• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism as seen by Pope Paul VI

Pah

Uber all member
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_.../vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

GAUDIUM ET SPES

Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.

The word atheism is applied to phenomena which are quite distinct from one another. For while God is expressly denied by some, others believe that man can assert absolutely nothing about Him. Still others use such a method to scrutinize the question of God as to make it seem devoid of meaning. Many, unduly transgressing the limits of the positive sciences, contend that everything can be explained by this kind of scientific reasoning alone, or by contrast, they altogether disallow that there is any absolute truth. Some laud man so extravagantly that their faith in God lapses into a kind of anemia, though they seem more inclined to affirm man than to deny God. Again some form for themselves such a fallacious idea of God that when they repudiate this figment they are by no means rejecting the God of the Gospel. Some never get to the point of raising questions about God, since they seem to experience no religious stirrings nor do they see why they should trouble themselves about religion. Moreover, atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character with which certain human values are unduly invested, and which thereby already accords them the stature of God. Modern civilization itself often complicates the approach to God not for any essential reason but because it is so heavily engrossed in earthly affairs.

Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.

20. Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God. Those who profess atheism of this sort maintain that it gives man freedom to be an end unto himself, the sole artisan and creator of his own history. They claim that this freedom cannot be reconciled with the affirmation of a Lord Who is author and purpose of all things, or at least that this freedom makes such an affirmation altogether superfluous. Favoring this doctrine can be the sense of power which modern technical progress generates in man.

Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation. This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation by arousing man's hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him from the constructing of the earthly city. Consequently when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental rower they vigorously fight against religion, and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal.
 
The last paragraph in my opinion raises the most dependent question on how to save soceity as a whole. Looking past religious and cultural lines to form a sort of cultural belief structure that will allow us to unite. Things like introduction to manhood/womanhood, Well defined guidelines that show compassion and love and eliminate confusion, and thorough teaching of all the worlds major religions, hinduism, christianity, buddhism, muslim, etc. We are force feeding our youth nothing when it comes to morality and decency, but are constantly showing the ways that one can be uncompassionate.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
To be clear.... the PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD: GAUDIUM ET SPES was promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI as part of the Second Vatican Council... but it is a document of the entire Church, not just the Pope.

The teaching continues to this day:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

58 GS 19 § 1.
59 GS 20 § 2.
60 GS 20 § 2.
61 Cf. Rom 1:18.
62 GS 19 § 3.
63 Cf. GS 20 § 1.
64 GS 21 § 3.
65 GS 21 § 7.

(GS= Gaudium et Spes)
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.

It is difficult for me to believe that atheism ranks up there with overpopulation, environmental degradation, poverty, war, disease, and so forth as "one of the most serious problems of our time." I would think atheism is actually a minor problem, if it is any problem at all.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Sunstone said:
It is difficult for me to believe that atheism ranks up there with...
If there is no spiritual and no afterlife, then I would agree! As it is, for those who believe that this life is but a vapor compared with all eternity, then atheism seems far more perverse than people who might only die physically. Hard for most people stuck in this physical world to comprehend, but for those of us who look further than the apparent horizon, this is so.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
[/color]It is difficult for me to believe that atheism ranks up there with overpopulation, environmental degradation, poverty, war, disease, and so forth as "one of the most serious problems of our time." I would think atheism is actually a minor problem, if it is any problem at all.
What make you think that the issues you listed are theological issues?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Scott1 said:
To be clear.... the PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD: GAUDIUM ET SPES was promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI as part of the Second Vatican Council... but it is a document of the entire Church, not just the Pope.
I agree. Hehehe at least with those statements.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Scott1 said:
What make you think that the issues you listed are theological issues?
Is the Pope merely speaking of theological issues, then? If so, then I have taken his comments out of context.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.

This doesn't sound like a statement aimed strictly at theological problems. Furthermore, does this mean the Vatican should never concern itself with the "problems" sunstone listed?
 
