Vatican 1 is the name given to a council of Roman Catholic Church leads that occurred in the 19th century. It was at this meeting that the idea of Papal Infallibility was "defined". Papal Infallibility is the idea that when the Pope says certain things in certain ways, these pronouncements can be taken to be what Christ would want the Church to believe. Gary Wills tackles this in his book Papal Sin, and this is a really important issue. This is a key part of the understanding of the Pope's power in the church. All questions about what (if any) changes the Church could make come back to this.
So then, what does he say?
well, the bit about Pius IX (the pope who called Vatican 1) having epilepsy seems to be true :) (page 246).
And Gary says:
When Pius IX called Vatican one, he told the Church leaders that "this was for the reform of the church and the considering of modern errors. Nothing was said about using the council to declare the Pope infallible" (248).
Pius IX "planted" a story in Le Civilta Cattolica that claimed that someone in France asked the Council to declare the Pope infallible "by acclimation, with no debate or vote" (248).
Pius IX supported those who wanted to have a sweeping understanding of what Papal Infallibility covered (249).
a group of German bishops respectfully wrote to the Pope to ask him not to have infallibility defined at this time, and he made them kiss his foot when they got there (249).
The following:
"Since what the Pope wanted was so clear to his curia, it set up the rules of debate and voting, and drew up the questions for discussion, in such a way as to rig the outcome. When it became clear that there would be some sizable dissent, it was declared that any discussion could be cut off by a mere motion on the part of 10 bishops, and that any decrees of the council could pass by a mere majority though other councils had aimed at consensus" (250).
The Council of Trent "demanded passage of decrees by an overwhelming majority" and allowed more debate (250-251).
The Pope tried to prevent the records of the Council of Trent from being used (251)
The definition that the Pope got was less than what he wanted (254-255)
The Pope rigged the selection of Bishops so that they did not represent Catholics from all over the Catholic world, and gave certain groups more representation than their numbers deserved (256)
So....how do the facts hold up? Lets find out........
Sunday, January 5, 2014
And so it begins.....
A bitter civil war racks the Catholic Church today. "liberal" Catholics and "Conservative" Catholics are battling for the soul of Catholicism.
But who is right?
One side is viewed as consisting of heretics. They are thought to be not just brainless about Church histroy but selfish, not so interested in social justice as they claim, but rather simply wanting approval for acts that they should not do.
The other side is seen as a mixture of misogynistic, homophobic, tyrannical, corrupt, and cult-like, having turned the Pope into an idol.
Who is right?
I have read two books recently. One is called "Papal Sin" by Gary Wells. The other is called "Faithful Dissent" by Robert McClory. I have decided to go on a journey. I will looks at the facts they bring up to support their claims, and then test them with research. What results will this yield? I am not quite sure.
Lets find out....
But who is right?
One side is viewed as consisting of heretics. They are thought to be not just brainless about Church histroy but selfish, not so interested in social justice as they claim, but rather simply wanting approval for acts that they should not do.
The other side is seen as a mixture of misogynistic, homophobic, tyrannical, corrupt, and cult-like, having turned the Pope into an idol.
Who is right?
I have read two books recently. One is called "Papal Sin" by Gary Wells. The other is called "Faithful Dissent" by Robert McClory. I have decided to go on a journey. I will looks at the facts they bring up to support their claims, and then test them with research. What results will this yield? I am not quite sure.
Lets find out....
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Feminism
I am a Christian man. I am also a PROUD FEMINIST! I shouldn't have to put that first sentence next to the second in order to be taken seriously. However, to those who instinctively recoil when they hear the word feminist, I wanted to make a point.
What is feminism? I want to tell you what it is not. It is NOT the belief that women are superior to men. It is NOT believing that every achievement ever made by a male in the past is worthless. It is NOT the belief that activities like rough-housing, Nascar, football, or any number of traditionally "masculine" activities are stupid. Its NOT the belief that Christianity is stupid. And it is NOT the belief that women who are Christians, don't have premarital sex, and stay home with the children are stupid or backwards.
Feminism is about CHOICE! The point of feminism is that, whether a woman (or a man) stays at home, is the primary financial provider, is religious or not, has traditional views about the proper time to have sex or not, has kids or doesn't....each one of these choices is an equally valid choice.
