The Pope's Legacy

[AqAd]

Source,

There's no need to get upset...if I have "failed" to answer your questions, it is because I only have so much time in the day.

Let's see...your first question was to ask me to define what I means by "what is commonly understood as capitalism." The dictionary definition is fine with me: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

And your second question: you wanted me "to say what the purpose of all this is". It's quite simple: I'm not here to debate the meaning of words with Objectivists. I am only posting for the benefit of those non-Objectivists who might stumble across this thread and be misled into thinking that the Church is against capitalism. The Church is against what Objectivists define as capitalism, not the rest of the world. My advice is, if you don't understand this---ignore it.

I'm assuming your third question lies in here somewhere: "That somebody said or wished something to be something it is not, is irrelevant." I wouldn't say it is irrelevant when the "somebody" is the creator of the work. In this case, the author has the authority to say what is meant by his or her own creation. Do you think you can take Ms. Rand's works and arbitrarily decide what they mean, apart from what she intended? Now, that is very subjective...Since Tolkien himself said of the Lord of the Rings that it was ""fundamentally religious and Catholic", who are you to say it's not? And it is just that---that you can't see it is rather amusing, but doesn't change the fact that it is.

Edited April 12, 2005 by AqAd

[source]

My first assessment was correct. The only reason I am replying is because I don't want to leave this unchallenged.

Let's see...your first question was to ask me to define what I means by "what is commonly understood as capitalism." The dictionary definition is fine with me: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

This definition suggests that there is a differentiation between private and corporate ownership. In Capitalism, this is not so. There is only private ownership. Also, how do you define free market? I have heard many definitions of it, most of them not having any relation to something that is "free."

Also, where exactly did the pope agree with Capitalism that this definition defines?

And your second question: you wanted me "to say what the purpose of all this is". It's quite simple: I'm not here to debate the meaning of words with Objectivists. I am only posting for the benefit of those non-Objectivists who might stumble across this thread and be misled into thinking that the Church is against capitalism. The Church is against what Objectivists define as capitalism, not the rest of the world. My advice is, if you don't understand this---ignore it.

What you are saying here is "the church is not against Capitalism, but it is." My advice to you is if you can't understand the contradiction you're uttering, stop writing it for all to see.

I'm assuming your third question lies in here somewhere: "That somebody said or wished something to be something it is not, is irrelevant." I wouldn't say it is irrelevant when the "somebody" is the creator of the work. In this case, the author has the authority to say what is meant by his or her own creation. Do you think you can take Ms. Rand's works and arbitrarily decide what they mean, apart from what she intended? Now, that is very subjective...Since Tolkien himself said of the Lord of the Rings that it was ""fundamentally religious and Catholic", who are you to say it's not? And it is just that---that you can't see it is rather amusing, but doesn't change the fact that it is.

The author has no authority over what someone will think of his work. He said everything he wanted (or was able to) in the work he has created and further additions do not change that work. He can say what he wants about it, but if it doesn't explicitly show certain ideas, it never will no matter what he says. I have already discussed the difference between Tolkien and Ayn Rand. And while I could say without uttering a lie, on the basis of having read the trilogy by Tolkien that it is not Catholic, I would be lying if I said that the works of Ayn Rand are stories of self-sacrifice or collectivism (even though both are present in her novels). Tolkien obviously failed at presenting the ideas he wanted to present. Ayn Rand did not.

Nonetheless, my question was not about that at all. It was about naming the essentials of Catholicism covered in Tolkien's trilogy.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am only posting for the benefit of those non-Objectivists who might stumble across this thread and be misled into thinking that the Church is against capitalism. The Church is against what Objectivists define as capitalism, not the rest of the world.

Let's put it this way: The Church is only opposed to what is moral about capitalism; they don't mind it when immoral things are done in the name of capitalism.

[AqAd]

Source,

Again you are choosing to argue with me about the definition of words, trying to prove to me that the Objectivist definition of the word "capitalism" is the only valid definition. I'm not interested in arguing that---I am, as I have said, not here to debate Objectivism. I'm sure you have sincerely held reasons for thinking as you do. You are free to go and think whatever you want to about the rest of world's definition of capitalism (and your reasons might very well be valid), but I'm not addressing Objectivists, I'm only clarifying the Church's position for the benefit of non-Objectivists who come to this forum and stumble upon this thread.

