Question for Catholics

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What is the purpose of a pope?



I have some opinions on the issue and would like to put them up for debate, but to be fair, would first like to hear your reasoning firsthand.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

the Roman Catholic Church's structure enables it to do extraordinary good for the world

Such as? Not mocking or anything, just wondering. I guess I keep thinking toward when they told Africans that using condoms is a sin, and then watch as AIDS ravages the continent.

I mean, you look at the excesses of the conservative 'non-denominational' congregations in this country and see how far they've strayed from their own traditions, from the liturgy, even from the central doctrine of divine grace - and governmental mainline organisations (like the Methodists or the Episcopalians or the Roman Catholics) start looking pretty good.

The non-denominational (of which I happen to be, BTW) stray from certain teachings and traditions most likely because they have been found to be un-biblical. There is a constant effort to reform as needed, in order to get back to the basic Christian principles that other churches (the Roman Catholic, even) have abandoned. I like this policy because it forces us to think liberally in relation to what we are constantly told as being 'truth' by mainstream religious organizations, and examine them for their validity. In contrast, governmental denominations (in my perception) rely on what they are told by the governments in power, and never bother to examine them for themselves. Everything they are told is taken for granted.

My church, by the way, has not abandoned divine grace, although I can't speak for other churches of the like. As for liturgy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, as there seem to be many different connotations.

As I said, current Popes have no temporal power, except perhaps inside the Vatican buildings. And Popes are not "chosen by God", but by the College of Cardinals. Of course one could choose to believe that the Holy Spirit somehow helps them make a good choice, just like others assume that God wanted George W. Bush to be elected. But that's a different matter. Can we objectively determine when the Holy Spirit has been at work? I don't think so.

But see, a lot of Catholics I come across think just that. The holy spirit makes the choice. Then they go along and blindly follow whatever the teachings may be, disregarding all objective thought.

I am not so sure popes do not have some sort of temporal power. What they say outside of the magisterium's authority has a big effect on people. John Paul in his book, for example, "gays are a new idealogy of evil". I wouldn't call this statement very biblical, yet millions of Christians use it to justify their discrimination tyrade against homosexuals. Being and acting in a homosexual manner might be a sin, but saying the people that choose this affiliation are evil is just the kind of intolerance that tears cultures apart.

Never mind checking to see what the Bible says on the matter. The Pope said it, so it must be biblical!

It's totally unfair to say that Catholics don't think: there's a long list of Catholic philosophers, from Aquinas to Anscombe, who would be more than capable of disproving that point. Of course many among the rank and file may choose not to think very hard, but that is true of Protestants also. Think about the Protestant Fundamentalists who just refuse to learn about evolution, for example. And many Protestants seem happy to be the political pawns of Cal Thomas or James Dobson, without ever questioning their doctrines.

Maybe I'm in a wrong position to judge this, but as I see it, Catholics are especially gullible, mostly due to the government under which they place all their trust. Call me cynical, but personally I prefer to keep a very close eye on governments of ALL sorts, for their tendency to manipulate the people under their power.

Any human group is vulnerable to corruption, to a greater or lesser extent. But note that getting rid of hierarchy does not eliminate power, which remains hidden. In the absence of a visible head, the people in power, the manipulators, are still there--only this time they're not accountable to anyone!

Power is not much of an issue in more democratic forms of church organizations. Sure, there will always be teachers of false doctrine, but they can be 'overthrown', so to speak, the same of which cannot be said about the Catholic authorities. By allowing a biblical government, you invite corruption, and give it a place to thrive.



In my opinion Catholic teachings HAVE strayed from the mainline, regardless of the unifying government. I don't understand, for example, why babies are babtised at birth. What biblical relevance does that have?

[Dilettante]

Such as? Not mocking or anything, just wondering. I guess I keep thinking toward when they told Africans that using condoms is a sin, and then watch as AIDS ravages the continent.

The Catholic Church runs a vast network of schools, universities and hospitals, and in many ways it is a force for good. Of course, some of its policies can be criticized, and the "therapeutical use" of condoms has occasionally been advocated even by certain Catholic priests, but the Church hierarchy is against it, since they believe in abstinence and monogamous sex. Whether or not this is unrealistic is still being debated.

The non-denominational (of which I happen to be, BTW) stray from certain teachings and traditions most likely because they have been found to be un-biblical.

"Non-denominational" is itself a denomination. Who found those teachings unbiblical? It's not like the Bible can speak by itself, without an interpreter.
Since Jesus didn't leave any writings of his own, even the early Christians differed widely as to what those "basic Christian principles" you talk about were. When Jesus died, the situation was rather chaotic for a while. There was never an original, unadulterated, Christian church which was later corrupted (that's a myth), but a plurality of churches and
diverse interpretations of Christian doctrine. Plus, there was no Bible back then!

There is a constant effort to reform as needed, in order to get back to the basic Christian principles

What basic Christian principles? How do you decide which are basic and which are not?

I am not so sure popes do not have some sort of temporal power. What they say outside of the magisterium's authority has a big effect on people. John Paul in his book, for example, "gays are a new idealogy of evil". I wouldn't call this statement very biblical, yet millions of Christians use it to justify their discrimination tyrade against homosexuals. Being and acting in a homosexual manner might be a sin, but saying the people that choose this affiliation are evil is just the kind of intolerance that tears cultures apart.

Actually the RCC teaches that being gay is not a sin, it’s only practising that lifestyle that is sinful. If John Paul II wrote that gays are evil, I totally missed that. Could you give us a reference for that quote?

Never mind checking to see what the Bible says on the matter. The Pope said it, so it must be biblical!

Problem is the Bible remains silent on a lot of current issues, such as abortion, the death penalty, etc. Also, remember that the RCC is not necessarily based on the Bible as a whole (that’s your standard) but on the New Testament and the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. And, to a Catholic, what the magisterium says is just as important. Catholics do not believe in "Sola Scriptura", so it's not fair to judge them by such a standard.

Maybe I'm in a wrong position to judge this, but as I see it, Catholics are especially gullible, mostly due to the government under which they place all their trust. Call me cynical, but personally I prefer to keep a very close eye on governments of ALL sorts, for their tendency to manipulate the people under their power.

I don't know of any scientific studies concluding that Catholics are more gullible than other Christians. Human gullibility is pretty widespread, if you ask me. Governments are not alone in manipulating people: populist leaders, committees, columnists, the Media, and even NGOs are equally adept at it.

Power is not much of an issue in more democratic forms of church organizations. Sure, there will always be teachers of false doctrine, but they can be 'overthrown', so to speak, the same of which cannot be said about the Catholic authorities. By allowing a biblical government, you invite corruption, and give it a place to thrive.

Power is always an issue, in all societies. How do you “overthrow” false prophets and, most importantly, how do you know they’re false?

In my opinion Catholic teachings HAVE strayed from the mainline, regardless of the unifying government. I don't understand, for example, why babies are babtised at birth. What biblical relevance does that have?

Who defines what the mainline is? Infant baptism is part of tradition, it doesn’t have to be biblical to be acceptable to Catholics.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

"Non-denominational" is itself a denomination. Who found those teachings unbiblical? It's not like the Bible can speak by itself, without an interpreter.

Why can't we interpret it? Why can't we examine for ourselves what is unbiblical? As I see it, I can do that just as well as any pope. His Bible says the same things mine does.

What basic Christian principles? How do you decide which are basic and which are not?

Misconceptions have arisen over the centries pertaining to what the Bible really says. What I meant by getting back to "basic Christian principles" is merely weeding out the fact from fiction.

Actually the RCC teaches that being gay is not a sin, it’s only practising that lifestyle that is sinful. If John Paul II wrote that gays are evil, I totally missed that. Could you give us a reference for that quote?

Most certainly.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ?hub=World

Problem is the Bible remains silent on a lot of current issues, such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.

True, but that sentence was in reference to people hating gays because of John Paul's statements, and hating anyone is most certainly unbiblical. People go completely on what the popes say, John Paul and his gay bashing in this case, and don't bother to check whether their actions and thoughts (such as hate) are biblical.

Also, remember that the RCC is not necessarily based on the Bible as a whole (that’s your standard) but on the New Testament and the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. And, to a Catholic, what the magisterium says is just as important. Catholics do not believe in "Sola Scriptura", so it's not fair to judge them by such a standard.

See, thats where we differ. I don't see how it makes sense for anyone to place faith and trust in anything other than the Bible. What other than scriptures truly comes from God? To revere the words of mere people (who could be telling you anything) as much as the words of God himself?

So lets say I am a magister of some sort (not sure what you call them). Could I tell you that we should all worship Platypuses, and that would be accepted to be as genuine as the word of God himself? I think I am missing something somewhere.

I can't imagine trusting anyone to give me an unbiased account of what the Bible says without ever checking to see if he is speaking the truth. A lady at our church who was raised Catholic recounted a story to us about how she began to read the Bible one day, found scriptures that incriminated the church's current practices, and upon asking a preist about them, recieved a rehearsed speech that in short, answered nothing. I assume the church was stuck in age-old traditions that debatably should have been abolished long ago. After all it is essential to take account of scriptures on the subject such as Matt 15:3, "Why do you break the commandment of God because of your traditions"? This is precisely what I think the RCC is currently doing.

Power is always an issue, in all societies. How do you “overthrow” false prophets and, most importantly, how do you know they’re false?

A prophet is a false one if his teachings contradict the Bible. You may "overthrow" them (for lack of a better word) by pointing out their flaws and proving them wrong via scripture. The magisterium on the other hand answer to no one- their deliberation is accepted as fact, regardless of whether it really is.

Who defines what the mainline is? Infant baptism is part of tradition, it doesn’t have to be biblical to be acceptable to Catholics.

If it's not in the Bible, we have no business doing it. I refer you back to the Matthew verse. The Bible teaches (or implies, in places) that one must understand what he is commiting to before being babtised. A baby is incapable of that. Tradition is meaningless to God if it does not further his kingdom.





I don't mean to meaninglessly attack Catholics BTW, if it somehow comes across as that. I merely wish to better understand.

[Curious]

Why can't we interpret it? Why can't we examine for ourselves what is unbiblical? As I see it, I can do that just as well as any pope. His Bible says the same things mine does.

You would think so wouldn't you? It really depends on the bible that you have though. Historically, in the catholic church there have always been distinct differences between the bible of the pope, that of the basic clergy and that of the layperson.

[Dilettante]

Why can\'t we interpret it? Why can\'t we examine for ourselves what is unbiblical? As I see it, I can do that just as well as any pope. His
Bible says the same things mine does.

You certainly can. I became agnostic precisely by reading the Bible and finding too much human content in it. I suppose we could all arrive at our personal interpretation of the Bible and each person could start their own church (that would be the end of Christianity, BTW). But I assume you don't want that. I assume you want to find some common ground. But the Bible is not an easy text. Especially if you have antiquated versions like the King James, which is probably as hard to read for the average person as Shakespeare. Also, Catholic Bibles contain a few more books. And unless you can read Hebrew and Greek, you will have to rely on a particular translator’s interpretation of the surviving texts. You also need to decide on a method, hermeneutical, historico-critical, literal… it’s not as easy as it looks. The problem is that too many people try to read the Bible without the footnotes. And remember the Bible doesn't say anything until it is interpreted, and your interpretation is different from the Pope's interpretation in many ways.

Misconceptions have arisen over the centries pertaining to what the
Bible really says. What I meant by getting back to \"basic Christian
principles\" is merely weeding out the fact from fiction.

And how exactly do you achieve that without adopting one of the above methods?

About the Pope's quote saying that "gay marriage is part of an ideology of evil", it is certainly inflammatory, but it's not exactly the same as saying that gays themselves are evil. To the best of my knowledge, the RCC does not hate gays, even if it strongly opposes gay marriage on the grounds that it is supposedly against natural law (a controversial notion itself). Most likely it all comes from Augustine's restrictive view of marriage as an institution whose sole purpose is procreation.

hating
[i:e76317e473]anyone[/i:e76317e473] is most certainly unbiblical.

That’s your interpretation. Other people have found all sorts of hateful remarks in the Bible. Remember the verse "I have hated Esau"?(remember Romans 9:11-14?). And isn't the Old Testament full of violence?

I don\'t see how it makes sense for anyone to place faith and trust in anything other than the Bible. What other than scriptures truly comes from God? To revere the words of mere people
(who could be telling you [i:e76317e473]anything[/i:e76317e473]) as
much as the words of God himself?

But you are also placing your trust on the people who wrote down the different books of the Bible, on those who compiled the biblical canon, on the translators, etc. And you are going out on a limb trusting that the Bible is an accurate account of God's words.

So lets say I am a magister of some sort (not sure what you call them).
Could I tell you that we should all worship Platypuses, and that would
be accepted to be as genuine as the word of God himself?

I wouldn’t believe you, but you might be lucky enough to come across some people who would, and you could then build up a following. Now seriously, the magisterium is something which is built up historically. You can't just improvise.

I can\'t imagine trusting anyone to give me an unbiased account of what
the Bible says without ever checking to see if he is speaking the
truth.

I can't imagine how anyone could give you such an account. We all are prejudiced to some extent. And how would you check his account? I suspect people always read the Bible from the point of view of their conceptual or ideological framework.

A prophet is a false one if his teachings contradict the Bible.

Again, it's not always easy to prove that certain teachings contradict the Bible, since the Bible is ambiguous on many issues. At the time of the abolition of slavery in the US, both sides were quoting the Bible in support of their opposing positions.

If it\'s not in the Bible, we have no business doing it. I refer you
back to the Matthew verse.

However, there's more than one possible interpretation of Matthew's intention. Today's Christians do a lot of things which are not in the Bible (pop music at church, Bible-study breakfasts...) and even things the Bible speaks against (women in church with their heads uncovered, etc). This is not necessarily bad.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I became agnostic precisely by reading the Bible and finding too much human content in it.

As have I (in part).

And how exactly do you achieve that without adopting one of the above methods?

In the end it is all going to come down to perception and interpretation anyway. The only thing we can do is choose the method that seems best. What else do we have to go on?

About the Pope's quote saying that "gay marriage is part of an ideology of evil", it is certainly inflammatory, but it's not exactly the same as saying that gays themselves are evil.

Debatably, but either way, it comes to the same avail. Millions of people have adopted the "all fags should die" mentality because of what the Pope said. Thats not to say people in other religions/denominations are not effected adversely by what their leaders may say, of course. But Catholics, I believe, are especially susceptible given the vast position of power their leaders hold.

That’s your interpretation. Other people have found all sorts of hateful remarks in the Bible. Remember the verse "I have hated Esau"?(remember Romans 9:11-14?). And isn't the Old Testament full of violence?

God might have given in to hate (although that is a different debate altogether) but the Bible makes it clear that we are not to think badly of our neighbors.

Also, wouldn't anything the Old Testament writes technically be irrelevant to a Christian? After all, Romans 7:4 "you have died to the laws in Moses' teachings". The situation back then was a bit different anyway. There was violence, sure, but it was God-endorsed violence, therefore supposedly justified (although once again, that is another discussion entirely).

But you are also placing your trust on the people who wrote down the different books of the Bible, on those who compiled the biblical canon, on the translators, etc. And you are going out on a limb trusting that the Bible is an accurate account of God's words.

Right, I have already dealt quite a bit of trust in submitting to the Bible in the first place. Which, as I see it, is even more reason not to place trust in yet someone else (the clergy, in this case). There is no need to possibly FURTHER dismantle Gods word by listening to mere men. It might already be sundered.

I wouldn’t believe you, but you might be lucky enough to come across some people who would, and you could then build up a following. Now seriously, the magisterium is something which is built up historically. You can't just improvise.

But you do admit that it is possible. Probably won't happen to the extent that I invisioned, but the priests do have the chance to preach blatantly against Gods word, and no doubt it has happened sometime over the centuries. I see no reason to take that chance. I would rather examine things for myself, to prevent such occurences. Isn't it healthy to teach people to think for themselves?

I can't imagine how anyone could give you such an account. We all are prejudiced to some extent. And how would you check his account? I suspect people always read the Bible from the point of view of their conceptual or ideological framework.

You seem so trusting of people. Unfortunately, everyone is not to be trusted. It is good to be skeptical in a world of lies.




I believe people should think for themselves, rather than blindly conform to someone elses ideals. This is something I do not see the Roman Catholic Church endorsing. After all, where would we be if it had not been for the free thinkers during the reformation and rennesaince (sp?)? How can humanity hope to move forward if independent views are stifled, as they were under the Catholic theocracy?

[Dilettante]

In the end it is all going to come down to perception and interpretation anyway. The only thing we can do is choose the method that seems best. What else do we have to go on?

I agree. In scientific matters, one can expect the evidence will eventually resolve any disputes. In religious matters, however, it doesn't work that way. There is no impartial source we can go to in order to decide who is right, so we need to examine the different theologies and compare their relative merits. In the final analysis, all religions seem to be in the same boat: they're all based on unprovable assumptions.
Although I am agnostic (and skeptical of most basic tenets of the religion I was raised in), I have found Catholic theology to be otherwise relatively consistent and, in some ways at least, beneficial to society. And, while I am not blind to its many faults, I also admire the way in which Catholicism absorbed Roman law and Greek philosophy. In contrast, I have found Calvinism, for example, to be a harmful, antisocial ideology.

Debatably, but either way, it comes to the same avail. Millions of people have adopted the "all fags should die" mentality because of what the Pope said. Thats not to say people in other religions/denominations are not effected adversely by what their leaders may say, of course. But Catholics, I believe, are especially susceptible given the vast position of power their leaders hold.

If that is true, it is unfortunate. My impression is that those people probably already hated gays. Catholic leaders have clearly distanced themselves from such interpretations. My country recently legalized gay marriage, and the Catholic clergy organized a massive demonstration in Madrid in response. But the slogans were all pretty civilized: it was clear from the start that hate messages would not be tolerated by the organizers.
Also, while it is true that Catholic leaders have more power, it is also true that Catholics do not always obey what their leaders say. The issue of contraception is a case in point. I know many devout Catholics who say "what my spouse and I do in our bedroom is not the Pope's business".

There is no need to possibly FURTHER dismantle Gods word by listening to mere men. It might already be sundered.

Yes, but it's not just a matter of how many men have tampered with God's word. Even if only four men (let's say the authors of the Gospels) had greatly "embellished" the real story, all Christians, Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic alike, would be up the creek without a paddle.

But you do admit that it is possible. Probably won't happen to the extent that I invisioned, but the priests do have the chance to preach blatantly against Gods word, and no doubt it has happened sometime over the centuries. I see no reason to take that chance. I would rather examine things for myself, to prevent such occurences. Isn't it healthy to teach people to think for themselves?

It is possible, to a limited extent. You're right. If you examine things for yourself, at least you'll make your own errors, not somebody else's. I totally and wholeheartedly support critical thinking in all realms, including religion. But most people won't do such a thing (it's understandable, we all treat our beliefs as treasured possessions to some extent). Since most people seem to have religious needs, I would rather have them follow a theology that at least seems socially beneficial. Whether that theology can be found in this or that church is a topic for debate, of course.

You seem so trusting of people. Unfortunately, everyone is not to be trusted. It is good to be skeptical in a world of lies.

I must have given you the impression of being more gullible than I am. I actually support skepticism in general.

I believe people should think for themselves, rather than blindly conform to someone elses ideals. This is something I do not see the Roman Catholic Church endorsing. After all, where would we be if it had not been for the free thinkers during the reformation and rennesaince (sp?)? How can humanity hope to move forward if independent views are stifled, as they were under the Catholic theocracy?

I agree with almost all of what you said. And some of those renaissance thinkers were Catholic (Erasmus comes to mind). I think of later liberal Catholic thinkers like Lammenais and many others. They were silenced by the hierarchy. Why? One of the disadvantages of organized religion is the inevitable stifling of freethought, especially when that religion feels under attack. Again, religion is not like science. It does not "advance" or gain knowledge with the passage of time and with free inquiry. It can change or disappear, but religious "truths" are not provable.
It is natural for certain religious leaders to be afraid of "too much reason" dissolving the faith (remember Luther calling reason "the Devil's whore"). If you apply logic to Christian beliefs you will encounter many inconsistencies (How can God be triune? How can God be infinite and omnipresent and at the same time have occupied a specific time and space in the figure of Christ? God is said to ne omnipotent, omipresent and omnibenevolent, but how can he be all three without contradiction? How can Christianity survive the fact that history goes on centuries after its supposed climax--the Incarnation--took place? And many more.)
You seem to think that humanity can achieve moral progress. I am skeptical. Scientific progress is possible, for the reasons cited above. But in the field of ethics I don't think we have made that much progress. Auschwitz (or even Hiroshima) seem to confirm my impression.

[Dilettante]

Why can\'t we interpret it? Why can\'t we examine for ourselves what is unbiblical? As I see it, I can do that just as well as any pope. His
Bible says the same things mine does.

I forgot to say that the obvious difficulty with this approach is that we will inevitably read our own ideas into the Bible. That's what the Reformers did, and I see no way out. The Reformers wanted to do away with authority, but at the same time retain their own unquestioned authority(they became their own popes) and that's why it was impossible to form a united Protestant church and why they became ruthless persecutors of each other. Rather than "restoring" the mythical one and only "True Church of Christ" (an impossible task), they ended up creating a totally new form of Christianity which reflected not Ancient Apostolic Christianity but their own modern needs and ideology.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Yes, but it's not just a matter of how many men have tampered with God's word. Even if only four men (let's say the authors of the Gospels) had greatly "embellished" the real story, all Christians, Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic alike, would be up the creek without a paddle.

Be that as it may, there is no need to further meddle with the Bible by adhering to the potentially biased interpretations/opinions of the magistrate.

I totally and wholeheartedly support critical thinking in all realms, including religion. But most people won't do such a thing (it's understandable, we all treat our beliefs as treasured possessions to some extent).

But some people will, and I believe it is only fair to encourage them to utilize their freedom of independent thought. Catholics are taught to let the upper echlon do the thinking FOR them, and this only creates a mental dependence and stifles free thinking.

You seem to think that humanity can achieve moral progress. I am skeptical. Scientific progress is possible, for the reasons cited above. But in the field of ethics I don't think we have made that much progress. Auschwitz (or even Hiroshima) seem to confirm my impression.

When we say it is impossible, it becomes so. We tend to use "impossible" as an excuse to neglect making an effort to achieve progress. In reality, a change of attitude may be all we need. We'll never know until we try, at any rate. I for one believe we can achieve a higher ethical standard, and am willing to put forth the effort needed to realize that goal. Being skeptical is good in most cases, but in THIS case, I feel that our only choice is to be optimistic... to instill hope for our race's future, if anything. We could all use a little hope.


At any rate, it seems we have achieved some common ground, leaving not much left for debate.

[Dilettante]

Hmm.. I'm not saying that human moral progress is impossible. Such a word must be used with caution and there's no telling what the future will bring. What I am saying is that the evidence seems to indicate that it hasn't happened. Anyway, I do agree that optimism is preferable to pessimism...as long as we remain realistic.

I think we have reached some common ground too. It's been a pleasure to have such a civil discussion!