Catholicism and Politics - Interesting Segment with Bishop Robert Barron (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[Ayo]

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.”

it becomes a self-fulfilling and non-falsifiable prophecy

Intent, interpretation, translation - all of these hermeneutic layers - only serve to complicate what we can understand through language.

In fact, I think that claims of an 'absolute truth' that is only available to a select or chosen group or through a particular way can be dangerous. If we're going to talk about the inherent dangers of some tyranny, that can be something that absolutely becomes tyrannical, too.

 

[wardorican]

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.

I need to watch this again, but I believe he gets into the doctrine vs being a big enough deal to fight for laws. I forget the name of the person he invokes when how they apply this rule.

edit: about 10 minutes in, and he's talking about the Aquinas principle, about really not pushing against something, because it would cause too much harm.

 

[Brennan77]

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.”

I am not using a church doctrine as a proof to make my point and I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would continue to make that jump even after I've explained my intentions multiple times. It's beginning to be a bit of a straw man. I referenced the concept of being in the image and likeness of God because it is familiar to all of us and points to our unique ability to have abstract and rational considerations.

That said, I see two issues in your approach.

First, you suggest that objective truth is that which we all agree upon. That is not what is meant by the term. Objective means that an object or reality is not contingent upon right recognition of it. So in Ayo's example of developing understanding of biology, the truth of the matter was real even if the entire world believed something otherwise. Put simply, we were wrong. The function of the uterus didn't come into being once we understood it.

Second, your complaint seems more to do with epistemology rather than the notion of truth and whether our language should serve it. It's clear that how we come to terms with what is true and work through these things in dialogue is not a simple proposition. Your question is is a good one that has been labored over for a long time. I am suggesting that at the least we assume that the pursuit is valid and use language in a way that functions in service to that ideal.

I'm not going to be able to keep up with this conversation much more so I'll likely drift away soon. I'll again suggest to anyone interested that they read Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power by Josef Pieper. It can probably be consumed quicker than reading this thread anyhow. Or we could just watch the video from the good Bishop in the original post, in which he explains that lack of shared values or even the belief that we ought to have shared values simply leads to a conflict of will which leads to violence.

 

[insidejob]

Those darned progressive Jesuits

When I first enrolled at Loyola, I wasn't too thrilled with having to take 9 credits of religion classes. But they turned out to be very different from what I thought they were going to be. I'd do them a disservice saying they made me an atheist, but rather, I will give them credit for exposing me to other religions, their philosophies, and - for lack of a better description - teaching me not what to think, but how to think.

I learned more about other religions in Philosophy of Religion and abandoned the Catholic Church at the same time as a freshman at Loyola. If I didn't know it, I wouldn't have thought I was being taught by a priest. I still go sometimes to the ICC at Loyola even though I don't believe in White Jesus because they pick and choose what priests they invite to say mass.

 

[insidejob]

being in the image and likeness of God because it is familiar to all of us

My hand is not raised.

 

[SystemShock]

I need to watch this again, but I believe he gets into the doctrine vs being a big enough deal to fight for laws. I forget the name of the person he invokes when how they apply this rule.

I got to 3 and a half minutes. Could not go any further.

 

[Ayo]

I am not using a church doctrine as a proof to make my point and I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would continue to make that jump even after I've explained my intentions multiple times. It's beginning to be a bit of a straw man. I referenced the concept of being in the image and likeness of God because it is familiar to all of us and points to our unique ability to have abstract and rational considerations.

That said, I see two issues in your approach.

First, you suggest that objective truth is that which we all agree upon. That is not what is meant by the term. Objective means that an object or reality is not contingent upon right recognition of it. So in Ayo's example of developing understanding of biology, the truth of the matter was real even if the entire world believed something otherwise. Put simply, we were wrong. The function of the uterus didn't come into being once we understood it.

Second, your complaint seems more to do with epistemology rather than the notion of truth and whether our language should serve it. It's clear that how we come to terms with what is true and work through these things in dialogue is not a simple proposition. Your question is is a good one that has been labored over for a long time. I am suggesting that at the least we assume that the pursuit is valid and use language in a way that functions in service to that ideal.

