site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is pope Francis attempting to bring in gay marriage by the back door?

Kind of a long story, so bear with me for the background(https://www.ncregister.com/news/cardinals-send-dubia-to-pope-ahead-of-synod-on-synodality):

Dubia are formal questions brought before the pope and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) aimed at eliciting a “Yes” or “No” response, without theological argumentation. The word dubia is the plural form of dubium, which means “doubt” in Latin. They are typically raised by cardinals or other high-ranking members of the Church and are meant to seek clarification on matters of doctrine or Church teaching.

The dubia were signed by German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, 94, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; American Cardinal Raymond Burke, 75, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura; Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, 90, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong; Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, 90, archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara; and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, 78, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Submitting dubia is not a particularly uncommon occurrence and does not have a strong partisan(for lack of a better term) valence. The summary of these particular dubia later on in the same article is fairly accurate, but you can read them in their entirety, along with Cardinal Burke's statement on resubmitting them, here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/10/full-text-of-new-dubia-sent-to-francis.html

What is unusual is resubmitting dubia after being dissatisfied with the response received, which is what happened here:

The same group of senior prelates say they submitted a previous version of the dubia on these topics on July 10 and received a reply from Pope Francis the following day.

But they said that the pope responded in full answers rather than in the customary form of “Yes” and “No” replies, which made it necessary to submit a revised request for clarification.

Pope Francis’ responses “have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them,” they said in a statement to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s partner news outlet. They therefore sent the reformulated dubia on Aug. 21, rephrasing them partly so they would elicit “Yes” or “No” replies.

The cardinals declined the Register’s requests to review the pope’s July 11 response, as they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public.

Interestingly, the pope's(in reality Cardinal Fernandez's[head of the DDF, the Vatican's doctrine branch, occupying the position that in recent pontificates has been a de facto #2 spot]) responses were leaked anyways, by the Vatican(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255539/read-pope-francis-response-to-the-dubia-presented-to-him-by-5-cardinals). As that link demonstrates, the responses are indeed not the customary yes or no replies. I'm not quoting the whole thing, because they're lengthy word salad, but the most interesting, and controversial, part, is below, the response to the second dubia:

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.“

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.

e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from an objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself demands that we do not simply treat as “sinners“ other people whose guilt or responsibility may be due to their own fault or responsibility attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a diocese, an episcopal conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially authorize procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule,“ because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry“ (Amoris Laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the episcopal conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.

That's a lot of words to come full circle, but the middle part- about blessing same sex non-weddings- is what has hair on fire. If you take the position that any of those paragraphs are not meaningless argle-bargle, paragraph g about the need to ensure blessings of same sex couples doesn't become a norm would not be among them. Again from the first article:

On the topic of blessing same-sex unions, which have been pushed for in places like Germany, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal office, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in on the matter in 2021, clarifying that “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.” However, some have speculated that, in spite of the DDF text referencing his approval, Pope Francis was displeased by the document. Relatedly, Antwerp’s Bishop Johan Bonny claimed in March that the pope did not disapprove of the Flemish-speaking Belgian bishops plan to introduce a related blessing, although this claim has not been substantiated and it is not clear that the Flemish blessing is, in fact, the kind explicitly disapproved by the DDF guidance.

Regarding the DDF text, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin cited it in his criticism of the German Synodal Way’s decision to move forward with attempted blessings of same-sex unions, but he also added that the topic would require further discussion at the upcoming universal synod. More significantly, new DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, a close confidant of Pope Francis, stated in July that while he was opposed to any blessing that would confuse same-sex unions with marriage, the 2021 DDF guidance “lacked the smell of Francisco” and could be revisited during his tenure.

I am inclined to believe Cardinal Fernandez here, because A) responsa ad dubium are normally approved by the pope himself, so the middle paragraphs about blessing same sex non-weddings were approved by pope Francis B) firing Cardinal Fernandez over a previous screw up and disowning his comments would be trivially easy due to his atrocious record on handling sex abuse cases, yet he was appointed personally by Pope Francis rather than as a compromise(as Ladaria, the previous occupant of the office- and the issuer of the 2021 clarification against blessing same sex unions which it is rumored played a part in Francis' decision not to appoint him to a second term) or a holdover from Benedict XVI(as was Muller, the predecessor to Ladaria) and C) breaking with precedent in this manner is so highly unusual for a cabinet-level Vatican position that there's something there, and dragging your boss under the bus is not recommended.

What would it mean if the synod on synodality(which starts wednesday, and kicked off the whole brouhaha with this particular round of dubia) does in fact create significant wiggle room for bishops to authorize same sex non-weddings? Well, back to Cardinal Muller, who has previously pointed to this as a possible red line for some kind of ill-defined drastic action(https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cardinal-muller-warns-same-sex-blessings-are-blasphemy-as-synod-on-synodality-looms/):

“A fictitious ‘blessing’ of same-sex couples,” he expounded, “is not only a blasphemy against the Creator of the world and man, but also a grave sin against the salvation of the people concerned, who are led to believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is pleasing to God, which is described in the revealed Word of God as a grave sin against the sixth commandment (Rom 1:26f; 1 Cor 9:-11).”

And:

Here, Cardinal Müller raises the question of the status in the Church of those who wish to change the Church’s teachings, by quoting St. Irenaeus: “With apostolic succession, bishops have received the reliable charism of truth (charisma vertitatis certum), as it pleased God. But all others who do not want to know about this succession, which goes back to the origin, and who gather arbitrarily anywhere, are suspected of being either heretics with evil in mind, or schismatics…. All these people forsake the truth.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies IV 26, 2).

For Cardinal Müller, the truth of Christ is what matters at the synod: “I hope that the truth of Christ will determine the direction of the Synod and not a group dynamic process will lead the participants in the direction of an anti-Christian anthropology that questions the two-gendered nature of man created by God. This blatant contradiction to the divine and Catholic faith is gladly veiled with an alleged pastoral care for persons with any ‘erotic preferences.’”

