Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you could share with us how reason illustrates the existence of God and the Catholic Church (his gift to us, yes?) This may also help sharpen the discussion of perceived truths, which has been a sizable part of the thread.

God’s existence proved through reason: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

Why the Catholic Church is the Church established by God:

youtube.com/watch?v=qAu5VL6mImA

*NB: “Proved” here is used in the philosophical sense, not in an absolute sense.

 

[robsully]

Having lost patience waiting for catholics to reply to my posts I leave with a final thought… If your are going to throw stones at other faiths you should make sure your insurance is paid up on your glass cathedral.

 

[LisaA]

Having lost patience waiting for catholics to reply to my posts I leave with a final thought… If your are going to throw stones at other faiths you should make sure your insurance is paid up on your glass cathedral.

Gosh those darned Catholics…they know and love their faith. It amazes me that non-Catholics and anti-Catholics get on the forum and think they are going to just flip us over with all sorts of wit and wisdom. We have the fullness of Truth and it’s hard to accept less

Lisa

 

[robsully]

Finally a catholic response. My intent is not to flip anyone over. But if you could help me in my quest, please answer my question post #484.

 

[nmgauss]

Finally a catholic response. My intent is not to flip anyone over. But if you could help me in my quest, please answer my question post #484.

I am not a Christian. But I enjoy talking about religion. Here is an excerpt I found interesting:
nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If religions are alive, as Catholicism surely is, they change.

[Denial of change], still widespread, means that examining change in official teaching – or what became known in the 19th century as ‘‘development of doctrine’’ – poses two challenges: first, to establish that alterations – some more than minor – have unquestionably occurred; and second, to show how they can be reconciled with the church’s claim to preach the same essential message Jesus and his disciples did 2,000 years ago, presumably deriving criteria that can help distinguish legitimate evolution in the future from deviations or betrayals.

Among American Catholics, John T. Noonan Jr. is specially situated for this pursuit. He is a distinguished law professor; a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the author of many books on jurisprudence, legal history and ethics, and church law.

In ‘‘A Church That Can and Cannot Change,’’ Noonan drives home the point that some Catholic moral doctrines have changed radically. History, he concludes, does not support the comforting notion that the church simply elaborates on or expands previous teachings without contradicting them.

His exhibit A is slavery. John Paul II included slavery among matters that are ‘‘intrinsically evil’’ – prohibited ‘‘always and forever’’ and ‘‘without any exception’’ – a violation of a universal, immutable norm. Yet slavery in some form was accepted as a fact of life in both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, in much Christian theology and in Catholic teaching well into the 19th century. Noonan says that Christianity achieved a radical transvaluation of slavery. Jesus presented himself as a slave; slaves became saints; slavery became a metaphor and model for Christian life. Yet neither Jesus nor his followers directly challenged the institution of slavery. The fathers of the church accepted the buying, selling and owning of human beings. So did the popes: Muslim slaves were manning papal galleys until 1800. So did religious orders: Jesuits in colonial Maryland owned slaves, as did nuns in Europe and Latin America. Even St. Peter Claver, who in Colombia befriended, instructed and baptized African slaves, bought slaves to serve as interpreters. Theologians challenged abuses of slaveholding but rarely the practice itself. It was at the urging of Protestant Britain that the papacy condemned the slave trade in 1839. In 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished slavery, the Vatican finally condemned it – with a kind of historical rewriting and self-congratulation that palpably offends Noonan’s sense of honesty.

Noonan’s other exhibits deal with usury, religious freedom and marriage. Lending money for interest, long condemned as usury, became accepted as lawful. In certain cases, modern popes have claimed the power to dissolve marriages once considered indissoluble. And instead of insisting on government’s imposing legal penalties, including death, to uphold religious truth, today the church positively forbids it.

 

[LisaA]

Finally a catholic response. My intent is not to flip anyone over. But if you could help me in my quest, please answer my question post #484.

Perhaps not but many come onto CAF with grim determination to show us the error of our ways They fail.

