#42747: Heliologue — 10/05  at  08:05 AM
Those British Catholics always were trouble...

#42748: — 10/05  at  08:10 AM
Achtung! Ve haff had permission to belif zis vay for years und years! Zis is NOT new, liebchen! BUT I do haff to say Danke Schoen, for ze timing, Ya?

Aufedastein buppie!

#42751: — 10/05  at  09:01 AM
It's hard to keep up with every shift of the Catholic church; it's a very big tent. Just last week his royal Popeness was dissing secularism

...
At a Mass in Rome on Sunday, Pope Benedict opened a three-week synod of Catholic bishops with a call to strengthen the church's influence in public life.

"A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy," he said in his homily.

#42752: Keith — 10/05  at  09:01 AM
Surprisingly, the Catholic Church has long held that certain parts of the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt. My recovering-Catholic wife has told me that it's a long standing tradition to give just a currsory reading of the Book of Revelations, as most priests think its fairly worthless.

#42753: — 10/05  at  09:02 AM
LOL!

#42755: — 10/05  at  09:22 AM
I myself am a quasi-Spinozist. But I would applaud such moves. Many clergy believe that some passages in the Bible are best understood allegorically. For example, they take Genesis to be written in the language of poetry and metaphor so that it may speak to all people in all ages of certain timeless truths regarding the relationship between God and humanity.

Another bit of news. Cardinal Christof Schonborn had originally come out for the compatibility of common descent with Catholic doctrine, but against evolution being guided by random processes (e.g., random mutation). As such, he was seen as embracing Intelligent Design. For more on this, see:

Cardinal Schonborn clarifies Church’s stance on evolution: intelligent design is clear in nature

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4340

However, no doubt listening to a higher authority, he has now embraced evolution and the complementarity of religion and science:

Cardinal backs evolution and "intelligent design"
Tue Oct 4, 2005 5:06 PM BST

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-10-04T160725Z_01_DIT457969_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-RELIGION-EVOLUTION-CARDINAL-DC.XML

#42759: jb "the middleman" — 10/05  at  09:49 AM
Only churchs that position themselves this way will survive. The Catholics lost a LOT of ground to fundamentalist churchs over the past couple of centuries due to the fact that so many people LOVE that "old time religion". But as science makes more and more of a mockery of that particular way of viewing the spiritual world, churchs like the Catholic church can gain back ground. Like you, I find no need for "spiritualism" to give my life meaning, but the reality is - 90% of the world DOES need it. They don't function very well at all without it. It's why I'm a "non-hostile atheist" (except, of course, where the stupidity of the particular belief is so astounding that I can't HELP but be a bit hostile). Most people need to know that there are scientific explanations for how life evolves, yet still believe that there is some "higher meaning". The Catholics are wisely gearing up for the return of multitudes they lost in past decades, by providing a place where a "spiritual scientist" can hang out and not feel like a retard.

#42760: Orac — 10/05  at  10:00 AM
Fundies have never liked Catholics. Oddly enough, I never realized just how much some Baptist and fundamentalist Christian sects really detest Catholics (or "Papists," as they like to call them) until I got older and started to gain a wider experience of the world. And, I suspect, the reason they don't like the Catholic Church is exactly because it doesn't take a literalist view of the Bible.

#42761: PZ Myers — 10/05  at  10:07 AM
And in America, at least, the only thing that made them palatable was politics: American Catholic leaders were virulently anti-communist in the 40s and 50s, and found common cause with conservative protestants.

#42763: — 10/05  at  10:27 AM
Re: #42761: PZ Myers — 10/05 at 10:07 AM

And in America, at least, the only thing that made them palatable was politics: American Catholic leaders were virulently anti-communist in the 40s and 50s, and found common cause with conservative protestants.

True. But even agreement with Fundamentalists on the issue of Intelligent Design will not be enough if the Fundamentalists come to power. Their best hope lies in ensuring that the Fundamentalists fail in their political ambitions.

As for myself, I am reminded of Aristotle's statement in the Nicomachean Ethics:

"The vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate."

