Pope Francis declares that atheists can go to Heaven

[Skynet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHzHLxE4mgU#ws

To explain this policy, he quotes a Bible verse from Jesus: "The complain, if he is not one of us, he cannot do good.  If he is not of our party, he cannot do good."  And Jesus corrects them, 'Do not hinder him,' he says, 'let him do good.'

I'm starting to like Pope Francis more and more.  I'd never thought I'd say this.

Huffington Post article.

[Blythe]

He's still quite conservative in many ways...but I do find this to be very different and progressive for him, a wild turn away from previous papacies. I think that this is an interesting thing he mentions, essentially acknowledging redemption through work is valid, although I do wonder how his more conservative Catholic base feels about it.

[Sabby]

I'm too pessimistic to see this as anything other then PR... and a little insulting.

Threatening an Atheist with Hell is like threatening a Christian with coal for Christmas instead of presents, so why would offering a good word with Santa be any different? It's still a completely one sided and unwanted offer that disregards the wishes and beliefs of the very person it is offered to.

[meikle]

Then they put in some damage control and had a spokesperson for the Catholic Church clarify, "But if you know the Catholic Church exists and don't convert, go to Hell."

It's probably cool to be in the Catholic Church and have your job be to tell everyone that the Pope doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Beguile's Mistress]

There are those who do believe that you must be of the Catholic faith to enter Heaven.

The message Christ was conveying and that Pope Francis was repeating is that whether you are Catholic or not it is the way you live your life that matters.

[Blythe]

It's probably cool to be in the Catholic Church and have your job be to tell everyone that the Pope doesn't know what he's talking about.

Except that would be completely ridiculous. Catholicism involves the concept of papal infallibility.

EDIT: Also, that wikipedia link isn't the best source I can provide. I know that. It's about the bare minimum I scraped up on short notice. But it does nail the general concept of papal infallibility enough to make my point about it.

The message Christ was conveying and that Pope Francis was repeating is that whether you are Catholic or not it is the way you live your life that matters.

I'm an atheist, and this was the sentiment I was reading in that article. I thought that, while I don't agree on many serious points with Catholicism, that championing good deeds over being "saved" or not was what mattered. I liked the idea.

[Skynet]

I'm an atheist, and this was the sentiment I was reading in that article. I thought that, while I don't agree on many serious points with Catholicism, that championing good deeds over being "saved" or not was what mattered. I liked the idea.

Works Over Faith is a big thing in Catholicism, and I believe it might have played a large factor in Francis' decision.

[Beguile's Mistress]

In the vernacular of any religion being saved can mean accepting the precepts of a particular church or simply accepting Christ into you heart as a guiding force.

Having your spiritual passport stamped Catholic doesn't get you into Heaven.  It's the visa that goes along with it that says whether or not you lived up to the doctrines of love that Christ taught.

[Sabby]

Sounds like the conditions for going to Heaven have been boiled down too much. I mean, if it's really that easy, don't they lose a lot of power over people?

[Deamonbane]

As much as it seems like a cool move on the Catholic's part, I have to agree with Sabby on this one... seems too much like a PR move to have any sincerity to me...

[Blythe]

Works Over Faith is a big thing in Catholicism, and I believe it might have played a large factor in Francis' decision.

I think it might have as well; I think he's expanding to try to encourage more inter-faith and secular dialogue, and while whether he will be successful at that is still up for debate and questioning, I do think he has the right idea.

they need to do away with rules and customs that they publicly decree as no longer relevant.

I do think that the Catholic Church could seriously stand to reevaluate their dogma, to take a stronger look at what their church needs in this modern era, as a lot of the Church still clings to out-of-date male-dominated practices that just don't fit in this day and age. Religions shouldn't stagnate; they should be organic and adapt to the needs of their believers. I don't know; maybe I'm guilty of wishful thinking.

Am I skeptical of this coming from Pope Francis? Yes. I'd like to take the time to see if he backs up what he claims, if he really can and will champion and support "works over faith" in regards to other religions and those who do not ascribe to a religion. I'd like to see the idea gain more headway, though. But am I still hopeful that ideas like this might start changing the stagnant conservative viewpoints of the Church, making them more inclined to become more tolerant? Yes. Might not happen anytime soon, but I can genuinely hope for a culture of tolerance (although a culture of acceptance does seem rather far-fetched, hence I say tolerance), and I see this as perhaps the first step in that direction.

[Deamonbane]

Well... consider the following: Quite a few people find comfort in repetition, safety in things that don't change... Most people go to religion looking for safety, comfort... in a manner of speaking, it is quite brilliant that they haven't changed for so long... Of course, it also irritates and infuriates people that are smart enough not to follow in beaten path...

[Sabby]

Ah, quoted before I could edit >.< Oh well, I stand by that wording and the rewording. If the Church wants to say 'Hey, good people can find Heaven' then they also have to give up saying things to the contrary, like 'Homosexuals must change their ways to get into Heaven'.

Hell, this could easily mutate into a word game. What does 'good' mean here? All that's really been done is add another step to the process. To discriminate on something, you just need to make the argument that it's not good, instead of not allowed.

Well... consider the following: Quite a few people find comfort in repetition, safety in things that don't change... Most people go to religion looking for safety, comfort... in a manner of speaking, it is quite brilliant that they haven't changed for so long... Of course, it also irritates and infuriates people that are smart enough not to follow in beaten path...

And if those never changing beliefs advocate infinite punishment for finite crimes, should we allow them to continue for the sake of comfort?

[Blythe]

Hell, this could easily mutate into a word game. What does 'good' mean here? All that's really been done is add another step to the process. To discriminate on something, you just need to make the argument that it's not good, instead of not allowed.

It's this exact thing that makes me very skeptical, actually, and inclined to see how and if Pope Francis does back this up. The definition of "good."

But I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to use a colloquialisman idoimatic expression, before the bath is even done. I'd like to see if anything beneficial can come of this in a longer term rather than disparage it as PR, but that is merely my view on the matter. I respect your opinion, however, and your right to have it; it's possible that this won't make a difference at all. I'd rather wait and see if it does. And hope that it encourages the idea that non-religious individuals and those ascribing to other faiths are capable of being moral people.

If it doesn't, though, I will be heinously depressed.

EDIT: Bah. "Colloquialism" was definitely not the right word.

[Sabby]

I just like to have the two options of 'right' and 'pleasantly surprised' ^^ Hoping they do actually manage to heave themselves up out of the social quagmire with this, but I won't be surprised if they don't.

[Blythe]

*nod* Seems reasonable to me, Sabby.

[meikle]

Except that would be completely ridiculous. Catholicism involves the concept of papal infallibility.

I wasn't being cheeky.  They really did have someone follow-up the pope to say, "No, you still have to be Catholic to go to Heaven, that is the position of the Catholic Church."  Also, papal infallibility is fairly strict, and it doesn't mean "the Pope is never wrong."

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a spokesman for the Vatican, said those who have knowledge of the Catholic Church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her,” CNN reported. He also said that “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/24/pope-francis-suggests-atheists-good-deeds-gets-the/#ixzz2UHpprSz4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Even non-Christians can respond to the saving action of the Spirit... by joining the Catholic Church!  Unless you've never heard of it... then you're safe.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wasn't being cheeky.  They really did have someone follow-up the pope to say, "No, you still have to be Catholic to go to Heaven, that is the position of the Catholic Church."

Problem is, Blthe is right. Speaking on sheer doctrine, what the pope says is what is. He IS the Church's final Authority. The 'spokesman' can spin it, but it was spoken by the Church's leader.

Personally, I like to think it is a first step to fixing problems. But my cynical side thinks the entrenched fixtures will stop him flat.

[Blythe]

I wasn't being cheeky.  They really did have someone follow-up the pope to say, "No, you still have to be Catholic to go to Heaven, that is the position of the Catholic Church."

Oh, I know. I'm saying that the fact they had a follow up to say that, correcting the pope, was ridiculously stupid, because of the concept of papal infallibility. Catholic dogma regarding that actually means the Pope can't be wrong.

Although if it's not too much trouble, could I have a source so I could read it for myself? I'm always interested in reading extra info.

My apologies for being vague and unclear.

EDIT:

Speaking on sheer doctrine, what the pope says is what is. He IS the Church's final Authority. The 'spokesman' can spin it, but it was spoken by the Church's leader. 

I admit that the fact a spokesman "corrected" the Pope at all leaves me extremely pessimistic. Surely Catholics who know the dogma know better than that. *sighs*

[meikle]

Problem is, Blthe is right. Speaking on sheer doctrine, what the pope says is what is. He IS the Church's final Authority. The 'spokesman' can spin it, but it was spoken by the Church's leader.

Papal Infallibility is far more strict than "the Pope can't be wrong."  Unless Pope Francis goes and makes an official decree, declares that it is universal truth for the Catholic Church and follows from the authority of Jesus Christ, etc, etc, Papal Infallibility doesn't apply.  If the Pope takes a shit and says, "Man, that is the biggest dump ever," it doesn't suddenly become Catholic dogma.

For papal infallibility to take effect, the Pope needs to take the stance so strongly that anyone who rejects it becomes anathema to the Church.  He did not present this as a formal addendum to Church doctrine, and I'm certain he is not willing to excommunicate anyone who refuses to acknowledge that atheists have a shot at heaven.

More on Papal Infallibility: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

[Blythe]

More on Papal Infallibility: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Took me a bit to peruse through there, but I found specifically what you're referencing in it.

This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.

Hmmm. In other words, if this is right, what Pope Francis has said doesn't have any meaning unless he makes an official pronouncement. While that pronouncement might not require the support of the body of bishops, it would still have to be an official pronouncement of doctrine.

This is very disheartening. Hope Level -5.

EDIT: A small addendum. Since a homily is just the commentary after Mass, essentially, and papal infallibility doesn't apply to commentary...well, that doesn't make these words worth very much.

[Sabby]

well, that doesn't make these words worth very much.

They don't need to work, they just need to sound nice.

[meikle]

You probably shouldn't expect that a newly appointed pope is going to begin his career by rewriting Church dogma that has been accepted for fifteen hundred years.  Papal infallibility doesn't give the pope free reign to ignore (or even rewrite) what comes before; there have been issues in the past with popes trying to do this and being overruled (or being made to clarify how their decisions were not, in fact, contradictory, and how they fit in beside existing church dogma.)

They don't need to work, they just need to sound nice.

To whom?  The Catholic Church doesn't need to score points with atheists.  "You get to go to Heaven, too!" is an empty thing to say to someone who does not believe that there is a heaven or any divine authority behind the Church.

[Kythia]

The church has actually been slowly changing rhetoric on the virtuous unbaptized for a few years now.  There was an announcement under JP2 that unbaptised children no longer automatically went to hell as well.

I don't see Benedict doing it but I wouldn't be surprised if, under his successor, we saw calls for a council to update the church's position in those areas.  There's quite an interesting short analysis here of a few of the issues.

[Sabby]

To whom?  The Catholic Church doesn't need to score points with atheists.  "You get to go to Heaven, too!" is an empty thing to say to someone who does not believe that there is a heaven or any divine authority behind the Church.

To all the people who see the Church as backwards or archaic. They need to look more progressive and in touch with modern society to stop bleeding members, and sadly just sounding progressive will do the trick with a lot of people. This is one of those things you can bring up to sway the uninformed, which is why I see it as a public relations matter. Until they change their doctrine to reflect this new stance it's just a way of sounding better and not being better.

[Kythia]

Yeah, the church isn't bleeding members.  Its one of the fastest growing denomination in the world. 

The issue is that the Church doesn't need to appeal to first world liberals.  It doesn't care what you think of it.  Its power base is in far more conservative areas - south and central America.  Appealing to atheists as opposed to its core demograph is wrongheaded.  I get how tempting it is to say "Oh, the Church needs to modernise" but its not the case.  it needs to modernise for you, sure, but even if it utterly reversed its position on a load of issues you still wouldn't say "Oh, well, with you now saying gays, abortion, etc etc etc are OK, I guess I'll get baptised" while conservative churches in South and Central America - Pentecostalism for example - would reap a field day as Catholics turned away.

The point is, you're simply not the target audience.

[Sabby]

I get how tempting it is to say "Oh, the Church needs to modernise" but its not the case.

Please elaborate on why the Catholic Church doesn't need to modernise.

[Kythia]

I thought I had.

But fine.  You - a first world atheist with liberal views - are never going to become a Catholic.  Any change the Catholic Church made to appeal to you better would reap no benefits in bums on pews from you.  Further, the Church is losing some members in second stage strongholds - Brazil is a good example - to hard line conservative Protestantism.  The modernisation that you want would just speed that process up as people turned away from a more liberal church to retain their beliefs elsewhere.

[Sabby]

That's horrible reasoning. It's like saying "We're missing out on that giant homophobe demographic, we better try and appeal to it more, or they'll go somewhere else!"

[Kythia]

*shrug*  Yeah, in essence. 

Or, to drill it down a little more, progressive voices in the Church - and they do exist - are minimised because...well, look at it this way.  I see from your location that you are in Australia.  Lets imagine, for the sake of argument, that everyone in Australia:

a) agrees with you
and
b) would convert to Catholicism tomorrow if the church modernised.
and
c) isn't already Catholic

According to Google there are 22.32 million people in Australia.  There are over a half of that number in Sao Paulo alone 70% of which are Catholic (taking Brazil as a whole's stats).  Any change would run the risk of alienating a vast number of them.  So why would progressive forces be listened to?  They are fighting institutional inertia for a cause that would make the church less powerful.  Looked at from he church's perspective, its lose lose.

Ironically, the best way of changing the Catholic Church would be if everyone who dislikes it converts to it.  Let numbers work on your side not against you.

[Sabby]

Yeah, allow me to take several sacks of salt with the Popes words then... I didn't think their value could plummet more in my eyes.

[Kythia]

Yeah, its not so much about taking them with salt as about recognising them for what they are.  It's a personal homily at the end of a mass.  Francis himself may well believe that but just as the Prime Minister of Australia can't unilaterally cede from the Commonwealth or Barack Obama can't unilaterally ban guns, Francis can't effect that change on his own.  An ex cathedra announcement invoking infallibility would rip the church apart, so its - in practice - an ecumenical matter.

It's, combined with other things, a sign in a very gradual shift in the church's thinking on the virtuous unbaptized but little more.  Essentially "nothing to see here, move along"

Edit:  Benedict?  Man, what year do I live in.  Benedict -> Francis

[meikle]

To all the people who see the Church as backwards or archaic. They need to look more progressive and in touch with modern society to stop bleeding members, and sadly just sounding progressive will do the trick with a lot of people. This is one of those things you can bring up to sway the uninformed, which is why I see it as a public relations matter. Until they change their doctrine to reflect this new stance it's just a way of sounding better and not being better.

I was going to address this, but it seems to me that Kythia already did.  The Church isn't bleeding members, and the thought that they need your approval to continue to function is baseless.

Also, if you make a statement like, "The Church needs to modernize," then "prove that it doesn't" is not a valid argument in its defense.

[Sabby]

Also, if you make a statement like, "The Church needs to modernize," then "prove that it doesn't" is not a valid argument in its defense.

I did not say that >.> I asked for elaboration. I realize now I should have been asking why we should be content with the Churches refusal to modernize. Consider this my amended stance.

[Blythe]

Also, if you make a statement like, "The Church needs to modernize," then "prove that it doesn't" is not a valid argument in its defense.

I did not say that >.> I asked for elaboration. I realize now I should have been asking why we should be content with the Churches refusal to modernize. Consider this my amended stance.

In Sabby's defense, I believe I was the one who actually mentioned modernization specifically. But I will bow out of this particular thread.

[Hemingway]

Here I thought I had an airtight way of avoiding heaven.

On a serious note, I can see this being a good thing if it means fewer videos ( since that's the main form I encounter them in ) of catholics trying to convert atheists by threatening them with hell. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. If there's one thing the militant religious types are good at, it's doublethink.

[Silk]

How nice of him, I'm sure it might make a few Catholic families out there who are berating their non-believing children feel a bit better for a while. But that's about the only positive effect this will have.

[Ephiral]

I find the whole thing kinda weird, really. I don't particularly care whether or not Catholics think I'm going to their afterlife - after all, I don't believe in it. In that sense it's meaningless. I do find the strong implication of redemption through works to be interesting, though - what would make a huge difference in my life and many others is if the faithful, as a category, thought that they actually had to be good people to get in.

Though that does leave me wondering where collaborators with murderous military dictatorships who then whitewash history to try and eliminate any record of their collaboration go, if works count...

EDIT: Missed the mark on tone a bit there. Came across more than a bit dickish. My apologies.

[Tydorei]

I'm not a religious buff or anything... but I grew up in the church (not catholic)... and why am I on this evil site? lol. But anyway, from what I was raised on was the only way to Heaven was through Christ. The only exception being was that you lived a good life AND never was told of christ. So what the pope said was correct... strictly speaking. But most people who call themselves atheist also know of christianity... therefore... a not too pleasant afterlife awaits them... supposedly. I'm not one to take chances though... I'll go back to church... one of these days...

[RubySlippers]

If he speaks for the big spirit then why not just issue a perpetual  indulgence from the issuance from the beginning of time to eternity for all souls and for all sins, he is the voice and authority of isn't he just make sure everyone gets to heaven even for mortal sins. I'm sure you can pull out the passages from the holy book of fun to make this a legitimate dogma and do it.

[Vekseid]

Thinking about it, and the church's typical policy of long-term thinking, I do not think this is directed at atheists at all.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Thinking about it, and the church's typical policy of long-term thinking, I do not think this is directed at atheists at all.

I was thinking the same thing.

(And also that Kythia is 100% correct.)

[Sabby]

I'm confused... The Vatican seems to treat Francis like a mascot that made a questionable gesture at a game rather then a part of the team. I wouldn't say they're throwing him under the bus, but it definitely has a dismissive vibe to it.

[Kythia]

The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

OK.  I have no spies in the Vatican so this is conjecture of the highest order.  But here's what I suspect happened.

The Pope didn't quite say atheists could go do to heaven.  He made - or at least tried to make -  a subtly different point.  He said Christ redeemed atheists just as he did Christians.  Catholic soteriology is ridiculously complicated.  They've had a long time to make it so.  Here is a pretty full explanation but be aware its heavy going.  In short, though, redemption and salvation are different, though highly related, things.

The idea that Christ redeemed all of mankind is far from new.  Read up on the Jesuit "Karl Rahner" for more details.  It's orthodoxy, in short.  Not in debate (within Catholic dogma, obviously).  Its even biblical - 1 Timothy talks of Christ giving himself as "a ransom for all" and the Catechism accepts this to some extent - CC 2125 is the relevant bit.

So, what I suspect has happened - and again I stress this is a guess not based on anything much - is that the Pope gave a homily talking about that aspect in incredibly unclear language.  A load of news sources that, understandably, don't employ theologians ran with a Protesstant interpretation - where, in a lot of denominations - redemption is sufficient for salvation rather than simply necessary as it is in Catholicism.  So they took the Pope's words as saying that atheists can go to heaven.  What he meant to say is that there is no intrinsic attribute of atheists preventing them going to heaven.

So, now the Church is doing a frantic clean up job.  A "No, no, that's not what we meant"

ETA:  Incidentally, contrary to the Huffington Post article you link - Thomas Rosica isn't a Vatican spokesman.

[Thorn14]

I'm confused... The Vatican seems to treat Francis like a mascot that made a questionable gesture at a game rather then a part of the team. I wouldn't say they're throwing him under the bus, but it definitely has a dismissive vibe to it.

I thought the point of the pope was he was infallible. Now he says something they might not like and they go "Naaah he was just playing dawg"

[meikle]

I thought the point of the pope was he was infallible. Now he says something they might not like and they go "Naaah he was just playing dawg"

Man I just explained this.

[Sabby]

Whether or not he made it super duper official is irrelevant to me. The whole infallibility thing is held up when people agree with him and then the technicalities come out when they don't. I disregard the capacity in which he spoke and look only to what he said, and why it's causing the stirs within the Church that it is.

Think about the backpedalling from the statement for 5 minutes and find one honest reason to oppose the concept of salvation for all without Christ. I can't find one.

[meikle]

The whole infallibility thing is held up when people agree with him

Only by people who do not know what it means.

Think about the backpedalling from the statement for 5 minutes and find one honest reason to oppose the concept of salvation for all without Christ. I can't find one.

"We want to stay in business" sounds about right.  If you don't believe in their magic I don't really understand why you're so upset about not being invited to their magic party.  If you are concerned about getting invited into Heaven, maybe you ought to join a religion that will invite you.

[Sabby]

Regardless, claiming infallibility in any capacity at all is dishonest in the extreme, it's invocation or lack of is irrelevant.

[meikle]

Regardless, claiming infallibility in any capacity at all is dishonest in the extreme, it's invocation or lack of is irrelevant.

I think you continue not to understand what 'papal infallibility' means.  I'm not going to explain it better; it is on you to actually take the time to understand what you're talking about now.

[Sabby]

Please don't deflect my opposition as simple ignorance. I know what papal infallibility is, and I find it dishonest.

[Kythia]

I don't understand how you can possibly find it "dishonest".  I'm not sure if that was a bad word choice? 

Papal Infallibility is irrelevant to this discussion, in the main.  It doesn't apply to his comments here.  But I don't think that's currently in dispute?  Meikle has explained the steps needed for a statement to be infallible and - pretty obviously - they don't apply here.  But you seem to object in the general case and I can't understand why.  Could you expand please?

[Sabby]

I know infallibility wasn't invoked here, but its been mentioned several times in the thread,  so I commented on the concept >.< I find the wording of PF to be extremely dishonest, and so accepting it at all is dishonest regardless of if you invoke it. That's all. I don't understand the opposition to the comments, I'm meerly pointing out why I think PF is irrelevant to those who brought it up.

[Kythia]

Sorry, Im still not with you.  You "find the wording to be dishonest".  I'm just confused by that "dishonest".  You think papal infallibility is somehow deceptive?  Or...? I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you mean.

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

I just don't see it, sorry Sabby.  Many other adjectives I would have let pass without question, but "dishonest"?  Could you explain what it is you think is dishonest?

[Sabby]

Hmmm, that one is worded completely differently to wikipedia and the two other sources I went to. Same general message though, when he speaks in a certain context, he is 'exempt from the possibility of error'. Now, imagine Barack Obama making the same claim. How does that make you feel?

Probably the same as PF makes me feel.

[Kythia]

Right, I see.  So your objection is that you feel that the Pope/Church must be "lying" when they assert Papal Infallibility because no one is infallible?  Is that right?  I'm anxious not to caricature your argument.

That one, incidentally, was copied and pasted directly from wikipedia. 

[Sabby]

The head for the centre of disease control says that when he makes an official statement regarding quarantines and hygene, he is exempt from the possibility of error.

Are you comfortable with this?

[Kythia]

I think you might be muddling your metaphors a little, to be honest.  The pope is infallible when he "defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church" (from the Pastor Aeternus, quoted above).

What that means is when he says "The Catholic church believes X" then he's infallible.  The catholic church either now believes that or always has believed that, depending on a few factors.  And that's true almost by definition.  In certain circumstances the head of the CDC is exempt from the possibility of error.  If he says "We're putting Adelaide under quarantine" then he's right.  The decision is up to him, he's made it, he is exempt from the possibility of error because he literally cannot possibly be wrong.  Ditto when the Pope says Mary ascended to heaven.  The decision is up to him (well... leaving aside some complications).  He made it.  Error isn't an issue.

[gaggedLouise]

Hmmm, that one is worded completely differently to wikipedia and the two other sources I went to. Same general message though, when he speaks in a certain context, he is 'exempt from the possibility of error'. Now, imagine Barack Obama making the same claim. How does that make you feel?

Probably the same as PF makes me feel.

But the point is that the frame within which a pronouncement by the Pope can partake in infallibility at all is a narrow one. The conditions ("defining a doctrine regarding faith or morals" and stating it as part of the church's heritage, not a rule or a support argument but a doctrine meant to last, or already held as truth by many catholics, e.g. the sinless birth of Mary which was proclaimed a dogma in the mid-19th century but a popular belief long before that point) are rather strict. And the way those limitations are interpreted has probably been restricted even more, in practice, since 1870, when Vatican I took place. I doubt you'd find many Roman catholic priests these days who seriously claimed that if the pope is speaking about the use of contraceptives he is stating a doctrine and thus infallible. There's probably a hundred million practising catholics worldwide (or more) who don't bother about what "the church" says about contraceptives, or even abortions.

It's an interesting statement but I'd say it looks rather clear it wasn't meant as any definite statement of dogma.

[Sabby]

Taking a course of action in the present, and making a claim of past events are not the same thing Kythia. "the church supports X and Y" is a statement with no error, because he made it so directly after, but "Mary existed, at X time, and ascended to Heaven" is NOT a claim you can make with no possibility of error.

[Kythia]

You, errrrr, you seem to be tying yourself in bigger and bigger knots here, Sabby.  Let me try to break down what I see as the flaw in your argument.

Original Sin is a concept within the Catholic church.  The Pope infallibly decreed that Mary didn't have it.  Original sin has no objective existence, it is entirely contained by the church.  So who has it and who doesn't is entirely a matter for the Church.  As Louise says, it had long been (orthodoxly) held that Mary was free from Original Sin, but it wasn't confirmed until the 19th century.  From that point on, it was anathema to believe otherwise.  You might, I do, that's fine.  Neither of us are Catholic. 

However, for Catholics the matter of faith is now settled.  She was without Original Sin.  As such, she ascended directly to heaven.  This all follows by definition.  There is literally nothing controversial there, if you find something so then I suggest its because there's an aspect you haven't understood.

You seem to be claiming by "Mary existed, at X time, and ascended to Heaven is NOT a claim you can make with no possibility of error" that this is a discussion open to, I dunno, eyewitness accounts and checking the guestbook at the pearly gates.  Its not, for the simple reason that there is no proof of the existence of heaven.  Heaven, everything about it and who goes there and doesn't is a matter of faith.  Which the Pope is, in certain circumstances, infallible on.

[gaggedLouise]

Taking a course of action in the present, and making a claim of past events are not the same thing Kythia. "the church supports X and Y" is a statement with no error, because he made it so directly after, but "Mary existed, at X time, and ascended to Heaven" is NOT a claim you can make with no possibility of error.

But saying "X is true" here, as a faith statement, probably doesn't mean "true" in quite the same physical and local sense as "It is true that there are two Ford cars parked outside this house right now", "George W Bush was sworn in as president in January 2001", "It rained last night in Denver" or "This computer runs on Windows XP and has three gigs of RAM". If that was it, you'd have to ask "What or where is Heaven, and Hell. Where exactly is the door to heaven?" and find a down-to-earth, tight, doctrinal answer to those questions. Something like Dante's hell. And that's something most theologians today would be wary of doing, answering those as if Heaven was a defined physical place.


Most believers in any religion don't think of their faith, their erm, creed statements, as stuff that's founded on somebody's observation data and which they would abandon if the observations were faulted. That's not just true of catholicism, it's just as true for Jews, Buddhists or evangelic christians. Regarding it as a series of empirical, "I know this because it was checked" statements about the eternal truths is beside the point. And honestly, if we could go back to 33 AD in a time machine and witness the last weeks of Jesus leading up to the crucifixion, even if we heard about his resurrection, that in itself wouldn't prove that the Christian faith is true in any wider sense.

[Sabby]

...if that's it, then the wording isn't dishonest, its uneccessary and confusing. There's no need for the term infallibility at all. It only serves to add a tone of arrogance.

[gaggedLouise]

...if that's it, then the wording isn't dishonest, its uneccessary and confusing. There's no need for the term infallibility at all. It only serves to add a tone of arrogance.

