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 -
In preparation for the currently ongoing papal conclave, I decided to read the official rules currently in force, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, issued by John Paul II in 1996. The document contains this provision (emphasis added):
Seems simple enough right?
Whoops.
Here I was, a schmuck, reading the canonically promulgated apostolic constitution as if it mattered, as if the supposed men of God involved in this 2000-year-old institution might care about established procedures.
Sure, Francis could have changed the rules, as many popes have done throughout the centuries, but he didn’t. He either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and neither did anyone else with influence within the Vatican either. How am I supposed to take this seriously if the cardinals and popes don’t even take it seriously?
I wish Christianity were true. I really do. It would certainly make my dating life easier. I’d have a sense of purpose in life, defined rules of virtue to follow, but it just doesn’t make any actual sense. The inconsistency I cited above is relatively minor, but it is illustrative of what one finds everywhere when one digs into the claims of Christianity and treats them with the truth-preserving tools of logic. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II, Matthew 24:34, these are fundamental truth claims that can’t be handwaved away like the finer points of ecclesiastical law.
If you're gonna clutch your pearls, dude, read up on the differences between dogma, doctrine, and discipline. Also that bureaucratic norms can be changed without it being "ZOMG they're re-writing the Gospels!!!!"
Pope Benedict XVI made changes to the proceedings in the Apostolic Letter Normas Nonnullas:
Please take note of the term "in the present historical circumstances". Golly gee wow, it's not 1996 anymore! We have not always had 120 cardinal electors, or 130, or however many are making you have a fit of the vapours.
Fun fact which people are riffing off now regarding past conclaves (and after Trump's portrait of himself as the pope), the conclave of 1268-1271 which ended up electing a guy who wasn't even ordained, much less present, as pope Gregory X:
I don't know if you're Catholic or just another person taking the opportunity to be shocked, shocked! about something or other to do with the Church, but I'm getting fed up of this carry-on. "Oh no, the people who claim to be divinely infallible have done something that contradicts each other! I am going to keel over in a faint from the shock!" Changes to the process have taken place over the centuries. The number of electors depends on how many current cardinals aged under 80 are present; you could have one million cardinals in the College and only 50 under 80 who would be eligible to be electors. Right now we have more cardinals under 80 alive to be electors, but that will change over the next few years as cardinals age out and die. This is not a matter of infallible teaching ex cathedra under the authority of the sacred Magisterium! It's election rules and tweaking the civil service!
Straighten out your theology and then make an informed comment. Forgive me if I sound grumpy, I'm irritated right now by (a) those who are not Catholic or even Christian sticking their oar in for point-scoring purposes, even if they have no intention at all of being involved in religious practice and (b) the perennial liberals who want the Church to hurry up, get with the times, and elect the pope who will ordain trans non-binary furry queer female married priests.
If this were Judaism, Shinto, Hinduism, or any other religion that isn't explicitly trying to convert the entire world, I would agree. But for the big two globalist religions, Christianity and Islam, I reserve the right to comment on their internal affairs and air my grievances. These religions will affect me whether I like it or not, because their followers will be trying to convert me either with relentless badgering from Christians or actual violence from Muslims. I shouldn't have to waste my time becoming "informed" about catholic theology before having an opinion that the Pope should be more liberal and open-minded.
On the one hand, yeah, the Church puts forth its opinions and does affect the secular world. So it does affect non-Catholics. On the other hand, people who have no intention whatsoever of stepping foot inside a church but want Catholicism to change to fit with Current Secular Thing (last time was gay, probably now is trans, next time furries? poly? who can say?) may express an opinion as to how if only, if only, this little teeny thing was different they would totally rush down for baptism tomorrow - and I can disbelieve them.
I can complain about the US President of the day, because he has outsize power on what affects my nation, but I don't get to tell Americans "well if you all just scrapped the way you do elections and do it by my preferred system, then I'd be ever so happy. No, I don't have a vote in American elections and don't live in America, but I should still be able to tell you to change to suit me".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link