I am going to be on lite-blogging status for a while, due to a pinched nerve and muscle tear caused - everyone please take careful note - not by my Athletic and Extreme Sports lifestyle, but by bad ergonomic habits at the keyboard. Let me assure you, at this moment you really, really do not want to be me.
However, while spending my time reading rather than writing, I plan to read (having hastily skimmed and read some commentary about) the new encyclical from the Pope, Caritas in Veritate. It addresses economic and social development on a global basis, with passages about human rights and their relationship to social duties and the common good, the economic and financial order of the world, the environment, globalization, and much else. There are lots of sites around that have posted it, but this is a Vatican site, so I assume it must be an accepted English version. I'll say something about the actual substance once I've had a chance to read and digest it.
I am not Catholic, and so my interest in this encyclical is not that of a believer or adherent of the faith. However, I enormously value Catholic social and moral thought, without having any religious belief in it and while generally tending to a libertarian view of many of these social issues - without it, in other words, exercising a voice of authority apart from its inherent reasoning. I have always welcomed that these encyclicals are addressed not just to the faithful, but to "all people of good will." They seek to bridge a divide that is sometimes bridgeable and sometimes not, between arguments based solely upon public reason and arguments that rely for their acceptance upon specifically religious beliefs and views. I can see from a fast reading that there are many judgments made in both those categories with which I would profoundly disagree, but I can also see that my understanding of these questions is deepened by the Catholic Church's offering of argumentation from a specifically religious viewpoint projected into the public square of reason and debate.
I am, as ever, grateful to live in a society in which I am free to dispute all these religious view points, reject them, ridicule them, heap scorn upon them; one of the remarkable - and not in a good way - features of the UN and its emerging approach to human rights, including free expression, is the gradual embrace of norms that would make all that subject to sanction. We live in a moment in which the discourse of human rights, at least at the UN and its organs, is weirdly split between two worlds - an ever more finely attuned secular progressive view of rights, on the one hand, and rights as merely a language for global communalism. The two are both strong at this point in time, but the momentum, so far as I can see, lies not with human rights as secular liberalism, but instead with their reinterpretation as multiculturalism, the management by elites of communal global claims, the most important at this time in history being Muslim religious claims and their status and place in the global public square(s).
A few decades from now, I suspect that the transformation of human rights from the vanguard value of liberal internationalism into what we might call "multicultural internationalism," global religious communalism, will be more or less complete. The new version of human rights might be many things, but one thing it will not be is "liberal," no matter how thoroughly it has appropriated and mastered the language of liberal rights. But that is a topic for another day.
I was first introduced to Catholic social thought by my old friend and mentor, Harvard Law School's Mary Ann Glendon, starting with the 19th century encyclicals on the dignity of labor. She remarked to me once that an encyclical is only as powerful as the encyclical's willingness to be plain as to when it is arguing from public reason and when it is instead arguing from religious claims that it cannot expect will be universally shared. It was not that it should not forswear reasoning from religious premises - but that it had to forswear allowing such religious premises to be smuggled in covertly without admitting to it. About that, I think she is quite right. (Somewhat different version of this cross-posted to Opinio Juris.)
I haven't read it that closely yet, but from a cursory examination it appears that Caritas in Veritate will be one of the more accessible encyclicals, in that it doesn't rely heavily on nuanced theology. This is not to say, for example, that a Thomist would have any complaints; it's perfectly consistent with 2,000 years of Tradition. But a non-Catholic would probably get more out of it than, say, Humane Vitae.
If read with an open mind, Caritas in Veritate is not necessarily offensive to Libertarian sensibilities. Libertarians may recoil at the concept that anyone needs to be concerned with the "common good" and the demands that industrialized national decrease their energy consumption. But neither concept is incompatible with Libertarianism. Libertarians might think that government usually creates more problems than it solves, but they still ultimately want a functioning society. The Church wants people to be free from illness and poverty. If Libertarian governance ultimately builds a more just society, the Church isn't going to have a problem with it.
Cutting energy consumption? That's just common sense. We waste a lot of energy. Saying that industrialized countries should cut back on energy consumption should be no more controversial than your mom telling you to turn off the lights when you leave the room.