If feminism is not about women being superior to men, you may ask, why don't I call myself an egalitarian? Honestly, it is a form of protest. It seems as though our entire culture, along with those cultures that came before us, have made a point of communicating both overtly and subtlety that men should avoid things that are "femine". Plus it does seem like we have all gone out of our way to paint feminism as this evil thing.
Lets take things point by point:
First, lets talk about women in the military. I have heard a number of people argue that women should not have all the same roles in the military that men have because of strength differences between men and women. First of all, assuming that statement is true, those are general differences. What we feminists would bring up is that an individual who happens to be a lady may have more than enough physical strength. Also, women can not only work out at gyms, but study martial arts. A woman who is a skilled martial artist can beat men relying on brute strength alone. Finally, a mixed-sex military has not hurt Israel for instance, so why would it be a problem for us?
I have heard people express concern about things like the toys our kids play with, the clothes they wear, and the tv shows they watch. There is an idea that men who do certain things for fun are less manly. Let us say that there is a child (male, female, transsexual, or transgender). Let us say that this child is raised to be the kind of person who is assertive, self-disciplined, hard-working, kind, capable of talking about what is bothering them when it is appropriate, and willing to stand up for people being bullied. If an individual is really this well rounded, if they are, as they say "a good person", does it really matter what tv shows they watch, or what toys they play with as children? I for instance do not like to watch sports. I don't have anything against anyone who does or think I am better than them, I just don't like it. If I posses all of the virtues listed above, am I really less of a man? Let us say someone is a "trekkie" or a "brony". If they have all of the virtues I listed above, do tv shows really make them inferior to other men? You know the expression "be a man"? Why not "be an adult" or "be a good person"?
Now lets deal with expectations for women.
There seems to be a stereotype about what a feminist woman looks like. She is typically depicted as an angry, pants-wearing person. Even if she sleeps with them, she does not trust men and lets them know what she thinks about them (and she has lots and lots of casual, pre-marital sex as well). If she is married to a man, she is married to a weakling who stays at home with the kids (unless she made the "evil" choice not to have them) she works to make money. But deep down, all she wants is to be swept off her feet by a stronger, "real" man who will leave her free to do what she truly wants deep down....what all women truly want apparently.....to be a stay at home mom. Oh, and she did not take her partner's last name.
First of all, most feminists are not angry, male-hating people who just want a stronger man. But that is not the main point (s) I want to make....
What is wrong with wearing pants? The point we feminists would make is that it doesn't matter if a woman wears a dress or wears pants. If she decides she wants to wear makeup, that's fine. But if she doesn't want to wear makeup, and/or cut her hair really short, that is an equally valid decision. There is no one "right" way to be a woman. And yet, it does feel like women who don't fawn over boys and makeup, women who don't have children, women who assert themselves when someone has wronged them...they are called "b----". (That brings up another point. It seems as though, subconsciously in many cases, we don't value assertiveness in our women, but teach them to be accommodating far more than we teach men to do so).
Next lets deal with sex. Contrary to what many people think, we feminists DON'T hate Christians with the opinion that a person should wait till they are married to have sex. There is no one central governing body of feminist philosophy that determines what all feminists believe on the subject. Some feminists are Christian and some are not, some believe premarital sex is ok, and some don't. The problem we have is when being a virgin becomes the most important thing a woman can be. Believing all people should wait to have sex till they are married? Cool. The rights of particular congregations and/or denominations/branch of Christianity or any other religion to kick people out for engaging in certain behaviors? That is, well, a right. However...
First of all, we don't like double standards that say it is, at worst, less bad for a man to have premarital sex than a woman. Secondly, if you believe premarital sex is wrong...what should the consequences be? Excommunication? Ok. That's the business of religious elders. But the rest of us? Do we get the right to bully women? To call them whores (there is no equivalent word in the English language that I know of for men who do the same things we call women whores for)? Should a girl be kicked out of her house or sent to reform school? If a girl or a woman has lots of other accomplishments under her belt, should the rest of us disregard those and stop being friends with a woman or girl who isn't a virgin? We feminists would say, no.
We would also argue that because beliefs about when the right time to have sex is are largely tied up with ones religious beliefs, it should be treated the same way we treat people converting to different religions. You wouldn't kick out your daughter for say, converting to a different religion or becoming an atheist,
right?
