This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm glad you recognized there was something a little weird about the Papal Bull Unigenitus. It is really weird to say that Christ is not the Head of the Church! But that's not what it says. (This is going to apply to the Condemnation of John Hus as well.)
In this Genre of Papal Condemnation, you will see a statement that declares multiple levels of condemnation. Some of these levels implies falsehood (false,...,and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen.) Some of these levels does not imply falsehood at all, but merely causes offense/scandal (captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash,...insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers.) No statement has every condemnation leveled against it. You can tell this because the condemnation at the bottom of Unigenitus includes "suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself,..., close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical." Every single item cannot be both suspected of heresy, close to heresy, and simultaneously heretical. That would be a contradiction.
The John Hus condemnation similarly has categories for "many things that are scandalous, offensive to the ears of the devout, rash and seditious." This doesn't mean false.
Why not list out exactly what level of condemnation each statement falls into? Because the Pope/Council wasn't going through the effort to define new teaching or to clear up a theological debate. They just wanted to say, "This guy sucks, his writing sucks, and no Catholic should read this garbage."
I think the statements you copied here would qualify under "offensive to pious ears." Why is that? Because they were made in the context of open rebellion against the Catholic Church. Someone who made those statements from the position of submission to the authority of the Church would not be labeled offensive to pious ears.
Unfortunately he's not responding to my ouiji board (just kidding!) I think it could be a response to a pure hypothetical. “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
At the same time, he might have a stricter understanding of deliberate sin than you. A deliberate sin is one that someone fully understands is wrong and does it anyways out of their own free will, no coercion. There may indeed be some people who fall under this category, through the Grace of God, particularly those under the age of 7.
Also, a careful reading of the statement shows that he is positively declaring that this specific category can get to heaven, he's not defining people outside this category as incapable of arriving in Heaven. There may be others who have committed deliberate sins but achieved sufficient contrition to be forgiven those sins, who also go to Heaven. He's just not commenting on that aspect at this time.
Yes, it allows that theory, but does not require Aquinas' pious opinion to be held by all. One thing this reminds me of is Sr. Faustina's visions. She wrote, “God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God absolution of sins and remission of punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! But – horror! – There are also souls who voluntarily and consciously reject and scorn this grace!”
Fair point about the condemnations not being that every statement is heretical.
But I think it's still useful to try to figure out, at least, why they are wrong (or scandalous, etc.). How would you characterize the problems with 74 and 75?
(To check context: the one is on 1 Tim 3:16. The other is on Ephesians 2:14-16. Both from here. Quesnel's a good writer.)
Kids do things that they know are wrong all the time. 7 is far too high an age. But point taken, I suppose. That does not seem to be what Vatican II is contemplating, though (but I get that your last sentence of that section allows for that).
I think I already explained, I don't think 74 or 75 is wrong. Instead, it was scandalous for someone to use scripture to justify their schism from the Church.
I also explained that this wasn't a teaching document, so the writers didn't feel any need to explain exactly what they didn't like about each statement. There is at least one heretical proposition in the entire document. Heaven knows what it is. (Actually, it's clearly 10-16. Those are Jansenist heresies.)
He wasn't using scripture in 74 and 75 to justify schism. It's from a devotional commentary on the new testament. I was asking what you judged the problems to be. It doesn't seem wrong, and it doesn't seem offensive-sounding to me currently, whether in the passages written by Quesnel, or isolated.
That was an embarrassing error on my part! Thank you for not making a "Catholic's can't read the Bible" joke (even though we're discussing the very document most often used to make such a claim.
Though that I made that mistake is demonstrative of something. They are such anodyne statements to me I didn't second guess when I thought you said they were direct Bible quotes.
So let's look at 74: The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head but all the saints as members.
Does it imply exclusivity? Is it saying that non-Saints cannot be members of the Church? Catholics would believe that sinners here on Earth are also a part of the Church. (And all sinners here on Earth are at risk of being damned, even if they are part of the Church.) Even if that's not what Quesnel meant to imply, maybe it was being read that way.
Part of the problem with going back to these blanket condemnations is that we don't have the same vibe they did at the time. These statements aren't all being condemned as incorrect, they are being condemned as stirring up offense, scandal, and controversy. Consider a Scissor Statement, or the phrase "One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens." Something might be truly stated, and even used in other teachings as infallible, but still cause controversy based on how different groups read it.
75 also seems to have that ambiguity that might indicate only the Saints are members of the Church.
Well, you've overall been outclassing me in this, so it is forgiven.
Ah, that would suffice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link