You asked, "where exactly did the pope agree with Capitalism that this definition defines?" I think the quotes I gave above are from "Centesimus Annus" (those attributed to the pope) and the other quotes I provided came, as I stated when I provided them, from the Catechism. Another good quote from "Centesimus Annus":

13. "Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the encyclicals Laborem Exercens and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own," and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community."

You stated that "The author has no authority over what someone will think of his work." This is so obvious I would have thought that it did not need saying---apparently not. And no, it is not true that "Tolkien obviously failed at presenting the ideas he wanted to present"---far from it, as I think the novels are very, very Catholic. You simply fail to see it. And I did give you links that would answer your questions about the Catholic elements in the stories. That you don't have the answer to that question is the result of you not reading the resources I gave you, not a failure on my part to provide you with the resources.

Edited April 12, 2005 by AqAd

[source]

Again you are choosing to argue with me about the definition of words, trying to prove to me that the Objectivist definition of the word "capitalism" is the only valid definition. I'm not interested in arguing that---I am, as I have said, not here to debate Objectivism. I'm sure you have sincerely held reasons for thinking as you do. You are free to go and think whatever you want to about the rest of world's definition of capitalism (and your reasons might very well be valid), but I'm not addressing Objectivists, I'm only clarifying the Church's position for the benefit of non-Objectivists who come to this forum and stumble upon this thread.

How could anyone benefit from something that is based on a flaw? The Church does NOT accept Capitalism.

As for the sources you mentioned, I will have to read them again in order to reply. At this moment, I have no time.

You stated that "The author has no authority over what someone will think of his work." This is so obvious I would have thought that it did not need saying---apparently not. And no, it is not true that "Tolkien obviously failed at presenting the ideas he wanted to present"---far from it, as I think the novels are very, very Catholic. You simply fail to see it. And I did give you links that would answer your questions about the Catholic elements in the stories. That you don't have the answer to that question is the result of you not reading the resources I gave you, not a failure on my part to provide you with the resources.

On the contrary, I did read the articles, but I found nothing about the essentials of Catholicism covered in the trilogy. Sure, there are some details, but they are not essentials. For example, March 25 could as well have been a random date, since Tolkien gives no indication of its importance outside the sphere of the plot. Similar reasoning could go with other details.

Also, that the Ring of Power represents the burden of sin or of cross... that's silly at best. In short, Tolkien failed.

[AqAd]

Source,

I'm not addressing Objectivists---of course, there's a "flaw" if one is an Objectivist.

Regarding Tolkien: regardless of your inability to see the Catholicism in the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien didn't fail---Catholics can spot the Catholicism, even if you can't. Even if one is not a Catholic but is a non-Catholic Christian, certain elements resonate. For example, the hobbits are simple and humble and yet are glorified in the end (and, like good Catholics, they like food and drink and have lots of kids); greed for power ultimately defeats itself; external grace is called upon and received ("may the grace of the Valar be with you"); mercy is rewarded (Gollum is spared by both Bilbo and Frodo, and ultimately destroys the Ring, though not intentionally); and wanton exploitation of natural resources (forests) ultimately defeated. There's more--quite a few books have been written on this subject. Jospeh Pearce's biography of Tolkien is excellent, as I mentioned, and I'd recommend it. No, Tolkien didn't fail---quite the opposite. I know a gal who converted to Catholicism because her interest in the movies led to an interest in Tolkien, which led her to Catholicism. Not everyone needs everything spelled out plain as day for them to "get it".

[source]

I'm not addressing Objectivists---of course, there's a "flaw" if one is an Objectivist.

What you do not seem to understand, and which is a consequence of your beliefs, is that there is ALWAYS a flaw, regardless of who you are and what your beliefs are. When you blank out on a fact, it is still there, only you are willingly and knowingly not aware of it.

Regarding Tolkien: regardless of your inability to see the Catholicism in the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien didn't fail---Catholics can spot the Catholicism, even if you can't. Even if one is not a Catholic but is a non-Catholic Christian, certain elements resonate. For example, the hobbits are simple and humble and yet are glorified in the end (and, like good Catholics, they like food and drink and have lots of kids); greed for power ultimately defeats itself; external grace is called upon and received ("may the grace of the Valar be with you"); mercy is rewarded (Gollum is spared by both Bilbo and Frodo, and ultimately destroys the Ring, though not intentionally); and wanton exploitation of natural resources (forests) ultimately defeated. There's more--quite a few books have been written on this subject. Jospeh Pearce's biography of Tolkien is excellent, as I mentioned, and I'd recommend it. No, Tolkien didn't fail---quite the opposite. I know a gal who converted to Catholicism because her interest in the movies led to an interest in Tolkien, which led her to Catholicism. Not everyone needs everything spelled out plain as day for them to "get it".

None of the things are essentials of catholicism and many of them can and are interpreted differently. That is the essence of Tolkien's failure - he is subject to interpretation. Catholics will see Catholicism in his story, as you put so aptly, while even non-Objectivists will see Objectivism in Ayn Rand's novels. As for her work, I don't know of a scene in her books which can be interpreted in some way which she didn't want it to be interpreted in, without blanking out on some of the other scenes or events. If there are, they are rare. Her books were mainly attacked for what they are, not for what someone thought them to be.

Edited April 13, 2005 by source

[AqAd]

Source,

I agree with your statement, "When you blank out on a fact, it is still there, only you are willingly and knowingly not aware of it". The disagreement is on what is considered a "fact". However, my purpose in responding on this thread was not to debate what is and what is not a "fact" to an Objectivist. I have made this clear over the course of several posts. My suggestion is: ignore my posts. They aren't directed to Objectivists, as I've repeatedly stated.

And I don't think that being subject to interpretation (which certainly Tolkien is: those who are unacquainted with either Catholicism or Christianity in general will simply not see what Tolkien created) makes one, as you claim, a "failure". Most literature that rises above "See Spot Run" would be considered a failure, then, using your guidelines. Shakespeare can be interpreted a number of ways; so can all of the great authors. That is meaningless, though the author's stated intention (when known) is of interest to me and of value when understanding a given work. That you see Objectivism clearly in Ms. Rand's novels is no different from a Catholic seeing the Catholicism in Tolkien. In both cases, the author's philosophy underpins the creative work (more subtlely in Tolkien); that a reader can come up with a different interpretation does not in itself make the work (or the author) a failure.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

Source...I'm not addressing Objectivists, I'm only clarifying the Church's position for the benefit of non-Objectivists who come to this forum and stumble upon this thread.

Source...

My suggestion is: ignore my posts. They aren't directed to Objectivists, as I've repeatedly stated.

Excuse me for jumping in here, but, I want to point out the obvious.

AqAd, you are admitting you are posting on this forum for assumed benefit of other non-Objectivists & I appreciate your honesty. But you have spent at least some time directly addressing & arguing/refuting the claims of self-described Objectivists. You tell Objectivists, that disagree with you & want to tell you why, to ignore your posts. Fine, but why do you not follow your own advice & ignore theirs? You could, for example, address "concerns" of yours & how they may unduly affect non-Objectivist bystanders without directly, personally engaging Objectivists.

Your activity does not exactly square with your professed intentions. Therefore, I am starting to doubt your integrity in this matter.

Finally, being an Objectivist (& therefore an egoist) I would think it much better if you were posting, arguing/refuting merely for your own benefit instead of trying to "help others".

[AqAd]

ChristopherSchlegel,

Your criticisms are valid, and I appreciate your reasonableness.

However, in my defense, I would point out one distinct difference: when an Objectivist posits (as has been the case here), "The Catholic Church teaches that man is evil" (it doesn't), "The Catholic Church is based on the Bible" (it isn't), or other distortions, their assertions typically stem from an ignorance of Catholicism. I certainly don't expect Objectivists to spend any time studying Catholicism, but I do expect that persons using reason would not criticize publically what they do not understand. Since a person who does so has already left reason behind, attempts to argue with them directly are fruitless. Therefore, my concern is directed to those non-Objectivists who might be led to think, mistakenly, that the Church teaches that man's nature is evil or that it's based on the Bible. Hence my posts. In the case of the whole "definition of capitalism" discussion, my sole purpose was to make the distinction that the pope did not condemn capitalism as it is understood by society at large. That's it. Finis. That Objectivists want to debate that distinction is to be expected, but beyond the scope of the rules of this forum: I have already been warned that I will be banned, and since criticism of Objectivism is one sure way of being banned, I do not wish to enter the debate. (If people wish to debate with me privately, however, I am quite willing to do so as long as they are rational and polite.)

In short, in contrast to my "opponents" I am not putting forth misconceptions regarding Objectivism; indeed, I am trying to be careful to not address Objectivism directly at all. I apologize if I have not succeeded in this as well as I could.

[AMERICONORMAN]

So someone who can better than I, must in a pointed summarized fashion reveal the evil of Catholocism.

Lately, from me, you will only hear vulgarities.

I'm to busy with writing a novel about sex without a condom, among men, one a boy but more adult than most, who doesn't feel original sin, and does not idiolize the life of Christ, and who respects science better than faith, and who is far more advanced than his brethren, and who advises his best friend to have an abortion because she will be a magnificent sculptor, and who decides to disrespect his father and leave his bording school, and who rejects the idea that he is a sinner ... because, hell no, there is no god .. based on the necessary physco-epistemological basis....

God Bless America.

Americo.

And damn that Polish cripple ... who came to my city and dared to tell millions of my youth to sacrifice. The irony is that IDOMO, who is furniture store close by, but found that because of the multitude, close by, his futons were drenced in shit ... how appropriate.

It actually really happened.

Americo..

[source]

I agree with your statement, "When you blank out on a fact, it is still there, only you are willingly and knowingly not aware of it". The disagreement is on what is considered a "fact". However, my purpose in responding on this thread was not to debate what is and what is not a "fact" to an Objectivist. I have made this clear over the course of several posts. My suggestion is: ignore my posts. They aren't directed to Objectivists, as I've repeatedly stated.

And I don't think that being subject to interpretation (which certainly Tolkien is: those who are unacquainted with either Catholicism or Christianity in general will simply not see what Tolkien created) makes one, as you claim, a "failure". Most literature that rises above "See Spot Run" would be considered a failure, then, using your guidelines. Shakespeare can be interpreted a number of ways; so can all of the great authors. That is meaningless, though the author's stated intention (when known) is of interest to me and of value when understanding a given work. That you see Objectivism clearly in Ms. Rand's novels is no different from a Catholic seeing the Catholicism in Tolkien. In both cases, the author's philosophy underpins the creative work (more subtlely in Tolkien); that a reader can come up with a different interpretation does not in itself make the work (or the author) a failure.

The purpose of publishing a book is publishing your own ideas and thoughts. If you allow holes in the plot or in its symbollic meaning, then either you are talking about something else, or you just can't find an apt way to present your ideas. Everyone will think what they want to think about your work, and you will have failed to present to the world your thoughts and ideas. And that's failure. Plain and simple. When you first said that Tolkien's work is Catholic, I thought you were joking. Now I am just satisfied that his Catholic ideas haven't completely corrupted Tolkien's trilogy.

As for the evils of Catholicism, to name a few that I cared to look up in the very links Aqad offered to me:

...in "Anglo-Saxon belief, and in European popular tradition both before and after that, March 25 is the date of the Crucifixion."

Here it is - the crucifixion - one of the most disgusting aspects of catholicism. It is enough to know that catholics derive certain values from this tortured death of a man, to conclude that catholicism is rotten.

...carrying the cross of sin.

For those of you who do not know, if you are born a catholic, you are born guilty. What you are guilty of is disobedience - a primordial sin committed by Adam and Eve in their defiance of god's rule over their lives. That says enough.

This is the ultimate applicability of The Lord of the Rings — that we have to lose our life in order to gain it; that unless we die we cannot live; that we must all take up our cross and follow him.

Well, this gibberish pretty much speaks for itself about the evils of catholicism. Nothing good can come out of valuing death as much as this sentence suggests.

Well, I just realized that if I go too far with this, I might ruin for you the enjoyment of reading or watching The Lord of the Rings. I don't want to do that, because, after all, it is a good read, so I'm going to stop here.

[AqAd]

Source,

I'm certainly grateful that great authors have not followed your ideas, and instead have used their creative talents in more subtle ways than what you suggest makes for good writing. Lierature consists of more than manifestos.

March 25th is also the date of the Annunciation. In any case, both the Annunciation and crucifixion represent, to switch it to Tolkien, the "unmaking" of the Ring. Hardly a "disgusting" aspect.

As for being born "guilty"---care to elaborate? I can't find this in the Catechism.

And your understanding of the "valuing of death" in your last paragraph reveals an ignorance of just what that means. Perhaps you could elaborate this as well?

[source]

I'm certainly grateful that great authors have not followed your ideas, and instead have used their creative talents in more subtle ways than what you suggest makes for good writing. Lierature consists of more than manifestos.

Well, it's a bummer that you can't see a different way of communicating your ideas to someone, except through the manifestos. You should read Ayn Rand's "The Art of Fiction," she explains it all there.

March 25th is also the date of the Annunciation. In any case, both the Annunciation and crucifixion represent, to switch it to Tolkien, the "unmaking" of the Ring. Hardly a "disgusting" aspect.

I don't know why you didn't notice, but here I didn't speak of Tolkien any more, but of the evils of catholicism. I even said so in my post!

As for being born "guilty"---care to elaborate? I can't find this in the Catechism.

Well now we finally get down to the fact of who knows what about catholicism. Seriously, have you never heard of the original sin and how everyone is born with it?

And your understanding of the "valuing of death" in your last paragraph reveals an ignorance of just what that means. Perhaps you could elaborate this as well?

Sure! Here it goes again with an added emphasis, so that you could follow:

...that we have to lose our life in order to gain it; that unless we die we cannot live; that we must all take up our cross and follow him.

[AqAd]

Source,

Yes, there are a variety of creative, literary means used by different authors to achieve different purposes. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's not "one size fits all".

I have heard of original sin and am quite familiar with the concept. But my question was: you said that Catholics were born with "guilt". I asked you to elaborate on this, as the idea of being born guilty is not expressed in the Catechism. You did not answer the question. Perhaps it would help to ask: how do you define "guilt"?

You stated, "I don't know why you didn't notice, but here I didn't speak of Tolkien any more, but of the evils of catholicism." Since you discovered the significance of March 25th in the article regarding the Catholicism of Tolkien and The Lord of the Ring, I thought it proper to state the figurative device of the Ring as Tolkien uses it. Perhaps that was too subtle for you---I will try to express myself very simply in the future so you are not confused. I hope that will help.

Regarding the quote about losing one's life in order to find it: do you understand that literally? What does "die" mean to you in that passage? ?

Edited April 14, 2005 by AqAd

[ChristopherSchlegel]

However, in my defense, I would point out one distinct difference: when an Objectivist posits (as has been the case here), "The Catholic Church teaches that man is evil" (it doesn't), "The Catholic Church is based on the Bible" (it isn't), or other distortions, their assertions typically stem from an ignorance of Catholicism.

That is not quite accurate. Typically their assertions stem from their understanding of Objectivism & how it differs from systems that include mysticism & altruism. It is true that I've seen an occassional statement showing blantant ignorance of Catholicism, but in any event that is beside the point. The point being that most of the Objectivist posts in this & other threads dealing with aspects of religion are dealing in fundamental differences.

I certainly don't expect Objectivists to spend any time studying Catholicism, but I do expect that persons using reason would not criticize publically what they do not understand.

Good point.

In short, in contrast to my "opponents" I am not putting forth misconceptions regarding Objectivism; indeed, I am trying to be careful to not address Objectivism directly at all. I apologize if I have not succeeded in this as well as I could.

Fair enough. No need for apologies, as long as you are sincere in your intentions & follow up consistently in your actions.

Well now we finally get down to the fact of who knows what about catholicism. Seriously, have you never heard of the original sin and how everyone is born with it?

If anyone is interested in exactly what the Official Catholic Position actually is, go to the Vatican's site devoted to this purpose:

Catechism of the Catholic Church from the Vatican's site

In reference to the issue of "original sin":

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

From - http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

There is also this curious little paragraph in the same section:

The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

From - http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

I added the bolded emphasis. Interesting, Pelagius is proposing what seems to be a "natural philosophy". Later, the Protestants decided to completely throw reason out the window. This leaves Augustine (& later, Aquinas) to formulate what is an essentially Catholic position: the attempt to reconcile reason & faith.

This has been, is now & will probably be for as long as it exists, the Catholic Church's modus operandi. The Church has been around for a long time. It has learned well the lessons of those who explicitly disavow reason. But it also knows that without some form of mysticism it's own existence is doomed. Which is why it's intellectual leadership has spent most of it's history articulating one compromise after another between reason & faith.

A suggestion: arguing over details is not going to solve anything. In order to directly address the fundamental manner in which Objectivism differs from any other system (religious or philosophical) it is necessary to point to metaphysics (primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness) & epistemology (reason vs. mysticism).

Granted, this will not necessarily "solve disputes" or "win arguments" BUT it will efficiently & essentially identify the important premises involved.

[MisterSwig]

So someone who can better than I, must in a pointed summarized fashion reveal the evil of Catholocism.

While I have not bothered to attack Catholicism in particular, I have in fact written a 10-page paper exposing the supreme evil of Christianity in general. It's called Billy Graham and the Christian Crusade Against Truth and Freedom. You can read it here.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

I understand, and appreciate, the huge divide between Objectivism and any kind of theism. I expect the rejection, then, of any tenets of any religion.

Excellent.

However, the statements that I responded to do not fall into this broader category, but instead appear to be the result of ignorance...

Correcting ignorance is understandable, but...

I merely attempted to correct those without attempting to debate the larger philosophical divide.

I am not sure it is possible (or if so, even worthwhile) to do that without referring to this more fundamental context.

Thank you for posting the relevant sections from the Catechism.

You are welcome.

Yes, Pelagianism (and its variant, semi-Pelagianism) were condemned by the Church, as it made grace unnecessary. Howver, I would not consider Pelagius a  proponent of "natural philosophy". (And he was certainly not an atheist.)

I quoted the paragraph about Pelagius only to point to the Church's reaction to him. I know the historical context of the "Pelagian controversy". My point was that, to the Church, he "seemed to be advocating some form of natural philosophy" to the degree that made Man a soverign individual entirely capable of & responsible for his own moral character. & even though Pelagius was a self-proclaimed Christian the Church attacked him for this particular viewpoint.

However, I question the premises behind this statement: "But it also knows that without some form of mysticism it's own existence is doomed. Which is why it's intellectual leadership has spent most of it's history articulating one compromise after another between reason & faith."

"Its own existence is doomed"? I'm not sure you understand the Church's understanding of its own existence and durability. The Church is completely confident that it will endure to the end of time---it isn't concerned about its existence. Nor do I understand what you mean by "compromise" between reason and faith. Truth cannot contradict truth. I would suggest reading paragraph 159 of the Catechism.

I have read the Catechism. I was raised in a Catholic family/environment. I understand the Church, it's intentions & it's methods very well.

If you truly do not understand what I mean by the "compromise" I mention then you are not familiar enough with Objectivism. I think it might be more accurate to say you probably do know what I am talking about but that you disagree.

One more reading of how the Church attempts to reconcile faith & reason (or in the context of that paragraph, specifically science) is not going to make me change my mind.

I disgree that "arguing over details is not going to solve anything"---in the examples I mentioned, hopefully a non-Objectivist (or even an Objectivist) who has read this exchange will not now confuse Protestant and Catholic views of man's nature or of the Bible as a foundation.

If that is important to you, then I can see why you want to clarify. But you probably realize that to an Objectivist all these various denominations of Christianity all contain the same flawed premises.

...I stated that I would be happy to debate privately, so as long as individuals begin and remain rational and polite.

Yes, private debate is probably the best course of action for you.

[AqAd]

ChristopherSchlegel,

I disagree with your statement, "I am not sure it is possible (or if so, even worthwhile) to do that without referring to this more fundamental context" for the simple reason that the misconceptions I was addressing may have arisen from a confusion between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't think, for example, that it is necessary to address the fundamental divide between theism and Objectivism in order to point out that the Catholic Church is not founded on the Bible. This is a historical correction, not a philosophical one.

