The Biggest Problem with the Catholic Church

Blogged by James Preece on 24th December 2012

People disagree with the Catholic Church for a lot of reasons.

There's the Pope - he's keeps going around telling people what to do when he should really keeping his budgies out of our avieries (or something like that). As I've often explained to our three year old, being a bossy boots is not cool.

Then there's the condom ban which makes it very difficult to avoid babies because as we all know, avoiding babies is the first step to happiness. Babies cry, are messy and after a couple of years you have to tediously explain to them about not being a bossy boots.

One friend of mine told me his biggest problem with Catholicism is that you can't take drugs. A particular difficulty is taking drugs across borders because a lot of smugglers hide the drugs in condoms - so far as I know the Church has no problem with Normal Farmacy Purchasing (NFP).

Not to mention same-sex "marriage", the lack of women priests and spending all the money on solid gold cups instead of giving the money to the poor. Then they have the cheek to force everybody to call said cups "chalices" - that's a step too far. I'm off!

These are, so I hear, the big problems with the Catholic Church. These are the things I hear about all the time because people are idiots.

The fact is, frankly, that all of the above is small potatoes. This might shock some of the more sensible Catholic bloggers, but if I were to make a list of Top Ten Problematic Catholic Teachings then condoms, gay marriage and bossy Popes wouldn't even be on it.

Those things are not important to the Church - we hear about them all the time because they are important to idiots with a pelvis where they should have a brain.

Look...

Approximately two thousand years ago Almighty God was born in a stable to a human mother. I won't say the V word you might get distracted... All Powerful Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth, became a helpless baby who was also God. Now that's a problem.

Think about the whole universe compressed in to a single tiny point no bigger than the smallest thing you can imagine at the moment before the big bang, that's incredible, but it doesn't come close to the image of an Infinite God laying in a manger because there's no room at the inn.

We're so used to hearing the nativity story that we can talk about God becoming a baby and it doesn't even register - when it should make us need to sit down for a moment.

The infant grew to be the man Jesus Christ. A man who died and rose from the dead - but the wonder of the ressurection is not to be found in a God who didn't die. Gods don't die. It's what they do. No - the real problem is that God died. Gods are not supposed to die - what is He playing at?

It all makes the whole "Gee whizz guys, your bossy Pope sure has a lot to say about condoms" stuff seem rather unimportant. God became a baby and died.

That's the problem.

Not only because it sounds ludicrous, but because it's true and because it's true all of those other things pale in to insignificance. Learning to live without condoms isn't a big deal when the Creator of the Universe became man and died for your salvation.

So my Christmas wish is that we could maybe stop talking about the little problems and start talking about this big ones.

Oh and er, Peace on earth would be nice...

Rate this blogentry: + -

+47

Reader Comments

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

Well said James. I don't believe this stuff, & that is the key issue. The whole "Should gay condoms be marrying abortions?" debate is but a sideline.

LOL I am a mocker & a scoffer & an acolyte of the Culture of Death but that doesn't stop me wishing everyone reading this a merry Christmas. These days we hear so much about religion, that we can forget the true meaning of Christmastime - it's all a great excuse for feasting & consumerism!

+10

Jakob Knab said...

"God became a baby and died. That's the problem." (JP)

If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain…
(1 Cor 15)

The Cross alone cannot explain the Christian faith!

Without Christ – our lives would be a cruel joke!

***

"May each Christmas, as it comes,
find us more and more like Him,
who as at this time became a little child for our sake,
more simple-minded,
more humble,
more holy,
more affectionate,
more resigned,
more happy,
more full of God."
(Bl. John Henry Newman)

+11

Dorothy B said...

Thank you for this, James. Thank you also for your blog, which I enjoy visiting, though I comment only rarely.

A very happy Christmas to you and your family.

shieldsheafson said...

Then there's also the God problem (which is God). He dared to tell us that His idea of our flesh and blood was better than the one we are concocting for ourselves. We dare not admit that He was right. Therefore, He is a problem, a reality to be denied existence.

(Such is what is beneath the surface of the increasingly bitter activities of our polity.) (ref. needed)

Happy Christmas to you all.

Christian said...

Out of interest James, what would be on your 'Top Ten Problematic Catholic Teachings' list?

Season's best!

Christian

Catherine said...

'Top Ten Problematic Catholic Teachings'

otherwise known as "neuralgic" issues as defined by Catholic Voices....blah blah blah......

meanwhile NF has won the day.....and his so called 'muddled thinking' has gained the lion's share of this blog....

here's to a blog-free 2013

New Friend said...

James

"That's the problem.
Not only because it sounds ludicrous, but because it's true"

I mean you and all your fellow Catholics no disrespect, especially at this time, but that is NOT the problem.

I know you are unlikely to "get it", because of your unshakeable conviction in the certainty of your faith, but it is not "true" for everyone! It is simply your opinion, and there are many who don't share this opinion.

