Q&A: The Difference Between Christian and Jewish Dogmatism
The Difference Between Christian and Jewish Dogmatism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I assume the opening about the pope was only meant as background and as a parable, and that the real issue is the system of rules. But allow me to address it specifically.
I have always wondered about the Catholic system of dogmas and the great flexibility with which the pope changes determinations that have stood for many years.
It seems that in order to attract a broad modern audience, he is prepared to slaughter every sacred cow: he changes the attitude toward women, homosexuals, Jews, and more. I read that two years ago the current pope issued a declaration stating that “God has never revoked His covenant with the Jewish people,” and that the Catholic Church no longer supports any missionary activity directed toward the Jews, and that “Christians should no longer try to convert Jews to Christianity.”
So from a theological-sociological point of view:
How is their system built differently? Why, among us, is a situation in which the great Torah authorities would accept homosexual inclinations impossible? In what way is the Catholic DNA different from the Jewish one, such that it allows relatively great flexibility in the principles of faith, and nods to the spirit of the age? And of course I mean the senior leading figure, not some marginal and fleeting faction.
So even though this is not the purpose of the article, I would be glad if the Rabbi could enlighten me, or refer me to articles on the subject.
Answer
The opening is not just an example. It is a very interesting discussion in its own right.
The question of changes always raises the difficulty of how much can be changed while it is still the same system. When are you a reformist, and when are you already a heretic? In the post I pointed out that it is not correct to judge this question in terms of deviation from the rules, because the rules reflect an essence.
You judge him unfavorably, that he is doing this in order to attract people. I judge him favorably, that he is doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do (and perhaps the fact that it helps attract people is only a result of the fact that this is what is right).
The comparison to us is problematic. Among them there is no formulated Jewish law from a binding source like the Torah and the Oral Torah, and therefore processes of change are easier. Hence the decision that what the pope determines is the truth (there is not really anything to compare it to). Among us there are binding sources, and every change has to be made through interpretation.
See here:
Discussion on Answer
That distinction has no basis. The ethos, both among us and among them, is simplistic conservatism. The practice, both among us and among them, is interpretive conservatism.
Without discussing whether these changes are correct and reflect the source of the tradition, or not.
I am using your parable about those walking in the desert, except that some are conservative by continuing to wear swimsuits, and others are conservative in clothing suited to the weather.
So true, among them there is no meticulous Shulchan Arukh like ours, and there are no laws of “Christmas tree” saying that if it was placed above twenty cubits it is invalid like a sukkah and like an alleyway, as you wrote in the past. But clearly they too have a tradition.
The pope knows the tradition, and knows the views of his predecessors regarding the attitude toward Jews, homosexuals, and women.
So how did it happen that among us the mainstream advocates simplistic conservatism, while among them it advocates interpretive conservatism?
They are always perceived as dogmatic, so how can they adjust the clothing to the weather, while we go on wearing swimsuits?
Regardless of who is right, where does this tendency come from?