And to any men who wouldn't marry a girl because she wasn't a virgin...SHAME ON YOU!!! We feminists despise the notion that women have an extra responsibility to guard their virginity because "boys will be boys". As a man, to any man who tries to hide any amount of bad behavior behind the excuse of "I can't help it, I am a boy/man"...I say SUCK IT UP! Bothered that your wife is physically stronger than you, makes more money than you, or did not take your last name? DEAL WITH IT!
A word on the last point...I have heard a lot of criticisms of women who work and men who stay at home. Stuff like which partner works can only really be decided by the couple. They know what makes the most sense for their family financially. That is a decision best left to couples decide. AGAIN...ITS ALL ABOUT CHOICE, NOT A PARTICULAR LIFESTYLE! Some people say that if the man is the one who stays at home, children will be confused. If they are being raised with the virtues I have listed in this essay, if they are being molded into well-rounded, good people, I and my fellow feminists would argue it does not matter a whole lot.
Finally, I have heard some people talk about how men don't have many places any more where they can just "be men". How? What does it mean exactly to "be a man"? Are we talking about engaging in typically "masculine" activities? There are plenty of places to watch sports and to play in sports. A bunch of friends gathering to rough house? That is still acceptable. Men are not facing widespread employment discrimination. People can still gather with friends and talk about subjects that interest them. Again, what about men not interested in those typical interests? I admit that it feels like a lot of the complaints about how society is turning against men implies there is only one way to be a man, only one way to be a woman, and "womanly" things are just worth a little less than manly things.
Anyway, those are my thoughts? What do you think?
Lets take things point by point:
First, lets talk about women in the military. I have heard a number of people argue that women should not have all the same roles in the military that men have because of strength differences between men and women. First of all, assuming that statement is true, those are general differences. What we feminists would bring up is that an individual who happens to be a lady may have more than enough physical strength. Also, women can not only work out at gyms, but study martial arts. A woman who is a skilled martial artist can beat men relying on brute strength alone. Finally, a mixed-sex military has not hurt Israel for instance, so why would it be a problem for us?
I have heard people express concern about things like the toys our kids play with, the clothes they wear, and the tv shows they watch. There is an idea that men who do certain things for fun are less manly. Let us say that there is a child (male, female, transsexual, or transgender). Let us say that this child is raised to be the kind of person who is assertive, self-disciplined, hard-working, kind, capable of talking about what is bothering them when it is appropriate, and willing to stand up for people being bullied. If an individual is really this well rounded, if they are, as they say "a good person", does it really matter what tv shows they watch, or what toys they play with as children? I for instance do not like to watch sports. I don't have anything against anyone who does or think I am better than them, I just don't like it. If I posses all of the virtues listed above, am I really less of a man? Let us say someone is a "trekkie" or a "brony". If they have all of the virtues I listed above, do tv shows really make them inferior to other men? You know the expression "be a man"? Why not "be an adult" or "be a good person"?
Now lets deal with expectations for women.
There seems to be a stereotype about what a feminist woman looks like. She is typically depicted as an angry, pants-wearing person. Even if she sleeps with them, she does not trust men and lets them know what she thinks about them (and she has lots and lots of casual, pre-marital sex as well). If she is married to a man, she is married to a weakling who stays at home with the kids (unless she made the "evil" choice not to have them) she works to make money. But deep down, all she wants is to be swept off her feet by a stronger, "real" man who will leave her free to do what she truly wants deep down....what all women truly want apparently.....to be a stay at home mom. Oh, and she did not take her partner's last name.
First of all, most feminists are not angry, male-hating people who just want a stronger man. But that is not the main point (s) I want to make....
What is wrong with wearing pants? The point we feminists would make is that it doesn't matter if a woman wears a dress or wears pants. If she decides she wants to wear makeup, that's fine. But if she doesn't want to wear makeup, and/or cut her hair really short, that is an equally valid decision. There is no one "right" way to be a woman. And yet, it does feel like women who don't fawn over boys and makeup, women who don't have children, women who assert themselves when someone has wronged them...they are called "b----". (That brings up another point. It seems as though, subconsciously in many cases, we don't value assertiveness in our women, but teach them to be accommodating far more than we teach men to do so).