This is why the other issues you identify become problems. If the fundamental claim is not accepted, then it plays no role in that person's life and your dabbling in political and social issues become an irritant.

That doesn't make people "idiots", and to suggest it is hardly likely to win you friends and influence people. It just makes them different. It you expect to be treated seriously, and with respect, perhaps you should show some.

+11

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: You seem to confuse truth with opinion. If someone asserts that X is true you just say "that is your opinion". But surely we should be concerned with whether X is true or not - not whether there are different opinions about it. I take it you do accept that there are truths?

Some opinions are useful but only in helping to evaluate what is true and what is false.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Yes of course I accept that there are truths, but not nearly so many as there are opinions that something is true, when it remains unproven.

Catholics are convinced that their faith is the Truth. Many, me included, are just as convinced it isn't. My view is not reached lightly. I have evaluated all the known facts and reached a different conclusion. I accept that I am unlikely ever to have you agree with me, mostly because I don't explain my reasoning to people of faith, because I respect what they draw from it. You too are very unlikely to ever change my mind. I though am not so stupid as to believe I could not be wrong. I think it really unlikely, but as it remains possible I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist. I think that is the honest position for each and every one of us, for none of us can truly be certain.

Of course we must evaluate things to decide whether we believe something is true or false but at the end of that process we only hold a personal opinion of whether it is, or not.

To establish something as true, and not just your opinion that it is, it is necessary to prove it and have it accepted as such by all, other than those whose opinions are regarded by all sides of a debate as so weird as to be discounted.

The real truth exists, of course, for just about everything, but much remains obscure and may always be so. Science is though revealing things at an ever increasing pace and challenging previously held hypotheses. Which is why I personally believe that everything regarded as true in the past, but never proved to a general satisfaction, ought to be subjected to a comprehensive review using every technique now available.

So by all means speak of the "Truth" within your own community but when addressing others I urge Catholics to be more circumspect in their pronouncements. Some of the statements made in the name of your Church do it much harm. It comes over as self righteousness and instead of drawing people in it irritates and alienates.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: You wrote:

"To establish something as true, and not just your opinion that it is, it is necessary to prove it and have it accepted as such by all, other than those whose opinions are regarded by all sides of a debate as so weird as to be discounted."

That is all very well but for most of the time one is not in a position to prove whether something is true or not, let alone having it accepted by all (why is that essential?) One just has to accept what one's mind suggests is the truth and act upon it. For example when driving a car you think you see the road curving to the left and you start to steer accordingly. You do not wait for proof or consult those in the back seat. It seems to me though that you soon find out whether the road does curve to the left; you discover the truth and that is not just a personal opinion.

I think it would be interesting to know why you reject what the Catholic Church teaches - it would be a challenge for the rest of us. Otherwise I am not sure why you bother with us!!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

The example you give does, of course, have your opinion confirmed, or denied, pretty quickly. That though is not the case with everything and especially so with whether what the Catholic Church teaches is true, or not, as we will not know until we die.

You are one of the most reasonable posters on here and seem to be able to evaluate an alternative without getting over emotional.

As I do not believe evangelisation is acceptable I also believe that my own reasoning ought to be kept to myself. Most certainly I would not wish to post it openly on here. This is James's blog and it would be impertinent to do so. Despite the willingness of Catholics to evangelise I am also aware that they reject "proselytizing" by others. (I never have been able to reconcile that). I am also very aware of the importance that many place on their faith and the comfort and support that they derive from it. I don't want to disturb that.

If we could find a way to do it privately, I was sure you were genuinely interested and would keep it confidential then perhaps I would consider explaining it.

I "bother" with you for reasons I have explained in the past. At your best you are a great force for good, but much of what you do is out of touch with reality and is having a negative effect. I have a particular interest in the Philippines, which is a country where the Catholic Church remains the effective government. The problems there are extreme and getting worse. Your Church there really must change it's stance to ensure a decent future for the people. I try to learn Catholic attitudes and responses the better to argue for change.

mike cliffson said...

NF
"Philippines, which is a country where the Catholic Church remains the effective government"

Demonstrate and prove

New Friend said...

Mike

I have been away for a few days and as this thread has moved on I will keep my reply as concise as I can.

My guess is that you have had no direct experience of the Philippines, for if you had I doubt you would ask for this.

It is pretty nigh impossible to be elected there unless you profess your Catholic faith. The Catholic Church expects "it's" politicians to vote according to the tenets of the faith and not to ever act independently if circumstances demand so. You probably think this to be correct. I don't. Extra-ordinary pressure is exerted upon politicians who dare to think for themselves. They get "outed" from the pulpit, on widely watched Catholic TV and the press. Even the President has been threatened with ex communication. This type of thing extends right down to politics at a local level. The Church is directly involved at all levels. There are some brave politicians who are trying hard to nullify some of the very worst outcomes that this situation produces but it is an uphill struggle as they face black propaganda amongst other tactics.