As to changes, there are certain changes in practice such as whether you fast an hour before Mass or longer that sort of thing. The basic truths are still the truth. Look at the Creed which dates way back and was carefully developed to be consistent with both Christ’s teaching and what was learned after his death and resurrection.

What I greatly appreciate about Catholicism is the strength underlying the Catechism, the pure and beautiful logic that cannot be attacked as inconsistent.

FWIW I was raised a heathen and then became a Unitarian, moved up a bit to Methodism and finally came Home to the Church in 2005. What I thought was totally lacking in Protestant and the UU denominations’ teaching was an essential logic and development of argument. I see the Church as creating an incredible fortress of wisdom and thought. Whereas so many other denominations are based on relativism or who voted which way in a particular year (Methodists), the Church doesn’t change the essential teaching nor does it ignore the biological, sociological or historical truths as do so many others.

I will perhaps create some ire from the UU’s but I do not think it’s a church as this is generally defined. In fact as a CPA I studied the criteria for 501c3 status as a church and it seemed like the UU church failed in virtually all respects. It seemed like a social activist group of well educated, if not serenely smug individuals, who were proud of their LACK of belief systems, creeds or structure. I suspect were the UU’s to go in cold and try to be designated by the IRS as a church today, they would never qualify under the rules.

Well that went beyond answering the post but just weighing in after reading several pages of responses.

Lisa

 

[Tomdstone]

The basic truths are still the truth. Look at the Creed which dates way back and was carefully developed to be consistent with both Christ’s teaching and what was learned after his death and resurrection.

The original Nicene creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That was changed in the Roman Catholic Church, but not in the Eastern Orthodox Church so that according to the RC creed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

 

[PRmerger]

The original Nicene creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That was changed in the Roman Catholic Church, but not in the Eastern Orthodox Church so that according to the RC creed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

It would be a change in doctrine, Tomdstone, if the Church now said: the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Father.

 

[mafh]

Well, yes and no.

Truth will never be determined by a consensus.

But you are correct insofar as that science does depend upon evidence that must be gathered in order to form an opinion.

But whether science had discovered that the world revolved around the sun, or it still proclaimed a geocentric universe, did not change the fact that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun.

Well, it’s the most reliable way of uncovering material truths.

But it’s pretty obvious that there’s a world of possibilities that are extraneous to material truths.

Nor can philosophical truths be discovered through science.

Have you found a better way than using fides et ratio?

I think we agree, regarding scientific truths and also regarding the fact that there are more than just scientific truths. So, I’m going to move on from that point, if that is ok with you. (Don’t want to derail the thread any more than perhaps I already have done! )

Now, regarding “fides et ratio”: First. I assume that this translates to “faith and reason” (Note to Catholics: Don’t assume that non-Catholics are fluent in Latin – it’s best to just translate such phrases into English.) I’ll assume that translation is correct for the rest of this post, but of course if it is incorrect, then you can pretty much disregard this reply.

Regarding faith: I conjecture that this is very much an idea unique to Catholicism and Islam and their various off-shoots and derivatives (Protestantism, Mormonism, etc). I don’t know that faith really has any meaning for most other religions. The concept ‘faith’ makes various assumptions: One is that it is important that you actually believe in a religious truth – a deity may not care whether or not you believe in it or not, or such faith may have no other practical purpose. A deity may not even be conscious so that such caring is even within the scope of its abilities. It also presupposes that ‘faith’ is a reliable means of uncovering truths, and I think it is well-demonstrated that ‘faith’ can be misplaced – surely you agree, as a Catholic. After all, from your perspective, anyone that has faith in Islam, United Methodism, or Mormonism has a misplaced faith. To the questioning non-religious type, ‘faith’ seems a very unreliable concept. It seems arbitrary.

Regarding reason: Yes, I agree that reason (including formal logic) is a legitimate way to uncover non-scientific truths.

