Ok, it's time to do something truly revolutionary. Yes, believe it or don't, I'm going to say something nice about Catholicism!!

Here's my favorite Catholic Church, in St Augustine Florida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_de_Dios_(mission)

Here are some photos:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nombre+de+Dios+st+augustine+photos&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjtf6ysNHeAhXH7oMKHahtA0kQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=902&bih=442

Ok so I'm not actually that interested in the church building itself, nor do I attend services, but...

The grounds are great! The church is on a beautiful piece of property overlooking a bay which leads to the Atlantic ocean. There's a distinct atmosphere of peace throughout the park which is tangible to those who pay attention to such things. My wife loves to feed the squirrels, the critter who she spends SO MUCH time with here at home. If you bring a bag of peanuts dozens of squirrels will follow you around the park and happily eat right out of your hand.

The grounds contain a cemetery of those buried in the 1800s, and I find it philosophical to walk around reading the headstones, wondering about the life of the person they describe.

The church and park are right in the middle of town, very easily accessible on foot for anyone doing the tourist thing in St. Augustine.

The philosophical point here is that Catholicism need not be limited to just ideology and ceremony. Peace tends to descend upon my soul at this place, and I don't really care what that's called.

The philosophical point here is that Catholicism need not be limited to just ideology and ceremony. — Jake

Another example...

As I've mentioned my wife is an AVID wildlife rehabber, she spends hours every day working on that.

Being a nerdman philosopher guy, when I observe her total immersion in wildlife I think that what she's really connecting with is something beyond the creature she is attending to. In my theory, babies and old people are special, because whatever that special is, it's leaking over from the other side beyond the life/death boundary. This is just a theory that works for me, I make no claims other than that.

But my wife is not a philosopher, she's a person of compassion. So she doesn't feel any need to develop an ideology to go along with her wildlife experience. In my view, that doesn't matter at all, because whatever it is that is special is speaking to her in her own language. Not my language, not your language, her language.

I think what happens in most religions (not just Catholicism) is that people like you and me, philosopher/writer types, hijack the religion and try to claim ownership of it.

It's typically a sincere mistake. For people like us, philosopher types, religion is very much a philosophical business, a matter of ideology. As example, look at the religion threads on any philosophy forum. They are almost exclusively about ideology, and almost never for example, about the experience of love. So TO US religion seems to be about philosophy, ideology, because that's how we experience it. I'm having that experience right now as I type this post.

The mistake people like us typically make is in the assumption that because philosophy is the open window to religion (or anti-religion) for us, therefore philosophy is the ONLY open window, a singular "one true way", the real deal. But really philosophy/ideology is only one way to approach religion (or anti-religion) and not a very good way at that.

As example, my wife is just as smart as me (we have the same college degree) but she's simply not a philosopher or writer, but a person of compassion. She couldn't write a philosophy post to save her life. But, she walks the walk in an astounding manner which puts me to shame. I tease her by calling her a "selfish Karma hog". :smile:

I can talk the talk all day long. I'm articulate, I'm typoholic, I have a million philosophical opinions. But I don't really perform much useful service to anybody else, given that I am so busy "saving the world through blowharding" (my wife's funny description of what I do).

So, a question for you...

If my wife and I were Catholics (we are not) who would be the better Catholic?

1) the person who can talk the talk but not really walk the walk, or...

2) the person who can walk the walk but not really talk the talk?

My proposal to put the nuns in charge is just a way of saying the walkers should replace the talkers.

Now, given that I have hundreds of years of Catholic DNA running about in my brain, I know what happens next. The clever Catholic talkers will find some intelligent articulate way of escaping from the above question by squaring the circle, saying it's all really the same thing, we must do both, yada yada yada.

I respectfully reject all that. My vote is that the walkers are the real Catholics, and the talkers are just talkers.

The apostle John said, "God is love".

He didn't say, "God is a doctrine about love."

Part of the genius of Christianity is that one doesn't need to know a single thing about ideology in order to love, which makes the experience accessible to all human beings.

This is my sermon. This is the one true way! Everyone who doesn't agree is a heretic, for it clearly says in the Book Of Jake, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, or whatever it was.

Let me see how square I can make this circle. Now I hope you don't think I am compromising a discussion of words vs actions - by typing a bunch of words. I mean i could be out doing something productive for the poor instead of these engagements, right.

Some theology.

A significant difference between Catholicism and protestant sects is Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sole Fide saved by faith alone. Catholics believe it is both faith and actions.