Just a comment regarding Pelagius: you are largely correct in saying that he saw man as "entirely capable of & responsible for his own moral character", and you are completely correct that Church condemned his particular viewpoint. Pelagius explained the actual existence and universality of sin to the "bad example" which Adam set by his first sin. In contrast, the Church has always taught that while man's nature is not evil, it is flawed---that is, man does not always choose rationally. Because of this view, the Church has always taught that freely-given and freely-received grace was to be cooperated with in perfecting (integrating)oneself. From the Pelagian viewpoint, if one's nature is not flawed, you have no need of grace, but can simply do X number of good deeds, one's will having been strengthened by asceticism (he was influenced by the Stoics in some ways) to "earn" your way into heaven. (Conversly, if one does not choose well it would appear that one would incur severe culpability, as there would be no mitigating circumstances---but I digress.) Frankly, I don't see how Pelagius's views of human nature square with the all-too-frequent acts of horrific cruelty and brutality that we are all familiar with: how could an individual's unflawed and perfectly capable will be led so horribly astray on account of a "bad example"? Does a person rape and torture a victim only because of the bad example of Adam?

Though the Pelagian view would seem more palatable to Objectivist tastes (or rather, less unpalatable than others), you can see how this simply doesn't square with what the Church taught or teaches. Ironically, Protestants often accuse Catholics of "working" their way to heaven---i.e., Pelagianism---not knowing that the Church has actually condemned that concept.

You are correct in saying, "I think it might be more accurate to say you probably do know what I am talking about but that you disagree". That is a more accurate way of stating the conflict.

I think it's fair enough to state, as you do, that "One more reading of how the Church attempts to reconcile faith & reason (or in the context of that paragraph, specifically science) is not going to make me change my mind." I am of a similar mindset: one more reading of Peikoff's and Ms. Rand's attempts to oppose faith and reason is not going to make me change my mind (been there, done that).

[HaloNoble6]

If you actually believe there's no contradiction between faith and reason, I'd really like to read your reasoning in the "faith vs. reason" thread I created a while back.

[MisterSwig]

[T]he Catholic Church is not founded on the Bible.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the [Catholic]Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

The modern Catholic Church is fundamentally dependent upon the Bible, as a stool is dependent upon its legs.

The Bible is allegedly the word of God. So, even in the early days when there was no Bible, the Catholic Church was fundamentally dependent on the alleged word of God, as repeated by the prophets. You cannot escape the fact, no matter how hard you try, that the alleged word of God (the Bible) is the foundation upon which all of Catholicism rests. It is that on which nearly all Western religion is founded.

[AqAd]

Mr. Swig,

The correction I made was to the mistaken idea that the Bible was the only foundation of Catholicism. I did not say that it was not part of the foundation. A stool, after all, has more than one leg...this distinguishes it from Protestant churches who adhere to "sola scriptura" (Bible alone).

I'm not "escaping" any facts---you're simply not understanding.

[source]

Regarding the quote about losing one's life in order to find it: do you understand that literally? What does "die" mean to you in that passage? ?

"To die" means the same thing in every context. I really see no point in this question, or in continuing the discussion with you.

[MisterSwig]

[T]he Catholic Church is not founded on the Bible.

I did not say that [the Bible] was not part of the foundation [of Catholicism].

I'm not interested in playing word games with you. You have just admitted now that the Bible is part of the foundation of Catholicism. We are in agreement.

[MisterSwig]

[W]hen an Objectivist posits (as has been the case here), "The Catholic Church teaches that man is evil" (it doesn't) ...

You hold that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that man is evil. But it does:

Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

The Church teaches that if man does not believe in Jesus and convert to Christianity, then he is an "evildoer" who shall be sent to the "eternal fire."

So, basically, I'm hell-bound evil for not having absolute faith in some invisible guy who doesn't even have the common decency to stop by my house, say hello, and shake my hand. I could live my entire life without ever doing anyone harm. Yet I am still evil and going to hell, because I'm an atheist.

According to the Catholic Church, man is evil to the core--unless he nods his head in stupid obedience with Christian dogma.

Edited April 15, 2005 by MisterSwig