That is to say, Cardinal Müller will not go along with such an attempted change of Church teaching at the upcoming synod in Rome.

Cardinal Muller, for those who are unfamiliar, is powerful enough within the church oligarchy to have previously vetoed a candidate for Cardinal Fernandez's current spot(https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/12/cardinals-block-appointment-of-heiner.html), so him saying something like this is a very big deal, albeit poorly defined what it would actually look like.

Everyone freaking out about same sex blessings is burying the lead. Look at what Pope Francis says about scripture in the dubium on divine revelation (emphasis mine):

”f) On the other hand, it is true that the magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of tradition need an interpretation that allows us to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Oum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of tradition that cannot be repeated literally today.

When people like Bishop Strickland accuse Francis of undermining the deposit of faith, this is what they mean. The pope just cited multiple New Testament passages which give specific instructions for how women should behave in church as something which “cannot be repeated literally today.”

If you want a real laugh, look at his response to the dubium on women priests. For context, in 1994 Pope John Paul II issued ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, which declared:

”Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

Now let’s read Pope Francis’s interpretation:

”c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine has not yet been exhaustively developed about the exact nature of a “definitive statement.“ It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be observed by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the object of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.”

”A clear and authoritative doctrine has not yet been exhaustively developed about the exact nature of a ‘definitive statement.’” This is an absolute disaster. I don’t see how the church comes back from this.

I don't understand this objection. Are you a textual literalist? Or even just for the new testament? Do you think all Catholics should be literalists about the new testament?

I don’t see how the church comes back from this.

The near future path is to fire cardinal Fernandez and claim he went rogue. But pope Francis won’t do that. So a future pope would have to issue a correction, claiming that Fernandez had gone rogue and that pope Francis was senile.

Look, the church came back from honorius I, from the Avignon situation, from the Byzantine captivity, the cadaver synod, Benedict XI, the pornocracy, the borgias, etc, etc. 2000 year old institutions where the fresh blood is conservative are not permanent subjects of the globohomo.

It's lede, not lead.

lede [lēd] NOUN US ENGLISH the opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story:

As to the matter at hand: of course Francis is trying to turn the Catholic Church into another bastion of globohomo. The Church was not left alone by the Allies and Operation Gladio in the wake of WW2, and since then the influence of Langley has been pretty clear: always more liberal, always destroying traditions, always elevating women and gays as much as possible.

This kind of low-effort, low-evidence, low-value snarling is something you've been warned about before. In fact you've been warned and banned repeatedly and you seem to be one of those people who is only here to post edgy snarls at your outgroup. Banned for another week; next time will probably be two weeks to permanent.

So the obvious response here is 'God of the margins' stuff (What the church believes/does now is nothing like what it believed/did 1000 years ago, it has always moved with the times to reflect popular understanding and preferences), real politik stuff (The church's #1 job is to keep member roles and coffers high, which means giving the audience what they want), etc. I think that's all relevant but also pretty played out as a topic of discussion for anyone who was online in the last few decades.

The more interesting question I want to ask of anyone who knows anything about how church theology works - which I don't really - is whether empirical evidence ever plays a role in determining the will of God in cases like this, and when/how it does so.

Like... we've had gay marriage for decades now, no one got turned into pillars of salt or anything, seems like empirically it works about as well as straight marriage for families and for raising kids, and even for church membership at accepting churches.

Before gay marriage was legal a Christian could speculate about all kinds of consequences of allowing such unholy unions, but they didn't really happen, so... does that weigh against those people's predictions on how God feels on the matter? Is that evidence that this was mostly people misinterpreting Him, and He's not too worried about this, since otherwise we'd expect to see some type of mortal consequence?

I feel like in practice this must be how the church works... whether it's accepting the heliocentric model or admitting that it's ok for laymen to read the bible directly, religious beliefs do eventually bow to evidence and social norms. I'm just wondering if there's a principled model for how empirical evidence like that is weighed in those cases, or if it's just real politik without rationalization.

Like... we've had gay marriage for decades now, no one got turned into pillars of salt or anything, seems like empirically it works about as well as straight marriage for families and for raising kids, and even for church membership at accepting churches.

Marriage has been hit by a quadruple whammy over the last 150+ years:

  1. Replacement of asymmetric vows/obligations (the woman vows to obey) with asexual vows. Ending of the legal privileges of father/husband.
  2. No-fault divorce
  3. Normalization and even encouragement of sex-outside of marriage by high production value media
  4. Gay marriage

All of these things happened gradually and culture often lagged legal changes, so it is difficult to correlate the damage done with the change in policy. However, overall marriage has been completely hollowed out, and as a result we have seen a dramatic rise in broken families and mental illness. "Gay marriage" was more the final nail in the coffin than it was the decisive blow.

The biggest thing I've noticed about the post-Obergefell world is that it now seems political incorrect/taboo to say that "man-woman" marriage is better or the norm. Children are not born knowing that man-woman marriage is better than other arrangements, they must be taught that. But the post-Obergefell world, or official institutions like schools or children's TV programming cannot teach man-woman as the norm. And we see in surveys things like 50% of young women identifying as non-straight, or under 40% of young people responding in surveys that marriage and kids are important life goals, and we also see very high rates of mental illness among young liberal women. We have lost our ability in as a society to model what a default good life should be, and kids are making poor choices and ending up with mental health problems. And yes, the absysmally low (and highly dysgenic) fertility rates will result in an end of civilization if nothing changes.

Were I that dude in the black sweater The Truman Show guy, not Steve Jobs, I would want to create a double-blind study of 1,200 babies, half raised in a world where man-woman marriage is the unquestioned norm and half raised in a world where guy-guy stuff has social capital: then come back 50 years later and see which one had better outcomes. Because clearly being raised in world that's conflicted about it is worse than either one of those.

Do we have the compute to run an experiment like that on AI babies?