As to the who is the better Catholic, ( as if there is some Catholic rating system)

if your "words" are just that words they are unimportant. It your words are an expression of your beliefs, and your beliefs are ordered, that is a little better. If your words are also an action, meaning they have a purpose that is ordered, such as helping others understand the faith better - that is better still. And tying it into your point of "Des Caritas Est" Cathloics would believe it is an act of love to share the faith with others. Feeding the soul more important than feeding the body ( all that by bread alone stuff)

If your wife actions, assuming of course that your wife's actions in this context are loving acts of kindness for others, than it becomes somewhat a question of motive and intent. To make this clearer

let's say a rich celebrity hands a homeless person a $20 bill as they gets out of their car. This is an act of kindness. But if say there are reporters around, and either they do not want to appear cheap or if he is doing it for the cameras, than the same act becomes more about the celebrities love of himself than an act of love for others. On the other hand, let's say that homeless person who just got the $20 bill, and that is all he has, shares it with a friend, who's act is greater. The rich giving $20 for selfish motives or the homeless giving $10 selflessly?

So to completely square the circle - it depends on the intent and use of your words and the intent and motivations of your wife's actions. However all things being, as I think you intend the case to be, in just my opinion, for all that is worth, your wife's actions would be superior to your words.

We are what we do.

Discussing the Philosophy of religion, is not discussing religion it is discussing philosophy. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. Not much different than discussing any other topic.

Understanding, learning about the precepts of a particular religion is Theology, and is not the practice of religion, and requires no faith, just understanding. Still a worthwhile endeavor - but no difference than the study of anything else.

Believing, by faith, in the precepts of a particular religion, and according ones life as such is the practice of religion. And in these cases ones actions should be consistent with ones words, and maybe more importantly, acknowledge when they don't and try to do better.

Not sure if I have squared all the corners off your circle yet - let me know what I missed.

talking nonsense; catholicism is a very diferent thing; search "fides et ratio", for example; there are some true catholicism in that document

be quiet... this is a very intense conversation... Jack is talking about religion, his wife and in the last sentence of his message he said "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"... Rank amateur is trying to "completely square the circle" and is waiting for Jack to let him know how many corners he missed... meanwhile, Bitter Crank sometimes makes them talk even more... if all this is nonsense to you, go to page 3 and enjoy some nice nun's photos

Here's a thoughtful article on Catholicism in the New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/22/catholic-church-sins-celibacy/

The opening...

On August 25 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published an eleven-page letter in which he accused Pope Francis of ignoring and covering up evidence of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and called for his resignation. It was a declaration of civil war by the church’s conservative wing. Viganò is a former apostolic nuncio to the US, a prominent member of the Roman Curia—the central governing body of the Holy See—and one of the most skilled practitioners of brass-knuckle Vatican power politics. — NYRB

The author discusses celibacy and abuse which the author explains is not a result of celibacy. A very large percentage of priests are not celibate anyway, and their relationships are with male and female adults. What has happened is that the church's rigidity on celibacy has caused very large numbers of men to leave the priesthood. Many of the men who sign up for seminary find celibacy more of a shelter from their immature and highly conflicted sexuality than a sacrifice. It is from this group that pedophiles are likely to emerge. (The number of pedophiles in the priesthood are most likely not large, but the damage that hundreds of pedophiles can do is enormous.)

Alexander Stille, the author of the NYRB article, blames John Paul II for closing the door on married priests, and for contributing greatly to the push to cover up priestly abuse.

Worth a read.

blames John Paul II for closing the door on married priests, — Bitter Crank

Would argue the semantics some - like many, many, many issues that The Church follows. If there is no reason to solicit a Papal decree on the matter, it is not done. It is only when there is an issue that where there is conflict within The Chuch that a Pope can be asked, or feels called, to act or issue an authoritative statement on the issue. This is what Pope John Paul II did with an Apostolic Letter called
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS


Here is the Apostolic Letter on the issue

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

here is the sound the door makes when it closes:

"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."

A significant difference between Catholicism and protestant sects is Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sole Fide saved by faith alone. Catholics believe it is both faith and actions. — Rank Amateur

Ok, agreed. What I'm reacting to in part are thousands of Catholic websites which focus almost exclusively on ideology, with barely a mention of say, Catholic Charities.

Everybody is going to have their beliefs, that's the human condition. But the balance between faith and action seems to be way out of balance. I suspect that's because the talking of the talk is quite a bit easier than the walking of the walk. As example, I can and do write many fine sermons which provide me with the impression I'm doing something that somehow matters, when really it doesn't. But the illusion can be compelling sometimes.

As to the who is the better Catholic, ( as if there is some Catholic rating system) — Rank Amateur

Um, Catholics are constantly debating who is the real Catholic.

if your "words" are just that words they are unimportant. It your words are an expression of your beliefs, and your beliefs are ordered, that is a little better. If your words are also an action, meaning they have a purpose that is ordered, such as helping others understand the faith better - that is better still. And tying it into your point of "Des Caritas Est" Cathloics would believe it is an act of love to share the faith with others. Feeding the soul more important than feeding the body ( all that by bread alone stuff) — Rank Amateur

Excellent squaring sir! I knew you'd be up to it. :smile:

I would counter with this. The most accurate guide to what our beliefs really are is found in the actions that we take. So for example, if a parish had no ceremony and no ideology talk etc, and the only option was action, everyone would soon discover what kind of Catholic they really are. That seems a useful clarity device.