Right now the Catholic Church controls the politicians who run the country. They do this in conjunction with a few mega rich oligarch families whose interest is served by maintaining the status quo.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: You consider yourself an agnostic. I wonder whether this is in the popular sense of "I just don't know" or Thomas Huxley's original sense that there are things that are simply not knowable.

Anyway I think the basic problem here is that when we Catholics talk about evangelisation we do see ourselves as proclaiming the truth - the logos of St John's Gospel. I cannot see how that can be objectionable.

As to Catholic teaching generally we see it as based upon a whole coherent and rational structure which starts with the Creed "I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth". A whole host of teaching flows from those basic premises. All of this is supplemented by Natural Law - the idea that there are basic goods which can be identified but of themselves are just obvious but not necessarily provable e.g. that knowledge rather than ignorance is a good.

Without those basic teachings supplemented by Natural Law the peripheral things can be very hard to understand or accept. I can well understand the difficulties agnostics or atheists have with the Church's teaching on the wrongness of artificial contraception. There seem to be utilitarian arguments in favour of artificial contraception and I imagine this is what you are thinking of when mentioning the Philippines. (Curiously though one of the main living exponents of utilitarianism Jonathan Glover is against contraception on the grounds that the more humans there are the more happiness there will be and the promotion of happiness is the aim of the utilitarian - not my argument!). Pope Paul VI made certain predictions in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" which are now becoming to be seen as correct - the demographic problems are just one of them.

I doubt if I could convince you of the wrongness of artificial contraception without a belief in the teachings of the Church and/or an acceptance of Natural Law. I can only say that one needs to watch what happens in the Phillipines if contraception becomes widespread and perhaps in say 20 or 30 years time one will be able to judge better whether it was right or wrong.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Definitely in the "Huxley" sense.

Evangelisation seems, to me, rather more that you are proclaiming your opinion of the truth. It is the self righteous certainty, which refuses to acknowledge the validity of other views, is what is unacceptable.

I can accept that some things are good, or bad, without demanding specific proof. That though is not what I understand you to mean by "natural law" for I guess that my opinion of what I would accept as good would not necessarily match yours, and vice versa. I think that you mean that your opinion is correct and nothing else matters.

So I don't believe that you can glorify your opinions of what is good, or bad, by describing them as "natural law". They are just opinions.

I can completely accept that you, and your Church hold an opinion which rejects artificial contraception. That is your right, as is mine that you are wrong.

I completely disagree with you about what might happen in the Philippines, for unless effective sex and education becomes widely available (which is strongly resisted by your Church), the situation will continue to get worse.

It is pretty desperate right now, and the Church holds an almost complete influence over things, at least theoretically. There is little or no sex and relationship education. Teenage pregnancy, out of wedlock, is
very, very common. Much higher even than here in the UK. Boys there believe, via peer group pressure, not just that they need to lose their virginity to become a man, they need to father a child. It doesn't stop when they marry for the macho culture is alive and very well. They go to Church on Sunday, get forgiven, and start again on Monday. If you think that the Catholic way is going to solve their problems I can assure you, from personal observation, that it will not.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Huxley's agnosticism says that nothing beyond material phenomena can be known. I think he means "known with any certainty". The problem is though that we have to go through life choosing certain courses of action and to ignore something because you cannot be certain about it is just not practical.

As to Natural Law it does seem to me that there are many disciplines which study what the Natural Law is e.g. sociology, anthropology, law etc. As to what is good and what is bad I would suggest that with the aid of reason one can come to agreement on this. Might I quote from John Finnis's book "Natural Law & Natural Rights" his definition of Natural Law:

"A sound theory of natural law is one that explicitly, ... undertakes a critique of practical viewpoints, in order to distinguish the practically unreasonable from the practically reasonable, and thus to differentiate the really important from that which is unimportant or is important only by its opposition to or unreasonable exploitation of the really important. A theory of natural law claims to be able to identify conditions and principles of practical right-mindedness, of good and proper order among persons, and in individual conduct."

He further says that Aristotle is "quite explicit that ethics can only be usefully discussed with experienced and mature people, and that age is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the required maturity".

I would like to think that we both qualify in that respect. I suspect we could agree that certain things are basic goods - such as knowledge - but maybe we will differ further along the line.

+12

Rusty said...

Great blog article. If I may add: I find trolling Twitter for "catholic" posts amusing. Many will attack the church saying that She hates gays, contraception, equal rights, etc. It's ironic that their hatred of the church is founded on their life choices and misunderstanding of Christianity. They choose Relativism before Truth.

Merry Christmas, and thanks for your article.

Ann said...

The physical body is not the person. The physical body died, the soul did not. Therefore God did not die per se. As to God and Jesus being the same yet separate, there are mysteries that we do not understand and are not supposed to understand at this point. That may be one of them. Or, if it helps, think of it this way: God's son is part of Him in the same way that our children are part of us.

God bless you.

Mark Dobson said...

Isn't this what some gnostics said?