Are we in a simulation hypothesis computer as a control group for an experiment like that?

Will becoming aware of that be an error that whatever is running the experiment writes "tainted - discard from study" on the universe and throws it in a biohazard bag?

deep crumple sound of something just 1/4th inch wider than the universe being skooshed

Is there actually a large contingent of men and women who want this?

With the caveat that you probably do not understand what the vow means or implies, yes. If you have questions, ask away.

It was literally the standard common book of prayer up until 1928. And "wife has a duty to obey" was the standard Christian, Hewbrew, and Roman teaching, so that is a span from 700BC to AD 1928. So which viewpoint is bizarre? OK, but we have cool modern technology now! We have indoor toilets now! Why should we take the norms of the past seriously? On the other hand ... technology was progressing from 700BC to AD 1928. Are things progressing now? At the same rate? The same second derivative?

Before gay marriage was legal a Christian could speculate about all kinds of consequences of allowing such unholy unions, but they didn't really happen, so

They were absolutely right it was a slippery slope. Maybe they didn't hit the nail on the head with their predictions, but in fairness "we will start sending male rapists to female prisons" and "top academics won't even be able to tell what a woman is" would have seemed like too much of a non-sequitur compared to "they'll legalize polygamy or bestiality next".

That argument is called ‘by their fruits you shall know them’ and it has some, albeit limited, amount of play.

Thanks, I will look into it

Before gay marriage was legal a Christian could speculate about all kinds of consequences of allowing such unholy unions, but they didn't really happen, so... does that weigh against those people's predictions on how God feels on the matter? Is that evidence that this was mostly people misinterpreting Him, and He's not too worried about this, since otherwise we'd expect to see some type of mortal consequence?

It seems that you're arguing against the Pat Robertsons of the world who say things like Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for homosexuality.

Does anyone on the Motte actually believe things like that? No, I don't think so.

A more common Motte argument is that gay marriage is part of a word view that has led to many negative changes including declining fertility, declining religious belief, increased alienation of the individual, and increased mental illness including, especially, the trans epidemic.

Can we have societal acceptance of gays without all the other stuff? Maybe. I don't know. It's never been tried before. But we don't need any belief in the supernatural to see that gay marriage is deeply knit into other, mostly negative, societal changes.

including declining fertility, declining religious belief, increased alienation of the individual, and increased mental illness

All of these problems exist, and in fact are even worse, in countries like South Korea, Japan, and Russia that are more socially conservative than the US and western Europe on every metric.

I’ll note that Japan and Russia have above-average for their regions fertility rates. Japan in particular has like a 25% higher TFR than its neighbors while being a lot more conservative and traditional.

South Korea, Japan, and Russia that are more socially conservative than the US and western Europe on every metric.

Malarkey. All of these countries are extremely feminist by historical American standards, and by some metrics are more feminist than contemporary America. For example, South Korea ranked 10th in the world in the UN's Gender Inequality Index, which is far higher than where America ranked. I wrote a long effort post on this last year and part 2 and part 3

They’re progressive, but many don’t have legal gay marriage, which is the point.

Whether they're extremely feminist by historical standards doesn't matter. If feminism (or social liberalism in general) is what causes worse social outcomes, then more feminist/liberal countries should do worse than less feminist/liberal countries now. What are the metrics by which ROK is more feminist than the US or western Europe? Quick googling shows lower female representation in parliament, significantly lower representation in corporate boardrooms and leadership, about equivalent divorce, labor force participation, and college education rates (ROK's are a little lower for all). Abortion was illegal until two years ago.

Your post where you propose to cherry-pick a counter-narrative which makes ROK out to be a feminist hellhole is sourced entirely from reddit comments.

For example, South Korea ranked 10th in the world in the UN's Gender Inequality Index

Also ranked below multiple western European countries, none of which have any of these problems in nearly the same degree as ROK does.

In any case, the OP is about gay marriage, not feminism. Homosexuality remains much less socially accepted in ROK than in the west, and there is no gay marriage.

Russia is a particularly good example since, as you note in this post, Putin's government has made a big show of retvrning to tradition, revitalizing the Orthodox Church, and opposing the degenerate west, and yet he can't keep the fertility rate from continuing to crash or the kids from becoming atheist.

Whether they're extremely feminist by historical standards doesn't matter. If feminism (or social liberalism in general) is what causes worse social outcomes, then more feminist/liberal countries should do worse than less feminist/liberal countries now.

No, because of range restriction. Height matters for basketball, but if you do a correlation between NBA statistical success and height, there is no correlation. That is because everyone has already been selected based on height. Every country today is hyper-feminist, the actual differences between them in amount of feminism is small, so when comparing metrics like fertility rate or mental illness, other factors will matter more.

What are the metrics by which ROK is more feminist than the US or western Europe

Compared to the US, the UN Gender Inequality Index and ROK has actually had a woman president and the US has not. Compared to Western Europe, I suspect that ROK women, particularly single women, work far more hours in the office than American women. I suspect ROK has more of a princess culture, but I don't know how I would prove this to your satisfaction, it's not something that anyone reputable tracks and quantifies. There are many forms of feminism, "princess culture" is one form, Russian style gold-digging is another, girl-boss, strong bad-ass woman type is another. Countries are feminist in different ways.

Russia is a particularly good example since, as you note in this post, Putin's government has made a big show of retvrning to tradition, revitalizing the Orthodox Church, and opposing the degenerate west, and yet he can't keep the fertility rate from continuing to crash or the kids from becoming atheist.

He made a show but he did not actually do much of anything. Russia went full communist in 1918, and had 70 years during which it was way to the left on religious and feminist issues than the USA. It never actually recovered from that.

If there's no correlation between outcomes and degrees of feminism today on the international scale, then there's no reason anyone should take seriously the argument that feminism is responsible for worsening social conditions, because you won't admit to any control. The only control is the world 100+ years ago, and life back then was worse on every metric I can think of.

Countries are feminist in different ways.