I'm not going to be able to keep up with this conversation much more so I'll likely drift away soon. I'll again suggest to anyone interested that they read Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power by Josef Pieper. It can probably be consumed quicker than reading this thread anyhow. Or we could just watch the video from the good Bishop in the original post, in which he explains that lack of shared values or even the belief that we ought to have shared values simply leads to a conflict of will which leads to violence.

I was saying, with my example, that our use of language is always going to behind understanding. And we are constantly playing catch up. Because of the very nature of language.

It seems to me that you’re actually arguing with yourself than you are me.

you used the example of “male and female” as if those definitions are fixed in time. Say.... 1940. And racism meant something at the same time, too.

and that those definitions were fixed and absolute and anything that has changed since is a matter of arbitrary and/or convenient sociopolitical expediency.

but then you argue, referring to my uterus example, that its “true purpose” existed before we knew what it actually was.

so, “racism” and “gender” are fixed and cannot evolve to match actuality, but “uterus” can?

your premise is inherently contradictory. That’s been my position from the beginning. And you must not see it because you’ve made no attemlt to reconcile it

the entire thing seems to me to be more a matter of convenience than anything else. Which absolutely goes back to what Uri brought up about how these things can be used to serve the self rather than some objective toward truth.

 

[JimEverett]

There are several competing theories of gravity, yet few people are going to claim that that means gravity is relative to an individual, culture, etc. Even people who deny the Truth of physical laws or whatnot are not then going to claim that those laws are relative - at least on that basis (the fact that there are disagreements on values/morality, etc.)

One of the common counters at that point would be to point out that there are actual physical/mechanical properties that can determine who is correct as we gain deeper understanding.
One of the more famous examples of this is: consider a gang of roughians who torture a cat. A person who observed this incident could describe the event to another is complete detail to where the listener would know everything that happened and there would be no need to use moral terms and/or make reference to moral properties. The describer would just need to use physical/mechanical, biological/etc. descriptions. In doing so, the describer can more than adequately explain the entirety of the torturing event. Under this idea there can still be moral facts (they can be relative, for instance) or there cannot be moral facts.
The counter to that, at least one counter to it, is that an adequate explanation for the events must make use of moral facts, as in a slave owner beating his slave is explained by a depraved heart or something like that. Or, in a more general way, that a pure mechanical description of the torture event cannot fully explain what was going on.

 

[UriUT]

I am not using a church doctrine as a proof to make my point and I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would continue to make that jump even after I've explained my intentions multiple times. It's beginning to be a bit of a straw man. I referenced the concept of being in the image and likeness of God because it is familiar to all of us and points to our unique ability to have abstract and rational considerations.

That said, I see two issues in your approach.

First, you suggest that objective truth is that which we all agree upon. That is not what is meant by the term. Objective means that an object or reality is not contingent upon right recognition of it. So in Ayo's example of developing understanding of biology, the truth of the matter was real even if the entire world believed something otherwise. Put simply, we were wrong. The function of the uterus didn't come into being once we understood it.

Second, your complaint seems more to do with epistemology rather than the notion of truth and whether our language should serve it. It's clear that how we come to terms with what is true and work through these things in dialogue is not a simple proposition. Your question is is a good one that has been labored over for a long time. I am suggesting that at the least we assume that the pursuit is valid and use language in a way that functions in service to that ideal.

I'm not going to be able to keep up with this conversation much more so I'll likely drift away soon. I'll again suggest to anyone interested that they read Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power by Josef Pieper. It can probably be consumed quicker than reading this thread anyhow. Or we could just watch the video from the good Bishop in the original post, in which he explains that lack of shared values or even the belief that we ought to have shared values simply leads to a conflict of will which leads to violence.

No, that's not what I'm saying. If A->B is objectively true, then regardless of observer, it holds true for person 1...to infinity. The act of agreement doesn't make A->B. A->B leads the observer to conclude that A causes B. So for example, the speed of light is estimated to be 3 x 10^8 m/s in a vacuum and it will hold true for all observers. It's not true because we agreed for it to be so. It will not be 5 m/s if everyone on earth agrees it to be. That is, unless you want to redefine the definition of a meter.