CCC 362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual.

CCC 364 Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity.

Jesus is truly man and truly God. Since he is truly man, he has a body, and this is more than an optional extra. He was resurrected in the body, and he gives us his body as our spiritual food.

Men too die "in the body" but they still await a judgement, they still have souls. Men don't die either, per se.

CCC 612 Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death. Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the "Author of life", the "Living One".

The death of Christ is real, though a great mystery. If he didn't die for us, it's a sham.

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. [...] And if Christ has not been raised [from the dead], your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. - 1 Cor 15:3,17

Mark Dobson said...

Oops. I see Jakob (apologies if misremembered, can't see your comment now) already got to 1 Cor 15! Still true anyway.

Ken said...

By way of agreeing (by and large) with Ann, wasn't it Chesterton said, "You don't have a soul -- you are a soul. You have a body."

I'm not sure Chesteron's formula squares entirely with the Catechism, but I like it anyway.

Damask Rose said...

Good thread.

All best wishes for the New Year to James and his family - blog commenters and readers too!

mike cliffson said...

James and others:
Contrary to God's law and natural Law, the internationally coordinated intention is to have the Philipines legalize murder the deliberate taking of human life, not to mention the usual culture of death raft of contraception , etc.
Commentor NF states above that (one of?) his purpose commenting is to familiarize himself with catholic attitudes etc the better to combat them and enable him to foment this social, and maybe directly or indirectly, individual, behaviour and commit mortal sin.
If
his purpose is as stated, and if his frequent presence in that country is as stated, and if this combox is in fact usable , and , even tho it be but in one individual case alone, effective, for this stated purpose
Then
Knowing the above
any reaction whatsoever any of us make to any of his comments will be sinful collaboration with murder, let alone with apostasy and the like.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Mike: I think you are being a bit over-dramatic. New Friend did write:
" I try to learn Catholic attitudes and responses the better to argue for change."

Yes he opposes Catholic teaching but do we have to doubt that he sincerely believes in the correctness of his position? Also if he learns about "Catholic attitudes and responses" can one not entertain the possibility that he might begin to understand and even possibly accept the validity of the Catholic position? Surely we should always respond by stating the truth - is that not evangelisation?

mike cliffson said...

Nicolas
1.21st december: "reproductive health" bill passed in philipines.
I am sorry you find murder of the innocents overdramatic.
2.Personally, I believe sincerity is no substitute for virtue, and a played up modern substitute for morality.
An otherwise doubleplusgood play on Becket, St Thomas, Canterbury, of, Bp and martyr, has has a pathetic line: "oh this, the sublest form of treason
To do the right thing for the wrong reason"
Nyag!feel-good waffle, load of old labour-party-leader's-surname.
Fallen, we none of us ever do the right thing, get we even so far, for wholly the right reasons.
So what?
Whilst the victims of sincerity have a hundreds of millions bodycount recently, and rising.Go meet a few scarred survivors.
And the in hell count? We don't know, in this life.
The ten commandments are there, it's a case of "just do it."
Cloud of unknowing:
"Of no man's soul may ye judge, but of men's acts may ye judge, whether they be for good or ill"
If for ill, act accordingly.
God bless!

mike cliffson said...

Nicolas:
Apologies: the above reads ad hominem regarding "overdramatic", and I didn't want to attack a staunch defender of the truth doing a sterling job. On a dot blogspot blog, one can retract comments and rewrite them.here. posted one must live with it.
We are talking possibilities here, I know, apart from mine host and a few others,who are known physical persons, we MIGHT the lot of us in fact be, say, trainee Budhist "monks" in Nepal or wherever blog-commenting in an intellectual exercise in aplogetics.(they do , but not online as far as I know.)
Nonetheless, with that caveat, I feel it cogent to maintain my position above.
May God bless you and yours.
PS interested to see you are aquainted with the Asturias .

Nicolas Bellord said...

Many thanks. You may rest assured that my view is that abortion is utterly horrible and unacceptable.

New Friend said...

Nicolas & Mike

You too may rest assured that the RH bill in the Philippines does not say anything about abortion. It remains illegal. The bill deals only with providing sex and and relationship education, where none exists now, and the free provision of condoms, and other contraceptives, to the very poorest. There is no compulsion that they have to use them, it remains their decision alone. Every Catholic can follow their faith and refuse, whilst non Catholics will be helped.

That this has been achieved against the fierce opposition of the RC Church is a great tribute to President Aquino, who has been very courageous in putting his own reputation on the line.

Before you condemn this I suggest that you study in detail both the scope of the legislation and the background as to why it is needed.

Stu Kartsu said...

"It all makes the whole "Gee whizz guys, your bossy Pope sure has a lot to say about condoms" stuff seem rather unimportant. God became a baby and died."

Seriously? What an idiotic comment... pitting a real problem next to a belief!

The Biggest Problem with the Catholic Church is not facing reality and dealing with real issues.