What is your definition of feminism?

He made a show but he did not actually do much of anything.

This is like marxists who insist the reason USSR/China/Cuba/etc. failed to create a communist utopia is because they just didn't do communism hard enough. Maybe. But since there appears to be no correlation between communist policy and improved outcomes, there's no reason to believe that. Same here.

because you won't admit to any control

Yes, that is what I said very clearly my original post that I linked to. There is no control group.

and life back then was worse on every metric I can think of.

1950s America was massively less feminist than any white or east asian country today, and was a pretty nice place to live, a better place by many metrics. And to the extent things are better in 2023, it is mostly because of technological development, but the pace of technological development was greater in the 1950s, the nice things we have in 2023 are built on the groundwork of things discovered in earlier times, I do not think you can give feminism any credit for the nicer technological things we have in 2023 than we had in 1950.

This is like marxists who insist the reason USSR/China/Cuba/etc. failed to create a communist utopia is because they just didn't do communism hard enough. Maybe.

AFACIT, Putin did not substantially change policy at all. Did he enact something like the Hayes code for all TV and movies in Russia? Did he restrict women from going to college? Did he ban no fault divorce? Did he restrict single women from living alone? Did he add "honor and obey" to all legal marriage vows? How much money did he actually allocate toward pro-traditional Christian values media? Did he make being a member of a church in good standing a prerequisite for elite positions? Did he ban abortion? Did he ban birth control? These are things that were the norm in America 70-120 years ago, such policy changes are what it would actually mean to roll-back feminism.

More comments

This seems a case of categories being too vague to properly describe what is happening. It seems very weird to characterize what is happening in Japan and the US under the same term when they're opposite ends of the spectrum described by Durkheim with Japan and fatalism on one side and the US and anomie on the other.

Japanese alienation expresses itself with very rigid social institutions with no way to chose one's path in life which crushes individual will. American alienation looks more like loose to nonexistent social institutions that provide no life path at all which renders individual will meaningless.

These are both bad and have bad consequences, but they are very much not the same phenomenon.

"Social alienation" is harder to pin down and define, but crashing fertility and growing irreligiosity are a lot more clear-cut. But in any case, the Japanese "loneliness epidemic" seems comparable to the similar decline in community in the west.

It seems that you're arguing against the Pat Robertsons of the world who say things like Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for homosexuality.

Does anyone on the Motte actually believe things like that? No, I don't think so.

Someone in the same comment thread does: https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/144411?context=8#context

That's more the "slippery slope" argument than "Katrina was god's punishment".

declining fertility, declining religious belief, increased alienation of the individual, and increased mental illness

Declining religious belief does not seem like a negative to me.

Increased alienation of the individual is compensated for by the fact that humans are now more free from having their lives dominated by the small communities in which they grew up.

I am not sure that mental illness actually has increased, especially if you classify at least some forms of religiosity as forms of mental illness. Stuff like the Children's Crusade and the Salem Witch Trials do not seem to me like signs of a mentally healthy culture. Pre-Enlightenment Europe had horrific things like the 30 Years War happening, it was not some bastion of mental health.

Declining fertility might actually be a real problem going forward, I do agree with that, but it seems to me that most current cultures that have high levels of fertility have their own very real problems.

Is our society actually less religious? Or has religious energy been shunted toward more destructive political religions?

I think that conservation of religiosity is a thing, and I'd rather have people believe in something with a track record of success than.. what we have now.

Well, I have no interest in any of the organized religions because I disagree with too many of their claims about reality. And I am also not a fan of any of the various political dogmas that I have encountered, such as is progressivism, communism, fascism, "free market will solve everything" libertarianism, etc. So I am simply not satisfied with either of those two and I would rather have some kind of third option.

So I am simply not satisfied with either of those two and I would rather have some kind of third option.

Well unfortunately one of the main points of a religion is that to be successful, it has to be broadly appealing, both to the masses and to the more intellectual class. So you're not going to be able to have your third option that ticks all of your boxes unless the rest of the populace suddenly starts having a deep rationalist understanding of the world, or whatever you care about.

Increased alienation of the individual is compensated for by the fact that humans are now more free from having their lives dominated by the small communities in which they grew up.

That's small comfort when that dominance was just replaced with being dominated by people who know nothing about me, and have values completely alien to mine.

There are tradeoffs. Being dominated by a feudal lord or emperor 1000 years ago would have sucked if you happened to have a nasty kind of feudal lord or emperor rather than a nice one. Sure, there was Christianity and certain notions of social propriety in common between the peasants and the aristocrats, but there were also numerous brutally suppressed peasant revolts.

I don't think religious belief necessarily implies feudalism, or that lack of religious belief implies non-feudalism. I also thought you meant having to socially conform to your local community, not literal serfdom.

To be fair, I'm kind of an extreme case in how much I hate having to conform to any community.

But yes, of course just having to socially conform to a community is much less bad than literal serfdom. But by the same token, isn't you saying "being dominated by people who know nothing about me, and have values completely alien to mine" also a pretty strong exaggeration of what modernity is actually like? The reality, it seems to me, is that the average social conservative of today probably shares like 80% of values in common with the average elite of today. It's just that we focus on the differences.

"being dominated by people who know nothing about me, and have values completely alien to mine" also a pretty strong exaggeration of what modernity is actually like?

Honestly it seems like an understatement. Rather it's being dominated by people who actively hate one's culture and openly boast about being the best at exterminating it.

I'm no Religious man, but I certainly feel more free to live a normal human life in an Islamic theocracy than in the modern managerial state. And I say this having experienced the downsides of both. At least with the theocrats the rules are not constantly changing and there is a defined limiting principle you can invoke to keep the peace.

More comments

To be fair, I'm kind of an extreme case in how much I hate having to conform to any community

I'm not much of social conformist either, in fact my distaste for modernity stems directly from that. The issue is that it seems the only choice is who to conform to, and in hindsight conforming to your family and community seems strictly superior.

