Not that this is going to surprise anyone, but the Catholic Church has issued an official statement saying that no one has a right to say anything that might offend "the faithful":
The Vatican on Saturday condemned the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad which have outraged the Muslim world, saying freedom of speech did not mean freedom to offend a person's religion.
"The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion," the Vatican said.
By all means, we should be taking advice on the limits of human freedom from a Church that has a long history of torturing and killing heretics and infidels in the name of God. Pray tell (pun intended), why does this apply only to the "religious feelings of the faithful"? Are "religious" feelings more important than, say, political or social or familial feelings? There is no principled reason why one deserves protection from offense and not others. Why not, then, prohibit people from insulting someone else's taste in music and thereby "offend" their "muslcal feelings"? Why not ban satirical representations of politicians lest we offend someone's "political feelings"?
Contrary to this ridiculous statement by the Vatican, freedom of thought and expression must include the right to offend the "religious feelings of the faithful". If it does not, then there is no point in calling it freedom at all for it doesn't deserve the name.
- Log in to post comments
You'd think offenses to religious feelings of the faithful might be viewed as tests from the deity (tests of faith, tests of one's ability to behave humanely toward the one giving offense, etc.).
That about sums up the little wave of fury that went through me when reading the sentence immediately preceding that one.
" ... no principled reason ..." Well, that pretty much explains it right there, doesn't it?
If one looks at the history of any long-lived organization, say the government of England, for example, and goes far enough back in time, you will discover that they engaged in what we consider today to be barbaric activities (e.g. beheading the queen). When Isaac Newton was warden of the Royal Mint late in his life, he ruthlessly pursued the execution of convicted counterfeiters. None of this sheds any light on the actions of Tony Blair or modern scientists today . Similarly I fail to see how the misdeeds of religious figures in the middle ages have much relevance to the pope today, except it seems to provide an easy outlet for those who prefer animus to argument.
In 1997 Ratzinger annoyed Buddhists by calling their religion an "autoerotic spirituality" that offers "transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations". And Hinduism, he said, offers "false hope"; it guarantees "purification" based on a "morally cruel" concept of reincarnation resembling "a continuous circle of hell".
Reason is my religion. Boy, am I offended.
Pretty much anything could offend *someone's* religious feelings. Homosexuality offends a great many people's religious feelings, and discussing same-sex marriage sends people into fits; so does profanity, democracy, failure to say "bless you" when someone sneezes, evolutionary theory, sex, the Big Bang, failure to say 'grace' over meals, not believing in hell, and meat.
If I can't discuss any of those things because they might "offend someone's religious feelings," what exactly *am* I free to discuss? I'm pretty sure that if I follow the Vatican's scope I can't order chicken alfredo anymore in case someone who keeps kosher is at the next table.
td, although you have something of a point, I would like to mention that you don't have to go back as far as the Middle Ages to find the catholic church engaging in barbaric behavior. Consider its actions in "converting" natives in the New World. Or the complicity of at least part of the church with the Nazis. But even beyond that, consider its behavior in Africa today, where it condemns the use of contraceptives when it is well know to them as well as to us that use of condoms might reduce the terrible toll of AIDS on that continent. If an organization or person attemps to speak with moral authority, it's not unreasonable to expect people to consider the source and its history.
The Vatican's treatment of homosexuals would appear to offend many of their own faithful, chief among them Jesus, who said something along the lines of "screw over the least among you, and you screw over Me."
td:
None of the other organizations that you refer to claim to be the infallible interpreter of the will of God and his representative on Earth. And if the Church had actually changed its mind about freedom of thought, it wouldn't be taking the position today that it does not include thoughts that might offend the faithful. The Church has never believed in freedom of conscience and it still doesn't. All else is just a debate over effective tactics with which to destroy that freedom.
Jesus apparently would not agree with the Vatican.
MATTHEW chapter 5, verses 11 and 12: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Regardless of the wrongness of the idea that relgious ideas should get more protection than others, the Vatican's statement is utterly unworkable on its own terms. If all religions must be free from offence, what do you do when one person's religious beliefs offend another's? Does the spirit world explode in the religious equivalent of a matter-antimatter annihilation?
Consider its actions in "converting" natives in the New World. Or the complicity of at least part of the church with the Nazis.
Consider how many Catholic nuns risked their lives in Poland, saving Jewish children. The Jews know this and are grateful. One would like to see some armchair philosophers offer some respect, too.
I think you've got it somewhat backwards. "Blessed are you when people insult you", not "blessed are you when you insult people".
None of the other organizations that you refer to claim to be the infallible interpreter of the will of God and his representative on Earth.
The Catholic Church has, many times and very strongly, stressed it is composed of plain people, who are often fallible. I think that as a person who apparently sees the CC only from outside, you may fail to see how much humility is there.
And if the Church had actually changed its mind about freedom of thought, it wouldn't be taking the position today that it does not include thoughts that might offend the faithful.
You sound as if the only choice was "freedom of expression according to Ed" and "no freedom of expression". That's a false alternative, for two reasons. The CC apparently thinks there are stricter limits on it than you do. It doesn't mean it's an enemy of it per se.
The Church has never believed in freedom of conscience and it still doesn't.
Well... that's why Second Vatican Council debated so much over the dialogue with atheists and people of other faith?
All else is just a debate over effective tactics with which to destroy that freedom.
Conspiracy theory, worthy as much as those about the world Jewry running the US government. I expected more from you.
let's rip on rome now, here is a religious enemy not composed of non-whites (at least in europe) so we can rag on superstition without being accused of racism (you see, it is natural that non-whites are superstitious, europeans though, must be held to a higher standard, so let the flaying begin!).
Roman, we were talking about the church as an institution, not individuals who happen to be catholic. I can name a lot of non-catholics who have done good things, too, but that says nothing about whether not belonging to the catholic church is good or bad. As for respect, I do not respect religion, but I do respect behavior. If some nuns did good works, then I respect them. I also respect the US Consitution and the principles that it embodies. One of them is freedom of speech. I do not respect people who want to take that freedom away, and I do not respect institutions that specify proper behavior when the behavior of that institution is not proper. That includes religious institutions and governments. And I'm not in an armchair, although I wish I were.
