Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Brendan]

Because it is the conjunction that links the motive to the action. eg. Some kings believe they have a divine right to rule and go about torturing their subjects… Or some prison guards believe they are the law and abuse the dignity of prisoners.

It’s a conjuction that links a god complex with the abuse of others which is the inevitable result.

.

The phrase used to describe a subsequent, dependent action, or two interrelated states, would be ‘and so’

As in " some prison guards believe they are the law and so abuse the dignity of prisoners"

The act of abusing the prisoners was related to, or dependent on, their belief that they are above the low.

That was not used by the Pope, simply the logical ‘and’

That would indicates states that are not dependent nor interrelated.

 

[LongingSoul]

.

The phrase used to describe a subsequent, dependent action, would be ‘and so’

As in " some prison guards believe they are the law and so abuse the dignity of prisoners"

That was not used by the Pope, simply the logical ‘and’

You’re grasping at straws. It isn’t necessary to add anything when the link is inevitable. Your reading of the statement is much stranger. Why would the Pope say what you say amounts to “Some Catholics believe in God *and *do evil”. It would be more meaningful for your interpretation if he said 'but do evil". In fact why would it be necessary to include the first part at all because all Catholics believe in God? Why would he not just say “Some Catholics do evil.”?

He’s talking about a flawed belief that leads to doing evil.

 

[Brendan]

You’re grasping at straws.

Sorry, Longing, but not so. I could produce hundreds of examples of statements using ‘and so’ to support my point.

And countless more that show ‘and’ interconnecting two non dependent clauses

1. He believed he was hungry, and so went to the grocery store.
   The second clause is dependent on the first. It shows motivation.
2. He went to the grocery store and to the laundromat.
   Unless he is a particularly messy shopper, going to the laundromat is not a dependent action in regards to going to the grocery store. It does not attempt to show motivation

It isn’t necessary to add anything when the link is inevitable.

If you want to be clear in your statement, if you want to show that there is ‘inevitability’ between the clauses, it is. I highly doubt that the Pope desired to be ambiguous.

Your reading of the statement is much stranger. Why would the Pope say what you say amounts to “Some Catholics believe in God *and *do evil”. It would be more meaningful for your interpretation if he said 'but do evil". In fact why would it be necessary to include the first part at all because all Catholics believe in God? Why would he not just say “Some Catholics do evil.”?

He COULD have done any of those. We are discussing what he CHOSE to do.

He’s talking about a flawed belief that leads to doing evil.

But that is not what his statement says. Are you suggesting that the laity should simply add in their own personal meaning to the statement, outside of what he actually SAID?

 

[graciew]

Christ is the personification of truth.
He objectively is the truth. It exists in him, regardless of how it is expressed or understood.
If the word “absolute” offends sensibilities, perhaps the word “objective” is better suited.

We cannot have a relationship with Christ while denying his objective and absolute “otherness”. He is not us. He becomes one with us, but at the same time God is ultimately “other”. He is subject to no one and no thing.

However, I think these fine distinctions do not resonate in our modern culture, when so many desire to subject truth to their own understanding and expression. What is objective for all people cannot be made subject to the individual. That is simply idolatry.
This might seem like an academic and somewhat moot point, but evil depends on subjectivity to operate. If individuals can subject the objective to themselves, all sorts of evil is justified.

For instance: Is the following statement objectively true:?
“A black person is a full human person created by God.”
I hope all of us would answer, “yes, that is objectively and absolutely true”.
In the past, our culture has subjected this objective truth to other false “truths”, namely that blacks are less than human. If I can subject the objective to my self, my evil is self justified. I become “like god”.

Another current common example of this is the following:
“Is it objectively true that only the union of a man and a woman can create a child?”
Read these fora, and you will see that not even this simple objective observation can generate a consensus.

From the start, Adam and Eve attempted to subject the objective truth to their own persons. AKA “selfishness and pride”.