It's important to note what the encyclical doesn't do. It doesn't demand that the west subsidize ethanol production. It doesn't demand that we put up a whole bunch of windmills. It affirms that people have a right to form unions, but it doesn't endorse every rent-seeking and corrupt action that unions take. And it doesn't back away from the fundamental truth that people cannot be treated as work-widgets. It's not a policy brief; it's a guide to morality that leaves a lot of room for policy differences among people of good faith.
And you are aware, I would hope, that if the Catholic Church had its way, you would not be able to ridicule and heap scorn on their viewpoints, right?
And you respect that enormously?
The historical record isn't encouraging....
Also looks like an interesting encyclical. May I say I hope you blog on it when you get back?
Near the end I think you meant "It was not that it should
notforswear reasoning from religious premises..."I hope you're feeling better soon.
PS. What do I do if I find an error in the encyclical? Take the family outside to watch the stars quietly blink out?
Hear, hear.
I scorn those who trumpet certain of a religion's teachings, ignore other elements of that religion's teachings, and interpret everything with any wiggle room to conform to a political ideology.
I have observed Catholics smashing warheads, pouring blood at military facilities, giving their lives in opposition to authoritarian death squads; I have seen Catholics aggressively advocating preemptive invasion and occupation, defending torture, and working to fund and train authoritarian death squads. I have observed Catholics advocating for the disadvantaged, standing with the mistreated, and supporting employees' pursuit of better working conditions; I have seen Catholics celebrate great wealth, crush unions and court the favors of the affluent. I have observed Catholics oppose abortion and Catholics focus on providing social programs for disadvantaged young women. I have seen Catholics fight any attempted advance by homosexuals, and Catholics teaching tolerance by example. I have seen Catholics serving the homeless overnight, and Catholics enriching themselves by fraud aimed at the struggling. I have seen Catholics working selflessly for others, and Catholics bitterly excoriating underage victims of sexual abuse or educational misconduct.
Usually not the same Catholics across the board, however.
Cafeteria Catholics, almost without exception, one might say.
I scorn those who trumpet certain of a religion's teachings, ignore other elements of that religion's teachings, and interpret everything with any wiggle room to conform to a political ideology.
I have observed Catholics smashing warheads, pouring blood at military facilities, giving their lives in opposition to authoritarian death squads; I have seen Catholics aggressively advocating preemptive invasion and occupation, defending torture, and working to fund and train authoritarian death squads. I have observed Catholics advocating for the disadvantaged, standing with the mistreated, and supporting employees' pursuit of better working conditions; I have seen Catholics celebrate great wealth, crush unions and court the favors of the affluent. I have observed Catholics oppose abortion and Catholics focus on providing social programs for disadvantaged young women. I have seen Catholics fight any attempted advance by homosexuals, and Catholics teaching tolerance by example. I have seen Catholics serving the homeless overnight, and Catholics enriching themselves by fraud aimed at the struggling. I have seen Catholics working selflessly for others, and Catholics bitterly excoriating underage victims of sexual abuse or educational misconduct.
Usually not the same Catholics across the board, however.
Cafeteria Catholics, almost without exception, one might say.
The Inquisition lasted for hundreds of years, and it's record regarding any sort of freedoms, be it speech, worship or others is actually quite dismal. Many people have been burned at the stake for being heretics, or being a 'witch'. Not to mention that the church sided with the nobility during the French Revolution.
As for today, the church still elieves that there is only one true church, and that salvation can only be made through the church. If they truly believe that, they cannot countenence the fact that other so-called faiths exist, because they are by definition false faiths leading people astray. Therefore, one would presume that if the church had it's druthers, no other religions would be allowed to exist.
Indeed, that has been their belief for the last 2000 years, as they have consistently attemped to persecute heretics and anyone who questions the church. Unless there is a fundamental reassessment of this and acknowledgement that other faiths can lead to salvation, one would have to presume this is their official position
I guess we should bow before you, the master of consistency, the scourge of the inconsistent.
Or we can wonder why in the hell you would make your bizarre, off-topic comments.
There's a massive logical jump between believing that one's faith is the only true one, and actively persecuting those of other beliefs. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, do *you* advocate the persecution of those whose beliefs are logically incompatible with yours?