Roman wrote:
Yes, I can see the "humility" in their declaration that no one has a right to say anything that offends them. If I declared that no one in the world had a right to say anything that offends my feelings, I'd be considered incredibly arrogant. But the church says this and that's a sign of humility? I don't think so.
ME:The Church has never believed in freedom of conscience and it still doesn't.
I didn't say anything about "dialogue", I said they don't believe in freedom of conscience. The history of the church is littered with the bodies of heretics and infidels who dared to speak their minds in contradiction to the Church. And today, as they just proved with their announcement, they still don't believe anyone has the freedom to say anything that offends the "religious feelings of the faithful". They've given up killing people over it, which I think is quite laudable, but they still think that governments should have the authority to punish those who offend them. Your response is frankly non-responsive.
Can you defend their statement on this issue? Can you spin it as anything other than evidence that they don't believe in freedom of conscience but only freedom of conscience so long as it doesn't include anything that might offend them?
ME: All else is just a debate over effective tactics with which to destroy that freedom.
What an idiotic response. I didn't say anything about a conspiracy theory. I said that the only thing that has changed are their tactics. Previously, they believed that no one had the freedom to say anything that offended them and they killed those who did. As their statement now proves, they still don't think anyone has the freedom to say anything that offends them, they just don't kill them anymore (because they no longer control state power as they did for centuries in Europe). The underlying belief hasn't changed, only the tactics have changed.
Roman, we were talking about the church as an institution, not individuals who happen to be catholic.
1. When Catholics do something good, the credit goes to individuals. When Catholics do something bad, the whole Church is blamed. Now that is one hell of a bias.
2. You were making a strong accusation, that the CC was somehow particularly complacent towards the Nazis. In fact, one of the few strong opponents of Hitler in pre-war Germany were Catholic bishops. In fact, the Church saved many lives then. I'm certain the Catholic priests weren't more cooperative with Germans in WW II then other social groups, and I strongly think they were less.
3. The issue with Polish nuns: a large part of the Catholics in Poland was to some degree anti-semitic. A large of the nuns, probably too. However they've risen beyond their prejudice towards the Jews and the fear of punishment (helping Jews was punished by death) and helped them when they were in so much danger. Why did they do it? I think it was partly because of their religion.
I can name a lot of non-catholics who have done good things, too, but that says nothing about whether not belonging to the catholic church is good or bad.
Well, and I didn't discuss it.
and I do not respect institutions that specify proper behavior when the behavior of that institution is not proper. That includes religious institutions and governments.
... and parents and teachers. If you're only willing to learn from perfect people, you'll never learn anything at all.
Please enlighten yourself with a wider selection of the texts coming from the Catholic Church.
The fact they intend to carry on this dialogue is a proof that the CC respects this freedom in its policies, even if some individual people forget about it sometimes. It's not as if other social institutions were perfect.
So are other histories: "the history of the US is littered with bodies of slaughtered Indians", "the history of modern France is littered with bodies of murdered nobility", etc. History is made by people and people are what they are. The fact is that the Church corrected its ways. Anyway, the number of the victims attributed to the Church is often exaggerated. In Medieval Ages, it were the bishops who often calmed down the angry mob when it sought victims to kill. Some claim that the Holy Inquisition's overall effect was to lower the number of people punished for "witchcraft".
Have you noticed that you lump together "freedom of expression" and "freedom of conscience"? The Vatican statement was about the freedom of expression, not of conscience.
No, I can't, because I disagree with them. I think they are wrong. That's it. No need to demonize the CC as you do.
(I would agree with them if they said "people take care not to hurt other people's religious feelings"; and don't ask why just religious: they talk about religion because the current events concern religion, that's it).
It's your spin. One could accuse them that "they don't believe in freedom of expression but only freedom of expression so long as it doesn't include anything that might offend them". It wouldn't be even accurate, since the CC in practice doesn't want to go after *anything* which they find offensive -- hell, in Poland the bishops very rarely raise the issue at all. More often, they say "it's offensive but the law shouldn't interfere". If you read the statement you've quoted without prejudice, you will notice that it doesn't say *anything* about legal punishment -- it's more of a moral lesson: "the right does not include" as "you shouldn't do it if you want to do right" not as "you may be punished for doing so". The Church's mission is to teach, not to force.
You didn't say anything *about* conspiracy theory. You only promulgate it. Your next sentences prove it even more so ;-)
Roman wrote:
I don't care what other texts say, I care what happens when it actually matters. We're in a situation right now where the very idea of free expression is threatened by threats from violent, totalitarian thugs. And what does the Vatican have to say about it when it matters? They say that there is no such thing as freedom of expression if that expression offends their "religious feelings". So would the existence of some other text saying "we like free speech" change this reality in any way? Nope. When it mattered, the Vatican showed their true colors - they do not believe in freedom of expression except when it does not offend them.
They changed tactics. But this statement proves that they don't believe in the freedom to express ideas that offend them today any more than they did in the 15th century.
As a matter of fact, I have noticed that I do that. You know why? Because they are of the same substance. Freedom of conscience is useless unless one also has the right to express their ideas. A person who is free to think something but is imprisoned or killed if they express what they think is not free. One simply does not exist without the other.
All rights are political and substantive in nature, and all are negative in nature - you have the right not to be punished for doing something. To say that you don't have the right to do something is to say that the government has the legitimate authority to punish you for doing it. I also didn't quote the last part of the statement, which explicitly said that governments "could and should intervene according to (their) national legislation." If they are arguing that nations that have laws allowing punishment of such "offensive speech" should use them, then it just proves my point - they do not support freedom of expression if that expression offends them. If they supported freedom of expression, they would be saying, "No government has the authority to punish anyone for the mere act of saying something that offends someone's religious beliefs."