I understand your distinction between objective and subjective. And also that you are referring to the person of Jesus. And He is the Truth.
When talking about culture and history and evangelization , I have in mind the document of Aparecida. There is much respect for different expressions of faith in catholicism. It is a beautiful document especially for us in the South.

On a side note , I have said already that the Pope was using a colloquial expression. That was my comparison with " no brainer". It is an expression and you require no further analysis ,you just " get" what it means… ,At least that is how it sounded to me. As an expression opposite to a culture of encounter I would say.

 

[Thomas_White]

.

The phrase used to describe a subsequent, dependent action, or two interrelated states, would be ‘and so’

As in " some prison guards believe they are the law and so abuse the dignity of prisoners"

The act of abusing the prisoners was related to, or dependent on, their belief that they are above the low.

That was not used by the Pope, simply the logical ‘and’

That would indicates states that are not dependent nor interrelated.

“We Catholics have some–not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other…”

The absence of a comma after “and” indicates that the sentence is not two independent clauses. There is no subject following “and” in the sentence. The sentence is a single independent clause with the action referring back to the subject “We Catholics”. What follows “and” in the sentence is a phrase that cannot stand alone as a sentence. It is not an independent clause.

 

[Brendan]

“We Catholics have some–not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other…”

The absence of a comma after “and” indicates that the sentence is not two independent clauses. There is no subject following “and” in the sentence. The sentence is a single independent clause with the action referring back to the subject “We Catholics”. What follows “and” in the sentence is a phrase that cannot stand alone as a sentence. It is not an independent clause.

Logical clauses do not use commas

Look at my rephrase again

Thievery is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who eat in restaurants and leave without paying the bill

Would you claim that such a statement is an accusation of people who eat in restaurants. Who would the target of an accusation of thievery

Would the act of eating in a restaurant alone be sufficient?

And it is an independent clause, the rule of thumb for those are to look at it as a stand alone clause, and see if it makes sense as a standalone sentence.

go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil

That is a valid sentence; thus an independent clause. By itself it would be an imperative. In the Pope’s statement, that would be a verb first clause which would adopt the subject ‘who’.

Note that the Pope identifying a particular group of persons, the subject who

who (believe they possess the absolute truth) and (go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation), and (doing evil)

 

[LongingSoul]

He’s talking about a flawed belief that leads to doing evil.

Ironically that is what you are doing. The Pope is talking about fundamentalism causing an action. Fundamentalism is a flawed belief. It isn’t the action itself. The belief that he offered to explain it was “those who believe they possess absolute truth”. That leads to evil deeds.

Catholics of all sorts are known to do evil for all manner of reasons. They all aren’t covered by the description of ‘fundamentalism’. Fundamentalism is a specific belief making them feel superior, divinely entitled, heartless, judgemental and ‘violent’ either verbally or physically to those who think differently. His statement was a description specifically of fundamentalism… not just a description of evil doing. That’s why it needs to be taken as a connected whole.

 

[Thomas_White]

Logical clauses do not use commas

Look at my rephrase again

Would you claim that such a statement is an accusation of people who eat in restaurants. Who would the target of an accusation of thievery

Would the act of eating in a restaurant alone be sufficient?

And it is an independent clause, the rule of thumb for those are to look at it as a stand alone clause, and see if it makes sense as a standalone sentence.

That is a valid sentence; thus an independent clause. By itself it would be an imperative. In the Pope’s statement, that would be a verb first clause which would adopt the subject ‘who’.

Note that the Pope identifying a particular group of persons, the subject who

Unfortunately, the sentence in question does not copy. It was as follows:

“Thievery is a sickness that is in all religions, said the Pontiff. We Catholics have some, not some, many–who eat in restautants and leave without paying the bill.”

