News Was the Pope justified in criticizing climate change activists?

[drankin]

A priest of having sex with a consenting adult female - deviant!

That's strictly a Catholic doctrine and not a biblical decree. This is one of the reason Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church of the time.

 

[Evo]

That's strictly a Catholic doctrine and not a biblical decree. This is one of the reason Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church of the time.

I thought he mainly broke off due to his anger over the Catholic church selling "redemption" to restock the coffers that the corrupt Medici Pope bankrupted on his lavish lifestyle.

 

[gravenewworld]

Do you remember any of these Latin jokes?

ubi o ubi est meam sub ubi?


modo fac id


those are some I remember from high school. man just saying those makes me miss how beautiful Latin is.

 

[drankin]

I thought he mainly broke off due to his anger over the Catholic church selling "redemption" to restock the coffers that the corrupt Medici Pope bankrupted on his lavish lifestyle.

Nope. That was just one of the many reasons. The big one was that the Catholic church at the time wouldn't let commoners read "God's Word" for themselves. They weren't "worthy" which shows the arrogance of the Church at the time. By doing this the Catholic church interpreted the "Word" as was beneficial to the Church and the devout commoners had to take it at as "The Gospel". Had they been able to read the "Word" for themselves they would have realized that you cannot buy "redemption" and Church would not have been able ring money out of the commoners. Luther went against the grain risking his own life and in a sense rescued sincere people from the Churches deception.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

ubi o ubi est meam sub ubi?

modo fac id

 

[gravenewworld]

There other way of saying "Just do it!" is "Id tantum fac!"

 

[mheslep]

That's strictly a Catholic doctrine and not a biblical decree. This is one of the reason Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church of the time.

I thought he mainly broke off due to his anger over the Catholic church selling "redemption" to restock the coffers that the corrupt Medici Pope bankrupted on his lavish lifestyle.

You are both right. More generally, the reformation was theologically about getting back to the precepts of 1st-2nd century Christianity and dumping on the ash heap most any baggage produced later. That would include both redemption payoffs and celibacy for the clergy.

 

[Art]

He was excommunicted when I was 11 for being married and having 10 children, seriously. That's when I quit the church, I told my mother I refused to attend anymore and she understood. Father Nelson was a wonderful man and the best priest I'd ever met and for the church to have such ridiculous rules was the last straw.

Celibacy has been in and out of fashion many times in the RC church with 7 popes being married themselves and 11 being the sons of clerics with a further 6 known to have had illegitimate offspring.

The attitude to celibacy was fairly lax in recent times with the church turning a blind eye to the priests who had sexual relationships until John Paul 11 who tightened things up considerably and banned dispensations although married Protestant pastors who converted were still accepted for ordination.

 

[denverdoc]

IIRC, help me out historians of science, the catholic church did not take kindly to scientific commentary re their worldview. As a result Galileo suffered in purgatory needlessly for 400 years, until enuf evidence accrued for the church to change its mind. So as a Catholic, I hear this guy suggesting, let's see, jury is still out. If that's not enuf of a red flag, then I'm reading this wrong. And yes, it does sound like US PR--which after the denunciation from the Papal throne re Iraq, must have George dubya, himself privvy with inside info, including the main man himself, feeling all warm and tingly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

denverdoc,
If you pray on it I'm sure that you will feel differently.

Welcome back.

 

[Pelt]

That's strictly a Catholic doctrine and not a biblical decree. This is one of the reason Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church of the time.

Martin Luther's attack on clerical celibacy stemmed from a broader attack on Christian monasticism in general and particularly in the failing asceticism in the prevailing orders of the time. After all, celibacy seemed kind of silly when churchmen were widely perceived as living like lords, eating well, drinking well, and in more than a few cases not abiding by their vows.

Setting that aside, the Biblical argument for asceticism doesn't differ greatly from that of other traditions. Abstinence from any number of natural but voluntary pursuits is viewed as a discipline rather than righteousness set against the wickedness of indulgence. Sex is natural, healthy and morally acceptable, but so is discipline; the ability to do without in pursuit of worthier objectives remains a valued if not exclusive form of purity. Similar arguments are put forward by teetotalers, vegans, warfighters, martial artists, athletes, etc.

 

[Moridin]

Unfortunately, Luther carried on with another old doctrine, expressed in the book On The Jews and Their Lies. Oh well.

 

[drankin]

Yep, Luther had a racist side. I haven't studied that side of him yet.

 

[binzing]

This just in! The church has been backwards for as long as it has been "in business". Galileo and Copernicus would tell you that!

 

[Pelt]

Yep, Luther had a racist side. I haven't studied that side of him yet.

Well hot diggity. A racist in the 16th century? Who would've thunk it?

 

[Pelt]

This just in! The church has been backwards for as long as it has been "in business". Galileo and Copernicus would tell you that!

Copernicus had been dead for seventy-three years before On the Revolutions made it into the Index, and Galileo's problems could be chalked up to an academic bureaucracy that looks unsurprisingly like university admin and faculty today.

 

[Moridin]

Well hot diggity. A racist in the 16th century? Who would've thunk it?

It is important to remember that this originated directly from religious doctrine and almost a millennium of prior Jewish persecution.

Copernicus had been dead for seventy-three years before On the Revolutions made it into the Index, and Galileo's problems could be chalked up to an academic bureaucracy that looks unsurprisingly like university admin and faculty today.