The Catholic Church wonders why they lose followers each year and have to rely on third world countries to bolster their numbers.

Yes, I understand your article and what you're saying and trying to convey to a larger audience...

Saying that the issue of condoms is "rather unimportant" in whatever argument you put forth is stupid!

Real World:

STD's are a major killer of people, condoms "help" prevent the spread of the diseases.

Condoms help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions. And the Catholic Church would rather see more abortions than to allow it's parishioners to wear condoms, crazy!

Stats have shown time and time again that the child from "unwanted pregnancy" is generally the child that suffers the most and causes society to suffer as a result.

Keep pushing the belief argument against real world problems and see how many more followers fall away.

Be responsible and use contraception to prevent sexual diseases and unwanted children. To refuse to act responsibly during sex is immoral.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Stu: Sexually Transmitted Diseases are a major killer. We can agree upon that. However what is the best way of preventing their spread is abstinence from sex outside of marriage and faithfulness within marriage. Artificial contraception gives rise to trivialising sex so that it is seen as a merely recreational activity divorced from procreation. This gives rise to a great deal of sexual activity outside of marriage in the belief that such activity is perfectly safe from procreation provided artificial contraception is used. The problem is that artificial contraception sometimes fails and conception takes place and/or disease is transmitted.

If you look at the report of the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood - a major provider of abortion) you will find that if the male condom is used "perfectly" the chances of pregnancy in the first year of use is 2%. However for typical users it is 18%.

Perhaps this explains why Planned Parenthood are such promoters of the use of condoms as they see the resulting unwanted pregnancies as a rich source of money in providing abortions.

Can you not see therefore that promoting artificial contraception leads to increased sexual activity outside of marriage and because of the failure rate of condoms will lead to more "unwanted pregnancies" rather than less?

As to the disease aspect I have not seen any statistics.

However consider the fact that if you discover that your spouse had a communicable sexual disease at the time of your marriage that that is grounds for nullity. But in the case of civil partnerships where the law is very close to marriage law in all other respects such is NOT a ground for nullity. Think about why this might be so.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Your proposed solution is about as realistic as suggesting that we could all avoid road accidents by never leaving the house. It would work, but only a few would actually do it.

In the Catholic Philippines condoms are widely available, as is the pill and similar artificial contraceptive methods. However they are not widely used, not because of Church teaching, but because of ignorance, cost and the prevailing macho culture. The rich and the middle classes use them. The poor don't. I describe some of the results elsewhere but there is also a terrible explosion of STDs. Reliable statistics are impossible to come by as the official ones are tainted by shame and misreporting. Empirical evidence (my own) suggests this is already a disaster which your Church just refuses to acknowledge.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think your analogy is not a good one. Going out of one's house is morally neutral. Bad driving is what causes accidents. Having sex outside of marriage is not morally neutral but intrinsically wrong regardless of whether it results in pregnancy or the transmission of disease.

You seem to be very pessimistic about changing human behaviour. One of the failings of western society is the belief that one can do nothing about human behaviour and that all one can do is to remedy or prevent the consequences. Catholic teaching is concerned with human behaviour because it is primarily concerned with the salvation of souls.

Changing human behaviour, with the grace of God, is possible and I understand that there is empirical evidence to show that in some societies where abstinence and faithfulness are promoted there are better outcomes.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I am sure I can find another analogy if you don't like the first. Actually not all accidents are caused by bad driving. Some are just accidents, or caused by pedestrians.

"Having sex outside of marriage is not morally neutral but intrinsically wrong"

Is just another of those opinions, which is not these days widely shared. Such an opinion is not one upon which we can now build a universally acceptable policy.

I don't think I am being pessimistic about changing human behaviour. I am usually accused of being over optimistic. I think I am being realistic and trying to deal with things as they are, and not dreaming of achieving the impossible. I read many unrealistic ideas which come from Catholics, as well as denials that many problems actually exist. I have clear evidence that these ideas not only don't work, but that they make things worse, as I see this first hand in the Philippines. It distresses me to continue to have unrealistic solutions being proposed by my fellow countrymen, who I think ought to know better, no matter what faith they hold.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: I have made an assertion:

"Having sex outside of marriage is not morally neutral but intrinsically wrong".

It is not just an opinion but has support from Natural Law, religion and a great number of people worthy of respect. It is fairly widely shared as being the teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore accepted by the faithful who represent quite a large proportion of the human race. Other faiths also take this view and I suspect that many of no faith also know the truth of this.

However universal acceptance is not a guarantee of anything being true. Perhaps many people would prefer it if this assertion was not true but they have to face the possibility that it is true.

There is of course a very powerful minority who widely proclaim that the assertion is false and they are responsible for corrupting people and bringing on the disasters that undoubtedly ensue.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I did not suggest that your opinion was not shared by many others, including those worthy of respect. That though does nothing to raise it being beyond anything more than an opinion.

There are many others, who also include people worthy of respect, who hold other opinions.