While there is indeed a history of persecution, as bearing said, he used the present tense. So instead of using a priori and fallacious logical arguments to "presume" the Church's "official position", why don't you...look at their current actions and official position statements?
(Side note: I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a post mentioning the Catholic Church brings out the knee-jerk replies. I thought that Prof. Anderson's discussion of his motivations for reading the encyclical were interesting and well-reasoned.)
The Catholic Church also states that just because other faiths do not offer salvation as the Church does. does not equate to automatic damnation. Historically, this has been addressed by people like St. Peter and St. Paul (the latter) of whom even argued with the Greeks that they, when they worshiped the 'unkown god' were really worshiping Christ Jesus in their ignorance. Furthermore, the acceptance of non-Christian thinkers (particularly of Plato and Aristotle) along with the description of Socrates of being a pre-Christian saint suggests that those outside the formal Church structure can possibly be saved.
Additionally, the salvation of individual souls (and the knowledge of same) has been repeatedly declared by the Church to be unknown (except by those declared Saints by the Church). The Church hopes that all may be saved through the grace of Christ Jesus.
You might want to look into one of the speech recognition programs (unless your diction is as bad as mine). To say that you can talk into a microphone and it comes out in the word-processing program is (gross) exaggeration, but the programs are now pretty good, and while proof-reading of the results is absolutely (think: to, too &two or rain, rein and reign) necessary, it does cut down on the keyboard work quite a bit.
I might mention that I have always thought that carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive motion problems related to computer keyboards are the result of touch-typing, where there is a lot of wrist motion. I learned to type from my father; he was an old newspaperman and in those days, the "two-finger pound," working mainly from the elbows, was the way they typed. I can get up to maybe 30-60 WPM, but not much faster. No Repetitive Stress Injuries, however.... Anybody have any real knowledge here?
As for the wicked past of the Catholic Church, it might be worth noting that while it was certainly wicked, it was also in the past. The problem today seems to lie elsewhere - namely with Islam, which seems to have plenty of institutionalized wickedness here in the present, and a marked lack of will on the part of moderate (or modern) Muslims to confront the problems....
And as for your choice of the present tense, it is also that case, isn't it, that the Church's record has improved as its temporal power has declined so greatly?
Just to reinforce what Paul Barnes wrote, it is easy to find out whether the Catholic Church teaches "that salvation can only be made through the church". What the Church teaches is explained in great detail in the Catechism. Anyone can read it for free, since the official English translation is on-line in several places. The first site that comes up when you Google 'catechism' has a conveniently indexed text. If you go there, you can read (Section 847):
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
There's more at the link, if you want to know what the Church actually teaches.
There's a lot wrong with that one little sentence, but let me try to attack it:
1. There is no evidence that the Catholic Church is actively working towards making it illegal to practise another religion. (Considering the high regard in which it holds Judiasm, that claim is just... stupid.)
2. Your "evidence" for this - the Church's belief in its correctness - is laughable. Everyone with an ounce of self-respect believes their opinions to be right and rational; that applies doubly so with religion. If you think that God gave humans the Bible and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, why would you believe in the legitimacy of the Hindu religion?
3. If you want to talk about making other religions illegal, putting infidels to death, and having a Holy Book that commands infidels to live in subservience to the true believers... why bash Catholics?
Why not just substitute "Muslim" for "the church" in these types of comments? Last time I checked, their holy book commands them to kill infidels; the Bible, at least, commands Christians to convert and lead by example.
What do you think of the Church's ghastly thoughts on homosexuality? (emphasis mine):
To be fair, the Church knows that it is no fun to be gay and Catholic. And to its credit, the Church doesn't condone discrimination -- apart from labeling homosexual conduct "gravely depraved" and "intrinsically disordered" I guess. The Church even has a plan for homosexuals -- chastity for life:
I think neurodoc said it pretty well. Whether the Church now has adopted Enlightenment values such as free speech is, I think, a hard question to answer. Certainly regimes prominently associated with the Church in Spain, Latin America, and South America weren't particularly known for freedom of either religion or speech. That doesn't make the Church responsible for the lack of freedom, but it isn't encouraging either.