Where is anyone threatened with torture or house arrest? Given, the Galileo affair was not as bad as it is sometimes made to look, but it was a clear sign of religious institution suppressing and overtaking open scientific inquiry based on religious dogma. After all, the bible teaches that the Earth is flat and still under a solid firmament of stars and the like. The Church did not vindicate him until 400 years later. Let's not forget the treatment of Kepler and Newton with them being non-trinitarians / arians and not mentioning god in Principia (Newton's Hypothesis non fingo).

 

[Pelt]

It is important to remember that this originated directly from religious doctrine and almost a millennium of prior Jewish persecution.

It's also important to recall the far more primitive context of the 16th century.

Where is anyone threatened with torture or house arrest?

I'll readily admit life was tougher before the Modern Age.

Given, the Galileo affair was not as bad as it is sometimes made to look, but it was a clear sign of religious institution suppressing and overtaking open scientific inquiry based on religious dogma.

Not simply based on religious dogma, but secular philosophy as well. The Church didn't start the inquest against Galileo, his peers did. At the time, the Church sat at the top of an academic authority that settled disputes amongst faculty in various fields and institutions. At the time, it made sense, many of the best educated men in Europe were clerics and the best academic institutions in were clerically run. You might consider them the equivalent of a National Academy of Sciences or a Board of Regents with authority and swords at their disposal. The Index itself was subject to review and disputed within the secular and clerical bureacracies. It's not a perfect system organizationally, especially when combined with the force of law, but it's not terribly dissimilar from the defanged structure of the modern academy. And for good reason; even today we understand the necessity of having some bureaucracy to weed out good scholarship from bad; exacting retribution against those who abuse their credentials in order to deter kookery and fraud.

After all, the bible teaches that the Earth is flat and still under a solid firmament of stars and the like.

A better way to put it is that one interpretation of Scripture confirms this old natural philosophy. It was discarded long ago by serious institutions, Catholic or otherwise, and at roughly the same time. The dispute is over the Church's delay in issuing an apology and correction over its error in handling the Galileo affair, and that is an argument over process rather than knowledge.

The Church did not vindicate him until 400 years later.

That's like complaining about a newspaper that doesn't issue a correction over an incorrect story despite it treating the facts in a more enlightened fashion in future reporting. Few if any institutions, academic or otherwise, feel obligated to issue clear mea culpa over process simply because of an occasional wrong result.

Let's not forget the treatment of Kepler and Newton with them being non-trinitarians / arians and not mentioning god in Principia (Newton's Hypothesis non fingo).

We can tie this into the Galileo affair, which unsurprisingly occurred in the same segment of history. The Church has felt no need to apologize for a lack of enlightened procedure in an era where enlightenment was generally lacking. Otherwise, we'd be asking for ancient universities to apologize for failure to adhere today's scholastic standards in their early history. It's easier and surprisingly more honest just to forgive yourself of youthful indiscretion.

 

[Moridin]

It's also important to recall the far more primitive context of the 16th century.

Which was mainly the result of...?

A better way to put it is that one interpretation of Scripture confirms this old natural philosophy. It was discarded long ago by serious institutions, Catholic or otherwise, and at roughly the same time. The dispute is over the Church's delay in issuing an apology and correction over its error in handling the Galileo affair, and that is an argument over process rather than knowledge.

You seem to be misunderstanding me - the scriptural authority was used against Galileo at the time of his life. This part was not about the Church's delay.

That's like complaining about a newspaper that doesn't issue a correction over an incorrect story despite it treating the facts in a more enlightened fashion in future reporting. Few if any institutions, academic or otherwise, feel obligated to issue clear mea culpa over process simply because of an occasional wrong result.

The place of the Earth in the Universe and the suppression of science is hardly comparable for some incorrect story in a paper.

And for good reason; even today we understand the necessity of having some bureaucracy to weed out good scholarship from bad; exacting retribution against those who abuse their credentials in order to deter kookery and fraud.

Unfortunately, that process is done with knowledge backing the stance; not simply the authority of a religious institution or ex cathedra.

We can tie this into the Galileo affair, which unsurprisingly occurred in the same segment of history. The Church has felt no need to apologize for a lack of enlightened procedure in an era where enlightenment was generally lacking.

I fail to see how that is an excuse for the behavior at the time. Notice that the Galileo "excuse" was not just an information "whoops, sorry" statement. According to Catholic Doctrine Galileo spent those 400 years in purgatory.

 

[Pelt]

Which was mainly the result of...?

Not knowing any better?

You seem to be misunderstanding me - the scriptural authority was used against Galileo at the time of his life. This part was not about the Church's delay.

Excuse me? You were just complaining that it took 400 years for the Church to issue a correction? How is it not about the delay?

The place of the Earth in the Universe and the suppression of science is hardly comparable for some incorrect story in a paper.

Suppression of science? Come on. Nobody seriously tosses that accusation around simply because folks aren't funding their fields of interest to their expectations today. Now translate that management of academic resources to the 17th century. For a body that was supposedly into the "suppression of science," the Catholic Church managed to produce a pretty foundational field of natural philosophers.

Unfortunately, that process is done with knowledge backing the stance; not simply the authority of a religious institution or ex cathedra.

That process is done with the authority of an academic institution, with a somewhat more democratic process than clerical arbitration. We're just trading adjectives here.

I fail to see how that is an excuse for the behavior at the time. Notice that the Galileo "excuse" was not just an information "whoops, sorry" statement. According to Catholic Doctrine Galileo spent those 400 years in purgatory.

I'm pretty sure the purgatory bit is made up, but let's say the Church did condemn him to purgatory. If you buy into purgatory, then you also buy into the Church belief that souls that go there desire to pay their penance. So who are we to get in the way of Galileo's desired atonement?