I do not seek to dismiss, or belittle your opinion, for it is your absolute right to hold it.

What I object to is anyone deciding that because they strongly believe a shared opinion it is the "truth" and that, as a consequence, the opinions of anyone disagreeing can be disregarded. We are all equally entitled to our views, and allowed to act according to them, under the law. Everyone deserves respect and understanding.

I am reminded of the Mark Twain quote:-

"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so"

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: You said my assertion was one of those opinions that was not widely shared. I was endeavouring to show that it is widely shared.

However I cannot see why somebody who is convinced that their opinion is correct and true then they are wrong in deciding that it is the truth. In no way does that entail not respecting and understanding that others may have a different opinion.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I have no problem at all if anyone says that they believe their opinion to be true. Indeed why would anyone hold an opinion if they believed it untrue?

That though is not the problem. The Catholic Church promotes it's views as "The Truth". Note the capitalisation. This attitude indicates exclusivity and no acknowledgement that others can hold alternative viewpoints with any honour.

Of course you fervently believe in your faith. That is to be expected. It is how it is presented which offends and, I think, ultimately does you a great miss-service, especially in today's multi faith/no faith society. We ought to be trying to find the middle ground upon which to build our futures, rather than standing on the self righteous margins. This applies to everyone but you, as a very well established and respected religion, could take the lead and show some restraint and compromise. It would mean you making a genuine effort to contribute to society, rather than what seems to me to be a rather pointless campaign to achieve the impossible.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: I am glad you can agree that if one has an opinion one can reasonably regard it as the true. Of course there will be different degrees of certainty attached to that opinion. However I do not see that capitalising "The Truth" in regard to what we see as well-founded and certain truths is offensive.

I am sorry if you have the impression that we do not respect and honour other people's points of view. However I think it is a question not of finding the middle ground but rather of finding the truth. It is interesting that the Pope has spoken on this very subject when addressing the Curia before Christmas. It is a rather long quote but worth considering:

In man’s present situation, the dialogue of religions is a necessary condition for peace in the world and it is therefore a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities. This dialogue of religions has various dimensions. In the first place it is simply a dialogue of life, a dialogue of being together. This will not involve discussing the great themes of faith – whether God is Trinitarian or how the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures is to be understood, and so on. It is about the concrete problems of coexistence and shared responsibility for society, for the state, for humanity. In the process, it is necessary to learn to accept the other in his otherness and the otherness of his thinking. To this end, the shared responsibility for justice and peace must become the guiding principle of the conversation. A dialogue about peace and justice is bound to move beyond the purely pragmatic to become an ethical struggle for the truth and for the human being: a dialogue concerning the values that come before everything. In this way what began as a purely practical dialogue becomes a quest for the right way to live as a human being. Even if the fundamental choices themselves are not under discussion, the search for an answer to a specific question becomes a process in which, through listening to the other, both sides can obtain purification and enrichment. Thus this search can also mean taking common steps towards the one truth, even if the fundamental choices remain unaltered. If both sides set out from a hermeneutic of justice and peace, the fundamental difference will not disappear, but a deeper closeness will emerge nevertheless.

Two rules are generally regarded nowadays as fundamental for interreligious dialogue:

1. Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;

2. Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.

These rules are correct, but in the way they are formulated here I still find them too superficial. True, dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at better mutual understanding – that is correct. But all the same, the search for knowledge and understanding always has to involve drawing closer to the truth. Both sides in this piece-by-piece approach to truth are therefore on the path that leads forward and towards greater commonality, brought about by the oneness of the truth. As far as preserving identity is concerned, it would be too little for the Christian, so to speak, to assert his identity in a such a way that he effectively blocks the path to truth. Then his Christianity would appear as something arbitrary, merely propositional. He would seem not to reckon with the possibility that religion has to do with truth. On the contrary, I would say that the Christian can afford to be supremely confident, yes, fundamentally certain that he can venture freely into the open sea of the truth, without having to fear for his Christian identity. To be sure, we do not possess the truth, the truth possesses us: Christ, who is the truth, has taken us by the hand, and we know that his hand is holding us securely on the path of our quest for knowledge. Being inwardly held by the hand of Christ makes us free and keeps us safe: free – because if we are held by him, we can enter openly and fearlessly into any dialogue; safe – because he does not let go of us, unless we cut ourselves off from him. At one with him, we stand in the light of truth.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

You are a decent guy, of that I am sure.

I find myself in the unusual, perhaps unique, situation, of defending the Pope.

I agree with what he has to say as it follows my own reasoning pretty closely.

However, your own follow up describing why you feel his conclusions are superficial, encompasses where I believe many in your Church go wrong, for once again you seem to be positioning yourself in a superior position to those who don't agree with you. You claim to know the truth, or even be possessed by it, so just to enter a dialogue is not enough.

So rather than suggest that I consider the words of the Pope maybe you should ponder them.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Apologies. I should have used italics for the Pope's words. The follow-up about the rules being somewhat superficial is the Pope's not mine!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Then I agree with the first part, but not with the extension.