Likewise, it has often been said that, "Moderation is a virtue." I believe it is a sign of wisdom when one embraces the moderation of others, or to state this somewhat differently, it is wise to embrace the moderates when they can be clearly identified, even when the (narrowly conceived) "side" they are on is not your own.

#42764: — 10/05  at  10:40 AM

Fundies have never liked Catholics. Oddly enough, I never realized just how much some Baptist and fundamentalist Christian sects really detest Catholics (or "Papists," as they like to call them) until I got older and started to gain a wider experience of the world. And, I suspect, the reason they don't like the Catholic Church is exactly because it doesn't take a literalist view of the Bible.

I think simple American xenophobia probably plays a bigger role-- the whole Vatican thing. The idea of some foreigner running the church, someone who may not speak English and who's not even American. Lots of isolationist Americans who can't stand foreigners wouldn't take well to that.

#42765: — 10/05  at  10:43 AM
' Many clergy believe that some passages in the Bible are best understood allegorically. For example, they take Genesis to be written in the language of poetry and metaphor so that it may speak to all people in all ages of certain timeless truths regarding the relationship between God and humanity'

Yeah that would be true if the Catholics were at least consistent on which parts they take literally and which parts they don't. I mean any church that denies the reality of divorce and then 'pretends' people where never married after performing said service is far to silly an organization to be taken seriously.

The fundie version may be silly but the Catholic version is IMHO less consistent and hence worse. I don't see any multitudes returning to this archaic church. I do see non denominational churches growing. For a variety of reasons.

#42766: — 10/05  at  10:50 AM
'I think simple American xenophobia probably plays a bigger role-- the whole Vatican thing. The idea of some foreigner running the church, someone who may not speak English and who's not even American. Lots of isolationist Americans who can't stand foreigners wouldn't take well to that. '

No, I don't think this is even remotely true. The reformation is through doctrinal issues. What you mentioned may be a side issue but it is so remote as to be a nonissue.

#42768: coturnix — 10/05  at  10:59 AM
And in the meantime back at home, if you live in Indiana and you are an atheist, you may be forbidden from having kids!

#42769: — 10/05  at  11:02 AM

The fundie version may be silly but the Catholic version is IMHO less consistent and hence worse.

Far be it from me to defend either Catholicism or Protestantism, but I think Protestantism is in fact far less 'consistent', for what that's worth, once you start comparing its different subdenominations. For example, compare what people talk about and emphasize between say, the Southern Baptists versus Episcopalians or more liberal Methodist groups. The upside to the extreme centralization of the Catholic church is that if the Vatican says something intelligent, it filters out to the rank and file Catholics. The downside of course is that if the Vatican says something really stupid, the same thing happens. The upside to the extreme noncentralization of the Protestants is that they're immune to a single person with stupid ideas dominating everything. Of course, the downside is that any loudmouth ignoramus with a lot of silly opinions is considered equally worthy to be taken seriously. Hence modern rightwing Christian fundamentalism, Pat Roberton, Kent Hovind, etc. etc...

#42773: — 10/05  at  11:10 AM
Re:#42765: Uber — 10/05 at 10:43 AM

' Many clergy believe that some passages in the Bible are best understood allegorically. For example, they take Genesis to be written in the language of poetry and metaphor so that it may speak to all people in all ages of certain timeless truths regarding the relationship between God and humanity'

Yeah that would be true if the Catholics were at least consistent on which parts they take literally and which parts they don't...

I suppose this is something which the Catholic Church will have to decide for itself. I believe it is always best to leave the religious interpretation of holy texts to those who believe. And actually, this view extends well beyond the Catholic Church. There are over 8,000 clergy of various denominations who have signed the following statement:

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

I don't see any multitudes returning to this archaic church. I do see non denominational churches growing...

Perhaps in the more developed countries. But globally, the influence of the Catholic Church appears to be growing more rapidly than that of other Christian denominations. And for me, what matters most is that the church embraces science. Finally, if Fundamentalists are exemplars of consistency, then I believe we could do with a little less of it. Fundamentalist consistency would be the end of science -- and perhaps civilization itself.