Let's quote the full section:
""Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
As I read this, the word "may" is inserted mostly as a hedge against the (unlikely) possibility that God may work a miracle. The Church clearly doesn't think this route is very likely.
Nor should it. The whole point of a Church is the belief that its members have found the true way to heaven. Were it not for this belief, the Church itself would have little utility and wouldn't need to separate itself from other churches. It's not a criticism of the Catholic Church to attribute this belief to it, it's an acknowledgement that that's an essential characteristic of churches.
Which is why the Church in the US has many homosexual priests - who are called to chastity for life no matter their preference.
The Church is saying that the homosexual act is grave sin. Guess what - religions tend to make judgments, and that is the judgment of the Church.
Chastity = ghastly? How dramatic.
I would contend that the Catholic Church's position on freedom of speech has been far more liberal (in the literal sense) than that of the religion of Marxism and it's closely related spinoffs - collectivism, socialism, and leftism in general. That's where all these "hate" speech, "offensive" speech, "fairness" speech, speech "codes" and other odious restrictions are coming from. It's quite likely that a goodly chunk of those 100 million deaths from leftism in the last century were because they had the temerity to "speak" up.
"I would contend that the Catholic Church's position on freedom of speech has been far more liberal (in the literal sense) than that of the religion of Marxism"
Has? Well, Marxism is a low bar. Certainly the is is a vast improvement on the has, a development unsurprising as the church's temporal and cultural power* has so waned, leaving it little choice but to return ad fontes, and thus to recapture some of her original charm.
* - if anyone doubts this reality, consider the relative attention paid to this encyclical in contrast to, say, the recent passing of a certain reclusive singer.
"As I read this, the word "may" is inserted mostly as a hedge against the (unlikely) possibility that God may work a miracle. The Church clearly doesn't think this route is very likely."
This is uncharitable. This is a church, remember, that very much believes in miracles and God's power to work them, as well as the ultimate inscrutability of God's ways, or at least the power of God to work in ways that transcend human understanding.
Please do not discount the import of the Popperian breakthrough that "may" represents and the extent to which it acts as a safeguard against future inquisitions.
According to the Catholic Church (and many members of the Christian faith), everyone is called to chastity, which is abstinence before marriage, fidelity in marriage, and sex in a way that respects the importance and power of the act for the marital union, not just as a way to satisfy an animal instinct.
Ephesians 5:3 covers it pretty well:
So the Catholic Church is more pro-freedom than Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Talk about damning with faint praise...
I don't mean to take too big a swipe at the Church. Their role in evicting Marcos from the Philippines and in supporting the Solidarity Movement in Poland does quite a bit to work against the anti-freedom stands it took in the past with its support for various fascist regimes and its pre-Vatican II anti-semitism. On the other hand, the fact that only a few years ago they treated Robert Mugabe as an honored guest of the Vatican (at a time when the U.S. and EU imposed travel sanctions on him) recalls some of the bad old days.
"[Ncube] agreed that the gagging order meant that the Mugabe regime had succeeded in neutralising one of its most prominent critics. As archbishop, Mr Ncube repeatedly denounced Mr Mugabe's misrule, championed nonviolent opposition to the Government, and defied death threats."
Does this mean that homosexual acts are not outside of the natural order? No Order = No Life.
Church teaching is consistent...sex is for creating life, inside the marriage, period. Remove the purpose of creating life from the sex act, there becomes no limit to how we should go on pleasuring ourselves. That is simply not the way we are made. Check out JPII - Theology of the Body for a beautiful description of why.
The Church has not "found" the true way to heaven...Jesus founded the Church with his personal choosing of the apostles (and first is Peter), his teaching of them and his direct order for them to go out and do the same thing he had done with them (the great commission).
The Church teaches it does not understand all the mysteries of God...it believes it interprets correctly the mysteries which God has allowed to be revealed through the prophets and sacred scripture and tradition. The Catholic Church does not need to find ways to separate itself from other churches...you have this reversed...others have made ways to create separations from the Church.
Funny how that goes. A careful, calm and nuanced post all of a sudden takes a sharp right turn and goes off the deep end.
Does that about cover it, Randy?
