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.

 

[Ayo]

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.

I don’t know what that should be exclusive though? I am religious but reject the requisite theological assumptions in this thread. Not because I’m anti-religious (I’m not) but because I don’t think it’s accurate.

and I think someone can watch a video and object to it for sensible reasons. probably SS could have explained more so that the assumption wasn’t made that it was just because of default religious objection.

I know that the title is explicitly religious, but there seems to be too much deference to religion in this thread overall. It just seems unnecessarily exclusive to me.

 

[Ayo]

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.

right

this requires a lot of context, including - as I’ve pointed out before - intent. And then thst intent is measured against the “morality” which can be subjective.

for example, beating an adulteress in some societies won’t arouse the same condemnation as others.

but those societies mistreated the mentally ill not that long ago. And yet that was considered “moral”. I am thinking, for example, of the repressive “Rest cures” that women were subjected to, as part of the treatment for hysteria.

we can describe the treatment and the restrictions and the physical space and place. But that doesnt adequately capture the totality of the oppression.

so the language can only do so much. The “facts” can only do so much. And the responses will vary and the dynamics informed by humanity moreso than, for example, gravity.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

And the ownership of "absolute truth" has been the primary tool and foundation of most of the tyranny that has occurred in human history.

 

[Ayo]

And the ownership of "absolute truth" has been the primary tool and foundation of most of the tyranny that has occurred in human history.

and for a long time the Catholic Church was the literate, literal middle man between the peasantry and this Truth.

 

[LA - L.A.]

and for a long time the Catholic Church was the literate, literal middle man between the peasantry and this Truth.

A lot of the tyranny of "absolute truth" was born from religion. However, a lot of it was born out of science as well. The Nazi's bastageized the actual theory of evolution to give themselves scientific justification for the mass murdering of "inferiors." American eugenic policies and practices were also justified by this bastageization of the actual theory of evolution.

We are all familiar with it as "survival of the fittest" with "fittest" being incorrectly defined as the strongest.

I just wanted to point out that religion and science are like everything else, they are not inherently good or bad, tyrannical or liberating, or blinding or enlightening. Like everything else, they only become problematic when people use them with the intention of causing problems for people.

 

[DaveXA]

A lot of the tyranny of "absolute truth" was born from religion. However, a lot of it was born out of science as well. The Nazi's bastageized the actual theory of evolution to give themselves scientific justification for the mass murdering of "inferiors." American eugenic policies and practices were also justified by this bastageization of the actual theory of evolution.

We are all familiar with it as "survival of the fittest" with "fittest" being incorrectly defined as the strongest.

I just wanted to point out that religion and science are like everything else, they are not inherently good or bad, tyrannical or liberating, or blinding or enlightening. Like everything else, they only become problematic when people use them with the intention of causing problems for people.

Well said. Kind of like money or even the internet. It's not evil or good on its own, but how it's used. They can be used for good, or they can be used to commit crimes.

 

[DaveXA]

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.

I like a lot of what you say here, and appreciate the last paragraph. Although I'm a man of faith, I wouldn't want anyone to ever feel like my religion or faith is being forced onto anyone. I know that doesn't fix the fact that some do feel that way and experience that, but I try to do my part in saying and acting in a way that allows people the freedom to be who they are.

Fwiw, I do think there are a lot of things I find I'm in agreement with non-religious people, sometimes even more than a lot of religious individuals. I think we have more in common than we don't in a lot of cases. Appreciate your perspective, even when we disagree.

 

[insidejob]

I was saying, with my example, that our use of language is always going to behind understanding.

Couldn't agree more. I think my signature on this board agrees with you too.

 

[insidejob]

Catholicism and politics you say?

 

[wardorican]

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.

Thank you.

For the first point, I actually agree with you. It is where I break from the church, at least in what I'd push. I think demanding a rape victim to carry a child to term, even if to adopt, is cruel. Sure, it's somewhat Job like, so I get where that 'sacrifice' play is coming, but I don't think it's right to force someone into having a child or not having a child, if it was brought about via rape/incest.

This is where I'd apply the Aquinas principle and say there is too much undo harm and societal harm to push for making that type of abortion illegal.

You (the church) can still wag you finger at it, because you expect the victim to sacrifice their own well being, but I wouldn't. But, I am not the keeper of doctrine, so I don't have to.

It's an area, if I were the interviewer, would have pressed on.

 

[wardorican]

I don’t know what that should be exclusive though? I am religious but reject the requisite theological assumptions in this thread. Not because I’m anti-religious (I’m not) but because I don’t think it’s accurate.

and I think someone can watch a video and object to it for sensible reasons. probably SS could have explained more so that the assumption wasn’t made that it was just because of default religious objection.

I know that the title is explicitly religious, but there seems to be too much deference to religion in this thread overall. It just seems unnecessarily exclusive to me.

Sorry, it was more a reaction to a pattern of his posts in the other sub forum, and a joke he made about it. Just seemed like too much ribbing vs dialogue.

Anyway, I think the push for more discussion was worth it and seems to have worked out.

 

[wardorican]

Catholicism and politics you say?

Technically, nuns are laity. They're often bound by a lot of the church's rules, but not all of them. I'm not sure if they're bound to the 'no politicking' rule.

 

[insidejob]

Technically, nuns are laity. They're often bound by a lot of the church's rules, but not all of them. I'm not sure if they're bound to the 'no politicking' rule.

It's a really bad look regardless, IMO

 

[wardorican]

It's a really bad look regardless, IMO

Agree

 

[SystemShock]

Sorry, it was more a reaction to a pattern of his posts in the other sub forum, and a joke he made about it. Just seemed like too much ribbing vs dialogue.

Anyway, I think the push for more discussion was worth it and seems to have worked out.

And what pattern is that?

 

[wardorican]

And what pattern is that?

Let's move on.

 

[SystemShock]

Let's move on.

That doesn't seem conducive towards dialogue.

 

[insidejob]

Totally bumping this thread after the homily from Sunday's All Saints Day mass at the ICC at Loyola. Hence, why I think the Jesuits are awesome and shouldn't be associated with the rest of the Catholic church.

It's worth the read.