I myself typically care very little what a person's religious views are, or whether they have any at all. But I do care a great deal about whether they support or oppose science.

#42774: — 10/05  at  11:11 AM
As Larry Gonick notes in his Cartoon History of the Universe, the Bible is a singular gumbo of myth, history, theology, poetry, law, philosophy, prophecy, and family gossip. The trick is working out which bits are which.

#42775: — 10/05  at  11:19 AM
My understanding is that much of the dislike of Catholicism in the USA is linked back to the history of the Reformation. It seems quite a few top people thought that the Catholic church was the anti-christ, and lets face it, when you start from that, theres not much more to be said.
I understand as well that Irish emigrants to the USA werent much liked for a long time. Moreover Northern Ireland is still not in a peaceful state, so thats a good 400 years of violence that is ostensibly religiously related.

#42777: — 10/05  at  11:22 AM
Doesn't it all just make you want to gather together with some like-minded fanatics and symbolically eat some 2000-year old corpse? Mmmmmmm.....sacrelicious.....ggggggg....

#42778: — 10/05  at  11:28 AM

My understanding is that much of the dislike of Catholicism in the USA is linked back to the history of the Reformation.

Yes, I agree -- it's just a modern continuation of how British Protestants felt about the Catholic church, which had a whole lot in common with how Martin Luther felt.

But I still dont think that the rank-and-file Protestant gut dislike of Catholicism seen so much in the US can be entirely attributed to doctrinal issues, especially when so many Americans have such a rudimentary understanding of the Bible, much less church doctrine. Most American Christians just don't think these issues through in much detail, and so gut level distrust of foreigners ends up playing a big role. And I think the same attitude is there in Northern Ireland, tho of course that's a much more complicated situation.

#42779: — 10/05  at  11:35 AM
My understanding is that much of the dislike of Catholicism in the USA is linked back to the history of the Reformation. It seems quite a few top people thought that the Catholic church was the anti-christ, and lets face it, when you start from that, theres not much more to be said.

Much of it was born from anti-immigrant fervor in the mid-1800s -- the fact that the masses of Irish, Italian, and German immigrants who were "invading" the country were mostly Catholic was an added irritant. There was a lot of talk about how "they" were outbreeding "real" Americans.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Rum, Romanism and rebellion"?

Anti-Catholic feeling is very tied up in anti-immigrant feeling to this day. It's part of the beef against Latino (i.e. mostly Catholic) immigrants.

#42781: — 10/05  at  11:40 AM

Much of it was born from anti-immigrant fervor in the mid-1800s -- the fact that the masses of Irish, Italian, and German immigrants who were "invading" the country were mostly Catholic was an added irritant. There was a lot of talk about how "they" were outbreeding "real" Americans.

Some people still say that here, tho now they say it about folks from Latin America.

The German immigrants to the US in the 19th century were mostly Catholic? You sure about that?

#42782: — 10/05  at  11:43 AM

Mmmmmmm.....sacrelicious.....ggggggg....

Damn! I was trying to figure out a way to sneak in that reference!

#42783: Raven — 10/05  at  11:44 AM
Do the practices of Marianism and praying to the saints trigger any sense of idolatry or polytheism on the part of the anti-Catholics, or am I assuming too much familiarity with Catholic ritual on the part of the fundies?

#42784: — 10/05  at  11:46 AM
'Perhaps in the more developed countries. But globally, the influence of the Catholic Church appears to be growing more rapidly than that of other Christian denominations.'

Not true, by statistic the only place the Catholic church is growing is in Africa and even there evangelicals are outpacing them. Thinking people will turn to Catholism due to it's stance on science is kinda silly when many/most people don't see any connection.


'
I suppose this is something which the Catholic Church will have to decide for itself. I believe it is always best to leave the religious interpretation of holy texts to those who believe. And actually, this view extends well beyond the Catholic Church. There are over 8,000 clergy of various denominations who have signed the following statement'

I do believe. I also don't find their view any more consistent with any form of logic. That they give a softer stance to science is, maybe, a little bit of a point. But they don't do so anymore than Methodists, many baptists,UCC, a lutherans, episcopalians,etc.