The War Against Pope Francis
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
"Last year, one cardinal, backed by a few retired colleagues, raised the possibility of a formal declaration of heresy – the willful rejection of an established doctrine of the church, a sin punishable by excommunication. Last month, 62 disaffected Catholics, ...published an open letter that accused Francis of seven specific counts of heretical teaching.
"To accuse a sitting pope of heresy is the nuclear option in Catholic arguments. Doctrine holds that the pope cannot be wrong when he speaks on the central questions of the faith; so if he is wrong, he can’t be pope."
Popes write and say a lot of things but only a special few are elevated to the level of doctrine.
Pope Francis' footnotes on divorce aren't an official proclamation. (Though the article hints that he's working in that direction.)
Infallible[0] statements defining doctrine are made Ex Cathedra - From the Chair of St. Peter[1] which he hasn't done. So, in reality the conservative faction are protesting something which hasn't yet happened.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedr...
This is a fact, but not really true in the sense you mean it.
The conservative faction were rubbed the wrong way by the footnote. The issue is that while it is not a proclamation of doctrine, it has been pointed to as justification for some German and Latin American bishops' administering of communion to the divorced.
The real problem is that Francis has remained silent when asked for clarification on the footnote, and whether or not it changed doctrine. Clarification was first requested officially (though privately) by a couple of bishops, and when no response was given for several months, those bishops published the letter to put further pressure on Francis to issue a clarification one way or the other[0]. The letter reads as a very polite request for clarification.
This went without response. In addition, there is some evidence that bishops have been privately directed to interpret the footnote in the 'heretical' sense. The evidence for this is laid out in the filial correction itself (see [1]).
The most recent document, referenced in the Guardian article as accusing Francis of spreading heresies, can be read here[1]. I would encourage anyone reading this to do so.
The document, along with the rest of the 'protesting' happening across the conservative side of the spectrum, isn't so much in response to a change in doctrine via dictum, but instead a response to the lack of clarification, and Francis' allowing (or even encouraging) a de facto change in doctrine.
[0]: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/full-text-ca...
[1]: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/...
The difference between you and OP is merely the question of which layer is discussed. The layer of facts or the layer of meaning.
I haven't asked him for details, because we have to work together in a music group and if we fall out the chances are the whole thing stops happening (it's a very small group playing instruments very few people can play). But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching.
Of course, as an atheist, I can't really comment, other than the slightly surreal nature of all these people worrying about interpretations of a fictional document and inspirations from a non-existent entity.
In fact, this kind of thing could be taken as further evidence that God is a fiction.
He was being pedantic, but not asserting that the bible speaks truth.
OTOH, it's been joked that there must be a God, because how else could the Church have survived nearly 2,000 years of all this [stuff]? I know, I know, the joke doesn't withstand critical scrutiny, but still ....
Riffing on that subject at the risk of going off-topic: The existence of some kind of Creator finds at least some support in the continuing evolution of the universe from the so-called Big Bang into local areas of greater and greater complexity. (This is a variation on the Weak Anthropic Principle [0].)
This continuing cosmic evolution seems consistent with the [EDIT:] conjecture that our universe is part of some kind of Great Project, in which it could be said that we're project workers — as Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner put it, we're created co-creators.
Personally I find this conjecture to be exciting and awe-inspiring — but only to the extent that it can be kept evidence-based [2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hefner
[2] Self-cite: http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.... — see also the comments to that piece.
Being consistent with something is not an argument for that thing. There is an infinite supply of mutually inconsistent hypotheses you can trivially generate for anything that's yet unknown that are consistent with what is known. Universe-creating unicorn-pixies that like drinking coffee are consistent with the big bang as well (a big bang happens when they drinkg coffee!). That doesn't tell you anything.
Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee.
> whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause
No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps. If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that.
> the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible
If you mean "plausible" in the sense of "consistent": See above. True, but doesn't get you anywhere.
If you mean "plausible" as in "is an argument in support of": No. An argument that does in no way demonstrate the existence of a creator cannot be used to support the hypothesis of the existence of a creator. If everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe has a beginning, then the universe has a cause. That's it. You don't get to just make up that that cause is some sort of "creator".
> (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?)
Most likely, they don't say that the universe "just is" in the first place. More likely you are misrepresenting the position that someone doesn't know what initiated (for lack of a better term) the big bang. And that is the only honest position to hold if you don't know.
Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
> No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps.
Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support.
> If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that.
I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence.
In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models. My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project, in which we're participants, and (B) that we best participate in that project by (1) facing the facts, and (2) seeking the best for our neighbors as we do for ourselves [5]. I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it both appealing and useful.
[5] This is a rewording of the Summary of the Law in Luke 10:25-28, which itself is a quotation from the Hebrew Bible, Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18.
