Petition To Recall Youcat - Mark Shea's Take On The Silliness

[cmotherofpirl]

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2011/08/youcat-recall-petition-looks-dodgy-to.html

[homeschoolmom]

<sigh>

[Papist]

From what I understand Youcat leads you to believe that the Bible contains errors, gives confusing catechesis on human sexuality and end of life issues, claims that Genesis does not give a true account of creation, give more credence on modern scientific conjecture than on the Church Fathers’ unanimous interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis, teaches that God made an incomplete world filled with defects and deformities, can give the impression that modern Catholic and non-Catholic authors are more important for young people to read than the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Reminds me much of my 70’s and early 80’s catechesis. [i]Mettre de l'eau dans son vin[/i] --- i.e. Don’t dilute the truth.

[MIKolbe]

wonder if Bernard signed....

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1313508113' post='2289070']
From what I understand Youcat leads you to believe that the Bible contains errors, gives confusing catechesis on human sexuality and end of life issues, claims that Genesis does not give a true account of creation, give more credence on modern scientific conjecture than on the Church Fathers’ unanimous interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis, teaches that God made an incomplete world filled with defects and deformities, can give the impression that modern Catholic and non-Catholic authors are more important for young people to read than the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Reminds me much of my 70’s and early 80’s catechesis. [i]Mettre de l'eau dans son vin[/i] --- i.e. Don’t dilute the truth.
[/quote]
Mark Shea says the people who are pushing the recall are more catholic than the pope.... not a good sign..

[dUSt]

What's YOUCAT?

[MIKolbe]

I read what sungenis (one of the people he mentions) has to say. I did not come away convinced. It seems if one is not screaming, "xyz is a sin and you're going to hell for it", people think a possible 'false impression' is made. Not sure I agree with that.

[Aloysius]

hmmm, while it does appear that many less than reputable people are involved, going through the actual complaints against the YOUCAT reveal that there may be some good points:
http://www.youcatrecall.com/index.php/the-recall

it actually recommends the CCC and the Compendium as being correct compared to the YOUCAT, so it's not necessarily people who are rejecting the current hierarchy.

[Papist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1313508923' post='2289078']
What's YOUCAT?
[/quote]


[url="http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/youcat/?gclid=CJ_nkuWS1KoCFRJX7Aod3gs3zQ"]http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/youcat/?gclid=CJ_nkuWS1KoCFRJX7Aod3gs3zQ[/url]

[LaPetiteSoeur]

I like it--it doesn't seem heretical to me or bad in any way. The Nihil Obstat says it was approved by The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Clergy, and the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

Papa Benedict supports it. That's enough for me!

[Papist]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1313508593' post='2289073']
Mark Shea says the people who are pushing the recall are more catholic than the pope.... not a good sign..
[/quote]
I haven't actually read it, but I have read reviews from sources I believe reliable. Here an excerpt from it,

[color=#0000ff][i]The Bible is not meant to convey precise historical information or scientific findings to us. Moreover, the authors were children of their time. They shared the cultural ideas of the world around them and often were also dominated by its errors. Nevertheless, everything that man must know about God and the way of his salvation is found with infallible certainty in Sacred Scripture.[/i][/color]

[Aloysius]

here are some of the statements of the YOUCAT it objects to:

[quote][font=times new roman,times][size=3]How can Sacred Scripture be “truth” if not everything in it is right?[/size][/font]

[font=times new roman,times][size=3][i]The Bible is not meant to convey precise historical information or scientific findings to us. Moreover, the authors were children of their time. They shared the cultural ideas of the world around them and often were also [u]dominated by its errors[/u]. Nevertheless, everything that man must know about God and the way of his salvation is found with infallible certainty in Sacred Scripture.[/quote][/i][/size][/font]
while I get their point, it is definitely imprecise to say it that way and leads to an understanding of scriptural inerrancy that's not exactly in line with Church teaching on the subject. they provide the quotes contradicting it from Dei Verbum and such on their complaint.

[font=times new roman,times][size=3][i][quote][/i][/size][/font][font=times new roman,times][size=3]There is no man on earth who is not descended from a union of a mother and father. Therefore it is a painful experience for many homosexually oriented people that they do not feel erotically attracted to the opposite sex and necessarily miss out on the physical fruitfulness of the union between man and woman according to human nature and the divine order of creation. Nevertheless, God often leads souls to himself along unusual paths: A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God…[/quote][/size][/font]
it's actually a pretty neat way to approach that topic, but they seriously need to specify that chastity is required. "accepted and affirmed" is totally misleading.

there's more ambiguity on sexuality it quotes there too. the ambiguity on sexuality is the most troublesome stuff I see there.

I don't think the evolutionary stuff is really wrong though, but they may be right to say that it should have some more caveats specifying the things that one should believe about the creation of man.

the most clear problem in it I think is the ambiguity on sexuality

[Papist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1313509787' post='2289104']
here are some of the statements of the YOUCAT it objects to:

[/i][/size][/font]
while I get their point, it is definitely imprecise to say it that way and leads to an understanding of scriptural inerrancy that's not exactly in line with Church teaching on the subject. they provide the quotes contradicting it from Dei Verbum and such on their complaint.

[font=times new roman,times][size=3][i][/size][/font]
it's actually a pretty neat way to approach that topic, but they seriously need to specify that chastity is required. "accepted and affirmed" is totally misleading.

there's more ambiguity on sexuality it quotes there too. the ambiguity on sexuality is the most troublesome stuff I see there.

I don't think the evolutionary stuff is really wrong though, but they may be right to say that it should have some more caveats specifying the things that one should believe about the creation of man.

the most clear problem in it I think is the ambiguity on sexuality
[/quote]
It's precisely the ambiguity that concerns me. The youth need clear and concrete catechetical instruction.

[dUSt]

I don't like books that use photographs of modern people. It out dates them in about 5 years. I am disappointed in the design approach. That's all I have to add to this situation.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1313510576' post='2289119']
I don't like books that use photographs of modern people. It out dates them in about 5 years. I am disappointed in the design approach. That's all I have to add to this situation.
[/quote]

Catholic school textbooks (at least High school ones) are AWFUL. Everyone in my theology/vocations textbook looked like they were from 1990. It was bad. And all the pictures of the sisters and priests were of older sisters and priests.