 

[UriUT]

There are several competing theories of gravity, yet few people are going to claim that that means gravity is relative to an individual, culture, etc. Even people who deny the Truth of physical laws or whatnot are not then going to claim that those laws are relative - at least on that basis (the fact that there are disagreements on values/morality, etc.)

One of the common counters at that point would be to point out that there are actual physical/mechanical properties that can determine who is correct as we gain deeper understanding.
One of the more famous examples of this is: consider a gang of roughians who torture a cat. A person who observed this incident could describe the event to another is complete detail to where the listener would know everything that happened and there would be no need to use moral terms and/or make reference to moral properties. The describer would just need to use physical/mechanical, biological/etc. descriptions. In doing so, the describer can more than adequately explain the entirety of the torturing event. Under this idea there can still be moral facts (they can be relative, for instance) or there cannot be moral facts.
The counter to that, at least one counter to it, is that an adequate explanation for the events must make use of moral facts, as in a slave owner beating his slave is explained by a depraved heart or something like that. Or, in a more general way, that a pure mechanical description of the torture event cannot fully explain what was going on.

Hate to break it to you, but Einstein's theory of gravity is based on relativity. Different observers with only one constant: The speed of light. It has been a long time since I've opened a physics book, but space-time and all that stuff.

 

[JimEverett]

Hate to break it to you, but Einstein's theory of gravity is based on relativity. Different observers with only one constant: The speed of light. It has been a long time since I've opened a physics book, but space-time and all that stuff.

Lol. Why do you hate to break it to me? Did I suggest otherwise?

 

[UriUT]

Lol. Why do you hate to break it to me? Did I suggest otherwise?

Lol

 

[JimEverett]

I am confused

 

[UriUT]

I am confused

I didn't mean anything of it from that line. My views on moral objective truths have already been expressed and I was too lazy to write it again. I shouldnt' have been snarky w/ that line. Just pointing out that even the laws of physics can be relative.

 

[wardorican]

I got to 3 and a half minutes. Could not go any further.

Being that you're pretty anti religion, why do you keep replying to this stuff? It's just not conducive towards dialogue, especially when done in this manner.

 

[Brennan77]

No, that's not what I'm saying. If A->B is objectively true, then regardless of observer, it holds true for person 1...to infinity. The act of agreement doesn't make A->B. A->B leads the observer to conclude that A causes B. So for example, the speed of light is estimated to be 3 x 10^8 m/s in a vacuum and it will hold true for all observers. It's not true because we agreed for it to be so. It will not be 5 m/s if everyone on earth agrees it to be. That is, unless you want to redefine the definition of a meter.

I agree with this.

 

[Brennan77]

it becomes a self-fulfilling and non-falsifiable prophecy

Intent, interpretation, translation - all of these hermeneutic layers - only serve to complicate what we can understand through language.

In fact, I think that claims of an 'absolute truth' that is only available to a select or chosen group or through a particular way can be dangerous. If we're going to talk about the inherent dangers of some tyranny, that can be something that absolutely becomes tyrannical, too.

Who is making such a claim?

 

[SystemShock]

Being that you're pretty anti religion, why do you keep replying to this stuff? It's just not conducive towards dialogue, especially when done in this manner.

Very well.

First, I find the almost complete disregard for women disgusting and abhorrent.
The interviewer poses and example of a 16 year old who is violently raped, and the best Barron has to say is that there is a psychological "level"; I'd think a moral person would characterize that as trauma, and show a little more concern for the woman. And of course, there is no mention of the other "levels", the physiological "level", the social "level", the economic "level", the healthcare "level", the education "level"... so many "levels" he left out. Sanctity of life, disrespecting human life... yeah, what about respecting the life of the woman?

And then Barron brings science into the conversation, and asserts that the church is "staying with the science", which it is not. He's simply trying to shoehorn science into his narrative (but then again, the Catholic church has been doing just that for centuries). A three day fertilized egg is not a child. DNA is not a child.

And that is where I stopped watching.

And just one clarification: I am not anti-religion. I don't care who or what you or anyone else worships, as long as you don't try to force your religion into my life or the life of others, as long as you don't think you need to legislate your religion into my life or anyone's life for things that have nothing to do with you, based on ancient writings of people who, in the secular world of today, are considered immoral.