The problem with seeking "truth" via dialogue, rather than simply seeking understanding and the common ground, is that is an unrealistic impossibility.

When two, or more, contributors to that dialogue already know their own version of the "truth" how likely is it that anyone will agree with another? Be honest. Is there the slightest chance that you will ever be convinced that someone else's religion is actually right. No, in seeking the "truth" what I fear is meant is only to convince the others that you already hold it. After all it is "The Truth", isn't it, and not simply your opinion of what might be true.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: The "Truth" as revealed by scripture and the teaching of the Church only relates to certain things. It certainly does not cover the natural sciences, politics etc etc. I think one needs to read the entirety of the Pope's speech at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia_en.html

He says:

By entering into the thinking and understanding of mankind, this knowledge broadens the horizon of reason and thus it speaks also to those who are unable to share the faith of the Church. In her dialogue with the state and with society, the Church does not, of course, have ready answers for individual questions. Along with other forces in society, she will wrestle for the answers that best correspond to the truth of the human condition. The values that she recognizes as fundamental and non-negotiable for the human condition she must propose with all clarity. She must do all she can to convince, and this can then stimulate political action.

He finds common ground with the Chief Rabbi of Paris when discussing the family. His idea is that one does seek common ground and the truth therein but in seeking common ground one must never compromise on certain non-negotiable truths.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

No Stu Kartsu, I must disagree with you. I think James Preece is quite correct to argue that the metaphysics of the Catholic Faith are more important than the teachings on ethics & sexual morality, which merely follow on from the claims to truth made by the Faith. I feel that he is correct to argue that a faithful Catholic would do better to prioritise evangelism above merely arguing for particular aspects of Catholic Teaching.

The biggest problem with the Catholic Church, of Christianity in general in the West, is that it seems rather poor at convincing people of the claims of the religion. Belief in the trinity, in the divinity of Christ, seems to be something that people reject in quite staggering numbers considering that there are church schools, Christian TV stations, Christian radio stations, church buildings all over the place, & so on. Christ is crucified, so they tell us, yet we merely snigger at his stigmata.

I'm sure that if the Pope decided to change Catholic teaching on sexual matters to match the prevailing views of people in the Western World it would make the religion less resented in the eyes of many, but I don't think it would bring many people back to church on Sunday.

Catherine said...

MOTS says "I'm sure that if the Pope decided to change Catholic teaching on sexual matters to match the prevailing views of people in the Western World it would make the religion less resented in the eyes of many, but I don't think it would bring many people back to church on Sunday."

of this you can be absolutely sure. the C of E did it at the Lambeth Conference 1930 by first allowing contraception - the rest as they say is history as far as the numeric demise of the C of E is concerned on a weekly attendance basis.

New Friend said...

Catherine

I have often read this type of comment, which apparently seeks to justify the Catholic Church taking it's more traditional stance, whilst enjoying a sly dig at it's rivals.

I just wonder what the comparative position really is. My own observation is that, whilst your churches may appear to be fuller, the attendances seem to be greatly boosted by new arrivals to the UK, particularly so from eastern europe. As this is something the C of E does not benefit from, my guess is that your own position would probably be very much the same if those new people were discounted.

catherine said...

there was nothing sly about my comment nor was it a dig. it was an open statement of historical fact and an unashamed criticism of the C of E - i hide nothing.

as for the comparative figures...i was speaking globally not only of the British Isles

if you're referring to the immigrant Poles then they are central Europeans not Eastern and their current national numbers don't swell our mainstream parishes as you suggest since the majority of them attend Mass within the Polish Catholic Mission parishes ....
as usual ..you only prefer to deal with fake certainties. good day. I pray the light of Epiphany illumines you

New Friend said...

Catherine

You referred specifically to the C of E and NOT to the wider Anglican communion so my question remains valid and unanswered. I am not speaking globally, and nor were you. Whether the Poland is part of central or Eastern Europe is something which is argued about, even within Poland. It was certainly part of the former Eastern Bloc but it hardly matters in this context though does it?

Whenever I have attended a Catholic Church there were many Poles, and other new residents, in the congregation. Maybe "Polish Catholic Mission" parishes exist in your part of the world but not here!

I hope the light of reason shines on you one day.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

You are a gentleman New Friend, & I will defend you again here. Here I must disagree with you. I thought Catherine's response was fair comment. I mentioned other denominations in my comment, so I wont criticise Catherine for doing the same.

Tom said...

New Friend,

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah?

DM said...

As part of the 99%, I've been reading this debate with a view to commenting. It's exhausting! You must all have a lot of energy.

As someone with a skeptical bent, I respect the preference for first-hand testimony or experience. Having said that, there are times when we disregard first-hand testimony from other people. There may be doubts over their honesty, or their mental health. The Church does not automatically accept testimony regarding miracles, visions, etc. There's a story about St Phillip Neri visiting the house of a woman who had been reportedly levitating. He knocked on the door and said "Let me in! I want to see the saint!" and a voice from within cried "It is I!" So he immediately left.

