PZ Myers. 2005 Oct 05. Sects gone wild. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/sects_gone_wild/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Sects gone wild
The Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.
The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The article goes on to mention the contradictory origins stories in Genesis.
But of course, as we all know (or will soon hear from certain right wing quarters), Catholics are not True Christians. Using reason to recognize that contradictions suggest the stories can't be literally true is sacrilegious!
Posted by PZ Myers on 10/05 at 07:54 AM
Creationism • Godlessness • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Creationism • Godlessness • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
Those British Catholics always were trouble...
#: Posted by Heliologue on 10/05 at 08:05 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!#: Posted by on 10/05 at 08:10 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.
#: Posted by on 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.
-
LOL!
#: Posted by on 10/05 at 09:02 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#: Posted by on 10/05 at 09:22 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.
#: Posted by jb "the middleman" on 10/05 at 09:49 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.
- 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.
-
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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 10:27 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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 10:40 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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 10:43 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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 10:50 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!
-
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...#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:02 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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:10 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.
#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:11 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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:19 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....
#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:22 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.#: Posted by on 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. 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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:35 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?#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:40 AM -
Mmmmmmm.....sacrelicious.....ggggggg....
Damn! I was trying to figure out a way to sneak in that reference!#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:43 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?
-
'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.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:46 AM -
'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.'
Well thats a valid point. I prefaced my statement by saying fundie. Of which not all Protestant denominations are. It should also be mentioned that the Catholic church is not as monolithic as it appears. There are different sects and much dissent among various issues.
'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.'
Agreed
' The upside to the extreme noncentralization of the Protestants is that they're immune to a single person with stupid ideas dominating everything.'
That and their doctrines tend to be more consistent as a whole with reality. The catholics may win out on evolution, but they drop the ball in many other places.
'Of course, the downside is that any loudmouth ignoramus with a lot of silly opinions is considered equally worthy to be taken seriously.'
That happens in the Catholic church as well. Some may even become Pope.
' Hence modern rightwing Christian fundamentalism, Pat Roberton, Kent Hovind, etc. etc.'
Yeah, they count also.
No easy winner eh?#: Posted by on 10/05 at 11:52 AM -
I'm very far from a fan of the RC church. However, this statement should not be in the least surprising; and it's nothing new either. RC doctrine has, SFAIK, never been strictly biblical-literalist. (It would be wandering too far off-topic, I suppose, to point out that most protestant doctrine isn't either.)
Religious thinkers in the past have, it's true, been far readier to accept biblical statements at face-value, but largely because in earlier times there were fewer pressing reasons not to do so. (Even Dawkins has said that ID, in its Paleyite version, was the best explanation for things before 1859!) But at least as long ago as Augustine, non-braindead Christian writers were pointing out that there should be no conflict between faith and reason (and that ill-informed believers who insisted on the truth of manifest stupidities should stop doing so).
BTW, George Cauldron, I don't know whether most 19th c. German immigrants to America were RC; but at the very least, a great many of them were. (It was a very large group of immigrants, remember; I believe, in fact, that it was the single largest immigrant group to America.) People often think of Germany as 'a Lutheran country', but it has long been divided roughly evenly between RCs and protestants. I am no historian of the American RC church, but I believe that if you look into it, you will find that the RC church in the broad midwestern swathe of the country was historically as much a German-American affair as the RC church on the eastern seaboard was Irish-American.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 10/05 at 12:00 PM -
But Marge, what if we pick the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!
#: Posted by on 10/05 at 12:02 PM
- Minnesota was initially populated in the 19th century by two major groups: Scandinavians, who brought Lutheranism, and the Germans, who brought Catholicism. It's a distinction we can still see around here.
-
'But at least as long ago as Augustine, non-braindead Christian writers were pointing out that there should be no conflict between faith and reason '
I think you could also argue, and wuite well, that only a braindead writer would ever think the two were capable of anything but conflict.