 

[mafh]

My guess is that some religious or ethical “truths” are more flexible than mathematical truths. One way to see this is to take a look at the acceptance of the mathematical truth that 1+1 = 2. This is universally accepted across all cultures and religions and all time spans. However, some Catholics accept Limbo, while others do not. So when you consider the “truth” about Limbo, you are up in the air and don’t have any way to decide yes or no. This is quite different from the situation of mathematical truth. Once it has been proven, it is universally accepted. For another example, take the case of the Pythagorean theorem in two dimensional Euclidean space. No one denies it. No one doubts it as being true.

Just to elaborate on what Tomdstone says above: Catholics accept as legitimate the argument from authority (though this is limited to a few authorities). (Note that this is not accepted as a legitimate argument strategy in, say, secular academic logic.) Here are a partial list of authorities that are considered legitimate authorities: Jesus (though we have no writings of his own), the fours apostles (Mathew/Mark/Luke/John), the first head of the church (Paul), and the fathers and doctors of the church (at least when they are talking about matters of faith, theology, and morals). Other authorities include the pope (particularly when he is speaking in a context in which he is considered infallible), and the magisterium (especially when they have a broad consensus). Each authority (except for Jesus, who I think is considered implicitly infallible) can be individually fallible, but the authority is taken from the totality of opinion, with an eye to the maintenance of historical continuity in theology and moral opinion. Catholic doctrine is derived from this authority, and doctrinal truths are what these authorities (both living and historical) say that they are.

Now, for something like limbo, this is an area in which the body of authorities have disagreed. In other words, there is legitimate theological dispute on this issue. There is no history of a decisive opinion among the authorities, and there are arguments for both sides based on other things these authorities have determined. So, it is an area where there is disagreement among Catholics. Of course, there are many other areas of Catholic theology that Catholics consider to be indisputable truths (these are things like the trinity, the immaculate conception, etc). Issues like limbo are a matter of religious opinion among Catholics, not a religious truth.

One interesting consequence of the Catholic concept of authority is that once a truth has been declared, it can never be changed in Catholic theology. This is something that took me, as an outsider, a long time to understand. So, for example, once it was established as a religious truth that, say, women cannot be priests, Catholicism is bound to this in perpetuity. There is no reversal possible, because that would not maintain the historical continuity of Catholic ‘truths’, and the whole argument from authority would come crashing down.

Anyway, this is my limited understanding of how theological truths are obtained in the Catholic church.

 

[mafh]

You might have answered this already, so please tell me if so.

Do you identify as a religious person? If so, what makes you identify with that label over the label of secular humanist?

What does the UU community provide for you that other venues like secular humanist, artistic, social justice, agnostic/atheist communities don’t provide? Is it the culture or the blend of these values or is there something religious/spiritual specific to the UU community that you can’t get elsewhere?

I’ll try to answer your question, but keep in mind that I’m not really an active UU, but just someone who was a semi-active UU for about six months or so, a few years ago.

UUs do have an actual service that is somewhat similar to a protestant service. It includes: the lighting of a chalice, readings (usually poetry, philosophical writings, essays, etc), hymn singing (there is an official UU book of hymns, which looks very similar to a traditional Protestant hymn book), either a sermon or a lecture of some kind, and meditative reflections or moments for prayer. There are also some rituals – I think there is one called flower communion or something, though I never witnessed it. Basically, everyone brings a flower to the service and puts it in a basket. Then, when you leave, you take a different flower out of the basket than the one you brought. I don’t remember what it is supposed to mean, or whether it means anything. But, UU meetings have more of the character of a religious service than you would find in those other communities you mention.

 

[LisaA]

To add to a previous post, I think that the UU “church” would have difficulty qualifying as a church for the IRS were they to apply today. I’m not saying this to demean the UU’s but to point out my question…why call it a church since there is really nothing religious going on? As I said, my atheist parents were very comfortable in a Unitarian church. We never heard about Jesus other than as “a great teacher…” or God for that matter. As an adult, before converting (LONG BEFORE) I would occasionally attend a UU service with my mother. It just seemed like a bunch of nice people engaged in some sort of intellectual discussion. Yes there were songs and rituals but again, no talk of God or Christ or Allah for that matter.

The rules below were developed to prevent people from creating a “church” in their basement in order to get tax benefits. But when I studied this for a non-profit class I was attending, I was surprised to see how few of these characteristics were exhibited by UU’s among other sort of New Agey type churches:

IRS Definition of a Church
14 Points of Criteria

A distinct legal existence.
A Recognized creed and form of worship.
A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government.
A formal code of doctrine and discipline.
A distinct religious history.
A membership not associated with any other church of denomination.
An organization of ordained ministers.
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study.
A literature of its own.
Established places of worship.
Regular congregations.
Regular religious services.
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young.
Schools for the preparation of its ministers.
**The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics,together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purpose.

So since the thread is as a UU…is this a church and if so what makes you think it is?

Lisa

 

[mafh]

It seemed like a social activist group of well educated, if not serenely smug individuals, who were proud of their LACK of belief systems, creeds or structure.

I think there is a fair amount of truth to this, and this certainly does reflect a significant fraction of UU members. But, there are other elements to UU congregations. One phenomenon that I noticed was that people who were members of a religion that was rarely practiced in their community might join a UU congregation in order to have a place to express their religious faith. So, for example, the only two Hindus or Buddhists in town might join a UU church due to having no other place to go. Or, a wiccan who craved a more formal religious experience might join a UU church instead of practicing in a coven or in a solitary way. Or, an atheist who was brought up protestant and who missed the whole Methodist hymn-singing experience might join a UU church (this was me, boy do I love hymns). My local UU seemed to have a lot of Buddhists – they even had an officially-sponsored church meeting twice a week.

 

[mafh]

Here’s my take:

IRS Definition of a Church
14 Points of Criteria

A distinct legal existence. -** Yes**
A Recognized creed and form of worship - Yes
A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government - Not sure
A formal code of doctrine and discipline -** I don’t think so**
A distinct religious history - Yes, if you count the Unitarian and Universalist roots
A membership not associated with any other church of denomination - Not sure
An organization of ordained ministers -** I don’t know if they are organized**
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study - Yes, I believe they require some sort of divinity degree
A literature of its own. - Yes, see the UU bookstore
Established places of worship. - Yes, they definitely have churches
Regular congregations. - Yes
Regular religious services. - Yes
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young. - Yes
Schools for the preparation of its ministers. - No, I think they accept degrees accredited by public schools and/or other religious faiths

 

[LisaA]

Here’s my take:

Tried to clip your answers but it didn’t work…

Anyway you got most of the same ones I did except the references to religious services. What makes a Unitarian service “religious” other than the building in which it occurs has traditionally been called a church? “Religion” education? Again what religion are they teaching them? I remember UU Sunday School and it was basically “nature lovers” and crafts. No Bibles, not God, no Jesus.

The UU bookstore probably doesn’t qualify as religious literature because the authors come from all walks of life, all perspectives. I think of Alfred North Whitehead (unreadable…) as one of the few who was often featured or James Luther Adams. But these books are COMMENTARY, not the original basis for the faith tradition. I think we distinguish this from the Bible or Koran for example. Trying not to split hairs but just my interpretation.

I do not think they have a creed…maybe some basic tenants…we believe that we can’t tell anyone what to believe…but not like the Apostle’s Creed which in some form is used by not only the Catholic Church but many mainline Protestant churches.

Definitely agree with your previous post that the UU church is a good ‘hangout’ for those without a home so to speak. Many practice other religions or traditions. I recall quite a few Buddhists at the congregation where my mom attended. I think the point is that we crave ritual. It seems like something within our souls…written on our hearts perhaps!

Again not trying to demean the UUs but just trying to figure out why they consider it a religion rather than a philosophy or guide for living.

Lisa

 

[mafh]

There is no reversal possible, because that would not maintain the historical continuity of Catholic ‘truths’, and the whole argument from authority would come crashing down.

I just realized that I put truth in scare quotes in this sentence and this could be offensive. So, my apologies, and please consider it to be truth without the scare quotes. Totally non-scary truths.