At the same time, there is second or third hand testimony which we invest so much in that the word 'opinion' seems absurd. I have opinions about music; I have opinions about football; I even have opinions about theology (as opposed to doctrine). The reason I am happy to call my assent to these sets of propositions "opinions" is that I could conceivably disregard them without any impact on my integrity. On the other hand there are other propositions that I have so much confidence in that I will plan my life around them, for which the word opinion seems too weak.

It's the difference between having a theory about how the body works and being willing to operate on someone else's body on the basis of that theory. A medical scientist can have an opinion about the body. Can a surgeon?

This may seem like semantics but I'm trying to distinguish between shades of assent.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think when someone says "that is just your opinion" he is saying that you have no evidence to support that opinion. It is a put down to which the response should be to cite the evidence you have in support of your assertion.

DM said...

That's good. It's a potential trap though, no? David Hume says that we should only believe testimony regarding miracles if the possibility of falsehood is more miraculous than the miracle itself. Since any evidence that I could produce would involve testimony of miracles (over and above arguments from first principles), then we have an impasse. So challenge the premise. Is "opinion" the only alternative to "empirically verifiable fact"?

Nicolas Bellord said...

In the many attacks on Fatima that I have read the only one which suggested an alternative explanation was that by the Portuguese Rationalist Association. They said that the children had been coached by Jesuits to say what they said in the same way as the Jesuits had coached Joan of Arc.

I wonder what David Hume would have made of that!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

There are several alternatives. Rather than me repeat them here, and if you are really interested, just google "Fatima debunked" and read them for yourself.

I have to say though that the alternative you quote seems much more rational than any possibility that Fatima was true!

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: The Jesuits coaching Joan of Arc!! That would have been truly miraculous without a time-machine.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Ok, by around a century or so, but their predecessors could have done the same job.

More importantly did you run the google search I suggested and if so what did you discover?

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: Having a house a couple of hours away from Fatima I have had the opportunity to visit it many times. I have shelf-fulls of literature on the subject. The Rectory at Fatima is gradually publishing everything that was written about Fatima from 1917 onwards in whatever form both in favour and against viz:"Documentacao Critica da Fatima" - it is in about ten volumes so far and goes up to about 1930.

It seems to me that there are three possibilities about Fatima:

1. That it is true.
2. That the whole thing was invented by some persons unknown who coached the children.
3. That it is all the invention of Lucia who coached her cousins.

I have come to the conclusion that the second option is utterly unlikely. There is copious material relating to the interrogation of the children in 1917 in the first volume. Line by line questions and answers in pencil in exercise books, subsequently corrected and amplified and some eventually published. It is just the sheer quantity of all this which convinces me that there was no such plot. The interrogators were extremely sceptical to begin with and only gradually came to believe the children.

There was only one Jesuit around at the time who was editor of a local newspaper. He was certainly sceptical.

Of course none of this has to be believed by Catholics as being true. All the Church says is that it is worthy of belief. One just has to make up one's own mind. I find it fascinating reading the monosyllabic answers of the children who one can see getting fed up with being asked the same questions over and over again. Often quite amusing replies. They were certainly put under tremendous pressure. They were interrogated separately and it is interesting to see how they have different angles on what they experienced but with no serious contradictions. They certainly do not come up with anything that sounds as if they have learnt a story by rote.

I doubt if I could convince you and I do not think it important to do so. Everyone just has to make one's own judgement.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I think there is at least one further, strong, possibility as I don't personally believe any of yours to be correct.

4) That the children honestly believed what they reported, as did the other witnesses. However what they saw was either a misunderstood natural phenomenon or the result of mass hallucination.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think you are talking merely about the miracle of the sun on 13th October 2012.
However the children claimed that they had visions of Our Lady during the five previous months as well as on that day and I was referring to those claims rather than the miracle of the sun.

As to the miracle of the sun on 13th October 1917 it raises complicated questions. It seems obvious to me that the sun did not physically spin but rather people were given the impression that it was spinning. Lucia had previously asked Our Lady to demonstrate that the visions were genuine and Our Lady said that she would do something. This answer from Our Lady was reported in the Press some months before the miracle. For me the miracle is the inducing of people to believe that they saw the sun spinning etc as a result of supernatural intervention.

Actually I have not studied this particular aspect of Fatima in any great detail apart from reading the accounts.

However from looking at definitions of hallucinations and mass hysteria in wikipedia these seem to be rather different from what is described as happening at Fatima. However one could say that Our Lady caused the people to hallucinate!

VOAT said...

http://www.fromoceantoocean.org/node/457

Nicolas Bellord said...

Many thanks VOAT. A couple of years ago I went to Mass at the Cathedral in Oviedo and heard something I have never heard in England - a priest preaching against abortion.