The sheer ridiculous of this statement from Pope Rat-face's minions (and I was raised Catholic, Roman, so I can insult the current head of the church) completely negates their entire religious teaching. According to their statement, the Roman Catholic church can no longer preach anything, because there are millions of people who are offended by the existence of this church. In fact, by teaching that all those who are not "Christian" are heretics - and this includes all Muslims, Jews, other non-Christians and most members of Protestant denominations - the Catholic church offends billions of people on an hourly basis. Shut the church down now!
It wouldn't be even accurate, since the CC in practice doesn't want to go after *anything* which they find offensive -- hell, in Poland the bishops very rarely raise the issue at all.
Which is why, of course, the Church in Mass. and Conn. have gone to a self-insured health plan so they can avoid recognizing the "sinful lifestyles" of their gay and lesbian employees, denying them health insurance for their legal spouses. Of course, they continue to cover the health insurance of other "married" employee's spouses, such as those who have been divorced and remarried, or who are not members of the church at all (either fact means these people are not married - such as Bush and his concubine - and are living lives as sinful as gay people).
That is why, of course, the church has been the leader of the fight against basic non-discrimination laws of gay and lesbian people - after all, it is only "Christian" to demand the right to fire, refuse to hire, refuse housing to, and refuse public accommodations (like hotels and restaurants) to fags and dykes, 'cause we're not people, after all. The Catholic church, with their continuing hate attack against gays and lesbians, has proven completely unwilling to live among those who disagree with them. If that is not an attack on BOTH freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, I don't know what is.
I don't care what other texts say, I care what happens when it actually matters.
Well, let me tell you two stories. Do you know when it mattered in my country? Back in 1981, when the Communists introduced martial law and shot people in the streets. Do you know what Catholic Church did back then? It defended these people and tried to calm the situation down, so that there are no more victims. Priests said in churches openly that the government has no right to shoot people just because they disagree with the government. THEN it actually mattered. Then the Pope came and said "Do not be afraid!". And the people have won, because they were not afraid.
Artists met dissidents in parishes and churches, had discussions, exhibitions -- all outside of the reach of the government, because even the Communists respected the CC somewhat. Not only Catholic artists or dissidents, but of other convictions too.
At the same time, an Western peace organization known as Pugwash held a conference in Warsaw and met with the same Communist officials who were responsible for people being shot in the streets. They had a congress at the same time when a police car stopped in front of the church on Sunday and opened fire on the people, killing little kids. People took photographs of the incident. I know a professor who copied these photos and met with the Pugwash people. He showed them the photos and said "this is happening here when you have this official conference. How about you break the conference as a protest against the opression?". Guess what happened? The conference held on and my professor saw on the next day on the TV screen the Pugwash people banquetting and hugging with our military dictator, Gen. Jaruzelski.
Then it actually mattered. This totalitarian Catholic Church, full of backward ideology and completely unfit to the modern world, helped people to fight for their freedom. But the progressive Pugwash people, full of words about "peace", told the Polish nation to kiss their ass. They preferred banquetting with the Communist junta.
You know what is the moral? Sometimes deeds matter more than words. That's why I think you theories about the Catholic Church planning in secret to take away our freedoms are what they are -- plain hysteria.
The sheer ridiculous of this statement from Pope Rat-face's minions (and I was raised Catholic, Roman, so I can insult the current head of the church)
Oh, come on. He's ugly but has a charm of his own...
Personaly I find it offensive when people insult personal religious beliefs. I also find it offensive when people equate homosexuality with evil. I do however voraciously defend anyones right to be offensive.
When the Catholic church makes pronouncements like this one they are in effect restricting their members from using whatever behaviour they are talking about. When you consider that there were church (catholic) leaders calling it a sin to vote for anyone who supports a womans right to choose it becomes obvious that the church doesn't have any hesitation to involving itself in politics - it never has hesitated too. The Catholic church tries to influence the temporal world with their policies and they are wrong to do it.
It is all fine and well to say that it is wrong to insult anyone's religious beliefs - I would accept and applaud such a pronouncement. But when they go as far as to say there is no freedom of such speech they are doing something quite different. In effect they are saying much the same thing they do about a womans right to choose - even a somewhat stronger statement. With abortion they just say that it is absolutely a sin - here they claim the right doesn't exist at all. How can a good Catholic not demand that the laws be changed to remove the legal right to that sort of speech?
Which is why, of course, the Church in Mass. and Conn. have gone to a self-insured health plan so they can avoid recognizing the "sinful lifestyles" of their gay and lesbian employees, denying them health insurance for their legal spouses.
This is stupid, of course. And non-Christian in my opinion.
Roman-
I certainly laud the church for what they did in Poland. I never claimed that the church never did anything good. In fact, I admire many things about the Catholic Church and if I was a Christian, I would undoubtedly be Catholic. But what they did there does not conflict with anything I said. They stood up for your rights against the Communists, but that doesn't mean they would stand up for your right to speak your mind in a way that offended the church. They are two different issues. Again, I say: they do not support freedom of expression if that expression offends their religious views. They never have. And their statement here proves that they still don't. Nothing you said contradicted that at all.
Jesus Christ, Roman, I didn't say anything about "theories" about the church planning in secret to take away our freedoms. I said that they do not support freedom of expression if that expression offends their religious views. They used to kill people who did it; now they think governments should punish people for it. All of this talk of conspiracy theories is, ironically, a figment of your imagination.
No, Roman, I have it right. Jesus is saying a Christian shouldn't shy away from being insulted, and one might surmise that as a consequence a Christian shouldn't seek government protection from insult either. The blessing is on the person being insulted. No mention is made of the condition of the one insulting.
And when Catholics see one of their own doing something bad, they blame the individual, and for something good they credit the church. Every group works this way to some extent.Ed, you'd be Catholic, if you were religious? shudder Unitarianism would be my style, if I were forced to attend - I'll take endless discussion over priests and dogma any day.
A lot of fine words have been written here, but I think I can be more efficient, rolling both my response and my critique of the Pope's position into two finally crafted words, though I will leave out a couple of letters lest I offend anyone: "F**k you!"