Next lets deal with sex. Contrary to what many people think, we feminists DON'T hate Christians with the opinion that a person should wait till they are married to have sex. There is no one central governing body of feminist philosophy that determines what all feminists believe on the subject. Some feminists are Christian and some are not, some believe premarital sex is ok, and some don't. The problem we have is when being a virgin becomes the most important thing a woman can be. Believing all people should wait to have sex till they are married? Cool. The rights of particular congregations and/or denominations/branch of Christianity or any other religion to kick people out for engaging in certain behaviors? That is, well, a right. However...
First of all, we don't like double standards that say it is, at worst, less bad for a man to have premarital sex than a woman. Secondly, if you believe premarital sex is wrong...what should the consequences be? Excommunication? Ok. That's the business of religious elders. But the rest of us? Do we get the right to bully women? To call them whores (there is no equivalent word in the English language that I know of for men who do the same things we call women whores for)? Should a girl be kicked out of her house or sent to reform school? If a girl or a woman has lots of other accomplishments under her belt, should the rest of us disregard those and stop being friends with a woman or girl who isn't a virgin? We feminists would say, no.
We would also argue that because beliefs about when the right time to have sex is are largely tied up with ones religious beliefs, it should be treated the same way we treat people converting to different religions. You wouldn't kick out your daughter for say, converting to a different religion or becoming an atheist,
right?
And to any men who wouldn't marry a girl because she wasn't a virgin...SHAME ON YOU!!! We feminists despise the notion that women have an extra responsibility to guard their virginity because "boys will be boys". As a man, to any man who tries to hide any amount of bad behavior behind the excuse of "I can't help it, I am a boy/man"...I say SUCK IT UP! Bothered that your wife is physically stronger than you, makes more money than you, or did not take your last name? DEAL WITH IT!
A word on the last point...I have heard a lot of criticisms of women who work and men who stay at home. Stuff like which partner works can only really be decided by the couple. They know what makes the most sense for their family financially. That is a decision best left to couples decide. AGAIN...ITS ALL ABOUT CHOICE, NOT A PARTICULAR LIFESTYLE! Some people say that if the man is the one who stays at home, children will be confused. If they are being raised with the virtues I have listed in this essay, if they are being molded into well-rounded, good people, I and my fellow feminists would argue it does not matter a whole lot.
Finally, I have heard some people talk about how men don't have many places any more where they can just "be men". How? What does it mean exactly to "be a man"? Are we talking about engaging in typically "masculine" activities? There are plenty of places to watch sports and to play in sports. A bunch of friends gathering to rough house? That is still acceptable. Men are not facing widespread employment discrimination. People can still gather with friends and talk about subjects that interest them. Again, what about men not interested in those typical interests? I admit that it feels like a lot of the complaints about how society is turning against men implies there is only one way to be a man, only one way to be a woman, and "womanly" things are just worth a little less than manly things.
Anyway, those are my thoughts? What do you think?
Monday, March 4, 2013
democracy
I was reading an article in foreign policy that was talking about the state of democracy in the world today (http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foreignpolicy.com%2Farticles%2F2013%2F03%2F04%2Fone_step_forward_two_steps_back%3Fwp_login_redirect%3D0). It reminded me of a discussion I had in college with some friends about democracy. Specifically we talked about whether US style democracy can work in all contexts. Honestly maybe power doesn't always have to be separated the same way as in our system. Maybe sometimes having a President who writes the laws and creates the taxes on their own can work. But I still am of the opinion that in such a state if a tax was directly causing people to literally starve they should at least be able to sue for the law to be changed in front of an assembly of elected leaders. I guess my personal cardinal statement would be this.....Power should NEVER be absolute. No one person or group should hold absolute power of life and death over another. Their has to be someway for the controlled group to seek redress if the group in power goes too far
Friday, November 16, 2012
Is This Dangerous...Secularism
Secularism.
This is a word that strikes fear. From what I have experienced, this word seems to invoke fears of a society where religion is harassed/shammed out of existence, and where everyone is forced to conform to a certain set of values that will plunge the society into a dysytopian nightmare.
When I think of this word, this is the kind of society I see...