But by the same token, isn't you saying "being dominated by people who know nothing about me, and have values completely alien to mine" also a pretty strong exaggeration of what modernity is actually like?

Not really. My point was that it's comparable in it's intensity to the pressure your local community would put on you. I don't think that's an exaggeration.

The reality, it seems to me, is that the average social conservative of today probably shares like 80% of values in common with the average elite of today. It's just that we focus on the differences.

Now this is where I hold some extreme views.

More comments

Can we have societal acceptance of gays without all the other stuff? Maybe. I don't know. It's never been tried before. But we don't need any belief in the supernatural to see that gay marriage is deeply knit into other, mostly negative, societal changes.

Wrong order. The argument against gay marriage failed because it was being made by people who had already accepted most of the other stuff. The schwerpunkt of the culture wars was no-fault divorce, something which most conservative evangelicals in the US ended up supporting (Dalrock has the receipts) and which the US Catholic hierarchy de facto tolerated by running an annulment mill. Francis went squishy on that in Amoris Laetitia.

You don't think that legalizing gay marriage flowing directly into elective mastectomies for teenage girls and castration for teenage boys, in less than ten years since Obergefell, counts as punishment from God for our sins?

And out-of-wedlock births are continually setting record highs, at the same time that overall fertility is at record lows. I don't think you need a literal pillar of salt to conclude that it's not actually working well.

I'm an atheist, obviously I don't believe anything is punishment from God.

That said, trans rights, fuck the haters, etc. etc. As long as we're all just referencing the topic with slogans for now.

Anyway, I'm getting a lot of responses that are just 'bad things exist in the world, they happened after gay marriage, post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

I'll just here that 1. I like half those things or think they're being misrepresented 2. I don't see a necessary connection between gay marriage and the other things, someone has to actually draw that line and 3. I was asking for knowledge about how the Vatican does religious scholarship, not trying to get into an argument about whether bad things exist in the modern world.

I can point out the connection actually: it resides in the activist network designed to make the former happen and its ideological justification for existing which is based on gnostic individualist morality.

Such an apparatus would never be dissolved without defeat and would always eventually lead to ever greater perceived liberation of the mind from the body, and it had already allied itself with then transsexualism among other things.

Victory for gay rights leading to mastectomies was, in retrospect, entirely predictable. Even as I refused to believe it at the time.

Now if we want to argue about the possibility of a gay rights movement that doesn't lead here that's another thing entirely, but I'm unfortunately pessimist about the possibility thereof given history.

Seems to me homosexuality is best treated with the benign indifference of a minor vice or oddity. Other paths don't look like they lead to good places for any of the parties. Pride most of all.

counts as punishment from God for our sins?

If God exists and that's His punishment then I can only assume He doesn't mind that much really. He has (we are told) previously flooded the earth, destroyed entire cities, cast people out of paradise, given crippling labor pains to all women for all time, incinerated people alive and entombed whole families in the earth, sent explicit plagues and death for tens of thousands, so allowing people to do perhaps unwise things to themselves is not exactly on the same level of Godly punishments we are told He previously indulged in.

It's so underwhelming as to suggest it probably isn't actually a punishment from God at all. Either because God doesn't care, or doesn't act on the mortal plane in that way anymore, or more likely because God doesn't actually exist.

I don't really see how these are of a different level of involvement. Or even of degree.

We're talking about pretty fucking metaphysical types of horrors here. I'd like you to acknowledge that, transhumanism in both this specific and the general sense is as consequential as getting thrown out of heaven. We're talking about changes to the nature of man, sex and identity here. This is no picnic.

God, properly understood, is the name for the intentional nature of reality. So it seems to me that consequences of hubris tautologically fall under the category of punishment.

I'd like you to acknowledge that, transhumanism in both this specific and the general sense is as consequential as getting thrown out of heaven. We're talking about changes to the nature of man, sex and identity here.

I shall acknowledge no such thing, as I don't think they ARE comparable. Making changes to yourself and your own identity is something everyone should be free to do. I would in fact say that is the core aspect of being human. That whole pesky free will thing. It might turn out to be a bad decision, perhaps they will hate what they become. But that is their choice. Far from being a horror, being constrained from that free will would be the horror.

There is also a difference between a punishment and a consequence. A punishment requires intentionality on behalf of the punisher. A consequence does not. The outcome for a trans person may well be bad, but I highly doubt it is bad because God is punishing them directly. Reality has no intentionality in my view. God doesn't punish you for not looking where you are going and getting hit by a lump of metal going 60 mph. Reality does that without any such divine interventions required. So it is with transhumanism. And that is the true black pill. God is not responsible for our outcomes, only the vast uncaring universe is. There is no intention, there is no design. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

You are missing the point.

What you're saying in both of these paragraphs reduces to the same two things.

Either we accept Abrahamic metaphysical axioms and your statements are obvious contradictions (God created the universe with intention, consequences and all, therefore arguing there is no intent behind it doesn't make sense on the face of it).

Or this is a statement of rejection of such metaphysical principles and the assertion of a different metaphysic that simply does not apply at all to this discussion. You can be a nihilist all you want, it doesn't really enter into Catholicism.

And if you want to say that it does because nihilism is true then you have to prove that it is, which is something no metaphysical doctrine, including yours, can ever do. Inherently.

Now aside from that, I still think it's completely ridiculous to deny that making oneself and one's own identity isn't an important and grandiose topic and in the same breath admitting that it has large consequence. If your only argument is that it doesn't matter because nothing matters, I question both your understanding of importance as a concept and the relevance of nihilist perspectives to any discussion.

Even constraining our situation to one where the Christian God exists however my point is that His punishments are clear and direct. He doesn't give you mildly bad outcomes as a punishment. He smites your city. He floods the world. He lets you see the promised land then exiles you from it. He forces you to choose to kill 70,000 of your followers.