A lot of fine words have been written here, but I think I can be more efficient, rolling both my response and my critique of the Pope's position into two finally crafted words, though I will leave out a couple of letters lest I offend anyone: "F**k you!"
Don't you have to be over 13 years of age to register at this blog?
They stood up for your rights against the Communists, but that doesn't mean they would stand up for your right to speak your mind in a way that offended the church.
But that is what they helped Poland to achieve. Because of the freedom we've gained with the help from the CC, many people now express freely their contempt, even hatred towards the Catholic religion. And the CC doesn't go after them shouting "punish them!", almost never.
Even if this wasn't particularly good and correct press release, condemning the CC like you do is way off the mark.
I must say I surprise myself on this blog. Judging on what I usually say about priests and the CC in political conversations in my country, I'd never expect myself to write so much praise of the CC... I suppose it's my reaction to see it being bashed so unjustly here.
Roman, the things for which we are criticizing the catholic church are official positions, not just a few catholics standing around talking. As far as I can tell, it is only individual catholics who have done laudable things; it doesn't appear that those laudable things were actually official church policy.
And, by the way, there is some fairly clear evidence that very high placed church officials, including the pope, shall we say, cooperated with the nazis before and during WW II.
dkew wrote:
I don't really consider Unitarians to be Christians. Perhaps technically they are, but I've been around lots of Unitarian churches and they tend to be populated mostly with humanists and deists. Which is of course just fine by me. The reason I say I would be Catholic is because I have great respsect for the tradition of scholarship within the church, particularly among the Jesuits.
" The reason I say I would be Catholic is because I have great respsect for the tradition of scholarship within the church, particularly among the Jesuits."
I know personally a couple of professional Catholics - one is a Catholic philosopher and the other the editor of a Catholic newspaper - and I'm always baffled by this response, so perhaps you can elucidate. These people don't agree with the Church hierarchy on birth control, abortion, euthanasia and many other official Church positions, including central doctrinal stuff like transubstantiation. When I or others attack the Catholic Church for the harm caused by these positions, they insist that you have to look at the actions of the lower clergy and the congregation, who have a more humane/rational line and supposedly more accurately represent the true nature of the Church. Yet when I ask why the congregation and the lower clergy don't just start their own chuch and tell the hierarchy to get stuffed, they stress the importance of continuity of tradition, particularly in theology. I don't see how you can reconcile these two positions - the theological tradition produced these irrational positions, and anyway it's not as though the "good" theology would suddenly disappear just because people ignored the pope.
Ginger-
My statement had nothing to do with the doctrines of the church, many of which I consider barbaric and absurd (if I didn't, I might actually be a Catholic). I said if I was a Christian, I'd have to be Catholic. And the reason is, because they at least have a tradition of scholarship that is missing from most Protestant denominations. I would also note that the Catholic church has a sense of beauty and tradition that is missing from most Protestant churches, which would also help make it tolerable for me, along with the Church not being literalist as so many Protestant denominations are. But all of that is hypothetical and based upon picking the denomination that is the least objectionable to me.
This is an inaccurate reading of Catholic theology, although it is correct in the fundie form. The church currently allows annullments, but also allows for individual freedom in terms of marriage. If a couple post divorce wants to marry and feels that God has called them to it, the church recognizes the individuals connection to God.
Whats interesting about the RCC position is it's inconsistency. Until the 16th century the church gave divorces and always married those who wanted marriage. Then in an effort to 'bring honor back to marriage' made the current doctrine. BUT virtually all biblical lanquage scholars know the churches policy is based on an inaccurate rendering of the text they are using and the more scholarly catholic theologians have tried for the past several years to get it returned to the original context. Due to the hard right nature of the administration it hasn't yet been addressed. Expect that to change when the new 'liberal' pope shows up in a few years.
Sure, I understand you're not a Christian, let alone a Catholic. But that just makes it all the odder to me. How do you admire a tradition of scholarship that produces and justifies doctrines you find barbaric and absurd? More to the point, why join a denomination whose doctrines you don't believe in? Sure it's nice in the abstract to have a tradition of scholarship, but given the fruits of Catholic scholarship in the real world it's an ambivalent tradition at best. And as for beauty, while Catholic art is certainly superior to Puritan art, for every Gerald Manley Hopkins who flourished in the Catholic tradition there's a Joyce whose art is inspired by his rejection of it.
Mark Paris wrote:
And, by the way, there is some fairly clear evidence that very high placed church officials, including the pope, shall we say, cooperated with the nazis before and during WW II.
I wave my private parts at such "evidence" -- before and during WWII, Ratzinger was not a "very high placed church official," he was a conscript in the German army, firing cannons, not canon.
I'm not a Catholic, I have VERY serious issues with the Church, and believe me, Pope Palpadict is no JP-II. But the Church-bashing I'm seeing here is beyond reason, and utterly unworthy of this blog.
Maybe it's just me but I don't see that much church bashing in this thread. I just see differing points of view.
In general I find RCC apologists unconvincing for the simple reason much of what they say is good about catholics is good about members of any group. Some do good, some do not. It's not the church per se and it's doctrines that matter but the individuals sense of right and wrong.
Personally I find many of the churches doctrines repugnant and the pain caused by may of them inexcusable.
Ginger wrote:
Because it's better than the rest? I'm not saying I want to become a Catholic, but if I was a Christian, that's the only one I can see myself joining because at least there is a tradition of scholarship there, something entirely absent in most Protestant denominations.
...Some do good, some do not. It's not the church per se and it's doctrines that matter but the individuals sense of right and wrong.
Personally I find many of the churches doctrines repugnant and the pain caused by may of them inexcusable.
This is a hypocritical double-standard: good deeds are credited to individuals, but bad deeds are blamed on the institution and its doctrines.
Racists think the same way: good people from the hated group are the exception, bad people are proof that "they're all savages."