Yeah, the revolutionaries were clearly on the right side of history. The Church made a huge mistake there.
As for today, the church still believes that there is only one true church, and that salvation can only be made through the church.
Others have covered this adequately, but perhaps I can present it in a different way: the Vatican doesn't claim to know where the boundaries of "the Church" are. "The Church" is the mystical Body of Christ. It isn't the combined membership list at all Catholic parishes. For all I know, even you, Randy, are within the Church. I certainly hope that you are.
As for the freedom of speech stuff - since that seems to be a topic of interest here - the Church's position on freedom of speech has typically been no more restrictive than that of contemporary civil authorities. Walking around renaissance Spain shouting "the Virgin Mary was a whore" was a bad idea, but no worse of an idea than shouting "Queen Isabella is a whore."
"Intrinsic" refers to the nature of act, person, or thing. I don't have nearly the time or space to address this adequately, but the Church is always very concerned with the nature of things. Basically what the Church means is that the morality of homosexual acts does not depend on context. It doesn't matter what the intent of the actor is, or what the result of the act. The morality of some acts can be evaluated based in part on their intent and result; homosexual acts cannot.
"Disordered" is intended in a teleological sense. Human sexuality is ordered towards a particular purpose. Homosexual acts do not achieve the ends for which human sexuality is intended. They are outside the natural order.
According to the Catholic Church (and many members of the Christian faith), everyone is called to chastity,
That's like saying "we don't discriminate against poor people. Everyone is subject to rules about dignified beds, whether poor or not". Then you look up the rules about bed dignification and it says "may not sleep under bridges".
It is not a defense to say that the rules about chastity apply the same way to everyone, because you haven't gotten rid of the "not everyone" part, you just moved it into the definition of chastity.
How do those carefully chosen meanings make any difference whatsoever? It's saying the same thing it would if it was a swear word, it's just using more flowery language.
Perhaps. I am reading it in historical context, though even if I were to limit the reading to the full passage I might say the same. As I say, I don't consider this to be criticism of the Church. It's what I expect from pretty much any church. After all, if a church takes an entirely open view that everyone goes to heaven, whether they follow its teachings or not, there wouldn't be any need for the church.
This is shockingly ignorant. In fact Spain, where the Spanish Inquisition had charge of the witch trials, and Italy where the Holy Roman Inquisition had the same, were distinguished from most of the rest of the Europe by their shockingly low rate of witch trials. Only England had as low. (Apparently because all three refused to suspend ordinary rules of evidence for witch trials.)
There was the Basque witch craze in Spain, but the Inquisitors involved in that were punished, which was more than you could say for the rest of Europe.
I sense that most readers will find in it plenty to reinforce their existing ideology, and little to get in the way of those views, although there is probably plenty of reinforcement and rebuttal for just about any ideology.
I believe it would be more persuasive for the Pope, or the Catholic Church, or for that matter any proponent of any religion, to identify a way to make the average adherent a better person, by even one-thousandth of one percent, than the average person outside the faith. If I saw Christians or Jews or Muslims exhibit superior morality, by the slightest degree, that would strongly incline me to seek wisdom in organized religion, far more than the periodic issuance of dense documents that appear to do little, if anything, to improve human conduct or thought.
So I take it that you don't see any Christians or Jews or Muslims exhibiting superior morality in any degree? I see a lot of them acting in that fashion. Of course, I see a lot who don't, also.
The first part of your last paragraph is in fact what the church (not just the Roman Catholic) tries to do. Try going to any church and listening to the homily: Regardless of denomination, you will hear a message that is simply "try to live more like Jesus would have you live."
It's not the fault of the church that we humans find that so hard to do.
By definition, all true censorship is by the State. So the evils of State censorship have always been by the State, regardless of whether the person whispering in the King's/dictator's/leader's ear is a bishop, marxist, vegan, whatever. Whatever frames the content for whom the king targets, the evil part is always the idea that the State and its agents may shut down, or kill, the heretic, not the content that defines the in-group and out-group.
So the Church, to the extent it did ill, was doing so through the State, or with the State, and as the State. Now that it's not the State (excepting Vatican City governance), it can only persuade, or kick out its own members.