So to completely square the circle - it depends on the intent and use of your words and the intent and motivations of your wife's actions. — Rank Amateur

As to my words, and perhaps most words by most people, I cast my vote for my wife's humorous description "saving the world through blowharding". It can indeed feel like "saving the world" but "blowharding" probably gets closer to the truth. That is, we tend to be very good at self deception, and typically we are serving ourselves and not others or some higher mission. Such self deception is easy with words, especially for those of us with a knack for words. Not so easy with actions.

As example, I honestly feel most clergy sincerely believe they are "saving the world" with their sermons and writings etc, but it's probably closer to the truth that they are saving the clergy. I don't mean that cynically, or directed to clergy alone, just describing one view of the human condition.

Discussing the Philosophy of religion, is not discussing religion it is discussing philosophy. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. Not much different than discussing any other topic. — Rank Amateur

I'm not making a moral case here, but the danger in discussing philosophy of religion is that we may mistake such discussion for actual religion. That's what I see happening in most religions, not just Catholicism or Christianity.

Believing, by faith, in the precepts of a particular religion, and according ones life as such is the practice of religion. — Rank Amateur

Hmm.... Just to be argumentative, I might argue that belief is not really religion, but rather talk about religion. As example, we could compare the experience of unity with God with a description or belief about such an experience. The experience is one thing, the explanation something else.

Good discussion. I'm glad we're not yelling at each other, and credit you for much of that.

Many of the men who sign up for seminary find celibacy more of a shelter from their immature and highly conflicted sexuality than a sacrifice. It is from this group that pedophiles are likely to emerge. (The number of pedophiles in the priesthood are most likely not large, but the damage that hundreds of pedophiles can do is enormous.) — Bitter Crank

As usual, a ridiculously sensible analysis from Monsignor Crank. This theory would explain why child rape has so afflicted one particular institution (a most unlikely one!) while not blaming child rape on celibacy specifically, which doesn't make sense. If true, celibacy doesn't cause child rape, it just creates an atmosphere that may attract some troubled people.

I can actually have some compassion for the pedophiles, but the people who covered it up, well...

Hey, given the great respect for tradition with Catholicism, maybe it would be a good idea to bring back burning at the stake?

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. — Rank Amateur

Based on what exactly?

I don't know, I'm clearly not objective on this, but it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. The male clergy reports that God told them that only male clergy can run the Church? What a coincidence! How incredibly convenient!

"Hey, we're not stealing the Church, God made us do it!"

Good discussion. I'm glad we're not yelling at each other, and credit you for much of that. — Jake

Back at ya

Based on what exactly? — Jake

Again, not making a value judgment here, just giving you the theology from the perspective of the church

It is the belief of the Church, that when a Pope acts authoritatively as Pope John Paul did above, he is protected from error by God , in the form of the Holy Spirit. There is direct line, between this concept and this apostolic succession that is the Authority of the Church itself.

The entire authority for The Church is based on Jesus establishing His Church on earth with Peter as its head, and with the direct line of Apostolic succession thereafter. And through some very good men and some very bad men that have been Pope, the church would argue that when acting authoritatively on matters of faith and morals none have shown human error.

Yet again many will call all that hogwash, and it may well be, but that is the belief.

As usual, a ridiculously sensible analysis from Monsignor Crank. This theory would explain why child rape has so afflicted one particular institution (a most unlikely one!) — Jake

Thanks, but I cribbed that from the article. The author also addresses your second point - he says the church, like schools, is a most likely place to find pedophiles. Again, he suggests there aren't a huge number of pedophiles; it just that there are some, and because the church wouldn't deal with it openly, they caused lot of damage to the church -- reputationally as well as financially.

Pedophilia isn't a mental illness; it's a "para-philia"--like getting turned on by women's red high heel shoes or underwear, or... whatever. It's certainly not good for the objects of pedophilia. Paraphilias don't seem very readily changeable. A large number of people, maybe a super majority, are to some degree paraphilic: certain things (blond hair, nice breasts, good legs...) turns a lot of men on; other things for women. Whatever it is, people find it difficult to separate themselves from these objects of arousal.

Convicted pedophiles are generally sentenced to rehabilitation programs where they are supposed to overcome their attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is generally a term. So, they complete the program; their term of commitment ends. Then what? The institutions can't guarantee that the person has been forever changed (or changed at all) so they aren't released. Not releasing people who have completed the program creates legal problems for the state. They weren't sentenced to life, but if they can't prove they are cured, how can they be released?

