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 -
Is The Pope Catholic? No Really
Rumors are swirling that Pope Francis will demand the resignation of Joseph Strickland, the popular conservative bishop of Tyler, Texas. He is notable as the only bishop to personally attend the protest against the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at Dodgers Stadium. Meanwhile, bishops in Germany are now openly blessing same-sex couples in direct violation of Catholic doctrine. A cursory search reveals no disciplinary action against any of these bishops in response. By their fruits you will know them. In rationalist terms, this is called revealed preference.
This would be less of a problem for religions like Mormonism that allow for continuing revelation. Contrary to popular belief, the Pope is not a prophet. He can not walk out onto the balcony of St. Peter's and say, "Sorry guys, just talked to Jesus. The second coming is canceled." He would be immediately recognized as a fraud. He is bound* both by the deposit of faith and the dogmatic pronouncements of the church.
This leads to an interesting Ship of Theseus problem. The Catholic Church has had it's parishioners, officials, and doctrine replaced. Is it still the Catholic Church? It's not even just the gender stuff. Here is Pope Francis participating in a literal pagan ritual. I have seen him apologize for the residential school system, but I have yet to see him apologize for violating the first commandment.
*in theory lol
Per Paul in 1 Corinthians 8, Christians are allowed to eat meat that has been sacrificed as an offering to pagan idols, so I think there's more latitude than you would expect on engagement with pagans. The rationale being, "we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God" and so the pagan worship has no power, but it should not be indulged if it emboldens those with a "weak conscience."
Of course you can say that the Pope is emboldening those with a weak conscience, and of course that's a bigger deal than the actual pagan ceremony.
There are two contradictory interpretations of the pagan gods and animistic spirits in the Abrahamic religions. One interpretation sees them as inert wood and stone having no real existence. The other sees them as actual demons who have power in this world and have tricked men into worshipping them as gods.
I understand that official Catholic teaching is the former, rather than the latter. Demons can tempt people, but actual magic and witchcraft are just superstitions.
The Catholic Church teaches the existence of demons, of course. This includes the note that all demons were themselves created good, but by their own action became evil, and that it is outside the limits of doctrine to determine the number of demons or their power.
The relation of demons to so-called pagan gods is unclear. The idea that gods or spirits are all just demons (or potentially angels or other incorporeal beings created by God which may remain good, and if so are presumably greatly grieved by the folly of men worshipping them) is batted around sometimes.
There's that intriguing passage in Galatians 4 (see 4:3 and 4:9) where Paul describes the believers as having been previously enslaved by the 'elemental spirits of the universe' - the stoicheion tou kosmou - before being liberated by Christ. What are these? Demons? Spirits? Pagan gods? In Spe Salvi Benedict XVI spoke of them as if they're synonymous with 'the laws of matter and evolution', perhaps seeing them as a personification of physical law, or of what an atheistic cosmos would be like, but that seems a little tenuous for the original first century context.
At any rate, there are a range of plausible Christian views on demons or spirits. One traditional position, of course, has been that idols aren't real and don't do anything - that's in 1 Corinthians with food sacrificed to idols, that's the whole point of Bel and the Dragon, that's in Isaiah (41:29, 42:17, etc.). But of course the fact that an idol is just mute wood or metal does not rule out the possibility of other incorporeal beings, like demons.
Yes, but under Catholic teaching, can demons actually influence the physical world? Or do they just lead men astray?
Yes, within limits demons can influence the physical world within catholic teaching. Possession is taught to be real and demons can interact directly with physical objects just like unfallen angels.
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