Especially if one includes the irrational faiths inherent in the majority of the worlds religions. The RC is certainly an example of the latter.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 12:08 PM -
Before we get all warm and fuzzy for the RCC after reading the article you get this list:
'BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
TRUE
Exodus iii, 14
God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”
Leviticus xxvi,12
“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Mark viii,29
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
Now can any rational person tell me why the 'true' is any different from the 'untrue'? Seems to me they are inconsistent to the nth degree.
But alas it is religion.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 12:27 PM -
... the RC church in the broad midwestern swathe of the country was historically as much a German-American affair as the RC church on the eastern seaboard was Irish-American.
Non-hispanic Catholic churches in Texas are generally German in orign, too.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 12:38 PM -
#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?
You've got it right. There are a number of anti-Catholics who point out the prayers to Mary and the saints as idolatry/polytheism.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 12:56 PM -
[r am I assuming too much familiarity with Catholic ritual on the part of the fundies]
Ahhh come on now, if there is one thing fundies know it's other peoples religions. They may not know science but they certainly know other folks religions. Some of them.
#: Posted by on 10/05 at 01:11 PM -
Well.. on biblical literalism... If memory serves...
The Roman Catholic point of view is that the Bible is not the literal word of Gd... well almost... The way they finesse the point is that the "original" text's are inerrant but not later editions.. and then it gets more complex.
for the whole story:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm
As for the whole protestant vs. catholic debate... I'll have to check dates but one of my favorite get religion out schools court cases happened in Wisconsin in the 1900's (I belive pre 1930, but I'll have to research...) Roman Catholic family successfully sued the local public school to stop teaching the bible... Cause the school was using a protestant version.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 01:11 PM -
Well, when I was a Catholic we were discouraged from reading the Bible, period, except a few passages that were interpreted for us from the pulpit.
And I never knew any Catholic who was well-read in the Bible. In particular, the OT was not paid much attention.
It followed, logically, that if the Church had a duty to interpret the meaning the Scriptures for us dummies, then the meaning could not have been literal. So I don't see what is supposed to be new about the statement.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 01:38 PM -
Re:#42784: Uber — 10/05 at 11:46 AM
Uber wrote:
'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 Catholicism due to it's stance on science is kinda silly when many/most people don't see any connection.
It appears you may be right regarding the growth rate of Catholicism. These are the worldwide growth-rates I found:
Pentecostals: 8.1%
Evangelicals: 5.4%;
All Protestants: 3.3%
Roman Catholics and Others: 1.3%
RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD:
Numbers of adherents; names of houses of worship, names of leaders, rates of growth...
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
However, the same source shows that while Christianity as a whole is declining (as a percentage), Islam as a whole is growing. But Christianity as a whole had a population of under 2 billion (same page), whereas Catholicism has a population of over 1 billion, and is experiencing rapid growth in both Africa and Asia, and as such, represent more than half of the Christian world. For this, check:
Factfile: Roman Catholics around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4243727.stm
For this reason, if they take a better view of evolution, I believe it is a welcome development.
Uber wrote:
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.
Agreed. But as I said in the piece you were responding to,
"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."#: Posted by on 10/05 at 01:49 PM -
I agree with what you have said except this part.
'Islam as a whole is growing. But Christianity as a whole had a population of under 2 billion (same page), whereas Catholicism has a population of over 1 billion, and is experiencing rapid growth in both Africa and Asia, and as such, represent more than half of the Christian world.'
The number of Catholics in the world has been overstated and debunked since the turn of the century. The Catholics count every man, woman, and child ever born into the faith and circulate the billion number. It has been estimated the actual number is approx 25% of their number.
What that number does is also inflate the number of Christians worldwide as many are counted twice. Once by the catholics and then again by the denomination they now attend. I know literally countless people who used to be catholics but are now counted as both catholic and whatever.
Stats and religions are almost always unreliable.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 02:04 PM -
Raven: 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?