NetDoc said:
If there is no spiritual and no afterlife, then I would agree! As it is, for those who believe that this life is but a vapor compared with all eternity, then atheism seems far more perverse than people who might only die physically. Hard for most people stuck in this physical world to comprehend, but for those of us who look further than the apparent horizon, this is so.
If your concern is the afterlife, what about all the other non-Christians who reject Christ as their Lord and Savior? Why single out atheists from Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc?

Imagine the outcry if the Church--or anyone--said, "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism are among the most serious problems facing the world today".
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
Is the Pope merely speaking of theological issues, then? If so, then I have taken his comments out of context.
No problem... the Church deals with faith and morals... social issues are of grave importance and the Church most certainly has teachings about them, but no real influence on policy..... for instance, a Church teaching can not change the law in the US to reduce pollution.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Mr Spinkles said:
Why single out atheists from Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc?
I agree! The gospel clearly teaches that error is error. However, when one denies the existence of ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY, it just seems that there is a harder roe to hoe to get to God.

One should not make the mistake of thinking that everyone has the right to believe anything they want to believe and so everything they believe is ergo right.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Mr Spinkles said:
If your concern is the afterlife, what about all the other non-Christians who reject Christ as their Lord and Savior? Why single out atheists from Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc?
I know you directed this at ND... but to be clear, this is a CATHOLIC teaching intended for a CATHOLIC audience.
Imagine the outcry if the Church--or anyone--said, "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism are among the most serious problems facing the world today".
.... and the Church most certainly believes that a total rejection of God is much more serious than people who are members of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism etc who have a relationship with the Creator, even if we believe it to be an imperfect relationship.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Scott1 said:
.... and the Church most certainly believes that a total rejection of God is much more serious than people who are members of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism etc who have a relationship with the Creator, even if we believe it to be an imperfect relationship.
Buddhism is an atheist religion
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
I have to answer this honestly. To answer this dishonestly would be not only dishonest, but would be a coward's way out.

I have nothing but admiration for Pope Paul VI, and for anyone who embraces a faith and morality and will not deviate from it; true believers who will stand upright for their beliefs and who will accept abuse are to be admired.

Having said that, with the greatest of respect, I see that 'Take' on atheism as being so myopic , so totally devoid of understanding and respect ...............

Words fail me.

If I am to be denounced as Satan's spawn by the Christians here, for my views, then so be it.:(
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
michel said:
Having said that, with the greatest of respect, I see that 'Take' on atheism as being so myopic , so totally devoid of understanding and respect ...............
The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church.... teaching faithful Catholics that atheism is sinful.... is myopic?

Your attempts to placate everyone does not make you "Satan's spawn", just devoid of rational faith.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
I am a bit confused as to what we're supposed to be debating. I mean, I obviously don't believe that atheism is a sin, (wait...do I even believe in sin?), but the Church can believe what it wants, you know? I have no argument against the Catholic Church as to why it should or should not think a certain way. If I were to change what the Catholic Church thinks, it wouldn't be the Catholic Chruch anymore, but I'll leave all of that to the Protestants...

If the Catholic Church had said that, "Atheism is bad because all atheists are immoral hedonists and responsible for all evils of this world," then we would have a debate. However, I know you don't think that, Scott, and the resources you provided me with show me that the Catholic Church doesn't feel that way either.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Ceridwen018 said:
but the Church can believe what it wants, you know? I have no argument against the Catholic Church as to why it should or should not think a certain way.
Amen!:D
If the Catholic Church had said that, "Atheism is bad because all atheists are immoral hedonists and responsible for all evils of this world," then we would have a debate. However, I know you don't think that, Scott, and the resources you provided me with show me that the Catholic Church doesn't feel that way either.
Amen, again... that is why to assert that this teaching is "devoid of understanding and respect " is either based in ignorance or anger.:(
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Scott1 said:
The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church.... teaching faithful Catholics that atheism is sinful.... is myopic?

Your attempts to placate everyone does not make you "Satan's spawn", just devoid of rational faith.
Think what you will;
a) I am not trying to placate everyone. If I were to do so, I would not be posting what I have posted on this thread. Surely you can understand that......I realize that I am upsetting you (which is something I find no pleasure in doing) I am merely giving 'good atheists' the respect to which they are due, and the hope (which they deserve) that if they die, and surprisingly (for them) find themselves in front of God, he will still value the good in their hearts as good, despite their atheism.

I can't see any middle ground here, which is why (very much to my sorrow) I felt the need to speak my mind.

A faith that purports to be based on Love and acceptance, but rejects homosexuals (whose sexual state is of God's own Creation), who refuse to accept that barrier contraception is something that is the only way that H.I.V and AIDS will stop spreading (as well as a string of other STDs) because contraception is against the laws of God (Which I Understand), which refuses to recognize that abortion is a social necessity is one that deals in Ideals. There is nothing wrong with Ideals, but there comes a time when one must decide when an evil is necessary.

I cannot quote the thread, but I well remember the thread in which it was agreed that killing is not acceptable. Having said that, it was agreed by Christians (I cannot remember if you were or were not one of them) that the will be times when killing another human is the lesser of two evils.

I can only say that the case of accepting homosexuality and contraception are both cases of accepting the lesser of two evils.

No doubt you will not agree with me, and I respect your entitlement to your views; what I find hard to accept is the practical application of a faith of Love as one in which Love is denied to so many.

I remember another thread in which Deut 'cornered' me into admitting that I see the role of the Vatican (in refusing to accept the use of contraception) as being partially responsible (by implication) in the death of so so many in the World.

Now that I have done this most distateful of duties, it is time to close, and go to bed.
 
NetDoc said:
I agree! The gospel clearly teaches that error is error. However, when one denies the existence of ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY, it just seems that there is a harder roe to hoe to get to God.
Since when does atheism have anything to do with denying the existence of "ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY"? I believe in higher authority...my parents, the Constitution, and the laws of Nature, for example.

Scott1 said:
I know you directed this at ND... but to be clear, this is a CATHOLIC teaching intended for a CATHOLIC audience.
Are there similar Catholic teachings intended for Catholic audiences regarding polytheism, pantheism, henotheism; Judiasm, Islam, etc?

Scott1 said:
.... and the Church most certainly believes that a total rejection of God is much more seriousthan people who are members of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism etc who have a relationship with the Creator, even if we believe it to be an imperfect relationship.
First of all, let me just say that I agree with what Ceridwen said, and that I'm not offended by Church teaching here.

My problem has to do with consistency: let's look at Islam, for example. One could look at Islam compared to Catholicism and draw the conclusion that Muslims reject the god Catholics believe in, and believe in a different god, since Muslims reject a three-in-one triune god who can have a son. That's certainly one way of looking at it.

But, according to what you've said, you seem to believe that Muslims don't reject your god, they just have an "imperfect relationship" with Him; in other words, they believe in the same god (whether they realize it or not), they just have an incorrect understanding of that god. In fact, you apparently hold this to be the case with Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions as well, all of whom have very different conceptions of god(s). This is another, equally valid way of looking at it.

So, why, I wonder, does this way of looking at it end with atheism? The way I see it, if you're going to view Hindus--who would firmly deny the existence of a Father, Son and Holy Spirit--as having an "imperfect relationship" with the Catholic god, why not extend that view to atheists? Atheists believe in stuff....they aren't nihilists. So why would an atheist who denies the existence of a Father, Son and Holy Spirit but who believes in the power and beauty of Nature have "no relationship" with your god while a Hindu who also denies the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but who believes in Vishnu, Genisha and Shiva would have "a relationship" (albeit an "imperfect" one)?

It seems inconsistent to me, and I think the inconsistency is due to unfortunate false notions about atheists (e.g. NetDoc's apparent belief that atheists reject "ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY").
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah
Top