I agree this is grasping at straws. The sentence “We Catholics have some–not some, many–who eat in restaurants and leave without paying the bill” is entirely comprehensible, and I do not think the meaning is that those who leave a restaurant without paying the bill do so with a charitable intent. The sentence clearly refers to the first sentence of the quote, which refers to thievery. The sentence speaks for itself. And so does the first sentence from the quotation by Pope Francis, which refers to fundamentalism.

 

[Brendan]

Ironically that is what you are doing.

I am simply taking the Pope’s statement as it was stated, no more, no less.

The Pope is talking about fundamentalism causing an action. Fundamentalism is a flawed belief. It isn’t the action itself. The belief that he offered to explain it was “those who believe they possess absolute truth”. That leads to evil deeds.

That statement would apply to every Thomisitic theologian who has ever lived, including the whole Dominican Order. They, like Aquinas, claim that every revealed truth is an absolute truth. Is it your position then, that the Pope was criticizing a whole Order as being fundamentalist, and thus evil?

Catholics of all sorts are known to do evil for all manner of reasons. They all aren’t covered by the description of ‘fundamentalism’. Fundamentalism is a specific belief making them feel superior, divinely entitled, heartless, judgemental and ‘violent’ either verbally or physically to those who think differently. His statement was a description specifically of fundamentalism… not just a description of evil doing. That’s why it needs to be taken as a connected whole.

yes, and it was described using two distinct logical clauses; belief in absolute truth and causing claumity"

Thus, per the Pope’s statement, not every person who believes in absolute truth would be a Fundamentalist, nor everyone who commits calumny would be a Fundamentalist. . But both together are what the Pope considers a Fundamentalist to be: a person who not only believes in absolute truth, and then commits calumny…etc…

 

[LongingSoul]

I am simply taking the Pope’s statement as it was stated, no more, no less.

No you constantly change the quote to mean what you want it to mean. I’ll demonstrate below.

The Pope is talking about fundamentalism causing an action. Fundamentalism is a flawed belief

. It isn’t the action itself. The belief that he offered to explain it was “those who believe they possess absolute truth”. That leads to evil deeds.

That statement would apply to every Thomisitic theologian who has ever lived, including the whole Dominican Order. They, like Aquinas, claim that every revealed truth is an absolute truth. Is it your position then, that the Pope was criticizing a whole Order as being fundamentalist, and thus evil?

You’ll have to give me examples of Thomists belief in ‘possessing’ absolute truth. Belief in something is not the same as owning it. Owning implies certain rights of possession. Something that can’t belong to others.

yes, and it was described using two distinct logical clauses; belief in absolute truth and causing claumity"

Thus, per the Pope’s statement, not every person who believes in absolute truth would be a Fundamentalist, nor everyone who commits calumny would be a Fundamentalist. . But both together are what the Pope considers a Fundamentalist to be: a person who not only believes in absolute truth, and then commits calumny…etc…

As I said earlier here is a demonstration of you changing the Popes words. He didn’t say ‘belief in absolute truth’. He said belief in possessing absolute truth. That is two very different meanings.

 

[LongingSoul]

As I said earlier here is a demonstration of you changing the Popes words. He didn’t say ‘belief in absolute truth’. He said belief in possessing absolute truth. That is two very different meanings.

Pope Francis explained that phenomenon of fundamentalism in a September 13 radio interview…

“Our God is a God who is close, who accompanies. Fundamentalists keep God away from accompanying his people, they divert their minds from him and transform him into an ideology. So in the name of this ideological god, they kill, they attack, destroy, slander. Practically speaking, they transform that God into a Baal, an idol,”

 

[Brendan]

You’ll have to give me examples of Thomists belief in ‘possessing’ absolute truth. Belief in something is not the same as owning it. Owning implies certain rights of possession. Something that can’t belong to others.

Truth is a state of the intellect. Multiple intellects may possess a truth.

To possess the truth is not the same thing as to be the object of the truth.

I would even claim that all knowable absolute truths should be possessed by everyone.

Sadly, this is not the case.