KMC's point was that the bad outcomes WERE God's punishment. But this is not consistent with this version of God. It could be consistent with YOUR version* of the universe's intentionality as God, but that isn't the God we were discussing. And since Jesus died for our sins, even those direct punishments ceased, with the idea that anyone can be forgiven and find God, through Jesus Christ. Trans people could be punished after death if their actions are sinful, but God's punishments are no longer during life. And even when they were, they were very direct.

*It could also be consistent with no God, a blind watchmaker style God and so on of course.

It's not true that in the Jewish and Christian traditions the consequences of sin only take the form of massive spectacles, even if we look only to the Bible.

Cain killed his brother and was cursed to wander the earth and have bad crops.

King David raped the wife of one his most loyal men and then had that man killed to keep it covered up. His punishment was that the child produced by that rape would die.

Abraham violated his marriage by laying with Hagar, and the consequence was strife between Hagar and Sarah that eventually led to Abraham being separated from his and Hagar's son.

Jonah was reticent to convey God's prophecy and was punished by a storm at sea and a short stay in a whale.

Judas Iscariot betrayed God and committed suicide.

Setting aside for a moment the mechanics of punishment and that particular theological argument, surely we must agree that most Christians in the sense we mean here (and Catholics in particular) do, in fact, believe in divine intervention and miracles to this day.

As for punishment, quoting official catholic catechism should help us clarify things here:

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

So no, I'm afraid the nature of sin still makes the punishment we're talking about extant in this life, Christ's forgiveness doesn't remand all judgement to one's death.

More comments

It probably seems confusing to outsiders, but the question, "Maybe there is some sort of blessing we can give to a same sex couple who asks for one?" is not the same thing as, "A same sex couple can contract a sacramental marriage." A blessing is not the same thing as a sacrament.

I think this line is the most significant in the response to the dubia: "For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better." The emphasis on a gay couple asking God to help them "live better" does not bring to mind Rainbow flags and Pride. If anything, reading this makes me think the Pope will encourage some sort of "help us live chastely" blessing for any gay couples asking for their relationship to be blessed.

Edit: I'm wondering if people know what I'm saying here, based on the responses. A couple definitions and elaborations:

Blessing: happens all the time, in private. Happens during the mass as well. Throats are blessed during flu season. Water, salt, and candles are blessed to take home. Mothers are blessed on Mother's day, sick people are blessed, anxious people are blessed, anyone can be blessed for pretty much any reason.

Taking the response as a whole, it sounds like the Pope is saying, if a couple comes up to a priest after mass and asks for a blessing to live chastely because it is something they are really struggling with, they can get a blessing to help them live a less sinful life.

Chaste: Only having sex or any other sort of sexual activity in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman, where all sexual activity is open to creating life. Gay sex is by definition not chaste in a Catholic context.

It probably seems confusing to outsiders, but the question, "Maybe there is some sort of blessing we can give to a same sex couple who asks for one?" is not the same thing as, "A same sex couple can contract a sacramental marriage." A blessing is not the same thing as a sacrament.

There are liberal Catholics who have suggested this, but the rebuttal is convincing to me. A "gay marriage" is inherently scandalous. We all know that it means these the couple are engaged in an amorous/erotic relationship with each other, not a fraternal/brotherly/sisterly/friendship relationship. If two men said to a priest, "we have committed to be lifelong friends/bondsmen/blood brothers/partners, can you bless our vows of permanent friendship to each other" obvious there would be no issues. No, we all know "LGB" means same-sex eroticism. Since that is the common understanding, blessing a "gay marriage" is blessing sin and blessing scandal and that is something that a Catholic priest should not do. Now the liberal Catholics have also suggested, "Well they shouldn't bless the relationship itself, but the good in it." To me, this is just sophistry and ridiculous hair-splitting. The fact remains the priest is giving the impression of blessing sin. But it is perhaps the viewpoint Francis takes.

What I think Francis's statements amount to is that he is not going to change Church teaching, or formally create a policy of blessing gay marriages, but he is also not going to police and discipline priests who are bending doctrine and somehow claiming to be blessing elements of good in same-sex relationships.

But aren't, under Catholic doctrine, homosexual couples inherently sinful? I'm no Catholic so I can't say I understand the minutia but surely it's not acceptable to bless sin?

I don't think anyone understands what I'm saying here. If a couple came up to a priest and asked for a blessing to help them "live better", i.e. stop having homosexual sex, then that sort of blessing could be given. That is the plain reading of what Pope Francis wrote.

I see, that makes more sense.

I think your original post would have benefited from saying it that explicitly, because I don't think I would have guessed that's what you meant.

the Pope will encourage some sort of "help us live chastely" blessing for any gay couples asking for their relationship to be blessed.

I thought this was spelling it out explicitly, but I don't know what the word "chaste" means to the average Mottizen now.

Only if they engage in sexual acts with one another, as all sex outside of marriage is sinful. Living together as, essentially, best friends, is not sinful. Living together and lusting after one another, even while not acting on that lust, would still be sinful, though. I think some would say that this living arrangement would qualify as Near Occasion of Sin and therefore ought to be avoided.

St. Paul wrote that celibacy was preferential to marriage, but that those who lack the temperament to remain celibate should marry.

Fair enough, that's how the clergy exists in the first place after all, but that's not quite what we're talking about is it? People of the same sex that have deep platonic love for one another aren't "homosexual couples" or I've been in a lot more of these than I thought over the years.

Generally the Church will use the phrase "people struggling with same-sex attraction" to refer to people who have same-sex attraction but are trying their best not to actually acting on it and engage in homosexual activity. Such people are welcome in the church, welcome to take communion, and if they screw up and engage in same sex activity they just need to confess and try do better in the future, they aren't excommunicated for sinning. However, if they take "pride" in homosexuality activity, that is an open rejection of doctrine and living scandalously, so that is not welcome in the church.