Raging Bee wrote:
"This blog" has said nothing about the Church supporting Hitler during WW2. I frankly don't think the evidence is all that strong for that claim. Yes, there were certainly elements in the Church that cooperated with the Nazis to a limited degree, but they are balanced off by many brave priests, nuns and bishops who worked against the Nazis by hiding Jews and helping them escape. And I don't think the fact that Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth as a young man is much of a mark against him. There are valid reasons to criticize the man, but I don't think that's one of them.
What I have said, and continue to say, is that the Church has never believed in genuine freedom of conscience or expression. They have always supported punishing blasphemers in some way and their statement on the caricatures proves that they continue to take that position. The Enlightenment certainly changed the Church in many ways, all for the better. But it hasn't changed that particular bit of absurdity yet, and that is tragic.
Oops, sorry, I meant to italicize the first two paragraphs, not just the first one.
Ginger: you need to get some historical context. Most of the human political behavior during the Dark and Middle Ages -- with or without a doctrine supporting it -- would classify as "barbaric and absurd" by today's standards. Republican institutions had yet to be perfected, science as we know it (including cosmology and forensic science) was barely in the third trimester, and many people simply knew no order or discipline but those of need and the sword. Those were the circumstances in which the CC had to spread the word and impose the moral order mandated by its beliefs and the needs of the time. Yes, the CC did some sleazy things back then. So did most governments (Christian and Muslim), so did many of the Protestant churches, and so did most of the Pagan rulers before them. And so did individuals, for that matter.
Not at all. I personally don't think it matters so much what supernatural underpinnings a person claims. And of course good deeds are assigned to individuals, they did them. If an organization does good I'll give them credit also.
But likewise I won't give a free pass to an organization that thinks those who don't agree with it will suffer eternal pain. That fact alone makes it immoral. Not to mention the church doctrines cause real world pain. So I think a difference can be discerned between individual actions and church doctrines.
Thats just ignorant. That wasn't what I was saying at all. You can be good and be Catholic, baptist, whatever. You can also be bad and be the same. Although I don't personally think many humans are 'bad'.
Well, in defense of Rome, one should be mindful of how comments, cartoons, lampoons, remarks, etc., can be construed by the "faithful." I am not sure how many Muslims there are in Denmark, but I would wager the cartoonist and his publisher had no concept at all how offensive their work would be. Portraying the human figure in Islam is discouraged, and portraying the Prophet in particular, blasphemous. At a time when Islamic extremists are looking for any excuse at all to whip up animosity against the West, stepping on a large population group's core beliefs is not a real good idea.
It's worth noting, as an aside, that the Al-Jazeera website has been carrying a cartoon poking fun at Osama bin Laden. So it's not like Muslims have no sense of humor. Much of the furor about the Danish cartoon has been extremists' rather successful encouragement of mob mentality. We have seen the same kind of behavior, though less widespread, here in the States against Iranians, Iraqis and Muslims in general.
As they say, with freedom comes responsibility. Journalists do not operate in a vacuum, although I must say that US journalists of late have been pretty vacuous.
Raging Bee:
I think we also need to understand the real world pain they cause now. It some manner of speaking it may be even greater than before due to the sheer number of people alive today. I call it pain by a million paper cuts.
In my view the RCC is to a large degree antifamily. At least at the upper level. It's a position that happens due to a doctrine. There stance on divorce is archaic and frankly immoral. Individually I've rarely met a catholic that thiks this way.
As an example. I know(hell we all know) people who marry young, for the wrong reasons etc and have very successful latter marriages. For the church to condemn people for finding happiness and making marriage work when a previous one failed is simply beyond reason.
Now this is abit of a strawman as I think they will revert back to a prior reasonable doctrine as previously mentioned but as it stands now at the upper levels the church would rather a crappy marriage persist than a good one exist. To not be able to be critical of such an indecent doctrine is the core of what Ed is saying.
Well indeed. Which is why I don't put much stock in tradition when it comes to morality.
wheatdogg:
I don't think anything you said defends the Vatican's statement at all. The issue is not whether publishing the cartoons was a "good idea". The Vatican didn't say, "It wasn't a good idea to publish them". They said that no one has a right to express that which offends the "religious feelings of the faithful." That is an entirely different, and utterly indefensible, statement.
That was in response to Raging Bee's last post.
I personally don't think it matters so much what supernatural underpinnings a person claims.
What if the person claims his/her good deeds were motivated by his/her "supernatural underpinnings?" What if, for example, a person risks his life helping Jews escape Nazi genocide, thinking his honor, or his reward in the afterlife, means more than the danger of death he incurs by his actions?
And of course good deeds are assigned to individuals, they did them. If an organization does good I'll give them credit also.
So who does bad deeds -- potatoes? And what if an individual did good deeds as part of an organized collective effort by...an organization? Shouldn't the organization get a little credit then?
But likewise I won't give a free pass to an organization that thinks those who don't agree with it will suffer eternal pain. That fact alone makes it immoral.
Regardless of whatever else they might do? Isn't that a bit like a spoiled-brat leftist cherrypicking the worst bits of US history and using them as "proof" that America is evil, regardless of whatever good deeds we did durng the same time-period?
Not to mention the church doctrines cause real world pain.
And who writes and interprets those doctrines -- potatoes? Sometimes people use such doctrines to justify atrocities for their own personal or group gain; sometimes the same doctrines are invoked by those who oppose the same atrocities.
In my view the RCC is to a large degree antifamily. At least at the upper level. It's a position that happens due to a doctrine.
It's a position that happens due to certain people mixing their own bigotry and sexual hangups into their interpretation of the doctrine, which then causes them to exaggerate the importance of certain obscure passages of the Bible, while ignoring other bits that don't reinforce their hangups.
RagingBee:
I think we are talking past each other to some degree. I think you are missing the point that I think individuals do it all, but the point of the post is that whether it should be or should not be permissible to discuss an organizations beliefs. The RCC says it is not.
Again I think the same people who do good would do so regardless of supernatural belief. Likewise those who do bad. If an organization does good/bad likewise. Thats what I said. BUT it doesn't preclude any discussion of that groups ideas, beliefs, doctrines, etc.