That is exactly my point: All empirically observed facts are perfectly consistent with the existence of Russel's teapot. That does not get you anywhere with actually establishing any rational belief in its existence. Same as for universe-creating unicorn-pixies and for the creator you proposed. Consistency with observed reality does not get you anywhere.
> Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support.
Now, it's not irrational as a conjecture. Any wild hypothesis you can make up is essentially rational as a conjecture. But that's mostly useless to even talk about, as you can, as explained above, trivially generate new hypotheses. What is irrational, though, is your supposition that the consistency of your conjecture with empirical observation would be even a minor reason to consider it anything more than a completely unsupported hypothesis.
> I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence.
Yes, I am strictly talking about making claims about reality.
> In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models.
True, and the closer those models align with reality, the less risky those bets, would you agree?
> My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project
Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe?
> I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it useful.
Does that mean that you care about having a model that is as useful as reasonably possible? If so, how do you try to ensure that you will discover flaws in your model?
Not especially. I do posit, though, that life seems to be "improving," albeit non-monotonically, and that our species at least temporarily learns — often at terrible cost — from our mistakes; this might hint at a Creator "who" (that?) is at least somewhat benevolent.
(For what it's worth, in church I don't say the creeds past the "[maker] of all that is, seen and unseen," because the remainder is either sheer speculation or actively contradicted by the available evidence.)
So, why call it a creator then? If it doesn't have any properties besides having kicked off the universe, then it might as well be a primordial rock, couldn't it? Or universe-creating unicorn-pixies, for that matter. So, why use a word that seems to imply some sort of agency, probably intelligence, conciousness? That seems to me to be a highly confusing use of language, implying all sorts of baggage that's not really representative of what you seem to believe!? Wouldn't "the cause of the universe" be a much less confusing term to label this thing, that would be far less prone to being misinterpreted by the average person?
> I do posit, though, that life seems to be "improving," albeit non-monotonically, and that our species at least temporarily learns — often at terrible cost — from our mistakes; this might hint at a Creator "who" (that?) is at least somewhat benevolent.
Well, nice conjecture ... any reason to think it's more than a conjecture?
It provides me with a certain comfort — a sense of meaning, if you will — to imagine that I'm contributing my infinitesimal bit to a Great Project. This might be just a personal emotional- or psychological quirk; I'm not too proud to accept placebo benefits, if that's what this is. If others find the Great Project concept useful or helpful, great. If someone comes up with something more plausible, I'm all ears.
Does the fact that some idea provides comfort have any effect on whether that idea is actually true?
If I find the idea comfortable, say, that I will inherit a million bucks next year, does that have any influence on whether I will in fact inherit a million bucks?
> I'm not too proud to accept placebo benefits, if that's what this is.
But
(a) does the possible existence of a placebo effect for some belief actually make the belief true?
(b) what have you done, if anything, to ensure that there aren't negative side effects to your possible "placebo treatment" that might outweigh the benefits of the placebo? Analogously to how responsible medical practitioners should not prescribe a placebo if the placebo treatment conflicts with treatment of a more fundamental condition, even if the placebo would have some positive effects.
Actually, yes, but not in the sense you might mean: I'm not the least bit comforted by explanations of life that sound nice but also assume facts not in evidence. For example: I take no comfort in the notion — because I've seen no evidence and have no reason to believe — that a divine "being" has a plan for my life; that when I die I'll go to Heaven if I'm good or to Hell if I'm not; etc.
> what have you done, if anything, to ensure that there aren't negative side effects to your possible "placebo treatment" that might outweigh the benefits of the placebo?
A valid question. The main thing I do is discuss these matters with others — such as you — and try to keep an open mind to new evidence and new insights, in part because I like to know how things really work. (A corollary to the First Commandment is: Face the facts: Live in the world that the (hypothetical) Creator wrought, as opposed to the world we imagine, or wish, existed.)
In that vein: I used to be a total agnostic, until our then-rector asked an insightful question about physics that got me thinking and studying for several years, which eventually led to my working around to my present set of conjectures. See generally "Why I Still Call Myself a Christian and an Episcopalian (2005) (self-cite) http://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse....
In that argument everything except the creator has a cause. It posits an uncaused effect (creator->universe), instead of just an uncaused effect (universe). Universe + creator introduces an unnecessary complication (the creator) vs simply having an uncaused universe. It doesn't get rid of the causality violation.
There's no way to have a beginning without violating causality. You either posit an infinite universe (eg eternal inflation models of the Big Bang) or you accept an uncaused effect. Trading one uncaused effect for another doesn't get you anywhere.
[0] See "Synoptic Christians vs. John Christians: A Critique," at http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.... (self-cite).
If you ask respectfully, I see now reason why you won't get a polite reply. Maybe you should avoid the following smug remarks, after age 16 they don't sound as good:
> other than the slightly surreal nature of all these people worrying about interpretations of a fictional document and inspirations from a non-existent entity
Anyway, since we are at it and you seem genuinely interested in details, I will give you my personal details. They may not match what you friend believes, but many Catholics have similar feelings.