I see a nation where there is no established state religion. No religious institution gets government money or has its leaders appointed to various government posts. The Constitution of that state, along with that nation's pledge of allegiance, and oaths of office, don't mention a divine being period. The politicians of that state either don't evoke a deity's name at all in office, or there isn't a whole lot of pressure one way or another.....maybe some politicians don't, some do say "God protect you all", and maybe politicians from different religions are culturally allowed to invoke the protection of their deities. For instance, lets say a person who did believe in a pantheon of gods was elected to a political office and would sometimes say "May the gods protect the United States". In a secular society as I see it, no one would care one way or another.
In terms of schools, I would see science classes that taught evolution alone, where teachers simply
said "Speculating on what the concept of evolution means for religion or whether it denies a deity creating the universe is not our department. We are just here to teach you what the scientific community agrees is the best explanation". History classes would simply teach the facts of the history of various religions. Some people may complain of schools teaching students religion, and specifically Christianity is evil. Even if this is true in some circumstances, and I'm NOT saying it is, but just arguing hypotheticals, I would say it would be all right to complain, but simply from a historical point of view. Arguing that certain important facts are being left out of history classes is not inherently the same as demanding that Christianity should be held as the best religion ever. A secular society would be committed to teaching the truths of history, the good and the bad, with no regard to ideology one way or another. Finally, in terms of school prayer, having a five minute quiet time at the beginning of the day where students can silently pray/meditate/think about nothing is the most I would consider acceptable.
Is this society dangerous? What if every member of every religion in that society was free to pray to whoever they believed in, be open about what they prayed to, assemble in groups, their religious institutions were allowed to govern themselves, writing their own rules for their members with the freedom to determine their own rules regarding excommunicating their members? And within the confines of religious institutions walls, those people should remain free to say "We think such and such policy is bad and should not be adopted by our members. What if all the people in that faith did not have to fear being arrested or killed, and there was no danger of losing their jobs? I emphasize those last two points.....AS LONG AS THE PRACTITIONERS OF ALL FAITHS DID NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOSING THEIR LIVES, JOBS, HOUSING, OR FREEDOMS TO WORSHIP AND ASSEMBLE TO WORSHIP AND PREACH ABOUT WHAT THEY BE LIVED....is such a secular society dangerous?
My point is that secularism doesnt seem to be inherently dangerous. Lets say the society even experimented with the types of groups/living arrangements it was willing to lend financial support to in the effort to promote more environments that made the difficult task of raising the next generation easier? As long as the religious groups were free to choose whether to be in such arrangements, I don't see oppression and moral ruin. Speaking of moral ruin, I am willing to bet money that most people, whether they belong to an old school interpretation of religion or not, believe fundamentally in "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and that sometimes its better to cooperate and work in a group than go it alone. A group of people who rallied largely just around those two principles and formed an agreement not to kill each other and have a government body that resolves disputes between them would, I bet, still be able to form a decent society that functioned well and was not some sort of hellish nightmare of evil.
So is secularism dangerous? I don't think so. I don't think its a word to run away from. You want to talk about particular arrangements to ensure religious liberty in more complex societies? Fine, and that is a legitimate discussion to have. But as long as no one is threatening to shut down religions that feel the manner in which they received divine relation doesn't allow for debate on particular issues, I think secularism has NOT gone to far.
This is a word that strikes fear. From what I have experienced, this word seems to invoke fears of a society where religion is harassed/shammed out of existence, and where everyone is forced to conform to a certain set of values that will plunge the society into a dysytopian nightmare.
When I think of this word, this is the kind of society I see...
I see a nation where there is no established state religion. No religious institution gets government money or has its leaders appointed to various government posts. The Constitution of that state, along with that nation's pledge of allegiance, and oaths of office, don't mention a divine being period. The politicians of that state either don't evoke a deity's name at all in office, or there isn't a whole lot of pressure one way or another.....maybe some politicians don't, some do say "God protect you all", and maybe politicians from different religions are culturally allowed to invoke the protection of their deities. For instance, lets say a person who did believe in a pantheon of gods was elected to a political office and would sometimes say "May the gods protect the United States". In a secular society as I see it, no one would care one way or another.
