In all seriousness, I think my choice of 'dangerous' was, ahem, a dangerous one, in that I've thus far been unable to adequately define the term, or it's relation to the books. I think, perhaps, subversive might be a more-accurate term, but I'll touch on that later.
And I will not dispute your claim the The Church (here meaning the very people in certain positions throughout time) has had a (sometimes grossly inappropriate) interest in worldly power. It's simple fact. I also won't dispute that many people who professedly share my faith are willfully ignorant, a crime I personally can not pardon. The fact that some of the willfully-ignorant are who I find on my side of this discussion does make me more than a little uncomfortable, but I still stand by what I believe.
I have had a drastically different experience with The Church than you did -- mine has always been an open, loving, tolerant environment. There are more than a few mixed marriages in my family, it's plainly evident that some of my good friends are decidedly not-Catholic, and I happily engage in theologically ambiguous mental exercises (a favorite of mine is toying with the idea that Satan's rebellion was no betrayal at all but rather his God-given role to play). I don't think questioning the faith, let alone being exposed to contrary ideas, is inherently wrong. (I do believe SOME things are inherently wrong, but that's neither here nor there.)
The trouble I see, the reason I find this 'dangerous', is I guess a combination of two things. And I think that it's the same thing The Catholic League and others feel, as well. That is, the book is dangerous to kids who are not intellectually prepared for the questions posed. By that I mean properly educated -- that is, it IS a robust faith which can stand on it's own (and has for millennia) BUT this robustness has not yet been communicated to these children. When asked "how can we be sure," they can find no response beyond, "yeah, HOW can we be sure?"
(As an aside, my buddy Daniel mentioned that, frankly, we CAN'T be sure. No one KNOWS. And if pressed, I'd concede the point. However, I find I simply can not function in such a sea of doubt and so I choose to govern myself as though the most likely possibility, as I see it, were fact.)
If not you, then who?
In all seriousness, I think my choice of 'dangerous' was, ahem, a dangerous one, in that I've thus far been unable to adequately define the term, or it's relation to the books. I think, perhaps, subversive might be a more-accurate term, but I'll touch on that later.
And I will not dispute your claim the The Church (here meaning the very people in certain positions throughout time) has had a (sometimes grossly inappropriate) interest in worldly power. It's simple fact. I also won't dispute that many people who professedly share my faith are willfully ignorant, a crime I personally can not pardon. The fact that some of the willfully-ignorant are who I find on my side of this discussion does make me more than a little uncomfortable, but I still stand by what I believe.
I have had a drastically different experience with The Church than you did -- mine has always been an open, loving, tolerant environment. There are more than a few mixed marriages in my family, it's plainly evident that some of my good friends are decidedly not-Catholic, and I happily engage in theologically ambiguous mental exercises (a favorite of mine is toying with the idea that Satan's rebellion was no betrayal at all but rather his God-given role to play). I don't think questioning the faith, let alone being exposed to contrary ideas, is inherently wrong. (I do believe SOME things are inherently wrong, but that's neither here nor there.)
The trouble I see, the reason I find this 'dangerous', is I guess a combination of two things. And I think that it's the same thing The Catholic League and others feel, as well. That is, the book is dangerous to kids who are not intellectually prepared for the questions posed. By that I mean properly educated -- that is, it IS a robust faith which can stand on it's own (and has for millennia) BUT this robustness has not yet been communicated to these children. When asked "how can we be sure," they can find no response beyond, "yeah, HOW can we be sure?"
(As an aside, my buddy Daniel mentioned that, frankly, we CAN'T be sure. No one KNOWS. And if pressed, I'd concede the point. However, I find I simply can not function in such a sea of doubt and so I choose to govern myself as though the most likely possibility, as I see it, were fact.)