As someone who left the Catholic Church because of Bergoglio, I must remind you that the Catholic faith is not just about mercy, forgiveness, kindness. I know many merciful and kind people who are not Catholic. So, when establishing a link between mercy and kindness and the Catholic faith, you have to keep in mind a few points:
- The behavior of a Christian is a consequence of some metaphysical beliefs, of following Christ's teaching and the Holy Bible. It would be an error to consider these consequences as the main trait of a Christian. As the name implies, main trait of a Christian is the belief in Christ.
- It has been reaffirmed many times by the Church that mercy and kindness alone are not enough to save your soul, believing in Jesus Christ is also required.
- Also, the Gospel (Matthew 6,1) advises Christian as follows: “Be careful not to do good deeds in front of other people. Don’t do those deeds to be seen by others. If you do, your Father in heaven will not reward you."
This said, let me come to why I don't like Pope Francis. He's kind, and he's merciful, but he's way too vague about the pillars of the faith.
For instance, in one of the first interviews after he was elected Pope, when asked: "Is there a unique vision of what is the Good?", he replied "Everyone has its own vision of what is Good and what is Bad. And we must encourage him to follows whatever he believes is Good".
This is not Christian. Christianity is about a guy, Jesus Christ, who came to say what is the Good. (John 14,6 "I am the way, the truth and the life")
Pope Francis also repeatedly stated that "there is no Catholic God, there is just one God". Again, this is in contrast with two millennia of teachings, and in particular with the Church dogma that there cannot be salvation outside the Christian faith.
One of the most sacred Christian texts, the Athanasian Creed, begins with the following sentence: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
I could show you many other example of Pope Francis's sloppy statements about the pillars of the Christian faith, but I hope you understand a bit better why many Christian, genuinely, do not like him.
Maybe you should avoid such obviously fallacious reasons to accept something as true, after age 16 that doesn't sound as good.
Contrary to you, I didn't make any assessment of the general validity of the system.
My argument (what Pope Francis' says conflicts with the sacred texts) is valid whether you believe in Christ or not.
Your response is like if someone asked "why would anyone hate black people for their skin color", and you would explain the doctrines of white supremacists. Yeah, of course they have doctrines that say they should hate black people. But who in their right mind would follow those doctrines?
When talking about religion, you can do it in two different ways:
- Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven".
- Grownup talk. You try to find an argument which holds both for believers and atheists. That's how a discussion about religion between atheists and believers should be conducted, particularly on a site like HN who values discussion.
Since mathw was wondering why his Christian friend doesn't like Pope Francis, I showed him some contradictions between what the Pope says and does, and the Catholic faith. And I said: "That's the reason why many Catholics don't like the Pope, probably you friend has similar feelings", answering his question.
My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.
I don't really subscribe to the categories "childish" vs. "grownup". The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion. Saying the former to a believer might not be productive, and in that sense childish--but this is obviously not a forum necessarily for talking to believers, so there is nothing wrong with expressing this perfectly rational assessment of the situation.
> My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.
Yes, but you are still missing the point (unless I am misinterpreting their question).
The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true" (and maybe by extension: what could one possibly do to to get them away from such epistemologically damaging behaviour)? Explaining what the doctrine is simply is not an answer to the question that's being asked.
No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief.
Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.
On the other hand, I think that the right thing to do, is to bring the discussion on a physical (rather than metaphysical) level, so we all can contribute.
> The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true"
Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:
> I haven't asked him for details [...] But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching.
It turns out, as I showed, that there is something more central.
> Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.
No, that's probably just a confused interpretation on your part.
When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"?
Presumably, you won't. And why not? Presumably because you recognize that "Harry Potter is a work of fiction" is not to be taken as a statement of absolute certain fact. You recognize that this is an expression of a tentative albeit pretty likely to be true rational conviction. That is how people use language. Unless you are specifically talking about the philosophical intricacies of epistemology, that is precisely what that kind of sentence means, and there is no problem of the kind that you seem to be seeing.
> Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:
Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement to be well aware that all those horrible things are also part of christian teachings, and this being more of a slightly sarcastic comment on the fact that Christianity generally gets the reputation of being a "religion of love", despite the overwhelming evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.
You can play a lot with words and philosophical concepts, and concoct funny situations by stretching semantics.
You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.
And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.
> Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement
I am responsible for what I say, not for what you expect or assume. Even less for what you assume from other people's comments.
Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?
> You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.
Erm ... that's ... just wrong?
First of all, the claim that holding either of those positions as true requires faith is itself a claim and as such itself requires evidence. While I haven't ever seen anyone holding a belief in a god for any reason other than faith, that does not logically necessitate that faith is required to accept the proposition. Evidence for the existence of the god would very much be an alternative, and I haven't so far seen any argument why evidence would be categorically impossible (unless you happen to be using some definition of "god" for which that happens to be the case). Just because we don't have any evidence as of yet does not mean that therefore evidence is impossible.
