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 -
Interesting. Imagine four people who call themselves Catholic:
Alice goes to Mass every day, observes the Sabbath, and follows every papal edict to the letter.
Bob professes to believe every papal edict and tenet of his faith – but in practice, he never goes to Mass, doesn't observe the Sabbath, eats meat on Fridays, doesn't give up anything for Lent etc.
Carol goes to Mass every day, observes the Sabbath, gives something up for Lent etc. – but her actual worldview is functionally indistinguishable from any of her woke friends, which entails major doctrinal disagreements with the Church on abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, divorce etc. She also doesn't believe in transubstantiation.
Like Bob, David is non-observant, and like Carol he has major doctrinal disagreements with the Church, including disbelieving transubstantiation (I think this accurately describes an absolute majority of nominal Irish Catholics).
I'm sure most people would say that Alice is the "most" Catholic, or most "authentically" Catholic, or a "central example" of what we call Catholic. Equally, most people would say that David is only nominally Catholic, neither walking the walk nor talking the talk.
I'm torn on whether Bob is "more" Catholic than Carol, or vice versa. On the one hand, Carol "walks the walk" in making at least some of the sacrifices her faith demands of her, including getting up early on Sundays. On the other hand, if Catholicism is a belief system first and foremost, then holding the correct beliefs ought to be seen as far more important as following the rituals – observing the rituals when you don't believe in any of the beliefs underpinning them strikes me as sort of insincere and performative.
[Edit: by pure coincidence, the morning after writing this post I was re-reading an old post of Scott's which includes this gem of a quote from CS Lewis: "Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car."]
Authentic membership in a religion is a special case, as it's usually determined based on privately-held beliefs and active, observable behaviour. For a lot of the other categories I discussed above, authenticity is often based on only one or the other. While support for animal rights and opposition to factory farming are beliefs commonly held by vegetarians, they're not generally considered rule-in criteria: as far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't eat meat is a vegetarian, regardless of their worldview. Saying "I'm a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat, but I don't really have a problem with factory farming" doesn't sound incoherent to me in the way that "I'm Catholic and I go to Mass, but I don't believe in transubstantiation" does.
Catholicism is probably a bad example to debate, in that the Catholic view of this is that if Alice, Bob, Carol, and David were all Confirmed Catholics at some point in their lives, then they are all Catholics. One can lapse, or be in a state of apostasy or heresy or excommunication, but one cannot cease to be Catholic once one has become one, Catholic identity is an indelible mark even should one wish to shed it. Essentially the view is, in your terms, that if one does a sufficient quantum of activity+belief at any point in one's life (typically but not necessarily while young) then one has become Catholic and remains Catholic forever. One can be more pious than another, or in Communion with Rome as opposed to lapsed, etc. But one is always Catholic.
That all being said, within any belief system I think there are multiple types and layers we have to distinguish, some of which Catholicism has traditionally taken note of.
One should distinguish between sins, where one fails to meet the standard that one believes in as we are all weak and fallen, and dissenting beliefs. Somebody who slips up on occasion and does something against the teachings of the faith while still believing in the teachings of the faith, is different from someone who believes the teachings of the faith are wrong. Then there's the difference between dissent, believing the church is wrong, and error in ignorance where an individual is either insufficiently Cathechized or just too dumb to understand the finer points of doctrine. Obscure theological points, or third order logical conclusions, just won't be properly comprehended by a lot of people, and a skilled sophist could lead them through clever phrasing to deny them. And there's a difference again between His Holiness' Loyal Opposition, a reformer who dissents from church policy and wants to change it, and someone who hates the church whole cloth.
At any rate, we should recenter the question. I don't really care what you call yourself, I care about how seriously I have to take it. A constant problem within the legal cases surrounding Freedom of Religion in the United States is how do we know who is a believer? I want to see a broadened freedom of religion, but I also want to see enhanced tests of belief to access those protections. Similarly socially and ethically. It's fine for anyone to call themselves a Christian or a Jew or a Pastafarian, it's not fine for that to impose requirements on me to take their beliefs seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
Carol would generally be regarded as more Catholic than Bob by most practicing Catholics and by the church hierarchy. This matrix is a live question and the Catholic Church has a literal definition of the minimum standards to be accounted a practicing Catholic- the six precepts of the church.
If Carol was a public figure she might be subject to church discipline for heretical views(Nancy Pelosi notably is), which would change the equation. But church discipline is not levied against random people for heresy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link