Educated Catholics have sown dissent and confusion in the Church, claims bishop

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly education is to blame for hedonism, selfishness and egocentric behavior inside the Church.

[Alcon]

The Catholic Church has taken some pretty strong leaps in recognizing scientific achievement, but largely I think faith and science are always going to be expected to co-exist somewhat uncomfortably.

I don't think we should bestow this guy with any great importance.  After all, even most of us secularists refuse to live their lives entirely free of irrationality.  Faith just makes turning a blind eye to that fact a bit harder.

[12th Doctor]

I would invite everyone to take note of the fact that this is one bishop.  So basically, this is kinda like saying "Congressman so-in-so said today...."

The Catholic Church is, and always has been, one of the greatest champions of scientific and educational advancement.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Catholic Church is, and always has been, one of the greatest champions of scientific and educational advancement.

I'm sure those involved in stem cell research agree.

[12th Doctor]

The Catholic Church is, and always has been, one of the greatest champions of scientific and educational advancement.

I'm sure those involved in stem cell research agree.

Yeah, well, astrology was once the height of scientific inquiry as well.

Besides, your point is moot.  The church has listened to its best minds from the start, who contended that it could be done without using embryos, and supported that position.  Low and behold, they were correct.

[afleitch]

Ah the Bishop of Lancaster. I need say no more (though I will considering many might not know much about him) He busies himself in educational matters and parrots the now prevailing attitude amongst many religious figureheads regarding the danger of 'secularism' and people thinking for themselves outside the boundaries of the social and moral view of the Church.

I mentioned him on this board a few months back (can't find the post) regarding his input to the influential Fit for Mission and his remarks to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee which is worth another airing.


Fiona Mactaggart: I have read your document and find some things surprising, such as the suggestion that schools should ban Red Nose Day and works that contain polemic against religion in general from school and college libraries. That means no Marx or Camus and many books that I think a sixth-former ought to read, even if critically. I think that that is odd.

Rt Rev. Patrick O'Donoghue: May I throw the issue of polemic back to you? Suppose you went into a school and found in the library material that said that the Holocaust never took place-and there are such books-what would you do?

Fiona Mactaggart: Do you refer to books of fiction, as well as non-fiction?

Rt Rev. Patrick O'Donoghue: Yes.

Fiona Mactaggart: Certainly, I would not expect a school to promulgate material that is lies, but I also think that children should encounter great work even if they need to be given the tools to criticise it. Your advice does not suggest that, but would you advise that such work should be excluded from children's experience?

Rt Rev. Patrick O'Donoghue: No, I would not. I would have to look at the material that was being provided, as would others, and ask whether it was legitimate.

Here is the passage in question, copied from a hard copy I have.

It is not to be expected that a school or college library would stock non-fiction or fiction that contains polemic against the Catholic faith, religion in general, race, gender, or the dignity of the human person.

His influence is however minimal, as all schools, state and private (and nearly all Catholic schools are state schools) have to adhere to a varied but specific curriculum. Such censorship would not be allowed. Now he has turned his attention to higher education and the Universities probably with similar, minimal effect.

If we turn to the issue of 'science and the Chruch', it would be correct to say that the Catholic Church has been  reached a general 'understanding' with the physical and biological sciences. While this is a better informal relationship with science than say, fundemantalist evangelicals (on the issue of evolution and the geological record) it is not unique and is bradly similar to the position held by mainstream Protestant and Anglican churches. The Church's relationship with science however is very much on it's terms. It differs from scientific concensus on pre-natal biology, and sexual biology (human sexuality, chemical responses etc) And of course, it believes in the concept of a soul.

[Keystone Phil]

The Catholic Church is, and always has been, one of the greatest champions of scientific and educational advancement.

But we don't even teach evolution in our schools! Oh...wait...

[12th Doctor]

The Catholic Church is, and always has been, one of the greatest champions of scientific and educational advancement.

But we don't even teach evolution in our schools! Oh...wait...

I'm just surprised no one has mentioned Galileo yet, because I am more than ready for that one.

[Aizen]

what about what the church did to galileo?

[12th Doctor]

what about what the church did to galileo?

The way the trial of Galileo is typically portrayed is as a scene of a bunch of ignorant old men in red hats trying this great thinker because Church doctrine said that he must be wrong.  That's not the case at all.  In fact, the Church never taught a geocentric universe as part of doctrine.  What they were trying him on was the science. 

At that time, Aristotle was seen as being the best science, and his model of the universe had survived 2,000 years.  The men that sat in on the trial weren't fools.  Some of them were accomplished natural scientists.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And completely wrong. And so sure of themselves and the Aristotelian status-quo that defended their own reputation to the last.

And the Jesuits, God bless them, who were able to repeat Galileo's experiments independently tried to defend Galileo. Some of whom even tried to argue that they discovered many of his observations first (like sunspots) Indeed, Robert Bellarmine acted as a mediator, effectively siding with Galileo's position on heliocentricity but adding that it could not be taken as 'the science' until it could be proven.

[Alcon]

At that time, Aristotle was seen as being the best science, and his model of the universe had survived 2,000 years.  The men that sat in on the trial weren't fools.  Some of them were accomplished natural scientists.

...who put a man on trial for disagreeing with their traditional view of science.  The fact that they were accomplished scientists hardly makes things better.

Sometimes "yeah, that was f**ked up" is a lot more effective than apologism on that kind of thing.  Bless the Jesuits indeed.

[12th Doctor]

If you are wondering "well then why was he put on trial" it was because he was thought to have disobeyed the Pope, although he hadn't.

What happened was that his work was challenged by the scientific academies in Rome.  He was brought there by the Pope and was asked to delay writing anymore on his work, since, with the Protestant Revolution in full tilt, he didn't want another controversy on his hands.  Galileo asked the Pope if he could write a work that presented both sides, but got his argument out.  The Pope agreed.  But when his work came out, the science academy went into an uproar and simply assumed the Pope had not approved of the work.  The Pope, not wanting to weaken his own house and cause more scandal, caved and said he had not approved, though it seemed pretty clear to all that he had.  High ranking Church officials then used this as an excuse to put Galileo on trial, because he had challenged the Pope, just like all the Protestant heretics, and thus was no better than any of them.  It seems clear that the Pope himself simply allowed his judgment to be overridden by the Cardinals, in a moment of weakness.

BTW... as an aside, no one ever thought the world was flat.  Even the earliest depictions of Christ in art show him holding a ball to symbolize the world.

[12th Doctor]

At that time, Aristotle was seen as being the best science, and his model of the universe had survived 2,000 years.  The men that sat in on the trial weren't fools.  Some of them were accomplished natural scientists.

...who put a man on trial for disagreeing with their traditional view of science.  The fact that they were accomplished scientists hardly makes things better.

Sometimes "yeah, that was f**ked up" is a lot more effective than apologism on that kind of thing.  Bless the Jesuits indeed.

Didn't say it wasn't.  I was simply saying that it wasn't what is often thought.

[Alcon]

At that time, Aristotle was seen as being the best science, and his model of the universe had survived 2,000 years.  The men that sat in on the trial weren't fools.  Some of them were accomplished natural scientists.

...who put a man on trial for disagreeing with their traditional view of science.  The fact that they were accomplished scientists hardly makes things better.

Sometimes "yeah, that was f**ked up" is a lot more effective than apologism on that kind of thing.  Bless the Jesuits indeed.

Didn't say it wasn't.  I was simply saying that it wasn't what is often thought.

Well, I do think that people tend to misunderstand (misunderestimate?) the Church's relationship with the scientific world.  However, in this case, I think it makes them more culpable not less.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And completely wrong. And so sure of themselves and the Aristotelian status-quo that defended their own reputation to the last.

But they had been right about a number of other things, is the point I was trying to get across.  They were pretty familiar with logic and the scientific method.