But more importantly, you seem to be implying that anyone is making the claim that "there is no god". That's essentially just a strawman. I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists. Not accepting a proposition does not require faith, nor any justification, other than the fact that I am not convinced of the correctness of the claim.
> And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.
Luckily, no faith on my part.
This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.
> I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists.
Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.
Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.
And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.
I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.
Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.
Well, it is very unfortunate that you are that fast to judge other people, as that prevents useful communication.
When I am talking to you, I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent your position, which is why I try to avoid assumptions about what you mean by words, and instead ask you to define what specifically it is that you mean if I think it's ambiguous, as is good tradition in philosophical debate.
Also, I don't really see how even the possible fact that I don't know a term that you are using should be a reason to not explain your position in a way that I would then understand.
> Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.
If you prefer that terminology, I don't mind using it that way in our conversation. Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary (as you presumably are well aware, given that you seem to imply that you are somewhat well-versed in at least the basics of philosophy), so what matters is that we understand what the other means, not whether we are using the objectively correct terminology (which is not a thing anyway).
But regardless of what terminology you prefer, I think it would still be useful for you to be aware of how other people use language. Which is why I am telling you that the position that I described is as a matter of fact the position of the majority of those poeple who label themselves as atheists. You might disagree with them about whether that is what they should label themselves, but that still is what they do label themselves as, and that still is their position. At least as far as the common definitions in that community are concerned, atheism vs. theism is orthogonal to agnosticism vs. gnosticism, all four combinations are possible.
> Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.
> And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.
Well, in order to respond to that, I would still need to know what you specifically mean by "metaphysical (entity)".
> I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.
Anything specific that you think I lack understanding of?
> Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.
Please don't waste my time with purely semantic arguments, as you should be well aware that those are vacuous. If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.
> If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.
That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.
Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.
How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?
The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...
And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.
And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.
So, you think that one loses an argument when one expresses a correct idea using the wrong word (assuming there is such a thing)?
> Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.
Great example!
"It takes 4 bytes to transmit a 32 bit integer."
Agree or don't agree?
> How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?
Why would it matter? As long as what he is explaining is understandable and interesting, why would I terminate an interesting discussion just because someone is using non-standard terminology?
> The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...
Which is precisely why I tried to make sure we agreed on a definition for the purposes of this discussion.
Also, I really think it would be in your own interest to recognize that my definition of atheism is actually a widely accepted definition, or you'll end up unnecessarily just plain misinterpreting what all those people who use that definition are saying.
> And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.
I'm not sure, but the way you word this suggests to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how definitions work, as "definition of a concept" is not really a meaningful phrase (though you might be using it colloquially, which is why I am not sure).
Concepts are abstract ideas. Definitions are assignments of concepts to labels (words/phrases). For exmaple, "water" is commonly defined to mean "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms". Here, "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms" is the concept, "water" is the label, and the definition is the convention to use that label to refer to that concept.
As such, it doesn't really make sense to speak of "redefining a concept". You cannot redefine "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", that's a category error. You only can redefine the labels. So, one could, say, redefine "water" to refer to "piece of furniture consisting of one flat surface at the top with four legs". Under that definition, "a water is a piece of furniture" would be a perfectly sensible and true statement. It's questionable whether the definition would be useful, given that the word "table" exists and is commonly accepted to refer to just that concept, but that doesn't make the statement in any way wrong, at best it makes it awkward.
> And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.
Why do you think that I don't know what a metaphysical entity is? Someone not being sure of which of a variety of possible definitions is implicitly being assumed by some speaker is not the same as them not having any clue of the topic at hand, is it?
That's the view of Jesus' later followers, not of the man himself.
The John passage isn't especially reliable. [0]
Also, you're forgetting what Matthew and Luke both reported that Jesus said about just what's needed for salvation:
<blockquote>
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
</blockquote>
(From Luke 10:25-37, emphasis added, footnotes omitted [1].)
[0] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.... (self-cite) Scroll down to "Problem: The Passage of Time." Tl;dr: From what's known about the author of the Fourth Gospel, his self-promoting account, decades after the facts and at odds with other accounts, simply isn't credible.
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37 (the parable of the Good Samaritan)
You are absolutely right. But the Catholic faith is not about a literal interpretation of the Bible, is about the so-called depositum fidei, i.e. how the Catholic Church holds and transmits the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You may say that all Catholicism is the interpretation given by "Jesus' later followers".
Of course, when discussing Catholicism, I was implicitly using the Catholic Church's interpretation of Jesus's sayings. It would interesting to discuss if what he meant is what the Church now means.
> 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Sure. My point there was that faith in God is needed for salvation. It's not just mercy and kindness.