In terms of schools, I would see science classes that taught evolution alone, where teachers simply
said "Speculating on what the concept of evolution means for religion or whether it denies a deity creating the universe is not our department. We are just here to teach you what the scientific community agrees is the best explanation". History classes would simply teach the facts of the history of various religions. Some people may complain of schools teaching students religion, and specifically Christianity is evil. Even if this is true in some circumstances, and I'm NOT saying it is, but just arguing hypotheticals, I would say it would be all right to complain, but simply from a historical point of view. Arguing that certain important facts are being left out of history classes is not inherently the same as demanding that Christianity should be held as the best religion ever. A secular society would be committed to teaching the truths of history, the good and the bad, with no regard to ideology one way or another. Finally, in terms of school prayer, having a five minute quiet time at the beginning of the day where students can silently pray/meditate/think about nothing is the most I would consider acceptable.
Is this society dangerous? What if every member of every religion in that society was free to pray to whoever they believed in, be open about what they prayed to, assemble in groups, their religious institutions were allowed to govern themselves, writing their own rules for their members with the freedom to determine their own rules regarding excommunicating their members? And within the confines of religious institutions walls, those people should remain free to say "We think such and such policy is bad and should not be adopted by our members. What if all the people in that faith did not have to fear being arrested or killed, and there was no danger of losing their jobs? I emphasize those last two points.....AS LONG AS THE PRACTITIONERS OF ALL FAITHS DID NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOSING THEIR LIVES, JOBS, HOUSING, OR FREEDOMS TO WORSHIP AND ASSEMBLE TO WORSHIP AND PREACH ABOUT WHAT THEY BE LIVED....is such a secular society dangerous?
My point is that secularism doesnt seem to be inherently dangerous. Lets say the society even experimented with the types of groups/living arrangements it was willing to lend financial support to in the effort to promote more environments that made the difficult task of raising the next generation easier? As long as the religious groups were free to choose whether to be in such arrangements, I don't see oppression and moral ruin. Speaking of moral ruin, I am willing to bet money that most people, whether they belong to an old school interpretation of religion or not, believe fundamentally in "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and that sometimes its better to cooperate and work in a group than go it alone. A group of people who rallied largely just around those two principles and formed an agreement not to kill each other and have a government body that resolves disputes between them would, I bet, still be able to form a decent society that functioned well and was not some sort of hellish nightmare of evil.
So is secularism dangerous? I don't think so. I don't think its a word to run away from. You want to talk about particular arrangements to ensure religious liberty in more complex societies? Fine, and that is a legitimate discussion to have. But as long as no one is threatening to shut down religions that feel the manner in which they received divine relation doesn't allow for debate on particular issues, I think secularism has NOT gone to far.
Intro
Dear Internet...
Hello. My name is Rob. This is my blog, where I intend to post various thoughts about life, politics, and particularly religious politics. I am also a "Liberal" Catholic. What is a "Liberal" Catholic? Well, you know that massive portion of U.S. Catholics who voted for President Obama this year? The Catholics some people say aren't "real" Catholics and should just get out of the Church? I am one of them. And I am NOT leaving! There is much that fulfills me about this faith, and I believe it has great potential. I want to do what I can to help this Church, and I believe I can do that by staying and trying to make things better. I will from time to time post on other topics, but cultural/religious commentary will be a big part of this blog.
Also......trolling will NOT be tolerated! I invite debate on this wall, but attacking other people is obviously off limits. No calling others names. If you don't like what a person says, say stuff like "I disagree/I think your wrong". I shouldn't have to say this, but its the Internet.
The final point isn't an order but a suggestion. Look, I have grown sick of generalized statements. As in "Gay Marriage will Destroy America" or "The fact that you ask questions about this topic shows you are either uneducated about being a real Catholic, or a stubborn brat". I want specifics on this wall. For instance, if you believe that it is impossible for the Church to change its views on particular topics, I want you to cite the councils, statements, and history that proves your point. If I/someone in the comments bring up a historical fact that would seem to contradict your point, respond to that point with history. Or, specifically point out from A to B what specific social policies will lead to (in your opinion). This is only a suggestion, but I WILL be looking to challenge general statements.
(Salutes) General Statement. hehe
Well, time for my first of a series of posts. In these posts, I will attempt to look at buzzwords in popular culture that strike fear, and looking deeper at these words. While these posts don't involve citing statistics as much, I count these as "from A to B" statements. This series will be called....."Is This Dangerous?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)