Separately, vigilante groups, like the KKK, use non-State violence against their targets. (Yes, the KKK also used state actors, but I'm comparing their vigilante role only.) But to my knowledge, the Church doesn't do that, and historically hasn't.
So keep the Church and State separate as entities, and we don't have to worry about the Church. The State remains as dangerous as ever.
Uh, I realize they are a judgment-making institution (the mother of all judgment-making institutions, I suppose...), and I even realize that they have made this judgment -- after all, I'm quoting from their own document.
My point is that the judgment of the Church in this matter is immoral.
You are of course free to differ and apparently you do disagree, although I gather your reasoning amounts to "because the Church says so."
No, publicly pronouncing the conduct of decent people to be "gravely depraved," based on some kind of bizarre Iron Age ramblings, is ghastly.
But, to be sure, the Church's condemnation of homosexual sex is no more ghastly than the juicier bits of Deuteronomy, Lot's treatment of his daughters, etc. Really, children shouldn't be exposed to the Bible....
No, because I don't presume to know the one true way to salvation. I willingly acknowledge that there are many ways, and that there may not even be something called 'salvation." The Church, however, has a long history of actively persecuting those whose beliefs are different from its own. Of course, many other religions have done just as badly, so I don't mean to single out the Catholic Church.
Paul: "Furthermore, the acceptance of non-Christian thinkers (particularly of Plato and Aristotle) along with the description of Socrates of being a pre-Christian saint suggests that those outside the formal Church structure can possibly be saved. "
Thanks for a nuanced reply. However, after having taken many years of CCD, I learned that anyone not of the catholic faith is damned to hell. I even recall asking in class, what about tribes in jungles where they never had the chance to learn about Christianity? I was told that they are 'not saved' either. I thought it profoundly unfair, of course, but was told with a shrug of the shoulders that that's what happens. Now perhaps my CCD at a major suburban church was teaching me the wrong catechism. I certainly hope that they were!
Theo: "1. There is no evidence that the Catholic Church is actively working towards making it illegal to practise another religion. (Considering the high regard in which it holds Judiasm, that claim is just... stupid.) "
Really? So the whole Reformation movement -- the Church's response was just 'let a thousand flowers bloom?" Many people died because they tried to establish an alternative to the church, so I really don't think that they were laughing as they burned. Did the Pope just shrug his shoulders when Henry VIII broke off and created an Anglican church? As I recall, the Pope tried to get Spain and France to invade England to restore it back to the catholic fold.
Unless there has been a major pronouncement since then reversing it's position that no other religion (at least in Europe) is compatiable with Catholicism, one can assume that it is still their official position.
There is major difference between choosing chastity for oneself, and having it imposed upon you. If the Church makes a judgement that all men named Moore must henceforth remain now and forever chaste, I think you too would find it ghastly.
Theo: "According to the Catholic Church (and many members of the Christian faith), everyone is called to chastity, which is abstinence before marriage, fidelity in marriage, and sex in a way that respects the importance and power of the act for the marital union, not just as a way to satisfy an animal instinct."
And yet the church opposes and refuses to acknowledge marriage for any gay person, so the only alternative even in your quote is chastity for all gay people.
smooth: "Does that about cover it, Randy?"
Only if you wish to reduce all homosexual relationships to just a single sex act, then I guess it does. Just as if you want to reduce all heterosexual relationships to nothing more than just a guy sticking it into a woman.
Joebaby: "Remove the purpose of creating life from the sex act, there becomes no limit to how we should go on pleasuring ourselves."
Oh the horror! People having sex just for fun? The next thing you know, they might start eating cake -- just for fun.
"That is simply not the way we are made."
Oh, I think there are a LOT of people including behavioral scientists, who might disagree on that one!
"Disordered" is intended in a teleological sense. Human sexuality is ordered towards a particular purpose. Homosexual acts do not achieve the ends for which human sexuality is intended. They are outside the natural order."
So I'm only immoral and unnatural, but, hey, I'm not supposed to take it personally. Gee, that makes me feel a lot better.
Mischief: "In fact Spain, where the Spanish Inquisition had charge of the witch trials, and Italy where the Holy Roman Inquisition had the same, were distinguished from most of the rest of the Europe by their shockingly low rate of witch trials. Only England had as low."