In the broader culture, "homosexual" basically means "same-sex attracted and unapologetically acting on it." However there are some liberal Catholics who will equivocate/motte-and-bailey on this, saying things like, "the Church should welcome homosexuals" which to the public makes it seem like they want to the Church to change doctrine, but then when pressed on it by conservative Catholics they will fall back and say, "well homosexual just means same-sex attracted, it does not mean they are actually sinning."

Which will inevitably be advertised as a wedding, be received by lesbians in wedding dresses/gay men in tuxedos, featuring flowers, organs, a reception, etc. IIRC the Episcopalians had that for a bit before moving to full on gay weddings.

Pope Francis already answered a Dubia in a more standard way in 2021:

TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED: Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE: Negative.

Today's response to the Dubia says:

c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

Today's Dubia Response is a total nothingburger, but everyone is reading into it what they want to read.

The ambiguity is the message. He could have just reiterated the clear "no" instead of speaking about pastoral discretion and avoiding "suggestions" that a not-marriage is a marriage.

He's been unambiguous when speaking against traditionalists.

How can I avoid drawing conclusions that he's being strategically ambiguous so as to allow priests to practice his real preference where those preferences happen to align?

Compare the short and straightforward 2021 dubia:

Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

With the Cardnial Burke et.al. dubia -

According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, 10), "In the beginning," God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this "principle," considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a "possible good" objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?

If you ask a long,nuanced question, you get a long, nuanced response.

You’ll notice I cited in the OP a discussion of trying to overturn that Dubia with the explanation of cardinal Ladaria having gone rogue. Do I think it’s likely to happen? Probably not officially. I think it’ll simply be ignored.

The prior response to the dubia lacked the Pope's inability to get to the point, but presumably it has the same level of authoritativeness as the current leaked dubia (Unless the Pope wants to go on record and declare the first dubia response was not approved by him.)

Pope Francis doesn't want to be mean and make wide sweeping declarations (except when it comes to liturgy, for some reason.) The very thing that keeps him from giving a straight answer to a dubia is the very thing that will keep him from actually changing anything in the Church. He wants to meet each person face to face, to discuss a situation in all its intricacies, but never act as a judge or king.

The 2021 letter was approved by the pope, but technically it was from the CDF. The 2023 letter was from Pope Francis personally, even if it was literally written by Cardinal Fernandez.

It's kind of funny to me that the Church has reinvented the concept of civil unions a full quarter of a century after it failed as a stopgap in conservative states.

Makes me wonder if it will have the same level of success and trajectory in church that it had in secular politics.

I guess, if civil unions are celibate unions? There were recognized “Rites of Entering into Spiritual Brotherhood” in various parts of the Church that could be adapted. Or you mean Marriage-In-Everything-But-Name? I don't think the response to the Dubia alone makes such a thing more likely.

Is pope Francis attempting to bring in gay marriage by the back door?

Welcome to absolute power unaccountable and unanswerable to anyone (on Earth at least).

The pope can do whatever he wants, and no one can do anything about it. There is no recall, no vote of no confidence, no impeachment. The pope can make any rules he wants or freely disregard his own rules with impunity, and you can just watch helplessly. Or leave and start your own church.

Well, legally at least, the popes were in the past replaced by extra legal means, but this couldn't happen in our modern age.

And yet, any form of democratic rule, or even decentralization, ended up accelerating "progress" exponentially, and was a disaster if the goal was preserving tradition.

And yet, any form of democratic rule, or even decentralization, ended up accelerating "progress" exponentially, and was a disaster if the goal was preserving tradition.

Not true. The most successful attempt to preserve tradition in modern world is explicitly decentralized one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnung

Because the Amish have no central church government, each assembly is autonomous and is its own governing authority. Thus, every local church maintains an individual set of rules, adhering to its own Ordnung, which may vary from district to district as each community administers its own guidelines. These rules are largely unwritten, yet they define the very essence of Amish identity.

Weren't a lot of centralized Communist regimes just straight-up atheist?

Democratization and social progressivism are two global trends that happened at sort of the same time, but I doubt the causal story is that simple.

Weren't a lot of centralized Communist regimes just straight-up atheist?

Yes?

Democratization and social progressivism are two global trends that happened at sort of the same time, but I doubt the causal story is that simple.

Right, just like the story behind the pope's decision is not as simple as "he's a central authority, of course it would happen"?

Right, just like the story behind the pope's decision is not as simple as "he's a central authority, of course it would happen"?

No, the story is: if you give one man unlimited and unaccountable power, do not be surprised and do not complain when he uses it against you and things you like.

Counterpoint: history is largely a one-way conversation of destroying traditions in favor of such progress. Preserving tradition is a balancing act for the more necessary goal of maintaining the the systems and institutions which beget the traditions. Its 60% compromise.

I don't think the Catholic Church is at a point where blessing gay unions is necessary to optimize the institution, but it's clearly now in their Overton window.

I don't see how that's a counter.

  • OP said "looks like the Pope is legalizing gay marriage?"
  • Eatan said: "haha, silly Catholics, maybe you shouldn't have put all your eggs in the Papal Infallibility basket?"
  • I said: "that didn't seem to be a bad choice given how more democratic strains of the religion have faired"

... and you seem to be saying "it's not necessarily bad to destroy traditions, we have always done it". Even if, that seems to be neither here nor there.

But to address your point - not only do I not see how it would "optimize" the Church, I am yet to see one of these "we must make a fundamental change to [institution] to appeal to more prograssive audiences, and grow our membership" scenarios play out in a non-destructive way,

But to address your point - not only do I not see how it would "optimize" the Church, I am yet to see one of these "we must make a fundamental change to [institution] to appeal to more prograssive audiences, and grow our membership" scenarios play out in a non-destructive way,

Except that LGBTQ+ doesn't seem to grow membership.

In formerly most Catholic part of the world one fifth of Catholics left the Church at historically unprecedented speed. Not left as stopped attending Catholic churches, but left as started attending evangelical churches.

And not rainbow flag adorned LGBTQ+ affirming churches, but bible believing (and full of Israeli flags) churches.

