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 -
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