I didn't mean to imply that the Spanish Inquisition had many witch trials. What I meant to say was that the inquisition (which actually occurred in many countries) was antithetical to freedom of speech and worship. In the northern countries and the new world colonies of Massachusetts and perhaps a few others, the burning of witches often occurred, although they ebbed and flowed over the centuries. I would think that tryging anyone as a witch for any reason is counter to our modern notions of freedoms, a point which you did not dispute.
Theo, I'm quite surprised that you misunderstood my statement. The church has consistently held for the past 2000 years that salvation can only come through belief in Jesus Christ. If you don't believe in Jesus as the son of God and all that, then you are denied salvation. So all jews are denied salvation. And I know that my many jewish friends believe that the Catholic Church and good Christians suppression of jews to varying degrees over the past 2000 years. I thought that was common knowledge.
". If you want to talk about making other religions illegal, putting infidels to death, and having a Holy Book that commands infidels to live in subservience to the true believers... why bash Catholics? Why not just substitute "Muslim" for "the church" in these types of comments? Last time I checked, their holy book commands them to kill infidels; the Bible, at least, commands Christians to convert and lead by example."
Absolutely. Few religions get off scot-free, and many are just as murderous as any other thuggish dictator. It's just that my viewpoint is western history, and I'm more learned in 2000 years of its history than, say 2000 years of middle eastern or asian history. But I also know that violence against heretics of any kind ebb and flow -- the catholics put to death lots of muslims during the Crusades, and Muslims lived in peace with Jews and Christians in Spain prior to the 15th century. I don't know what the thread is that holds history together, if there is one, but I to state that the Catholic church has always been a religion of peace and has no issues with competing religions is just plain baloney.
I see some religious people exhibiting moral superiority, some exhibiting moral inferiority. As I said, the average adherent is not one-thousandth of a degree better than the average non-adherent. I'd say the same thing about organized religion -- it's roughly a wash. Some great works, some gravely reprehensible conduct. Some inspiring teaching, some unattractive dogma. On balance, neither substantial benefit nor substantial detriment.
We have tussled with regards to religion and sexuality on these forums before, so I do not want to really rehash that debate here.
However, after spending roughly 6 years reading Papal Encyclicals, Catholic theologians, philosophers and histories about the Catholic church, I have to disagree with you that salvation is definitively defined as those who have formally belonged to the Church (eg Jewish patriarchs and prophets).
Similarly, I don't think that by just being a 'good person' can one be saved. The most thought-provoking book I have read on the subject was C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. Coinciding with the insights in that book, I suspect that when we die, it will be when the shadows are lifted from our eyes and we come into complete knowledge of the Divine that we will be judged (Here I would suggest that Lewis' last book Til We Have Faces would be of use here).
Finally, I think a certain humility needs to be put into our claims to historical knowledge (this goes for myself especially). The greater we study into a subject, the greater our ignorance about it should become apparent. This is especially true of history. The lesson of Socrates on ignorance is a fundamental human condition.
Yes, they were.
No, I would not. Ghastly is not an appropriate adjective. I certainly wouldn't like it, but then Church's don't exist for us to like it (except for some of the wishy washy meaningless modern protestant ones).
But hey, you can just behave like the very people who continue to preach that rule, and be chaste. They are. Ghastly for them, eh?
Oddly, I am therefore quite happy to learn that much of what I was taught in CCD was wrong.
I'll also have to tell my a few of my friends, who were explicitly told by nuns that merely attending the wedding of a non-catholic at a held at a non-catholic church would damn them. This was years ago, but a mere blink of they eye when compared with it's 2000 year history.
But I quote from Catholic.com, "For those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity"
I don't know who is behind this website, so it may not be official, but they plainly state that if you belong to a schismatic church, NO salvation is possible. I would assume that any schismatic church means any protestant church? Therefore, all protestants are damned to hell, as are anyone of any other religion, IF you are aware of divinely revealed doctrine and reject it. Is this correct?
At best, there seems to be a great degree of confusion, even among catholics, about what salvation means and how people can achieve it.