Perhaps an even hotter area of disagreement comes from the Catholic veneration of shrines and fondness of religious statuary and other imagery. To most hardcore Protestants this is a violation of the Commandment against worshipping them there "graven images" (a prohibition conveniently omitted from the Catholic version of the decalogue).#: Posted by on 10/05 at 02:39 PM -
What that number does is also inflate the number of Christians worldwide as many are counted twice. Once by the catholics and then again by the denomination they now attend. I know literally countless people who used to be catholics but are now counted as both catholic and whatever.
This may not just be cooking the books, but rather symptomatic of a larger RC attitude. I've known some hardcore Catholics who believe that as long as you were born of Catholic parents, got baptized Catholic, and, preferably, got confirmed, in some weird way, you're a Catholic forever. Period. Even if you quit going to mass at age 5 and reject all organized religion for the next 90 years of your life, you're still Catholic. Their position seems to be while it would be nice if you kept going to mass, they won't kick you out of the club if you don't.
(I have no idea if this is official doctrine in any way.)
So I guess recovering Catholics do simultaneously count as both 'Catholic' and 'secular'.
#: Posted by on 10/05 at 02:53 PM -
Just an off hand question: Any news of a similar trend in the other realm of that other book, the Qu'ran?
It would be interesting to hear of that, even if it is just one imam writing a note somewhere about any particular section.#: Posted by John M. Price on 10/05 at 04:00 PM -
"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."
It's the legacy of the Ulster Scots-Irish.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 04:25 PM -
Stats and religions are almost always unreliable.
This statement is interesting. It's not so much that statistics are unreliable, but people are. How statistical techniques are implemented often leaves much to be desired (poor study design etc). I can think of one or two journals where I can reguarly find several papers that leave me in favor of compulsory statistical courses for biology undergrads and postgrads (and editors and reviewers
).
Now of course there’s the corollary with religion, and there’s lots of bad religion out there…..#: Posted by on 10/05 at 04:35 PM -
What that number does is also inflate the number of Christians worldwide as many are counted twice. Once by the catholics and then again by the denomination they now attend. I know literally countless people who used to be catholics but are now counted as both catholic and whatever.
Well, if you're one of those heathens who no longer wishes to be counted as a Catholic, here are some things you can do to get excommunicated.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 05:36 PM -
The RCC's acceptance of evolution is not exactly new. Every pope since John XXIII has recognized it as the legitimate theory that it is. Not only that, but the RCC has been active in the preservation of knowledge, and it had its place in the renaissance (in terms of its role in mainaining and copying ancient documents, including Aristotle and Plato).
Its various orders (esp. Jesuit, Dominican and Franciscan)have a long scholastic history. The Jesuits, in paricular, value rationality very highly, and Jevvy universities produce excellent scientists.
Is Catholic faith irrational? Sure. But then that is why it is called faith, and not science.
On a tangent: do not discount the role of a "foreigner" giving marching orders to his flock as a basis for not liking Catholics. That very concept played a large part in the election of John F. Kennedy. I believe one of the themes against JFK was to the effect of, "do we want a foreign power dictating our country".
Yes, I was raised in RCC. I am no longer practicing, but my views, philosophy and moral values were, and continue to be, shaped by the church.#: Posted by on 10/05 at 06:58 PM -
I've known some hardcore Catholics who believe that as long as you were born of Catholic parents, got baptized Catholic, and, preferably, got confirmed, in some weird way, you're a Catholic forever. Period.
"
The idea of this is that baptism and confirmation leave an indelible imprint on your soul, like a brand or a tattoo. It's similar to priestly ordination - you can't be un-ordained, just barred from acting as a priest. -
They've been saying that for many years, actually, just not in a tone of voice that is readily heard by the media which often concludes that all Christians think alike on the question of the Bible.