This is one of world's important trends that is rarely grasped outside the region, popular image of Latin America is still of traditional 99,9% Catholic continent.

If Catholic Church was about saving souls, it would drive it into panic, it would desperately try to do something to stop this hemorrhage.

The Church seems unperturbed. As if the power and influence of the Church came from property and real estate worth trillions all over the world and possession of world's preeminent money laundering machine, not from masses of peons in the pews, and as if keeping this power required staying in good grace of world's elite human capital.

The Church has changed traditions over time in order to maintain itself, increase its robustness, promote antifragility, etc. As an institution, the Catholic Church probably isn't amenable to rapid, radical change. (hence the slow move away from a Latin mass, the gradual lack of condemnation for charging interest on loans (Islam has created a bizarre, less efficient workaround which probably cost them economically), and the explicit condemnation of slavery being late to the party). Dozens more I think, but I know very little about the history of religion.

At some point, it may be optimal for the continuance of the Church to bless gay unions. In a few decades to a few hundred years. But also maybe it will never be optimal. However, imagine a contemporary Church that continued to argue, as I think Acquanias did (and I'm not sure if he was Catholic, but just as an example), that owning people as slaves was fine so long as you treated them well. That would be bad for the institution today. I'm not chiding the Church for being "late to the party". It's the kind of institution that should change slowly, cautiously, and with much debate.

Why its relevant: As I said, I'm pretty ignorant of the history of religion (its by far my worst Jeopardy! category). Therefore, I don't know how democratic religious have fared compared to more top-down structures, and I can't analyze the causal factors in a religions outcomes as institutions (for example, Buddhism and Hinduism are about twice as old as Christianity, but I don't know their institutional structures).

"we must make a fundamental change to [institution] to appeal to more progressive audiences, and grow our membership" scenarios play out in a non-destructive way,

My view is that this debate is the long arc of history: how much progress, and how fast? A balance must be stuck according the function of the institution. The US got rid of slavery, let women vote, allowed for constitutional review by SCOTUS, etc. Perhaps its not as robust as everyone would like, but it has worked out pretty well by historical standards. Companies can change faster than governmental bodies, which can change faster than spiritual institutions. Change too fast, you blow it up. Change too slowly, society moves on.

The Church has changed traditions over time in order to maintain itself, increase its robustness, promote antifragility, etc.

But that doesn't imply anything and everything should be subject to change as long as it promotes it's robustness, or you'll reach "make killing legal to solve murder" territory.

Therefore, I don't know how democratic religious have fared compared to more top-down structures

Well, just as a quick sanity check, which sects of Christianity are flying the rainbow flag right now?

My view is that this debate is the long arc of history: how much progress, and how fast?

My view is that this leaves out the important question of "progress towards what?". Not all changes are good just because they're changes, and while making some changes in order to increase your chances for survival might be fine, a fundamental enough change is indistinguishable from death. Should Christianity endorse Satan worship, if it increased it's chances for survival? Should progressives endorse white supremacy?

Everything is on the table for change, but its not equally wise or good to change any aspect. The US nearly wrecked itself to get rid of slavery. Legal slavery in perpetuity probably wasn't a stable solution, and the US paid dearly to change a fundamental aspect of its operation, deleting the 3/5 compromise and adding new lines to its "code". The Catholic Church moved away from Latin mass because that was probably a sub-optimal configuration. If, in the year 2300, society has determined that being anti gay is as bad as being pro slavery, I'd bet that the Catholic church will bless gay unions, or something similar (its unlikely, but possible). Solutions like "making killing legal to solve murder" are generally unstable solutions to law and order institutions.

Well, just as a quick sanity check, which sects of Christianity are flying the rainbow flag right now?

Oh, I have no idea. I wasn't raised with a religion, and haven't really chosen one.

"progress towards what?"

Kurt Vonnegut would sarcastically argue its to make more plastic. Ellul would argue 'technique' is progressing to separate us from nature for its own ends. Dawkins would argue for the successful propagation of replicators. Steven Pinker would argue its a move towards less violence and loger, healthier lifespans. I'm closest to the latter arguments.

Not all changes are good just because they're changes

Agreed! Chesterton is a very wise part of the conversation. The pride-flying sects are either blowing themselves up, or evolving to a more stable structure. I think the latter, but who knows. The ACLU is blowing itself up imo, but FIRE is filling the void. The reactionary and unwise BLM movement is blowing up racial progress imo, but they seem to be cashing out. There may or may not be some wise findings in the debris (for example, I'm in favor of skepticism to police power, training standards, and attitudes, and I hope these change at the institutional level).

Should Christianity endorse Satan worship, if it increased it's chances for survival? Should progressives endorse white supremacy?

This sounds like should X become not X to survive. Not sure it fits. But say in the rubble of WW3 might progressives become totalitarian to put society back together. Yeah, but they won't claim to be progressives anymore. Have to run, getting increasingly less thoughtful.

Everything is on the table for change

I disagree, and I think you do too, since later you say:

This sounds like should X become not X to survive. Not sure it fits.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm driving at. Whether or not it fits is another question, but I think this does show "Everything is on the table for change, the long arc of history, how much progress, and how fast" does not cover everything.

Yeah, but they won't claim to be progressives anymore.

But what if they do though? What if in some years, without any WW3 mediated collapse of society, someone says "You know what would be really progressive? A literal racial caste system with white people on top!"? What exactly could be said to dismiss their idea?

it already entered. It's two decades too late. gay marriages is here to stay . similar to American conservativism, the church is liberalism but with a lag.

On one hand, it'd be absolutely hilarious if this ends up with a long screed nailed to a Catholic Church's front door.

On the other hand, it... at best had complicated results last time, and the pragmatic differences between now and 1517 make me a good deal more worried.

On the gripping hand, I still don't really grok Catholics, and the few I keep an eye on in twitter-space think it's more generic weasel-wording than going to actually go anywhere.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats