Catholicism and Politics - Interesting Segment with Bishop Robert Barron (2 Viewers)

[wardorican]

Start from about 3min in, where I'm linking this. The first bit is about a bible they put out.



First, I found his early discussion on the nature of political debate being mostly a conflict of wills, of experiences, and how that's not helpful. It's the breakdown of real argument.

So, the way past that is to refuse to cooperate in that verbal violence. don't make it will vs will, experience vs experience. Appeal to values in common, e.g. propose various objective values. A few posters are better than others at this, but I see many try. It really does sum up where political talk goes bad, without directly criticizing that.

Later it gets into Catholic teaching, and politics. Somewhat lightly, since the main idea is that they'll never tell you who to vote for, and the truth is, neither party bats 1000 with the church, so both are generally equally valid.

I thought it was an interesting chat.

I've caught a few other chats with him that are good. He makes an interesting point about the Church having a high bar of expectations, but also lavishly gives divine mercy when we fail.

 

[JimEverett]

this was *exactly* my experience

I remember when I was giving my first conference presentation up here - I was excited to do so. And it went, I felt, really well. I was talking about Hurricane Katrina and media coverage and distortions, so it was about something local and about which I felt strongly.

And that always my accent even more pronounced.

So I imagine I sounded thoroughly, unmistakably Southern.

After the presentation, some lady came up to me and said - in a gracious tone - "When you started talking, I wasn't sure what to expect but that was really informative and interesting!"

Translation: You sounded like a total hick but congratulations, you're not stupid!

Thanks?

I got that several times. I also one time had a guy from California just flat out say when I heard you started talking I thought you were a stupid hick, but after a while I was surprised at how intelligent you were.
He thought he was paying me a compliment

I used it to my advantage as much as possible. Still do.

 

[Ayo]

I got that several times. I also one time had a guy from California just flat out say when I heard you started talking I thought you were a stupid hick, but after a while I was surprised at how intelligent you were.
He thought he was paying me a compliment

sometimes (maybe even often) I loathe academia

 

[Complex Kid]

this was *exactly* my experience

I remember when I was giving my first conference presentation up here - I was excited to do so. And it went, I felt, really well. I was talking about Hurricane Katrina and media coverage and distortions, so it was about something local and about which I felt strongly.

And that always my accent even more pronounced.

So I imagine I sounded thoroughly, unmistakably Southern.

After the presentation, some lady came up to me and said - in a gracious tone - "When you started talking, I wasn't sure what to expect but that was really informative and interesting!"

Translation: You sounded like a total hick but congratulations, you're not stupid!

Thanks?

I got that several times. I also one time had a guy from California just flat out say when I heard you started talking I thought you were a stupid hick, but after a while I was surprised at how intelligent you were.
He thought he was paying me a compliment

I used it to my advantage as much as possible. Still do.

Like the inverse of the old Chris Rock bit

 

[DaveXA]

this was *exactly* my experience

I remember when I was giving my first conference presentation up here - I was excited to do so. And it went, I felt, really well. I was talking about Hurricane Katrina and media coverage and distortions, so it was about something local and about which I felt strongly.

And that always my accent even more pronounced.

So I imagine I sounded thoroughly, unmistakably Southern.

After the presentation, some lady came up to me and said - in a gracious tone - "When you started talking, I wasn't sure what to expect but that was really informative and interesting!"

Translation: You sounded like a total hick but congratulations, you're not stupid!

Thanks?

Yeah, I've had similar experiences. So I have a severe hearing loss and the comment I would get was, "I had no idea you were articulate. You speak so well!" My response was usually an awkward, "Thanks.".

 

[LA - L.A.]

From Merriam Webster
"Middle English dialoge, from Anglo-French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak — "

So I stand by my representation of the etymology of dialogue as helpful to understanding the broader point of the purpose of the act of dialogue itself. We don't need to explore it much more because it's getting off the subject at this point. But I will leave you a link that helps to get at what I am intending, if you are interested.

What is Dialogue? | Difficult Dialogues | Clark University

www2.clarku.edu

At any rate, you seem to understand what I am saying just fine. The point I am making is that when we engage with others in bad faith, using language as a means to influence and manipulate rather than to enter relationship that communicates and discovers truth, we tear down part of what it means to be human. And by doing so we attack the very fabric of society. It's a dangerous thing that leads to tyranny.

I think that the truth we must speak when dialoguing is our individual truth, meaning we should be honest. I think the most meaningful dialogue occurs when people are honest and speak their truth. I don't think we need to speak only about universal objective truths to have meaningful dialogues.

 

[LA - L.A.]

this was *exactly* my experience

I remember when I was giving my first conference presentation up here - I was excited to do so. And it went, I felt, really well. I was talking about Hurricane Katrina and media coverage and distortions, so it was about something local and about which I felt strongly.

And that always my accent even more pronounced.

So I imagine I sounded thoroughly, unmistakably Southern.

After the presentation, some lady came up to me and said - in a gracious tone - "When you started talking, I wasn't sure what to expect but that was really informative and interesting!"

Translation: You sounded like a total hick but congratulations, you're not stupid!

Thanks?

I experienced that hundreds of times debating in high school and college and that was after my very WASPy high school debate coach and team exorcised all but a hint of my Cajun accent. My junior year of high school at a national tournament, my teammates and I convinced some girls from Scranton, PA that one of our teammates was the high school state champion alligator wrestler. All we did was play on their biases and prejudices, so it didn't require much effort.

 

[V Chip]

To be clear though, he's not endorsing same sex "marriage". The Church sees that as a religious function.

Don't mean to sidetrack this, but this makes no sense to me. It's like saying that we're still gonna have whites only water fountains, and the blacks can use hydration stations.

Giving something a different name to make oneself feel better doesn't make things equal. Marriage was around long before religion got involved.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Don't mean to sidetrack this, but this makes no sense to me. It's like saying that we're still gonna have whites only water fountains, and the blacks can use hydration stations.

Giving something a different name to make oneself feel better doesn't make things equal. Marriage was around long before religion got involved.

You'll get no argument from me.

 

[Brennan77]

this doesn't vibe with my experience and work in sociology and anthropology. And that might be where the primary disconnect is coming from. I don't think if dialogue as necessary for being "human" and that mutes, pre- and post-verbal, ASL-users, people using different languages, people sharing quasi-literacy between them, etc are capable of the same amount of being 'human' without ever uttering a word.

And I know you're saying that it's with the intent when language is used, and so people who don't/can't/only partially use a language, well it doesn't apply to them, but how do they gain access, then, to that core cache of humanity?

I don't think we can access truth readily nor easily. And I don't think it's a requisite of dialogue. And I don't think that makes us less human - but I might be going further back on my hominid scale than you are. But "society" that has "humanity" can exist with no words and then we get into intent of parties.

I have to laugh a bit here (at myself, not you...well maybe you a little as well, but not as much as at myself). No matter how hard we try it's easy to be misunderstood. This is so much more literal than I intended. I'm not necessarily talking about physically speaking, though dialogue can certainly be facilitated by speech, but communication and/or the capacity for rational interaction, to actively will the good of another, etc. Ya know, that part that makes us in the 'image and likeness of God', distinct from non-rational animals. This could be exercised in non-verbal ways, such as a keyboard or through sign language. The ability could be frustrated through mental or physical incapacity. Or it could be stifled altogether. But it is still naturally part of the potential of that which we call human or rational. I guess we could then imagine a big debate about human nature, actuality, and potential, that could go here. But it's not necessary to make my point. I'm only trying to illustrate good will and a use of language that is constructive, resulting in authentic dialogue, rather than a destructive use of power and leverage.

And to your point, intention of parties is everything here.

So if truth is objective, then why does it require such a subjective manner of access and requiring some authentic intent that might be hidden through deception or equivocation or sarcasm or any other number of situations that could be what I'd call "authentic" but aren't about honesty/truth?

Because we are not omniscient and are full of imperfection and confusion and malice. I feel like we're getting bogged down and missing it altogether. Sarcasm can be used to actually convey something of the truth in an effective way. Deception or equivocation would be examples of the abuse of language and contempt for dialogue, not being in service of truth but of power.

The final step to 'very fabric of society' and 'tyranny' is, for me, laying it on too thick. This discussion started with a questionable etymological foundation to make the point more solid and is ending with the shredding of social fabric and the invitation of tyranny.

I don't think we require an absolute truth to avoid those things. In fact, from my approach, every day we don't have tyranny and a ripped social fabric, we manage to do it with a ton of un-truths all over with a truth that I still think is largely inaccessible.

I wonder, when you talk about the degradation of society, though, when would you point to a time/place where the social fabric wasn't "attacked"?

The anthropological tapestry of humanity on Earth is pretty damn tattered and I'd personally have a tough time pointing to finding a piece in tact enough that would keep me warm in the winter.

I don't think I'm laying it on too thick at all. It's pretty simple really. If language is not used for communicating in search or service to truth in good will, it devolves into a means of control. I'm sure you've read 1984. We see this behavior all around us, with clever equivocations and on the spot redefining of words for political control. Recent examples might be the complete redefinition of male and female or the false equivalence of racism with what used to be understood as prejudice. This can reach a societal tipping point in which it leads to tyranny. Without a belief in truth to which we are all responsible, those from different experiences and views must be diminished or destroyed if disagreement is to be solved. This is why we seem to be obsessed with understanding the human experience through group identity. When you only understand the world through a lens of power and oppression, it's the only thing you'll pursue for yourself.

 

[Brennan77]

I'm not sure this will add more hate towards him. I think this follows very closely to what the church teaches, and what the Bishop in this video was saying about the church's teachings on this subject.

It's a different video I can post later.

Unfortunately, this is simply incorrect. The comments attributed to the pope, if they mean what they appear to at face value, would be in direct contradiction to Church teaching. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already taken this into consideration in 2003. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...15NdNAx0eSsmDzAZM_q8AK_UaUsSl1jV34Sr9woJuyizY

It concludes in its final paragraph....
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

[CoolBrees]

As George Bernard Shaw said-

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that has taken place.”

I have completely stayed out of these and most discussions regarding topics such as these here and elsewhere for this exact reason. It is so difficult to convey thought completely through the written word. Let alone anonymously on a board.

This discussion you all are having is great though.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, a good bit of this is over my head, but I'm enjoying reading the discussion. Carry on fellas.

 

[Ayo]

This is so much more literal than I intended. I'm not necessarily talking about physically speaking, though dialogue can certainly be facilitated by speech, but communication and/or the capacity for rational interaction, to actively will the good of another, etc. Ya know, that part that makes us in the 'image and likeness of God', distinct from non-rational animals.

I acknowledged the literality, though. I was making a point about the position taken in an extreme. More an exercise in logic and the established boundaries.

And I did it, actually, in part to address the last point in the quote above. Namely, you are defaulting to "image and likeness of God." My counter would be, what happens to the non-believers? What happens to the souls that exist prior to? People who don't believe that 'non-rational animals' - as Hamlet says, "beasts, who want [lack] discourse or reason"? The "ya know" is meant to be rhetorical and understood, but I don't actually know.

Finally, as someone who teaches language and things like tone, intonation, context, gestures, etc I can assure you, I get the point about communication through non-verbal means.

So, laugh if you like. We're talking about communication in 'good faith'

I don't think I'm laying it on too thick at all. It's pretty simple really. If language is not used for communicating in search or service to truth in good will, it devolves into a means of control. I'm sure you've read 1984. We see this behavior all around us, with clever equivocations and on the spot redefining of words for political control. Recent examples might be the complete redefinition of male and female or the false equivalence of racism with what used to be understood as prejudice. This can reach a societal tipping point in which it leads to tyranny. Without a belief in truth to which we are all responsible, those from different experiences and views must be diminished or destroyed if disagreement is to be solved. This is why we seem to be obsessed with understanding the human experience through group identity. When you only understand the world through a lens of power and oppression, it's the only thing you'll pursue for yourself.

I have taught 1984 and read 1984 (as well as philosophical treatises on language) easily more than a dozen times by now. And your notion that communication exists to search for truth is incorrect. Because in that example, the actual language is not commensurate with the mentality. You've got it backwards. The opposite is actually Orwell's point - in 1984 as well as his other works and his biography, as well. Orwell's point, if anything, is that the interior monologue and the human's inclination toward liberty acts even in defiance of language. There's a severing of the two, or - at the very least - a heirarchical restructuring.

Not to mention, like I said, it's incommensurate with anthropology and much of philosophy.

Even your examples of "male and female" and "racism" are poor ones. I would say that these are examples of evolving precision of language.

Our language evolves to reflect growing understanding. I mean, we used to call menstruating women "hyterical" and removed their uteri and called it a "hysterectomy." But now the biology has caught up with us and we no longer make the same assumptions whereby lunacy (also feminine-ly loaded with reference to the moon, also feminized in many cultures) is somehow tied to your reproductive plumbing.

So, you don't go to the doctor and get diagnosed with "lunacy" and have a "uterus" cut out of you. Now we call it, for example, postpartum depression.

And "racism" has evolved to imply power dynamics and oppressive structures, systemically implicit and explicit.

Why?

Because "prejudice" wasn't clear and precise enough. So, I actually find that your examples here actually work against your argument.

And this path to tyranny is still mystical to me. I don't see how you're getting there easily, at all. And yet you seem to take it for granted. And then base everything off of that.

I think your foundational premise is flawed and your examples are inaccurate and, as a result, your point isn't one I think is even close to being universal.

It might make sense to you - your Catholicity definitely narrows a lot of the discussion and seems to eliminate a lot of contrary thought and consideration and writing and anthropology - but that doesn't mean it is a universal truth. Moreover, the examples you use to provide a path to understanding serve to do the opposite.

If you are going to reference and include examples that are going to illustrate it more accurately, you're probably going to have to choose different ones from Orwell, sex/gender, and race. Because - according to my understanding of 'truth' - none of these really demonstrate 'truth' or the requisite intent for it.

 

[Ayo]

As George Bernard Shaw said-

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that has taken place.”

I have completely stayed out of these and most discussions regarding topics such as these here and elsewhere for this exact reason. It is so difficult to convey thought completely through the written word. Let alone anonymously on a board.

This discussion you all are having is great though.

I'm not a strict deconstructionist, to be clear. But I think there's a ton more fluidity in language than we care to admit. It's a really uncomfortable position.

One of the clips I use with my students about this is from Linklater's 'A Waking Life' which I absolutely love. In the scene (the movie looks funky because it is rotoscoped), he's interviewing a woman about language's evolution and how abstract things, like love, are really hard to totally understand between people. The title of the clip is "Words are inert" - which I obviously don't fully ascribe to. But neither do I think they are fixed and absolute.



and when it comes to action vs. theory, I find this scene really good - where a group of mid-20s dudes come across an old man who has climbed a telephone pole.

 

[Ayo]

Yeah, a good bit of this is over my head, but I'm enjoying reading the discussion. Carry on fellas.

I'd be happy with a Q&A with JE in this thread. All of us Q'ing and him A'ing.

And I'd be happy to do any homework he assigns.

 

[UriUT]

Universal objective truth is by definition the truth we all see regardless of perspective. So why is it that two seemingly intelligent, honest perspectives are different? And why is the Catholic Church doctrine the sole arbiter of that truth? Are Protestants less tuned to that truth? And if we are all imperfect, malicious beings, why do we trust a book written by those imperfect beings? Let’s even assume that those messengers were given the universal truth, how do we trust that they didn’t screw the pooch and interpret those messages wrong? After all, they too are imperfect, malicious beings?

So this idea of universal truth fails because one side or another will claim they are the true arbiter. It fails to see other perspectives because by definition they are all wrong. How does true“dialogue” actually start? Isn’t it ironic that you referenced a church doctrine to be absolute and say this? ”When you only understand the world through a lens of power and oppression, it's the only thing you'll pursue for yourself.”

 

[Brennan77]

I acknowledged the literality, though. I was making a point about the position taken in an extreme. More an exercise in logic and the established boundaries.

And I did it, actually, in part to address the last point in the quote above. Namely, you are defaulting to "image and likeness of God." My counter would be, what happens to the non-believers? What happens to the souls that exist prior to? People who don't believe that 'non-rational animals' - as Hamlet says, "beasts, who want [lack] discourse or reason"? The "ya know" is meant to be rhetorical and understood, but I don't actually know.

Finally, as someone who teaches language and things like tone, intonation, context, gestures, etc I can assure you, I get the point about communication through non-verbal means.

So, laugh if you like. We're talking about communication in 'good faith'

Again, I'm not resting my argument on theological terms. I used that language to make the point that we as a species are capable of even asking these questions and answering them and that our language ought to be used in such a way as to serve what is real and true rather than to exert power at the expense of it. That would be an abuse of its function. I would say that you agree there is at least something to that otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time exploring these ideas through language and reason.

The laughter was meant to be self-deprecation. I am not a trained philosopher and sometimes it takes a little work to get at what I mean. Clearly I failed, again. I meant no offense.

I have taught 1984 and read 1984 (as well as philosophical treatises on language) easily more than a dozen times by now. And your notion that communication exists to search for truth is incorrect. Because in that example, the actual language is not commensurate with the mentality. You've got it backwards. The opposite is actually Orwell's point - in 1984 as well as his other works and his biography, as well. Orwell's point, if anything, is that the interior monologue and the human's inclination toward liberty acts even in defiance of language. There's a severing of the two, or - at the very least - a heirarchical restructuring.

Not to mention, like I said, it's incommensurate with anthropology and much of philosophy.

Even your examples of "male and female" and "racism" are poor ones. I would say that these are examples of evolving precision of language.

I don't think my examples are poor at all. There's nothing precise about recent developments. They are deliberate inversions and manipulations. One could express novel evolutions without being at the expense of the obvious or reasonably established understandings.

Our language evolves to reflect growing understanding. I mean, we used to call menstruating women "hyterical" and removed their uteri and called it a "hysterectomy." But now the biology has caught up with us and we no longer make the same assumptions whereby lunacy (also feminine-ly loaded with reference to the moon, also feminized in many cultures) is somehow tied to your reproductive plumbing.

So, you don't go to the doctor and get diagnosed with "lunacy" and have a "uterus" cut out of you. Now we call it, for example, postpartum depression.

And "racism" has evolved to imply power dynamics and oppressive structures, systemically implicit and explicit.

Why?

Because "prejudice" wasn't clear and precise enough. So, I actually find that your examples here actually work against your argument.

And this path to tyranny is still mystical to me. I don't see how you're getting there easily, at all. And yet you seem to take it for granted. And then base everything off of that.

I'm not sure where you're going with our developing understanding of biology. In these instances you can see where we were incorrect and appropriately adjusted our language to...serve what is true.

Our contemporary usage of racism is not the same thing at all. Racism is defined and used to be employed as reference to conscious and willful belief that racial makeup had something to do with inherent qualities, inferiorities and superiorities. We've now moved away from anything resembling succinct definition to a broad catch all in order to explain any number of phenomena, 'power dynamics' and 'oppressive structures'. The malleable and nebulous nature allows for dramatic oversimplification of human history and interaction, unjust accusation that by design cannot be denied by the accused, and the dangerous categorization of people into groups into the inherently guilty and inherently justified. Surely you can see why and how this behavior and misuse of language has and will lead to chaos, violence, and tyranny.

 

[Ayo]

The laughter was meant to be self-deprecation. I am not a trained philosopher and sometimes it takes a little work to get at what I mean. Clearly I failed, again. I meant no offense.

Surely you can see why and how this behavior and misuse of language has and will lead to chaos, violence, and tyranny.

you said " I have to laugh a bit here (at myself, not you...well maybe you a little as well, but not as much as at myself)." The self-deprecation is clear.

But it's not all that's there is what I was getting at.

Phrases like "ya know" (e.g. "Ya know, that part that makes us in the 'image and likeness of God'" is pretty clearly indicative that I should be able to arrive at the same conclusion you do and agree with it - which is, incidentally, seems quite foundational to your point and overtly theological) and "Surely" imply that I am somehow at fault if I cannot come to the same conclusion you do.

Not to mention that I categorically disagree with your argument around the term "racism." Maybe you want language to be inflexible and absolute. I don't, because I don't think it's either realistic or possible And, as someone who had to define racism for my research, this is something specific I had to do much reading into, research about, thinking around. I'm about as certain of this as anything I've ever academically, scholastically done in my entire career.

It's not really, imo, 'good faith' rhetorical pleas when the discussion is two people trying to have a discussion and, instead, if one person doesn't agree, that it's an indication of deficiency.

So, while you might not be aware of the potential underlying possibility of 'offense' it is nevertheless there to be taken if one wanted.

And here we arrive at intentionality, again. And the slipperiness of our imprecise language.