 

[Thomas_White]

Truth is a state of the intellect. Multiple intellects may possess a truth.

To possess the truth is not the same thing as to be the object of the truth.

I would even claim that all knowable absolute truths should be possessed by everyone.

Sadly, this is not the case.

Truth is a state of the intellect. Multiple intellects may possess a truth.

To possess the truth is not the same thing as to be the object of the truth.

I would even claim that all knowable absolute truths should be possessed by everyone.

Sadly, this is not the case.

Do you think “absolute truth” is revealed or can it be known by reason alone (a priori)?

 

[Thomas_White]

Truth is a state of the intellect. Multiple intellects may possess a truth.

To possess the truth is not the same thing as to be the object of the truth.

I would even claim that all knowable absolute truths should be possessed by everyone.

Sadly, this is not the case.

Do you think “absolute truth” is revealed truth or can it be known by reason alone (a priori)?

 

[Brendan]

Do you think “absolute truth” is revealed truth or can it be known by reason alone (a priori)?

In the Thomisic sense, it would be revealed truth alone, as it is non-contingent.

In the philosophical sense ( which I think is what we are discussing here), a truth that is universally valid, then truths determined a priori would be possible.

 

[LongingSoul]

Truth is a state of the intellect. Multiple intellects may possess a truth.

To possess the truth is not the same thing as to be the object of the truth.

I would even claim that all knowable absolute truths should be possessed by everyone.

Sadly, this is not the case.

I found this to be a good answer since you like Aquinas a lot. Funnily enough, the only thing I found interesting during my semester of Philosophy was a lesson on phenomenology. I was surprised to see seeds of the same principles here in Summa Theologica just now.

To the objection …

Objection 3. There are no phantasms of incorporeal things: for the imagination does not transcend time and space. If, therefore, our intellect cannot understand anything actually without turning to the phantasms, it follows that it cannot understand anything incorporeal. Which is clearly false: for we understand truth, and God, and the angels.

he responds…

Reply to Objection 3. Incorporeal things, of which there are no phantasms, are known to us by comparison with sensible bodies of which there are phantasms. Thus we understand truth by considering a thing of which we possess the truth; and God, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), we know as cause, by way of excess and by way of remotion. Other incorporeal substances we know, in the present state of life, only by way of remotion or by some comparison to corporeal things. And, therefore, when we understand something about these things, we need to turn to phantasms of bodies, although there are no phantasms of the things themselves.

So we can possess the truth of corporeal things as you seem to be meaning such as having absolute certainty that 1+1=2, but incorporeal truths can only be grasped by ‘remotion’.

 

[Thomas_White]

In the Thomisic sense, it would be revealed truth alone, as it is non-contingent.

In the philosophical sense ( which I think is what we are discussing here), a truth that is universally valid, then truths determined a priori would be possible.

No, the sense here is the revealed truth as the “absolute truth” that is otherwise beyond the comprehension of human understanding, as you provided in your comment #542:

Which is why Aquinas considered every truth revealed by God to be an absolute truth.

ST I, Q16, a1

Now, do you suppose the revealed truth was immediately understood, and would ever after be immediately understood, by each and every human being to whom it was revealed until the end of time?

Is it not the dogma of the Church that the understanding of Apostolic preaching (revelation) grows and advances in understanding through the centuries until the end of time?

Much as a child does not fully comprehend the “absolute truth” but whose understanding can in time advance toward it, so it is with mankind. It has been mentioned in an earlier comment that it would be helpful here to recall the concept of the limit in differential calculus.

 

[Brendan]

I found this to be a good answer since you like Aquinas a lot. Funnily enough, the only thing I found interesting during my semester of Philosophy was a lesson on phenomenology. I was surprised to see seeds of the same principles here in Summa Theologica just now.

