"I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse"

[joe1776]

"By taking me so young"

I took that way out of context. Read that before even reading the OP.

I have edited the OP.

 

[Iti oj]

OK, I agree we shouldn't blindly accept any belief system. The important question then becomes, where DO we go from there?

No religion until 21 years of age or older...?

 

[metis]

The Catholic Church put themselves into a bind by claiming to be infallible on moral matters.

That only is the case when the pope within conjunction with the bishops throughout the world speaks "ex cathedra", which has only been done seven times in almost 2000 years, and none of them were based on any new doctrines.

 

[joe1776]

No religion until 21 years of age or older...?

I'd like to see the public schools teach a course in comparative religion that included the various flavors of agnosticism and atheism without pushing any belief, obviously.

 

[columbus]

That only is the case when the pope within conjunction with the bishops throughout the world speaks "ex cathedra", which has only been done seven times in almost 2000 years, and none of them were based on any new doctrines.

No, not really.
When you are talking to 7 year olds, making that kind of subtle distinction isn't even possible.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I'd like to see the public schools teach a course in comparative religion that included the various flavors of agnosticism and atheism without pushing any belief, obviously.

That was tried around here, at the high school level.
It went down in a crash. The local Christian parents got into an uproar because the government was teaching about god without making it clear which was the One and Only True God.
Which varied a great deal between parents. But enough people agreed that learning anything about god that hadn't been personally approved by them was a huge sin that the school corporation canceled the whole thing for every student, including the ones who signed up.
Because ignorant and intolerant Christians run this town, while also claiming to be the most persecuted people in this country.

Tom

 

[George-ananda]

That's just not my path, George.

I feel that I'm "cooperating with the nature of existence" by striving to become a better human being. I think that's our purpose.

Actually, our paths are not really that different then.

 

[Iti oj]

I'd like to see the public schools teach a course in comparative religion that included the various flavors of agnosticism and atheism without pushing any belief, obviously.

We had some of that. Even had local parents come In to speak about it.

 

[Iti oj]

Actually, our paths are not really that different then.

Nor ours then lol

 

[metis]

No, not really.
When you are talking to 7 year olds, making that kind of subtle distinction isn't even possible.

Oh, I definitely agree with you on age thingy, but I can't figure out how the "No, not really" fits in?

 

[columbus]

Oh, I definitely agree with you on age thingy, but I can't figure out how the "No, not really" fits in?

I meant that:

That only is the case when the pope within conjunction with the bishops throughout the world speaks "ex cathedra", which has only been done seven times in almost 2000 years, and none of them were based on any new doctrines.

isn't really the case when the people you are teaching are too young to grasp that subtlety.
I didn't. I was pretty smart for a 7 year old. But I certainly didn't understand the distinction you are making. My understanding was simple, leave the Church and you will go to Hell. Plain and simple. I had to figure out for myself that what the "people in black" were teaching me was irrational before I could fully extricate myself from what @CogentPhilosopher described in his video. It was a struggle. Especially for a gay kid in the 70's.

I have had to work hard to overcome my antitheism. I think I have been fairly successful. But it's still right there below the surface, like the racism and homophobia and misogyny and nationalism , and I have to think things through to not embarrass my attempts to rise above what I was taught.

Tom

 

[joe1776]

That only is the case when the pope within conjunction with the bishops throughout the world speaks "ex cathedra", which has only been done seven times in almost 2000 years, and none of them were based on any new doctrines.

Nothing is that simple within the Cathoilc Church. It took me a while to find this:

Vatican II said the following:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”
-Lumen Gentium 25

 

[suncowiam]

Ew!

I guess I am a bit hardened against casual accusations of paedophilia. I actually was a gay boy and nobody ever offered to have sex with me. Maybe I was the ugliest third grader ever.

It isn't like it was impossible. More than once, I woke up in my own bed to find a strange man in his underwear. I knew immediately that he must be a Catholic priest. Given the family I grew up in, this wasn't even odd. If a 20 something guy shows up at your house you don't bunk him with your daughters. You put him in with the boys.
D'oh
Tom

Not sure what to say other than I hope everything is good now...

 

[columbus]

Not sure what to say other than I hope everything is good now...

Thanks.
I guess.
There wasn't any problem then.


Tom

 

[suncowiam]

Thanks.
I guess.
There wasn't any problem then.


Tom

Good to hear.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You ran into a terrible priest because the RCC does not nor did not teach that one would go to hell if they weren't Catholic, and also that no one can guarantee that they or anyone else is automatically going to heaven if they belong to the RCC.

The OP was only seven at the time - I suspect the priest would probably have felt that tacking on so many additional conditions would have only confused him.

 

[metis]

Vatican II said the following:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”
-Lumen Gentium 25

You can find more here: Papal infallibility - Wikipedia

BTW, just to be clear, I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian, nor do I believe in papal infallibility. However, I did teach Catholic theology a few decades ago until I had a change of faith.

As a side-bar that sort of relates, let me just mention something else you might find interesting. When dealing with the way for a lay person to take the teachings from the church, imagine a Roman traffic cop standing at an intersection motioning how drivers should respond, but the watch the cars as only some drivers are actually even paying attention to him.
The analogy, which came from a priest friend of mine, is to point out that the church teaches what it thinks is right, and the parishioner should listen, read, and take the teachings seriously, but ultimately it is the parishioner's decision as to which way (s)he should go because, after all, they will be the ones getting judged in the final analysis.

There was an excellent book out on this entitled "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide", and that was the gist of that book. The "proof" that the book and my friend are correct can be deduced this way: how many Catholics do you know have ever been excommunicated? I've been attending mass with my wife for over 50 years, and I have not yet met a single one.

The bottom line: the church is going to teach what it thinks is right, but it's up to you to do with it what you may.

 

[joe1776]

The bottom line: the church is going to teach what it thinks is right, but it's up to you to do with it what you may.

Thank you for your post. I have no doubt that your conclusion is correct. But, on the issue of infallibility, the following is an excerpt from an article written by an informed Catholic, not by a critic of the church. I've provided a link if you want to read the entire article.

The Catholic Church must therefore assert that Her moral teaching is unchanging; if She held otherwise, Her very existence would be execrable. As the keeper of Christ’s unchanging teaching, She claims the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

If She did not claim infallibility in these matters, She would be admitting that God did not entrust His teaching to Her. This, of course, would mean that the Catholic Church lied, and therefore could not be trusted on any issue. Why adhere to a changing faith that claims to worship an unchanging God? A mutable faith is damnable – an affront to human dignity, a human invention that holds men in thrall to a quicksand of strictures.

If the Church were to change any of Her moral teachings to suit the whims of the world, then She would admit that Her teachings are not of God, and Her moral authority would be compromised forever.

http://catholicexchange.com/an-unchanging-church

 

[metis]

But, on the issue of infallibility, the following is an excerpt from an article written by an informed Catholic, not by a critic of the church. I've provided a link if you want to read the entire article.

Yes, and that is the teaching of the church, but do note that this issue of infallibility has extensive limitations. For example, the pope's seven decisions that were pronounced ex cathedra actually didn't cover any new ground as these were traditional beliefs. Therefore, what the pronouncements do is to make them understood as to be so profound as to be without question.

If one were to go through Catholic Canon Law, as a contrast, probably about 99% of those are not ex cathdra pronouncements, therefore not considered infallible.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, and that is the teaching of the church, but do note that this issue of infallibility has extensive limitations. For example, the pope's seven decisions that were pronounced ex cathedra actually didn't cover any new ground as these were traditional beliefs. Therefore, what the pronouncements do is to make them understood as to be so profound as to be without question.

If one were to go through Catholic Canon Law, as a contrast, probably about 99% of those are not ex cathdra pronouncements, therefore not considered infallible.

I understand the extensive limitations you describe. My bet is that you are absolutely right. But the well-informed Catholic who wrote the article I linked doesn't seem to be aware of those limits. It would not surprise me if there was a conservative element within the Church in agreement with him.

When John Paul II made all his public apologies for past sins of the Church wasn't there a conservative element within the Church groaning because he was admitting the Church was capable of error? When Pope Francis recently said that even atheists can get to Heaven with good works, can't you imagine a conservative element just wishing the man would shut up?

I think public opinion has been leading all the traditional Western faiths to make moral progress. That's embarrassing for them because, if their claims of divine inspiration were true, it should be the other way around.