I think the RCC does some good things, and some very harmful things. Like most human endeavors they are all to human. Which is exactly why they should always be open to critical comment and not insulated from such discussion.
Now your talking my lanquage, but in this case it is a church doctrine and while they are free to have whatever bizarre interpretation they want as a church doctrine it is open to critism.
And, by the way, there is some fairly clear evidence that very high placed church officials, including the pope, shall we say, cooperated with the nazis before and during WW II.
Name this evidence. And contrast it with the following words of Golda Meir, Prime Minister of the state of Israel: "During a generation of wars and dissensions, he [Pius XII] affirmed the high ideals of peace and compassion. During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths above the tumults of daily conflicts."
Mark Paris:
Well, of course the Church didn't write it in its official policy "Oppose the Holocaust". But the official doctrine of the Catholic faith is to help those who are in need. The help given by the Polish nuns to Jewish kids in WW II was a straightforward realization of this doctrine. I can't understand how you keep not noticing the connection. BTW, one of the biggest charities in Poland is an official Church institution.
Chance:
As long as it does good, that is. When a person does something bad and claims "supernatural underpinnings" they suddenly become important and serve to condemn religion.
Yeh, that's why we had those centuries of wars about religion...
This is a twisted and bizarre interpretation of the Catholic theology which has nothing to do with the true Catholic faith.
It's not the Church which condemns anyone to hell. Likewise, it's not the Church which can save anyone from hell. It's God's mercy and Christ's pain on the cross which saves us. This is Catholic teaching.
There are Catholic theologians who claim that "hell is empty" because God's mercy is so great that everyone is saved. There are some who see hell as a realization of the grace you've rejected during your time on Earth, and the sorrow which comes from this. Personally, I hope Hitler and Stalin do burn in hell -- but even about them, a true Catholic (this is the doctrine) should pray for their salvation and ask God to forgive them their sins. The Catholic credo, one of the most important prayers, says "I believe in redemption of sins".
Geez, people. I'm an agnostic who doesn't really know whether he should believe in God or not, hasn't been to the church for a long time, comments sarcastically almost every foray of the Polish clergy in the realm of politics, but I'd never suspect myself of such anti-church voracity like I saw here.
I think that part of the confusion arises from the fact that we have here a group of people who debate about Catholicism knowing almost nothing about it.
And, by the way, there is some fairly clear evidence that very high placed church officials, including the pope, shall we say, cooperated with the nazis before and during WW II.
You know, in Poland the Catholic hierarchs also had to "cooperate with the Nazis". Otherwise they'd have to shut the churches down and leave their people alone.
Polish Cardinal Sapieha had to have official contancts with Hans Frank, the Gauleiter in Krakow. The man (condemned to death in Nuremberg Trial, btw) asked Sapieha to give him the keys to Wawel -- an old castle and cathedral of Polish kings, which was then in the custody of the Church. Sapieha said to him, giving the keys "Don't forget to give them back when you leave". When Frank visited Sapieha in his palace, Sapieha gave him stale bread and old marmelade to eat, saying that this is what other Poles are eating. Also, Sapieha was closely cooperating with the Polish Government in Exile.
But you will go on clamoring how the Catholic Church "closely cooperated" with the Nazis...
Roman,
When I read you on occasion I think your like an ostrich in the sand.
Thats just ridiculous. Of course Catholics believe in hell. There is nothing at all bizarre and twisted about it. The belief in hell and all that goes with it is imho immoral.
I'll agree with half of that, the second part. But the church most certainly wants it's members to be in good standing as 'God church on Earth'. But didn't you just tell me some other stuff about hell. What are you being saved from if hell is empty? Why would God allow anyone to be in sorrow if he is love? It just is one bad argument after another, but thats not the point.
It should be able to be discussed.And again I didn't see much anti-church here. Just discussion and I think thats the problem ANY discussion at all is viewed as antichurch.
And the question should be asked 'whats wrong with that?'
There stance on divorce is archaic and frankly immoral. Individually I've rarely met a catholic that thiks this way.
Well, you've met me. (Though I don't qualify as a 100% Catholic). The fact is, I took a Catholic wedding with my wife. In the ceremony, I told hear "I swear to you". Get it? You make an oath that you will not leave your spouse. Not "I will try", but "I swear". The rest is just a consequence of your own words. If you don't indent to abide by your word, don't take a Catholic wedding. That's it. (BTW, in case of a wife mistreated by her husband, separation is acceptable. She just can't take another man for her husband. She swore to the first.) It's just about responsibility for what someone says. Actually the Church goes to a lot of trouble to make sure that the two people who intend to get married understand what it is all about and do it of their own free will.
Chance,
if belief in hell is immoral, then perhaps the justice itself is immoral? How dare we wish a murderer to be punished?
The point is, there are certain mysteries in Christian faith. Christians believe that God is the best judge and He will ultimately decide about who goes to hell. That's it. (Remember also that there is a thing called purgatory).
I fail to see how believing that God decides whether you will be saved or not is "immoral".
Why would God allow anyone to be in sorrow if he is love?
I don't know. Nobody knows the answer. Why did He let his son die on the cross for us? Nobody KNOWS that. This is religion, not science.
It should be able to be discussed.And again I didn't see much anti-church here. Just discussion and I think thats the problem ANY discussion at all is viewed as antichurch.
Actually, I called other posts "anti-church". Yours we are discussing now is simple ignorance. I'm not against discussing these things, anyway. If I were, I wouldn't waste my time on this blog, would I?
...Which is exactly why they should always be open to critical comment and not insulated from such discussion.
I totally agree, and I never said otherwise. Critical comment and discussion are good; groundless, muddle-headed accusations and blame-gaming are not.
I would hope that if Hell is a punishment, it is a corrective punishment and not a retributive one. In the first case, you learn and might be "let out" whereas in the second you just burn. Ignorant as I am, that seems inconsistent with a benevolent disposition.
Ginger Yellow | February 7, 2006 09:48 AM
...including central doctrinal stuff like transubstantiation...
Transubstantiation? My, oh, my. That is amusing. It is part of the communion service in the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) and, not by that name, in some Protestant denominations.