There's an evolution for you: it wasn't until the early twentieth century that people began insisting on the absolute truth of the Bible. The change in doctrine came about for two reasons: 1.) Fear of the theory of evolution and 2.) The success of door-to-door Bible salesmen who promised that all the answers to life's questions could be found in their product. - Steve, etc.: I actually know a guy who wanted to undo his baptism and spent several years getting a certificate of excommunication.
- Joel - ah, but an excommunication isn't the same as being unbaptised ...
- No, but excommunication does ensure that you won't be counted as Catholic anymore.
-
Do the witnesses for the plaintiffs in the Dover creation science trial have to swear on the Bible?
#: Posted by on 10/06 at 08:35 AM
-
'Well, if you're one of those heathens who no longer wishes to be counted as a Catholic, here are some things you can do to get excommunicated. '
There is a website out there somewhere that details the story of a man who wanted to be excommunicated and how difficult it was for him.
And then even when he was excommunicated, they still were counting him on the roles. It was really quite funny to read. But, alas, I don't have the link handy.#: Posted by on 10/06 at 08:40 AM -
A late follow-up to Mrs. Tilton. First, "German" in the 19th century included Austrians and Bohemians (sometimes even Czech Bohemians) who were overwealmingly RC. And indeed, in my neck of the woods all the old RC parishes were heavily German. Only relatively recently have Irish, Italian, and Hispanic groups displaced them as the dominant element.
#: Posted by on 10/06 at 08:45 AM
-
digression on leaving the RC...
1) Excommunication does not mean you are no longer RC, just that you can not receive the sacrements... it is a state that can be reversed (e.g. don't forget the RC is big on forgiveness, in some ways.)
2) To leave the RC you must be baptized and/or re-confirmed into another faith or publically denounce your faith (which knowing the RC I'm sure there is some form somewhere you have to fill out for the local bishop.)
Otherwise once RC always RC if you don't take up one of the above options. As mentioned before... baptism and confirmation (like holy orders) can not be undone... just the level you are allowed to participate at can be. (excommunication is the RC equivilent of shunning, with paperwork.)#: Posted by on 10/06 at 11:13 AM -
Counting Catholics is almost as difficult as counting Jews. Most statistics state that the whole Latin population is Catholic, but that is far from true. While the Cathedrals in the Plaza Mayor are maintained (as tourist attractions), the only dynamic religious groups are the Evangelists linked to Southern USA congregations. Fujimori was elected with these groups's help, but politically they are still weaker than the semi-State Catholic Church. I wonder when they are going to dominate local politics as they do north of the Rio Grande.
#: Posted by on 10/06 at 11:50 AM
-
great news from the papists. this means that i could finally go back to the church, provided I were willing to subsidize pedophilia, which I am not.
does this mean that it wasn't really an apple that eve used?#: Posted by on 10/06 at 01:52 PM -
malus == apple tree (derived term: malic (acid)
malus -a -um == bad, evil (derived term: malevolence (bad will)
Depends on the pronunciation and knowing that one is an adjective the other a noun.#: Posted by John M. Price on 10/06 at 03:34 PM -
It's not that surprising to me; the last Pope said that there was no conflict between natural science and religion largely because they address different subjects (science gets things you can kick (which includes physics and math); religion gets the things you can't (which includes ethics)). This may not be a terribly happy solution for some, but there hasn't been any extreme Bible literalism in a long
time.
Genesis contradicts itself. The Church's solution for a long time has been to assume that the story can't be meant literally on a physical level, so it must be conveying a truth about God's relationship to humanity. Basically, the Catholic Church learned from its mistakes with Galileo.
Raven: yes. Marianists, veneration of saints, believing that good works are important all are things a certain Pat Robertson used to screech about in his radio addresses that said Catholics are going to hell.#: Posted by on 10/06 at 03:52 PM -
malo malo malo malo
(I'd rather be in an apple tree than a bad man in adversity)
I admit: I could not help but steal that from Wheelock.
heh.#: Posted by on 10/06 at 07:44 PM