To the objection …

Objection 3. There are no phantasms of incorporeal things: for the imagination does not transcend time and space. If, therefore, our intellect cannot understand anything actually without turning to the phantasms, it follows that it cannot understand anything incorporeal. Which is clearly false: for we understand truth, and God, and the angels.

he responds…

Reply to Objection 3. Incorporeal things, of which there are no phantasms, are known to us by comparison with sensible bodies of which there are phantasms. Thus we understand truth by considering a thing of which we possess the truth; and God, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), we know as cause, by way of excess and by way of remotion. Other incorporeal substances we know, in the present state of life, only by way of remotion or by some comparison to corporeal things. And, therefore, when we understand something about these things, we need to turn to phantasms of bodies, although there are no phantasms of the things themselves.

So we can possess the truth of corporeal things as you seem to be meaning such as having absolute certainty that 1+1=2, but incorporeal truths can only be grasped by ‘remotion’.

All truths, by definition are incorporeal. even those in the Mind of God.

What Aquinas refers to a phantasms are what we call images. A great example is the Holy Spirit. We have images of the Spirit as a Dove and as a tongue of flame. That is how our mind envisions the object, the Holy Spirit.

The truth of an object is a property of the Object, not actually the object itself. So while we might use the phantasm of a dove ( a corporeal object) to remote to the object of the Holy Spirit, that does not impede us from knowing truths about the Holy Spirit.

 

[Brendan]

No, the sense here is the revealed truth as the “absolute truth” that is otherwise beyond the comprehension of human understanding, as you provided in your comment #542:

Yes, that was what I was responding to.

In additionI reviewed post 542, I didn’t claim that any revealed truth was “beyond the comprehension of human understanding”. Are you referring to the definition that I provided about what a Mystery is, in that it is a truth that could not be determined by Reason alone, but had to be revealed?

Now, do you suppose the revealed truth was immediately understood, and would ever after be immediately understood, by each and every human being to whom it was revealed until the end of time?

Yes. There are those who would reject it as being truth at all, like JW’s do for the Trinity

Is it not the dogma of the Church that the understanding of Apostolic preaching (revelation) grows and advances in understanding through the centuries until the end of time?

Yes, and by which new truths will be uncovered.

A example would be the Eucharist. It is a revealed truth. There was not means by which the Apostles could be able to determine by Reason alone, that the bread had become the Body of Christ, yet still appears to be bread. It had to be revealed to them. That is a revealed, absolute truth.

But from that Truth, we can determine other truths, such as the doctrine of concomitance.

From the revelation of Christ that what was once bread was now His Body, the Church, through Reason was able to determine that the Eucharist consisted of the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

That was, of course, a further understanding of the revealed truth,

The revelation itself is unchanged, what was bread is now the Body of Christ under the appearance of bread, but from that, a new truth is derived, that the Blood, Soul and Divinity are present as well.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, that was what I was responding to.

In additionI reviewed post 542, I didn’t claim that any revealed truth was “beyond the comprehension of human understanding”. Are you referring to the definition that I provided about what a Mystery is, in that it is a truth that could not be determined by Reason alone, but had to be revealed?

See comment #449: “Unaided by divine revelation, the human mind could not know the existence of the Blessed Trinity because it is a supernatural mystery.” Revealed truths are truths that could not be known were they not revealed. The dogmatic constitution on divine relation teaches that the understanding of Apostolic preaching (i.e., revelation) will continuously advance through the centuries until the end of time and its full revelation. It is also the teaching that revelation as handed down is complete and not that “new truths” will be revealed (Dei Verbum, 8). Do you believe the Mysteries of Faith can be revealed by deductive reason?

The teaching is that it is the understanding of revealed truth that will continuously advance. The error of fundamentalists is that they believe they already possess the full revelation (i.e., “absolute truth”) of the Mysteries of Faith. It appears their belief is that literal words of limited human understanding and language, in and of themselves, completely reveal the mysteries of faith. I believe it is this perspective of which Pope Francis was critical in his remarks concerning fundamentalism.