Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Spouting Thomas's avatar

Some thoughts:

1. The “word for word literal” vs. “inspired but parts symbolic” question is poorly worded. You’re probably thinking about things like Genesis 1-11. But I know people who would consider Genesis 1-11 to be completely literal history yet would still agree the Bible is partly symbolic, because of the Psalms and so on. The Adam and Eve question gets closer to the real answer.

2. For Roman Catholic clergy, I think the only point here with surprisingly high support that disagrees with Catholic doctrine is the denial of hell. On the question of Scripture having errors, I believe the Catholic doctrine is there might be minor historical errors (e.g. the size of the armies in Joshua) but the core of the historical narrative is all true.

3. Psychologically, the seeming lack of faith among Roman Catholic clergy compared to evangelical or black Protestants is interesting, when they have given the most up. But maybe for that reason it’s also the hardest to leave? I would also guess that there’s a generation gap here, with older Catholic priests harboring more doubts.

EDIT: I realize I was mistaken on this point about hell -- best I can tell universalism is accepted as a valid opinion within the RCC.

Expand full comment
EagerFrog's avatar

At least for the Catholic clergy respondents, it’s worth noting that the most “strident” response does not necessarily reflect the Catholic Church’s authoritative teaching, or the statements may be ambiguous because they’re not written in theological language. For example, on the Biblical question that you highlight, a Catholic could likely affirm both (2) and (3) based on completely orthodox doctrine, e.g., regarding the New Covenant.

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts