This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
(Sorry, I’m migrating this over).
Pope Francis has died at the age of 88. My understanding is that all of his plausible successors are more conservative in terms of doctrine. I imagine that Latin Mass will be easier but are they likely to make any significant changes to the Vatican II settlement?
As much as a lot of us complain about Pope Francis's progressivism, we can't deny that the Church has been seeing somewhat of a renaissance over the last few years: https://www.ncregister.com/news/easter-2025-new-catholics-by-the-numbers
The Pope Francis critics will say that this is despite him, but it's difficult not to see that his grace, and his kindness, likely also have an effect on the way that people view The Church.
I mean... anecdote and all, but my wife and I are trying to find a church right now, not because Pope Francis made Catholicism more progressive, but because that was nearly the last straw. We feel like all the promises of a secular, expert run society we were promised in the 90's just opened up fresh new horrors we could have scarcely imagined, and are ready to try to retvrn and believe in Christ. I find myself questioning 40 years of staunch atheism by the fruits it's bore, and am totally ready to just start going to church and see what happens.
And in that search, Catholicism is virtually the top sect we are most hesitant to consider, behind "Unitarian" which at least near us codes to "Whatever goes man" loosey goosey "spiritual but not religious" non-faith.
Then again, we've encountered a lot of very conservative Catholics near us that have invited us to services with them next week, so we'll see how that goes.
Have you looked into Orthodoxy? I had similar issues with Catholicism and found a home in the Orthodox church.
See, I really don't like how exclusionary the Eastern Orthodox tend to be. Why not recognize Christ's body throughout the world, even as it's racked by various grevious schisms? Why worsen them? At least the Roman Catholics are sort of willing to recognize the other church bodies, especially post Vatican II. And the ecclesiology seems kind of broken with the way that schisms happen—e.g. was the entire East not part of the church for taking the wrong side during the Acacian schism? And then just became, at once, the church again when they reconciled? And, like, then you have to disclaim the Church of the East evangelizing China in the first millenium just because they didn't follow Ephesus.
I'm quite happy over here with my Protestantism that's willing to recognize the entire community of the faithful, regardless of nation, as assemblies of my brothers in Christ, and parts of his single visible church.
I belong to a very exclusionary tradition and from my perspective orthodoxy is, yes, exclusionary, but without rhyme or reason. There doesn’t seem to be the most common thread uniting the Russians and Greeks and Syrians in contrast to… the other Syrians. But at the same time they exclude eastern Catholics who, in practice, are distinguished by venerating JPII as a saint and having moral theology which is stricter than the mainstream but definitely within bounds for the EOC, and exclude the oriental orthodox churches whose differences are basically those of rite and canonization lists.
Catholics at least have the pope(and it cannot be overstated the degree to which nobody likes sedevacantists and Catholics grasp at no true Scotsmans to exclude them). I really don’t know what Eastern Orthodoxy’s unity is, especially with the recent splintering.
The thread uniting the various autocephalous churches (lifted from Wikipedia):
I think the recent "splintering" has been pretty overblown, lay people under the Ecumenical Patriarch can still commune at churches that are under the Moscow Patriarchate, and vice versa. Our clergy cannot currently serve together, but this is not a total breaking of communion. This sort of thing has happened throughout church history and generally gets resolved (though sometimes not, certainly). Most likely outcome is: the war in Ukraine ends, tensions cool, the Patriarchs (or maybe their successors) start commemorating one another again, and full communion is restored.
More options
Context Copy link
What are your thoughts on Vatican II and exclusionariness?
Other religions are wrong, simple as that.
Vatican II was a pastoral council, meaning it did not define any dogmas. This means it did not overturn extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I suppose it is possible to say that the documents developed the understanding of it, but I hold to the opinion that they simply add weight to the understanding the magisterial organs of the church turned in favor towards before the council, particularly with the corrections issued towards Fr. Feeney. I believe 'subsistit in' can be taken as a synonym for 'est' in this context.
What do you make of Unitatis redintegratio affirming that those not under Rome can have faith, hope, and charity (3)? And Lumen Gentium defining the Church in those terms (8), in some sense at least?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link