We have not arrived at a solution yet.

I suspect the solution will be to accept the pedophile's para-philia and teach the pedophile how to manage their desire without having sexual contact with children. They can't give up the desire, they will have to find alternatives.

We don't know how to cure schizophrenia, bi-polar, or OCD, The same goes for psychopathy or pedophilia.

I suspect the solution will be to accept the pedophile's para-philia and teach the pedophile how to manage their desire without having sexual contact with children. They can't give up the desire, they will have to find alternatives. — Bitter Crank

Hmm... Permanent confinement with virtual reality children?

It is the belief of the Church, that when a Pope acts authoritatively as Pope John Paul did above, he is protected from error by God , in the form of the Holy Spirit. There is direct line, between this concept and this apostolic succession that is the Authority of the Church itself. — Rank Amateur

That is the belief of SOME in the Church.

While I appreciate that you're trying not to be argumentative, the language you use suggests that you believe that traditionalist Catholics own the Church, because they say they own the Church. To me, such a notion is no more valid than me claiming that I own this thread, when in fact this thread is a collection of people of various opinion exploring topics of shared interest.

I would argue it's not even possible for anyone to own the Church ideologically, because none of us are capable of controlling what someone else will choose to believe. What the clergy actually owns in the real world is a real estate empire, a cash flow, and a pile of papers which proclaim SOME of their opinions and their claim to ownership of Catholicism. This is the equivalent of me printing out one of my posts claiming to own this thread, and then waving that paper around in the air as proof of my ownership claim.

That is the belief of SOME in the Church. — Jake

Yea, I think we just have a definition problem.

When I say "The Church" above I mean the organization of the the Church, the magisterium, the teaching authority.

That does not mean everyone who identifies them self as Catholic. The sub set of what that group believes is almost unlimited.

Yea, I think we just have a definition problem. — Rank Amateur

Well, it seems it's not just a definition problem, as it's pretty fundamental to our varied views.

When I say "The Church" above I mean the organization of the the Church, the magisterium, the teaching authority. — Rank Amateur

Understood, and a certain collection of assumptions arise from that view, which you've been expressing pretty well. I agree this is a widely held theory of what the Church is, but in my view not the reality. As example, who is it that funds the clergy, and thus the magisterium and the teaching authority etc?

That does not mean everyone who identifies them self as Catholic. The sub set of what that group believes is almost unlimited. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's the reality. A very large diverse community, with many competing interpretations and perspectives contained within. If there was no such diversity there would be no ideological debates, and we know that there is.

By the way, God just told me that I own this thread, that I am "the Thread", so from here out anyone who doesn't agree with most of my interpretations is not really a member of this thread, but only an outside observer. And in any case, member or observer, you have no vote about anything because I own everything, and all of you are my children to be instructed by my superior wisdom. Amen.

There are so many churches that I would therefore highly recommend and suggest that you treat them all equally and not elevate one or the other by simply referring to it as "the Church." If you were in Athens Greece right now, "the Church" would be the Greek Orthodox Church. If you were in Salt Lake City Utah USA, "the Church" would be the Mormon Church.

Say rather "the Catholic Church" or "the Greek Orthodox Church" or "the Mormon Church" etc.

Everyone should believe in something. I believe I will have another drink.

The word church in English comes from a Germanic word which comes from the original ancient Greek word which means "of the Savior" however. There is no word in English for "the body of Christ" -- ekklesia (in Greek).

Sister Hilda and her Experimental Theology Apparatus

Whoopie Goldberg has agreed to take over the Church....

https://sketchfab.com/models/a7daa3abb0604070a6319c1906a34e27

But Jesus is concerned she might not have a penis...

https://sketchfab.com/models/3db382f1e1624fd09a9613f3cbc03513

Pope Francis says he's the head of the Church, but only the head, apparently God never got around to creating the rest of him. No penis, it's a huge controversy!!!

https://sketchfab.com/models/d85d513315434eab85b82b9684488eee

That's a useless remark. We are not in Greece and everybody in this discussion understood the meaning of the word. We shared a common definition without any problem till you arrived and we will keep doing it when you leave.

I knew that sooner or later the problem of Whoopie Goldberg not having a penis would come up in this discussion and it finally did. Let's see if this finally settles the question posted by me 4 pages ago, in another life and from another galaxy.

Bad writing assumes things. When you assume your know what happens.

I knew that sooner or later the problem of Whoopie Goldberg not having a penis would come up in this discussion and it finally did. — CarlosDiaz

:smile: :smile:

amen

Sister Hilda and her Experimental Theology Apparatus — Bitter Crank

What is the purpose of this ??

Apparently she felt we needed one.