It always seems to be that Pope Francis is much closer to Jesus's example than the Catholic church's tradition. Jesus was in the Bible stories, modest and tolerant and said things like "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." The Catholic church seemed to go a bit away from that with ostentatious wealth, intolerance and the like so I can see why some of followers would be against Francis.
> "there is no Catholic God, there is just one God"
I've been told that this is one of the main changes that resulted from Vatican II: there is only one God and it's shared by the whole world population. On the other side, the Catholics pretend to have the "right" way to praise that common God. (but that's not what you were saying)
Francis seems to be in line with the official doctrine. (and from the article this seems to be a constant in his actions)
> One of the most sacred Christian texts, the Athanasian Creed
Never heard of that text. And a quick visit to Wikipedia tells me:
"Today, the Athanasian Creed is rarely used even in the Western Church."
After those two remarks, I don't think your statements are in way representative for a common way to understand the Catholic religion nor for the official Vatican position.
To be honest I think you are misunderstanding Vatican II, but that would open a much longer discussion, so I'll go for a simpler, more direct argument.
A Catholic must believe in the Holy Trinity, i.e. that God is one in three Persons. This is in the latest edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in more than two millennia of doctrine.
In other words: other religions adore different Gods, that don't come in three Persons. According to the Christian doctrine, this is wrong, that is not the true God, and without believing in the Holy Trinity you are not going to Heaven (this is clearly spelled in the Athanasian Creed and in many others documents, has been said many times during the history of the Church, being also confirmed by Vatican II, see also below).
So, it's not a matter of just believing in some vague, universal God. The teaching of the Catholic Church is: either you believe in the Catholic God (one God, three Person, the Son become man, died, resurrected, etc...) or your soul won't be saved.
That's why speaking of only one God may lead to confusion: you may say that the Christian, Islamic and Hindu God are the same, but only one can grant you salvation, so they are not the same!
Other religions have a different concept of God. You may stretch the concept a bit, and consider it as the same God in disguise, however it won't save you soul. That's quite a difference!
(An exception is made for people who didn't get to know the message of Christ in their lifetime, see below.)
> "Today, the Athanasian Creed is rarely used even in the Western Church."
That's right, it is not used in day-to-day celebrations, except once per year.
However it is an authoritative text when it comes to the Catholic doctrine.
Its author, Saint Athanasius, is a Doctor of the Church, i.e. a saint of particular importance when it comes to contributions to theology or doctrine. Actually the main reason he's a Doctor of the Church is because of his Creed.
The main message I was quoting from the Creed, the concept that there cannot be salvation outside the Church, has been repeated over and over during the history of the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
Vatican II has established an exceptions in case of people who never got to know the Gospel during their lifetimes. The main point, that embracing the Christian faith is needed for salvation in case it has been announced to you, is although unmodified.
As a general rule, the notion of conscience is alien to people of Africa. They don't feel guilty, they only feel regret if they're caught. Now Africa is vast and this is a big oversimplification, especially that large populations of Africa are now Christian, but conscience is still an imported good in Africa and not deeply rooted in its culture. Is it a coincidence Africa suffers from corruption ?
Saying Africans have dark skin is a big oversimplification, you are basically saying that they are morally inferior.
Have you ever been to Africa? Have African relatives? Know African people? I am ashamed by your comment. I invite you to provide some kind of anecdote or proof for your statement. Otherwise don't spread ignorance please.
So, what's the US' excuse? Europe's? China's? India's?
I hate the "correlation is not causation" trope that's trotted out constantly, but it really applies here.
The gay situation is a good example.
Pope Francis has shown love and understanding towards LGBT group, just like shows towards any other group of people experiencing hardship.
He genuinely loves others, like most of Catholic priests and nuns do - that’s why they chose the carreer path of serving others.
I’m saying most, because there are exceptions and sadly we only read about the exceptions.
Pope Francis never said anything that wouldn’t be 100% aligned with the teaching of church. Never. He has shown sympathy and love, nothing more.
Francis probably won't live long enough to cement his legacy in such a way that it can not be undone. I have mixed feelings about this, on the one hand I'd like for the Church to take a more modern approach to their interaction with their subjects because they are causing a tremendous amount of grief in people's lives.
At the same time I can't wait to see their end (most likely not within my lifetime) and the harder the line they draw the more people will come to their senses and abandon this group of lying, disconnected old men.
How does a "good guy" reach the top of a "corrupt institution", passing all the gates along the way, presumably guarded by utterly corrupt people?
(The article places conservative dissenters at the recent synods at 1/4 - 1/3.)
It seems like there's a conservative third of populations that increasingly seeks to isolate itself from the mainstream (or political center, or whatever you want to call it).
Frankly, this somehow plays into the argument we are in a simulation and religions are optimization procedures to figure out which ideas will prevail in the end, driven by external actors.
The doctrine is open to review. What they are conservative about is implying their predecessors had wrong views.
But all that is just the facade, in practice they are not keen to losing power and prestige, which Pope Francis precisely calls them out for.
And you think my views are pretty simplistic?
Arguments can be made for either side. People are free to leave churches who hold views they disagree with.
It's usually called a schism rather than a fork.
The deep state is no longer attempting to subvert Trump. A soft coup has been performed for purposes of stability, Trump is now being directly managed by the deep state. He'll give them what they want, so long as he can be handled he gets to stay. The Mueller investigation is now a lame duck, it's for show, nothing will come of it other than a few meaningless trophies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-generals-have-tr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/military-leaders-con...
And if you see how he leads this "war" that the article is about you can see he has the skills. The reason he's not living in luxury may be something like that he loves power more than money.
You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fai...
It's exactly the same with women's rights and minority civil rights: "Really, people would listen to them more if they just toned down and spoke politely". We already know that that doesn't work and just gets you ignored.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/t...
Lack of nuance? Maybe. Lack of reality? Not really. I don't think nuance is helpful here. The fundamental defining characteristic of the institution is faith as an epistemology. The details of how exactly this irresponsible epistemology is constructed don't really contribute anything to the understanding of why that makes it a bad institution.
> You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution?
No, it's simple, but not simplistic. And whether it's a way to jumpstart a useful dialog? That's generally difficult to judge before you see the result, really.
So where does the 'useful dialogue' start? I think it starts well before we just give moral authority to a bunch of very old men arguing about rules that only they made up. They should give us a better chain of authority than "since time immemorial".
I also would not quite agree that religion has retreated to "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps", i.e. the creation, consciousness etc. These are very large gaps in scientific understanding, but of course this does not mean we need supernatural explanations for them, and it would be reasonable to expect science to fill these gaps eventually. But then again there might be limits to what can explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times.
Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :)
> "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps"
I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this.
There is a big difference between something that cannot have an answer and a "gap". We currently do not understand consciousness, which leaves a gap for religions to postulate about souls. But it is very likely that in the future science will be able to answer to question of how consciousnesses arises in the brain. It is not an unanswerable question.
If you check out the Middle Ages section, it shows that the theological debate that it wasn't physical alteration started... at a date that is closer to us than the birth of jesus.
Check out Stercoranism [1] as well (which contributed to the above debate), whose whole basis is that the doctrine of physical change must lead towards normal digestive processes happening, and wondering if this turns the eucharist into, literally, holy shit.
At the end of that article is a bit of modern apologia stating that christ probably leaves as soon as the cracker hits your stomach ('but nobody knows precisely when'[2]). :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism
[2] god does, after all, move in mysterious ways...
You won't be satisfied unless the actual word 'literal' appears? It appears in the first paragraph of the Stercoranism link, and again in the second paragraph.
"the 9th century Carolingian theologian Paschasius Radbertus... wrote an influential tract around 832 upholding the literal interpretation of Christ in the Eucharist". He supported the literal change, but said that the holy bits dissolved before becoming poo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_the_Catholic_Chur...
> Your taste buds would tell you otherwise.
You are trying to understand rationally that which is not rational.
So using this way of thinking the body and bread are one in substance, but differ in accidental properties. The bread still looks and tastes like bread but an indiscernible change has occurred in its substance. Thomas says:
> I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
* caveat: I'm neither a philosopher nor a believer in transubstantiation
There's this thing that Jesus rose from the dead, and also this thing that he delegated his authority to his apostles (including people who never actually saw him in person).
Both are very weak arguments.
Religions are all about community, and for communities, traditions and beliefs are usually social objects, i.e. arbitrary things around which a community forms. The question of whether it's really true or false is - to most Catholics - just about as relevant as the question whether Star Trek is true or false is relevant to Trekkies. The issues those communities are debating are not about how their beliefs match reality, but how their beliefs match the canon around which the community is built.
No, communities are all about community. There are religious communities. But there is also religion and even religious institutions that are not about community. And there are communities that are not religious. The thing that distinguishes religion, be it a community or otherwise, from non-religion is the promotion of faith as an epistemology.
> The question of whether it's really true or false is - to most Catholics - just about as relevant as the question whether Star Trek is true or false is relevant to Trekkies.
How relevant it is to them is not the question. The question is how epistemologyically sound their position is. The average Trekkie will, if asked, correctly accept the proposition that the universe they are a fan of is fictional. The average Catholic on the other hand will, if asked, incorrectly accept the proposition that the universe they are a fan of is real. Also, the latter is consistently a part of the indoctrination, so it's kindof dishonest to claim that they don't consider it relevant.
Catholicism probably puts less emphasis on faith than pretty much any other theistic religion. Its main doctrines are supported by volumes of dense (and rather tedious) rational argumentation.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm
>If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema."
I am not a Christian, and I'm certainly not going to start defending Catholic arguments for God's existence here (!), but the arguments definitely exist.
As always, money and power. At least ultra-capitalists are honest about their motivations.
You might be surprised, but brains and court records and all of that are actually physical and perfectly accessible to scientific investigation.
If I could persuade enough people that incorporation documents are invalid and that we all collectively agreed the corporations would cease to exist. This is of course an absurd notion and not practically achievable but there was a time before corporations existed and there could be a time after which they existed if we want. This is the same for any human conceived idea.
I think that is a very confusing way to look at things. It's not that we collectively agree that the document means that something exists, but rather this is the category of things for which existence is by definition caused by the existence of those documents. A corporation is not some ethereal thing that exists, and we agree that we are justified in believing it exists because there is a document, but rather the document is effectively the corporation. The thing we as a society agree about is merely linguistic in nature: We agree on the definition of the terms, i.e., we have a common language.
Legally speaking and as far as general people's understanding is concerned, this is incorrect. The document is the license to form the corporation, it does not make up the corporation.
Doesn't matter. What other commenters here try to point out as well, a lot - if not most - organizations are built around one fiction or another. Some examples:
- Fanclubs, fandoms, convent attendees - those are literally communities built around fairy tales.
- Programming language communities - built around ever-changing artifacts of human imagination, they too have to deal with possible change of direction impacting attendance.
- Political parties - organized around some people's understanding of some ideas, + shitton of meaningless slogans that everyone interprets how they like. Exist mostly to self-perpetuate, as evidenced whenever any established party has anything meaningful to say or do; suddenly the official program takes second place towards what helps electability.
- Companies - the ultimate bubbles of meaninglessness, they in principle - and often in practice - exist as an ever charging group of people bound together by will to make money on ever changing product for ever changing market, lead by ever changing board.
I'd add nationalities, as there's plenty of crazy fiction going on in there, but they're at least usually bound geographically, so there's that.
--
The point being, many if not most organizations are built around some fairy tale or other, and what an organization is built around rarely matters to anything. What matters is how strong the community is, and that's pretty much purely social factor, without any actual dependence on objective reality.
When I look at people from $largeMainstreamReligion, I see people who will defend it as "the genesis of human life and the only source of truth" as a fact of the community you're supposed to accept. But then looking at their lives, they pay at best a lip service to the actual contents of that "source of truth", and instead only participate in the accepted traditions.
Basically, I feel that religions, fandoms, school associations ("I'm a Harvard Alumni"), etc. all work pretty much in the very same way.
Thinking about it, the fandom that I'm part of shows quite some resemblance to a religious organization.
What's more relevant is the differences. Funclubs' purpose is fun, I presume. Programming is serving humanity, I have no doubt. Political parties are in a way like football, a gentlemen game played by thieves. Companies are far from meaninglessness, they serve clear organizational and legal and taxes etc purposes.
Religions (edit: I'm familiar with) are built on deception to control people, they are not like fanclubs, programming, companies.
It looks like a viral infection, yes, that's how it spreads: an evil payload wrapped in good ideas. It's a tool to control people even if it's not used everywhere all the time, even if sometimes it's used for good. And finally, yes, the believers have no intention to deceive; they are the ones deceived and since most of them are essentially good people they naturally want to spread the "truth" by telling others about it.
This position on marriage for priests is intriguing. Even Peter was married - see Matthew 8:14 (why would Peter have a mother-in-law if he wasn't married...?). And why does Paul warn about people who will say that you cannot marry? (1 Timothy 4:3) ???
"in this struggle it has been forced into the defence of an untenable absolutist position, whereby ..... all sex outside one lifelong marriage" is banned. "As Francis recognises, that’s not how people actually behave."
This is not true. Just because many people do not stick to their beliefs does not make the beliefs invalid, nor does it mean you should adopt the common mis-practice.
Like the Oxford versus Collins dictionary - Oxford tells you what the word means and how it should be used; Collins tells you how people typically use it (which might be an abuse of the word or incorrect usage). I'd rather go with Oxford.
Who of us likes ignoring our programming language specs and then argue that the compiler is wrong?
BTW I am not Catholic.
In 1998, a small group of American Catholic separatists elected one of their own as Pope Pius XIII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_Pulvermacher
I wonder if something similar is around the corner. The mood in America certainly has long been towards creation of shadow structures that ensure you don't have to meet with anyone who disagrees politically.
Unless Pope Francis makes significant changes officially, I’m not sure this would happen again, regardless of his popularity.
Have a look at how Civitas and the "Coalition pour la Vie et la Famille" grabbed 500k€ of European parliament subsidies for its "European policital party" with as members a hodgepodge of a Greek neonazi MP, a Slovak neofascist MP, a Polish extreme right wing populist, ... and one Latvian social democrat [2].
But now I'm really starting to digress from the topic I guess...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas_(movement) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_pour_la_Vie_et_la_Fa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihails_Zem%C4%BCinskis
interestingly enough this could make sense (although quite likely not in the case of Breitbart commenters).
For example, the eastern orthodox church, like the roman church, defines itself as "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic", so an eastern orthodox christian may well refer to itself as "catholic" while denying the Pope is.
This seem to be the reason that in some places people often refer to "catholic" as "roman catholic".
Unsurprisingly both modern "Catholics" and "Orthodox" churches claim that their influence is "worldwide" and that they are right.
That's not really why, is it -- it's because there are also the Eastern Catholic (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox) churches that recognize the Pope as the leader of the Church while using different rites (including allowing married men to be priests).
So you probably can't use the old "Is the Pope a Catholic?" line anymore.
Back to the bears.
I feel this article is trying to "Stir up a storm" with sensational language. There is little behind this in my opinion.
It's possible that the catholics you hang out with are not the most conservative factions (e.g. the ones who still gnash teeth over Vatican II), which are the ones fuming over Francis.
>I feel this article is trying to "Stir up a storm" with sensational language. There is little behind this in my opinion.
While i can't speak about the part of catholics you know, nor about conservative wings of the catholic church (and the size of said wing), there are atleast some US-Conservatives claiming to be catholic with grievances about the pope:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/04/pope-francis-is-ca...
A few months ago there was a radio show, with a quiz. "What town was the Pope born in ?". Naturally, Wadowice, because there's implicit understanding that John Paul II from Poland was the Pope. People rarely even mention Francis except to rant on him. There's full-blown denial. Most catholics seem to pretend Francis doesn't exist.
Poles like to brag how Catholic they are, but they're Catholic in name. Most don't follow teachings, they just went to church to avoid ostracism. Case in point: there was a media outrage when a prominent figure said Jesus was a refugee. When my brother was in primary school around 30 years ago, he was regularly beaten by his peers because he didn't want to attend religion lessons (in school, no less).
People bend over backwards to justify their xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist etc. behavior.
A major hierarch in Polish Church, Tadeusz Rydzyk, is 70% businessman 30% priest. He commands his own "schism" while pretending he is catholic. He has much influence among old, helpless, angry people. Despite blatantly engaging in politics (like many other priests), numerous instances of hate speech, antisemitism and other transgressions he remains in power, and Church doesn't expel him. The word is they deem him useful, because - although highly controversial - people listen to him. Geothermal energy, media schools, his own TV, and especially the radio station. His total income was recently estimated as 55,000,000 PLN (15.1184 million U.S. dollars). He's 88th on the list of the wealthiest Poles. And since autumn 2015 he received 26.5M + 139.6K + 250K + 710K + 200K + 105.2K + nearly 3M + 70.6K + 59.3K + 120K +11.6K + 216K PLN from various government institutions. Under various pretexts, like payment for coaching of judges, for his media school, newspapers. That's not counting tenders he regularly wins, or land he (and other priests) often buy at 10% or so of nominal value. His radio station doesn't run on advertisments, except ads of his own products and services. It runs on donations. And he constantly complains how little money he has.
https://oko.press/o-rydzyk-twierdza-ze-dostajemy-miliony-a-g... (polish)
Teachings of Jesus are hard to live by and demand self-sacrifice. Relatively poor (to the rest of Europe) and thus highly materialistic, envious, petty Poles don't like that. Love thy enemy ? If someone hits you, expose the other cheek ? Charity ? NO WAY. Once upon a time I had a twisted ankle, and walked slowly with crutches. Suddenly a car stopped by and the driver offered to give me a ride. Then it hit me - I've never received a similar offer before. You see, the driver spoke in English. It's hard to notice something is missing in your country until you've seen the difference.
Jorge Bergoglio is a good person. I feel like he hears the Holy Spirit, unlike the members of the curia from the "no new rules" camp. But I'm okay with new rules, being a member of the original revolutionary church. My group still has a lot of the old rules, but the rules should never get in the way of bringing a person into the grace of God.
Latin mass is pretty neat, and makes for some great canting opportunities, but if you give it to a group of people who can't understand, how does that open a person's heart? How does excluding people who sin make sense in the context of everyone being a sinner? Denying reality is like denying a part of Creation; denying access to the community drives people into the ranks of the atheists. And hey, at least they don't use faith as a cudgel against reality.
So, I wish Pope Francis the best of luck, and I hope that he can bring his branch of the church into a more loving, contemporary group.
Your sect still subscribes to faith as an epistemology, right? Given that that is pretty well known to be an unreliable method to obtain knowledge, and you still subscribe to it, how can you be surprised that other people are equally behind on minor details that you happen to get right?
(As an aside, the whole concept of declaring a previous marriage invalid - for various reasons - seems like it's a hack in the HN sense of the word.)
Live will continue on our world whatever Pope Francis is doing or anyone else in the catholic church.
As only one of these can be sincere given the other, the commenters who suspect that the Pope is just very good at looking like the good guy are probably right.
If you follow the Bible to the letter you get Hasidic Jews or Catholics, if you follow the Quran to the letter you get radical islam.