Furthermore, I agree about our ignorance of history. But that should not be confused with denying reality, and the reality is that the church has had beautiful moments, and has had bloody ones.
Kinda shoots the whole God is fair and just theory out the window, then, doesn't it? I mean, if God (or God's representative like the Pope), WERE to declare such a thing, that all men named Moore must be chaste for no other reason than we declare it, then they cannot make any claims of fairness or justness.
Now, perhaps God and the Church really are just arbitrary abusers of power, but that's going to be a hard sell in when you try to convert people. Usually, the message is God is Love and all that, but I guess you regard that as all wishy washy stuff.
The head of the Acton Institute's head, Father Robert Sirico, also published an op-ed in the WSJ this morning on it: http://is.gd/1tzaZ
I am no scholar of Catholicism, but AFAIK if those individuals know the Catholic teaching and reject it, they will not be saved unless they reconcile.
Catholic theology is complex, but at its heart there are only a few principles. However, Catholic culture has lots and lots of ideas that are not backed by the theology. For example, AFAIK holy water has no special significance, other than to draw one's attention to God. That doesn't keep people from believing that it will get them special help. There are many common superstitions held by Catholics - we had a guest priest talk on the subject one time. Thus, it is not surprising that these nuns were wrong.
As a converted Catholic, it is fascinating to me to see the culture and the non-Catholic beliefs that are part of it.
Well, no, Randy, 'cause God didn't do that. Your conclusion is thus based on nothing.
Randy R: I used the present tense (i.e. the Catholic Church IS not currently doing anything). If you see that and feel the need to revert to a half a millennium ago, you're arguing in bad faith.
Why am I not surprised that you snipped the direct implication in my statement that quite a bit of the current religion of Leftism is derived from the philosophy of Marx? Of course, this way you can insinuate that I am comparing the views on freedom of speech of the Catholic church to Marx.
I am not. I am in fact saying that the proposals in the US, and in many Western countries the actual policies and laws. to limit freedom of speech are coming almost entirely from the left, not some leftist urban myth about Catholics or actions they took long ago.
I do agree with you that the bar defining restrictions on speech has been set very low. Today's left did that, not Catholics.
As an atheist, I am no friend of the Catholic or any other church. I am however, a big fan of honor and integrity in life, and even in meaningless debates like this. Leftists need to look up those two words some time, not that they'd understand what they were reading.
I have not observed that any degree of religiosity -- from being born into it to occasionally attending services, from attending services daily to professing to base one's life on religious teachings, from private devotion to public pronouncements, from marking a box on a hospital form to advocating a greater role for religion in public life, from agnosticism to athiesm, from converting as an adult to lapsing -- makes one more or less likely to be a good person or a bad person. Not one bit, not one whit, not a jot or tittle.
Consequently, a good answer to the question seems to be: It doesn't matter.
Rick, testing my understanding - I take it that the Church would consider each of the following to be intrinsically disordered. Is that right?
1) husband/wife orgasm absent intercourse
2) husband/wife intercourse when one or both are known to be (temporarily or permanently) infertile
Sorry -- you are correct.
However, I would point out that the current pope just two years ago made controversial comments about islam that greatly offended muslims around the world. The Vatican backtracked, but many were unconvinced. Perhaps it is a case of tin ear syndrome, or perhaps it is indicative of the pope's real intent towards islam. Speaking ill of any other religion isn't good for any sort of pontiff and makes it look like they think there is something wrong with other religions.
"Why am I not surprised that you snipped the direct implication in my statement that quite a bit of the current religion of Leftism is derived from the philosophy of Marx?"
I don't know. I've got two guesses.
(a) you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
(b) because I agree with it (it's not exactly a religion, but closer than Marxians and those who discount it's influence like to admit), and it's in the nature of things in interwebland that disagreement spawns more comments than agreement.
"Of course, this way you can insinuate that I am comparing the views on freedom of speech of the Catholic church to Marx."
Oh, I forgot.
(c) in your rampant paranoia, you're unable to distinguish friend from foe, leading you to conjure insinuations from thin air to justify said paranoia.
Somehow learning that you are an atheist gives me comfort in my irrational and likely self-deluding faith.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.