No, of course not.
4 Likes
Apologies, I was grouping several responses to things said in this thread together. Totally acknowledge you didn’t say that.
Let me put it this way. Is a Catholic who suffered abuse without continuing the cycle but who didn’t lose their Catholic faith responsible for those abuses?
Speaking only for myself, I hold people responsible for how they react to the actions of those within a group with whom they identify. So, for example, I judge people with white privilege, such as myself, by their choices in light of their privilege, not for having white privilege. Likewise, I can no more choose to believe in any particular higher power than I can choose to believe Earth’s sky is purple, because it doesn’t make sense to me. Therefore it follows that those who sincerely believe in a particular higher power don’t choose to do so; it makes sense to them. Consequently while I would hope that a given Catholic or group of Catholics would decry their Church’s abuses (and those I count as friends and colleagues do), I wouldn’t hold them personally responsible for those abuses anymore than I would Catholic victims of abuse.
Absolutely didn’t take it as such. I consider you a friend. That’s why I wanted to be careful in my engagement.
4 Likes
I like the Bene Gesserit comparison. 
The Jesuits were originally missionaries, but have become sort of the “intelectual wing” of the Catholic Church. They are known for, “finding God in all things,” and put quite a lot emphasis on a deeper understanding of art, science, history, philosophy, and culture. Most of the ones I’ve known have had at least a couple of Masters Degrees and maybe a Ph. D. or two under their cassoc. Historically, they are certainly responsible for some horrible things, but as I understand it, their missionary style, at least in the later years, is to go to a new place, become part of the community, learn about and understand the people and their ways, help them in any way they can, and preach not by word, but by example. They best way to spread the Word, is not to push it on anyone, but by your own actions make others curious enough to ask about it themselves.
2 Likes
I’m totally on board with holding institutions accountable, of course. I would love to see the current leadership of the Church deal with the crimes committed in a real way that purged the church and held people accountable for what they’ve done. I hope we get that either with Francis or with the next pope. I’m always willing to say that it might not happen under Francis, even if it’s what he’d like to do (because, despite the ideology that Pope is infallible, he’s pretty subject to Vatican politics).
So… yeah. I’m with you that the church as an institution has a lot to own up to and would like to see it do that. I don’t think the facts should malign all Catholics, because any one individual only can do so much to shape such a large, long-lasting institution. Even the Pope.
6 Likes
Indeed, and I also want to see the secular states hold the Church accountable, whereas they’ve often been complicit.
4 Likes
And sportsball institutions. And other religious groups. And corporations. And colleges and universities. And the government itself. And the military. Etc. Etc. How many institutions that exist in our world, that are run by powerful people have a deep and long history of abusing others and covering up abuse on a systemic level. It might be easier and quicker to ask what institutions have not done that. Can you name one? I know it must exist, but… 
6 Likes
Thanks. Likewise.
1 Like
I always say, you wanna see corrupt Wiccan covens, give them a couple millennia of steadily growing political and economic power. 
4 Likes
Given that it’s primarily of a religion of middle class white people, that’s already happened…
People looking to exert power and control over others via abuse will use whatever worldview is handy.
8 Likes
I think some relevant background is the vatican’s failure on heliocentricism. After scientists discovered the Earth orbits the Sun, not vice versa, the vatican refused to accept it for centuries. It wasn’t until in my lifetime that they admitted the Earth is not the center of the universe. It was a real blow to their credibility as the owners of truth.
Now they have their own actual astronomy center. The idea is that they want to get ahead of whatever the next heliocentrism revolution is so that they will again be the one’s with “the truth” about the world. I see this conference as coming very much from that mindset.
2 Likes
But again, this is a lay organization, not one run by the Church itself.
Catholics are, like every other group, individuals, not puppets.
4 Likes
The Church, yes. But Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were both Catholics.
3 Likes
I think its pretty clear that I said the vatican (as in the church) didn’t recognize heliocentrism and nothing about the believes of individual Catholics. No need for straw men.
Obviously, there have been a very long list of quality scientists who were Catholic. Didn’t think that needed saying.
This society is dedicated to discussing “questions concerning the relation of science and the Catholic faith”, however, so it can’t be view in isolation of the church’s stance on matters of science related to the faith. My point is that the history of the Catholic Church in relation to astronomy is key background to why extraterrestrials would be a topic that this group choose to focus on.
3 Likes
Plenty of people are willing to conflate the two…
3 Likes
Yes, I know. But these potentially quality scientists that call themselves the Society of Catholic Scientists are not the Vatican. They’re explicitly a lay organization.
Except they’re not the Church. That was my point and why I don’t necessarily agree with this assessment:
It wasn’t my intention to straw man you.
I think maybe a lot of people kinda assumed this conference was organized by the Church. Which, understandable; I had to look it up myself.
I suppose that depends on how much you consider the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church one in the same. And honestly, not being Catholic, I can’t judge that.
But I can very much see Catholics who are scientists having a sincere interest in addressing these questions without it being about the failures of the Church past or present. And if they want to avoid making another big mistake like the Church did with heliocentrism, I see that as a good thing.
1 Like
Yes, I totally agree, it’s not just religion. The difference is that religions have an inherent “truth” function, like science, but it is usually undermined by that tendency toward authoritarianism. (Also true of science, but at least science explicitly tries to resist those tendencies, arguably with greater success in its short history than any other human endeavor. The greatest, most revered scientist are usually those that successfully upset the cart of authority, and good scientists love to see those cart wheels go flying, even if they aren’t the ones responsible.)
It’s one thing to say, “This is the Bohr atom. It’s important to understand that this is not really the way atoms are, but it’s a useful model that helps us understand some behaviors and make some predictions. Later on, you’ll learn that our understanding is actually a lot more complicated, messy, and uncertain.”
or,
“We often call God, ‘The Father,’ but realize that thinking about the Creator as a person with any kind of human attributes is just a metaphor that can be useful in trying to understand our relationship to the cosmos. The reality is so far beyond what human minds are adapted to think about that it can be overwhelming to dive straight into it.”
It’s very different to brush the uncertainty and messiness under the carpet. Religions tend to be content using the Schoolhouse Rock episodes, Interplanet Janet, and, A Victim of Gravity (as wonderful as they are), as the only information anyone needs about the universe beyond the Earth unless they are getting a doctoral degree in astrophysics.
2 Likes
I hadn’t read the thread before I posted. That often causes problems
4 Likes
The only one that even comes close is the scientific endeavor. It’s certainly an uphill battle, but at its heart, science does hold truth and understanding supreme, regardless of the source. There are still endless obstacles and abuses, and the human tendency to fall into power hierarchies, of course. But in the long run, a core, shared belief is that the most humble lab assistant or country school teacher can overturn the most deeply entrenched institutional idea with a good argument and the data to back it up. That gives me some hope for humanity.
What do you think is a “proper” definition of religious faith?
To give an example of conflict between “faith” and science, take Noah’s Ark and the flood that covered the earth. A scientific inquiry into “did a flood cover the entire earth at one point within the last few thousand years?” results in no evidence of such a thing. So if someone were to believe a worldwide flood did in fact happen, they are doing so despite the lack of any supporting evidence. That’s how I’m using “religious faith.”