 

[mafh]

Tried to clip your answers but it didn’t work…

Anyway you got most of the same ones I did except the references to religious services. What makes a Unitarian service “religious” other than the building in which it occurs has traditionally been called a church? “Religion” education? Again what religion are they teaching them? I remember UU Sunday School and it was basically “nature lovers” and crafts. No Bibles, not God, no Jesus.

The UU bookstore probably doesn’t qualify as religious literature because the authors come from all walks of life, all perspectives. I think of Alfred North Whitehead (unreadable…) as one of the few who was often featured or James Luther Adams. But these books are COMMENTARY, not the original basis for the faith tradition. I think we distinguish this from the Bible or Koran for example. Trying not to split hairs but just my interpretation.

I do not think they have a creed…maybe some basic tenants…we believe that we can’t tell anyone what to believe…but not like the Apostle’s Creed which in some form is used by not only the Catholic Church but many mainline Protestant churches.

Definitely agree with your previous post that the UU church is a good ‘hangout’ for those without a home so to speak. Many practice other religions or traditions. I recall quite a few Buddhists at the congregation where my mom attended. I think the point is that we crave ritual. It seems like something within our souls…written on our hearts perhaps!

Again not trying to demean the UUs but just trying to figure out why they consider it a religion rather than a philosophy or guide for living.

Lisa

No problem. I shouldn’t have put my answers inline. So, my bad. I agree that it depends on how broadly they define the word, ‘religious’, which you as a CPA probably know much better than I do. =) Also, I did have the same thought as you about the UU bookstore (that it is mostly derivative viewpoints taken from other religions), but I thought on balance, the UU bookstore probably satisfied this criteria. After all, how much originality is there in most protestant literature? Most of it is derivative from Catholic literature, ultimately.

 

[LisaA]

No problem. I shouldn’t have put my answers inline. So, my bad. I agree that it depends on how broadly they define the word, ‘religious’, which you as a CPA probably know much better than I do. =) Also, I did have the same thought as you about the UU bookstore (that it is mostly derivative viewpoints taken from other religions), but I thought on balance, the UU bookstore probably satisfied this criteria. After all, how much originality is there in most protestant literature? Most of it is derivative from Catholic literature, ultimately.

I think the reference to literature is the original sources…maybe I’m wrong but thought it was a reference to the Bible, Torah or Koran with everything in literature for that faith in the context of the original written word providing the basis for that faith. If you think about it, the three main religions are often called People of the Book. But maybe I’m not interpreting this correctly.

Not much reference to the Bible/Torah in a UU bookstore

Lisa

 

[mafh]

“Religion” education? Again what religion are they teaching them? I remember UU Sunday School and it was basically “nature lovers” and crafts. No Bibles, not God, no Jesus.

You know, I think you may be right about this. Upon reflection, that appears to be all my local UU does for their Sunday School as well. I had just assumed that they didn’t have a good program and other congregations had actual instruction (in comparative religious study, I assumed). But, if this is widespread, then Sunday School may be such in name only, which might push this criteria into the ‘No’ column.

 

[LisaA]

You know, I think you may be right about this. Upon reflection, that appears to be all my local UU does for their Sunday School as well. I had just assumed that they didn’t have a good program and other congregations had actual instruction (in comparative religious study, I assumed). But, if this is widespread, then Sunday School may be such in name only, which might push this criteria into the ‘No’ column.

I think in comparison to Sunday Schools I attended with friends as a child and what I see at our Religious Education (Catholic name) They tell Bible stories, Catholics of course also speak of Saints, the Blessed Mother and other elements of Catholic doctrine. Age appropriate of course. Kids might do crafts such as a cut out of the Ark and animals that they place in the paper Ark as the story is told. There’s really no specific doctrine at the UU services or at the Sunday school that I recall.

Kind of a joke told by an Episcopal priest, when distinguishing between the many Protestant denominations (a new one every day ) she said “UCC? Oh yes that’s Unitarians Considering Christ!” FWIW some Episcopalians are pretty much on the furry edges of skepticism about Christ but I thought that was kind of amusing…someone also called the liberal churches “Mattresses for skeptical Christians…” IOW a soft landing, just in case!

Lisa