What is not often mentioned is that the communion service is nothing more than ritual cannibalism.
Ed Brayton | February 7, 2006 10:14 AM
I said if I was a Christian, I'd have to be Catholic. And the reason is, because they at least have a tradition of scholarship that is missing from most Protestant denominations.
There are currently other avenues for pursuing scholarship. One does not need to be a Catholic or a Protestant to pursue scholarship. Times have changed since the middle ages.
Ed Brayton | February 7, 2006 11:20 AM
Yes, there were certainly elements in the Church that cooperated with the Nazis to a limited degree...
There was evidence adduced several years ago that various diocese at least in Germany made use of the Nazi slave labor. I read articles about that in Berlin newspapers in 2001. The leaders of the diocese continually denied it, until they were confronted with their own documents that showed that they had.. Even after that, they refused to take part in the reconciliation fund that was being set up at the time. In contrast, the ELKD (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany) admitted it up front, and participated in the fund.
It is also well known that the Catholic Church gave support to the Croatian Ustasha during WWII in their mini-Holocaust against the Orthodox Serbs.
oolong,
I don't know how it should be and I don't think any Catholic has a clear idea of how it should be. AFAIR, the doctrine is that God respects people's choices: if they reject his grace, He doesn't force them to join Him in heaven.
What is not often mentioned is that the communion service is nothing more than ritual cannibalism.
That's a simpleton's view.
There was evidence adduced several years ago that various diocese at least in Germany made use of the Nazi slave labor. I read articles about that in Berlin newspapers in 2001. The leaders of the diocese continually denied it, until they were confronted with their own documents that showed that they had.. Even after that, they refused to take part in the reconciliation fund that was being set up at the time. In contrast, the ELKD (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany) admitted it up front, and participated in the fund.
Good for the ELKD, bad for the German Catholic Church. BTW, the most obstinate were, AFAIR, German private companies.
I think it's more about Germans refusing to fully come to terms with the WW II legacy. But that's a topic for a totally another discussion.
Lighten up, Ed, it's not cannibalism, it's symbolism. I believe we finished fighting over that a few centuries ago. The "body" and "blood" Jesus was sharing was his wisdom and spirit, which are supposed to nourish our spirits as bread and wine nourish our bodies. The way to a disciple's heart is through his stomach...
It's impossible to understand (another mystery of faith), but the Catholic position is that it's not just a symbol.
Raging Bee:
Someone needs to tell that to the RCC cathecism classes then. There it explicitly states the bread becomes the body. I don't have a horse in this race but my catholic friends tell me this is what is so. Now the protestants think it's symbolic.
Roman:
It amazes me you make comments to others about being a simpleton or accuse people of simple ignorance and then make a statement like that. This is a poor analogy. How is an eternal hell filled with suffering with no possibility of escape anything but immoral. Even our justice systems are more forgiving and understanding.
Nobody says a murderer should not be punished, but not tortured and not eternally for either. Would you punish a homosexual eternally? A fornicator? a liar? a thief? a pornstar? a prostitute? I doubt you would. And exactly what would you be punishing them eternally for? What purpose would it serve?
It's an immoral belief. If you find that simple or ignorant thats fine by me. I would not torture or wish eternal pain upon anyone and if I had the power to stop it I would or else I be a monster.
If it's impossible to understand then why bother with it at all. Why pretend to have a doctrine symbolic or not?
Why would one have faith in something they couldn't understand? Doesn't that essentially make it something less than pretending?
Chance,
this eternal hell with fire and brimstone for being a homosexual is not Catholic faith -- it's your imagination. There is no "fire and brimstone" picture of hell in Catholic theology. There is no distinction between the sinners (who go to hell) and good people (who go to heaven) in Catholicism. We all are sinners and without God's saving grace all noone can be saved. This Catholicism 101. Learn the fucking theology before you start bashing it, damnit!
I begin to suspect you read to many horror novels ;-)
Why would one have faith in something they couldn't understand? Doesn't that essentially make it something less than pretending?
Ah, see. This is mysticism. The Orthodox Christians probably have more of it in stock for you.
I don't intend to convert you to Catholicism (it'd be funny: an agnostic converting someone!), but frankly, if you want to get the feeling of it, talk to some wise priest.
Actually, noone "understands" quantum mechanics either, as Feynman said once ;-) (Yes, I know we have empirical proof. I'm just exploiting the coincidence without pretending there is some analogy in it).
Did you ever read Tertullian? He wrote that one of the delights of those in heaven was to witness the torment of those suffering in the fires of hell. And was he not a Catholic theologian?
Roman:
Again I ask, saved from what? If it's hell and anyone goes there my argument stands.
Roman, I'm not bashing it. I take issue with a doctrine being gross. You are case in point why people need to discuss religion. I didn't say item one about people being different. I said if people go to 'hell' for sins and it is eternal and painful it is immoral. Learn to read before you react.
I stand by the argument.
Again I ask, saved from what? If it's hell and anyone goes there my argument stands.
Saved from not joining God in heaven. I haven't got a bloody idea what it would be like and neither does the modern Catholic theology (I haven't got a bloody idea if there is a God, anyway).
Roman, I'm not bashing it. I take issue with a doctrine being gross.
How can you take an issue with a doctrine you don't really know? (tears hair in despair).
Nice non answer.
I know it as well as you do. from waht you've shown me here you are great at showing the diversity of viewpoints within the catholic faith while ignoring the aspects that quite clearly refute your view.
and then more silliness:
Whats funny about your stance is 'modern catholic theology' as if it is somehow superior to older catholic theology. No new evidence has presented itself, nothing other than evolving secular morality which caused the modernization of the church has happened. But you bring 'modern' theology as inherently superior to older theology. Yet you have not 1 reason to do so. Did any evidence present itself that hell doesn't cause people pain, or doesn't include fire? Because older catholic theology definetly included it.
And another question: If your 'saved' from not joining God in heaven is this also not a form of eternal punishment. It may not include torture, but it does not escape the eternal nature of the 'punishment' for finite sins. Shouldn't a loving father forgive all his children. Would you not forgive your son?