By the same token, Lincoln's Gettysburg address or Churchill's "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech could be labeled "unnecessary and confusing boasts" too. It's not as if those were watertight empirical statements either.

[Kythia]

By the same token, Lincoln's Gettysburg address or Churchill's "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech could be labeled "unnecessary and confusing boasts" too. It's not as if those were watertight empirical statements either.

Precisely.  What you object to there, Sabby, is the existence of rhetoric. 

[Sabby]

No, I object to someone calling themselves infallible in a context where fallibility is not a concern. That's not simple retoric, that's ridiculous status mongering.

[gaggedLouise]

No, I object to someone calling themselves infallible in a context where fallibility is not a concern. That's not simple retoric, that's ridiculous status mongering.

Infallibility is pretty much another word for supreme authority here, authority on certain issues. It's not as if the pope has ever been entrusted with knowing and deciding on everything in and under the sky as an infallible umpire. When they're saying the papal office - the pope - is infallible on certain things, it's the same kind of statement as "the US Supreme Court has the last word on the constitutionality and legal handling of a U.S. law". Presumably you see the second one as rational and the first one as gibberish, but that's really your view of what makes authoritative judgment. (For the record, I am not RC, so I'm not defending my own faith here).

[Sabby]

When they're saying the papal office - the pope - is inafllible on certain things, it's the same kind of statement as "the US Supreme Court has the last word on the constitutionality and legal handling of a U.S. law".

I'm aware of what it means, and the two are not at all the same. It all goes back to the world infallible. Just remove that, and we have no issue here.

[Kythia]

Mmmm, it seems part of the problem here is you don't know what infallible means:

infallible [ɪnˈfæləbəl]
adj
1. not fallible; not liable to error
2. not liable to failure; certain; sure an infallible cure
3. completely dependable or trustworthy

I've highlighted the relevant definition.

[meikle]

The head for the centre of disease control says that when he makes an official statement regarding quarantines and hygene, he is exempt from the possibility of error.

Are you comfortable with this?

The Church says it, not the Pope.

This is like arguing that it's wrong for the President to invoke his executive power because who does he think he is?  Well, the people who follow the Pope give him his infallibility, he didn't give it to himself.

[Sabby]

Kythia, forgive me if I doubt that was the definition they had in mind.

Meek, no idea what you mean by that.

[Kythia]

Kythia, forgive me if I doubt that was the definition they had in mind.

Well, now you're just making up arguments, Sabby.  That's what the word means.

Meek, no idea what you mean by that.

What meikle meant is that the doctrine of Papal Infallability comes from the Church not the Pope.  He doesn't say he's infallible because he's an ego maniac, he says he's infallible because the organisation that elected him gave him that power.

[gaggedLouise]

What meikle meant is that the doctrine of Papal Infallability comes from the Church not the Pope.  He doesn't say he's infallible because he's an ego maniac, he says he's infallible because the organisation that elected him gave him that power.

Plus it's understood he can really only have that power if he is on good speaking terms with the church, and with the powers above.

Clipping this from a book on Erasmus and his discussions with Luther at the time of the reformation: "At the heart of Erasmus' argument is his assertion that the Holy Ghost would not have permitted His church to wander in error on critical matters of faith for a thousand years" (Luther said that was what had occurred). So according to the catholic church there's a need for a reliable, fully dependable doctrinal instance to decide this kind of thing, and it takes the view that it holds that instance on its own top level, though under God.

[Kythia]

Yeah, absolutely.  Papal infallibility flows naturally from the indefectibility of the church.

[Skynet]

In this case it sounds like the Church disagrees with him, and said that he was wrong on this issue:

Salon Article.

[Kythia]

Once again,

1) Thomas Roscini isn't a Vatican spokesman.
2) He didn't say atheists can go to heaven
3) Of course the church is saying that.

[Randall Flagg]

On the topic of papal infallibility...

If that were truly the case then on what grounds does the church ever have to apologize for actions of previous popes?? I'm thinking specifically of the Inquisition (that was something they apologized for, right?)