional authorship. Such a witness to the text would render the text more or less reliable. But my thoughts are still inconclusive on the matter. I do still think I could make a case for the reliability of the gospels without contradicting what I just said in the earlier paragraphs, but I for now I digress.

“But if it is true that the facts are not as you say, and that this “diminishes if not completely destroys” Christian belief and leads you to “reject it as a whole,” then why is it that members of other religious traditions, lacking the same historical grounding for their faith, are not similarly led to abandon it?”

Simple, their religion does not need the historical grounding, so history would not lead them to go against it. Most of their myths, if they actually occurred, would have occurred long before human history was observable (think for example of the Hindu myths, that occurred tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago…) But consider Christianity’s claims. It claims that 2000 years ago (a period in observable human history), God became man and was born of a virgin (an event in observable history). this man was named Jesus Christ, a carpenter who lived in Judaea during the time of the Roman Empire (a historical empire), had his ministry for a few years (occurrences in history), and then was executed by means of Crucifixion (an execution verifiable by history in several ways, such that whether such executions happened, where, etc.) under the watch of Pontius Pilate (a historical figure). And then, he rose again (historical event, or at least a claim, since it happened within the realm of human history), and sent apostles to continue his ministry throughout the world. With a few exceptions (such as the virgin birth… we can’t really determine whether history confirms that using historical methods per se). These events have a context in history.

“Why is precise historical veracity necessary to living a meaningful Christian life? Forgive me for putting it like this, but it seems to me that your belief rests on a shakier foundation than Phillip’s. Whereas you see reason to reject Christianity if Phillip’s argument is correct, he sees merely a new way of looking at his faith.”

What I see in Christianity is a religion that makes historical as well as religious claims. Not only do we believe in God, and living the holy, moral life, loving one another, forgiveness, etc. We claim that God was a man named Jesus, a Jew from the Palestinian regions who was crucified around 30-34 AD around the time of the Jewish Passover. We claim that he literally rose from the dead the third day after he died. Now, some precision would not necessary for what I am claiming here. I do not think that the dialogue in the gospels is completely verbatim. I believe that there was probably some embellishment to make certain theological points (how much, I do not know),

But more importantly, the most central aspects of the Christian faith are not philosophical assumptions, or beliefs, or even observations on life; they are events: the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection. From these flow everything else, such as the reason for Jesus’ ministry, the reason for the existence of all of Jewish law, agape love, sacraments, the Church, the scriptures, Catholic social teaching, whatever have you.

What makes Christian life meaningful? What is Philip’s foundation? the thing is, I don’t see any to begin with. Such a Christianity loses its force to me as revelation from God. I mean, it could be meaningful to people, since it involves a certain way of living, but a lot of it would not logically hold and seem arbitrary in the end. After all, why base your entire life on symbolic myth that did not literally happen? Why not simply choose another, even more appealing myth? If the historical claims of Christianity were false, especially the main ones like the Incarnation, crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, the religion ceases to have any foundation at all, since it centers around these events.

Math and economics, eh? I major in math and theology. Yes its a strange combination, but I think it works :-)