I would.
Raging Bee wrote:
For the record, Ed didn't say that. In fact, I find it a rather silly argument (almost as silly as those who claim that it's not symbolic but that it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ).
Nice non answer.
Nah, it's just a non-understood answer.
I know it as well as you do.
I don't think so.
Whats funny about your stance is 'modern catholic theology' as if it is somehow superior to older catholic theology.
The modern catholic theology is more relevant to this discussion because the discussion concerns modern Catholic Church. If you want to prove me that the theologians of the past had a somewhat "medieval" ideas about hell and the fate of sinners -- you don't need to. I know it. I too think they were not putting enough attention to the "love" thing in Christian faith. We agree.
However, if you want to discuss the modern Catholic Church, then you must take into account its modern teachings and give them much more attention than the past ones. Doing otherwise would be like blaming G.W. Bush for the fact that one of the US Founding Fathers was a slave owner.
No new evidence has presented itself, nothing other than evolving secular morality which caused the modernization of the church has happened. But you bring 'modern' theology as inherently superior to older theology. Yet you have not 1 reason to do so. Did any evidence present itself that hell doesn't cause people pain, or doesn't include fire? Because older catholic theology definetly included it.
Not only no "new evidence" did not appear -- there never was any evidence. If you demand empirical evidence of theologians, we can end this discussion right now because you're acting silly. It's like expecting a cucumber to sing.
The Church was always trying to understand God's teaching better. The advance of humanity allowed us to shed aside old prejudice and remove the wheat from the chaff. Even those who did not believe in God themselves (like some Englightenment philosophers) helped the Christians to understand their faith better.
For the record, Ed didn't say that. In fact, I find it a rather silly argument (almost as silly as those who claim that it's not symbolic but that it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ).
Then many Catholics are silly.
ME: For the record, Ed didn't say that. In fact, I find it a rather silly argument (almost as silly as those who claim that it's not symbolic but that it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ).
I didn't say the people who held that belief are silly, I said the belief was silly. And indeed it is. Patently absurd, as well. But in fact, most Catholics don't really believe that the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, they believe it is merely symbolic. In fact, many years ago the Catholic Bishop's Conference issued a statement decrying the fact that something like 70% of Catholics did not accept literal transubstantiation, according to their own research. But frankly, those 70% are right. That belief is every bit as ridiculous as believing in human sacrifice or believing that if you die killing infidels you'll get 72 virgins in heaven. Some ideas really are idiotic and deserve to be called such.
I can agree with some of what you said there.
No, it was a non answer.:-)
It's a continuum. I will credit the RCC for many moderate stances. Likewise I think they have many putrid doctrines. But your analogy fails simply because the secular world acknowledges changing values and morality. The RCC insists it has the way and everyone needs to fall in line AND also rejects any critism of it's teaching.
Ah, I was wondering when we would get to this point. I'm suprised it wasn't sooner. It frankly to me and many others is a dishonest argument style. The claim that a man rose from the dead(while taken on faith) is an emperical claim. The fact that he flew away into the air is an empirical claim. The virgin birth is an empirical claim.
If you were walking around the middle east 2000 years ago and you watched a man lift off and disappear into the sky that is an empirical event. 2000 years later it may be taken on faith but the core event need not be so. If you believe it happened fine. But don't pretend these religions all make real world claims.
It happened or it didn't. We can claim mystiscm for it all and I'm ok with that, just don't pretend that the religion has any value past that of fairies, bigfoot, and leprecauns however. And when people slam them as silly don't get all uppity.
The events either happened or they didn't.
Using what as a reference? What advance of humanity allowed the doctrine of eternal pain and torture to give way to 'seperation from God'?
That belief is every bit as ridiculous as believing in human sacrifice or believing that if you die killing infidels you'll get 72 virgins in heaven. Some ideas really are idiotic and deserve to be called such.
Ed, you simply think that any belief in the possibility of supernatural phenomena happening is silly ;-)
It's a continuum.
So is the U.S.
I will credit the RCC for many moderate stances. Likewise I think they have many putrid doctrines. But your analogy fails simply because the secular world acknowledges changing values and morality. The RCC insists it has the way and everyone needs to fall in line AND also rejects any critism of it's teaching.
The RCC acknowledges changes also and accepts criticism, too. Read about the Vaticanum Secundum.
BTW, the Church is supposed to teach. It doesn't expect anyone to fall in line more than Ed a few lines above when he says something is "silly".
Using what as a reference? What advance of humanity allowed the doctrine of eternal pain and torture to give way to 'seperation from God'?
The reference was the belief in God's love of humanity, I suppose.
I'm getting tired of this discussion, although it was an interesting one (and I *really* need to do a bit of work now). On my part, I call it quits.
Fair enough Roman.
I guess I get the last word.
Roman wrote:
No I don't, actually. I am not an atheist and I do not reject out of hand the possibility of supernatural action. I accept, for example, that the universe itself was probably the result of the action of some force outside of the natural world (I don't pretend to know that, I haven't the slightest interest in defending it, but that's my best guess at this point). But there are some claims that are too stupid for serious consideration; literal transubstantiation is one of them.
Roman Werpachowski | February 7, 2006 01:22 PM
I said" "What is not often mentioned is that the communion service is nothing more than ritual cannibalism."
You said: "That's a simpleton's view."
Oh, so this "miracle of transubstantiation" is not supposed to transform the cracker and the wine into the body and blood of Jesus, after which they are consumed by the parishoners? Consuming the body and blood of another human being is what is referred to as "cannibalism." You may wish to call it a simpleton's view all you wish, but that is the case.
You also said, regarding the German reconciliation fund "BTW, the most obstinate were, AFAIR, German private companies." No, that is not true. The RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc) never participated in the reconciliation fund. Private companies may have had to have been dragged kicking and screaming to participate. I don't know what it took to induce the ELKD to participate. But the RCCi never participated. The RCCi made lots of excuses as to why the didn't participate, but, regardless, they never did.