5 ms·

What? Are you serious?

by pavs 16y ago

patio11 16y ago
I'm confused as to the reaction to this post. Someone made an offhanded remark about something they think that Catholics do: condemning people to hell. We don't do that. It is important that we don't do that, both internally (salvation is kind of a hot topic in theology) and externally (i.e. anyone with the understanding that Catholics are routinely saying "X is going to hell" is likely to have a poor opinion of us, based off of misinformed prejudice). So I tried replying with the thumbnail sketch of what the Church actually teaches regarding this.
- mbateman 16y ago
  Is this a modern thing? Pope Pius IX is famous for anathematizing people who advocated the freedom of religious worship.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    Anathematizing a person isn't the same thing as condemning a person to hell. Rather it is a form of excommunication (prohibition from receiving communion). The ultimate fate of the person in question is understood to be in God's hands.
    - mbateman 16y ago
      To answer my own question, yes, it's a modern thing. Here's the original ritual of anathematizing: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Looks like this was changed to exclude the hell bit in 1917. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema#Catholic_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema#Catholic_Church
      - joshuacc 16y ago
        That quotation doesn't say exactly what you seem to be suggesting. After all, it specifically includes the hope "that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        mbateman 16y ago
        Hey, I never said Pius condemned anyone to hell for eternity. :)
        joshuacc 16y ago
        Well, in Catholic theology that's the only thing that being condemned to hell can mean. :-) Admittedly, the wording is very confusing for those not familiar with Catholic theology, but this quotation basically means "If X continues on his present course, he is in danger of damnation. We withdraw the Church's spiritual protection in this life in the hope that he will repent and be saved from damnation." Is that helpful at all?
- pavs 16y ago
  Ok, I think I know what happened here. Overwhelming large number of HNers are atheists (according to recent polls), including me. But that alone should not be a reason to downvote a comment about religious beliefs, just because we don't agree with that (or any) religious beliefs. My first impression from reading your comment was that your were portraying your religious beliefs as universal facts. Maybe my initial interpretation and reaction was wrong, but thats how I saw it. After reading your second comment and going back and reading the previous comment again I can see why you got the downvotes for expressing your (catholic) religious views. I think it would have been better if you have said "According to catholic belief" instead of "We". Anyways, nothing personal. As a former very religious Muslim, I can understand where you are coming from.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    In context it seems very clear that he meant "We Catholics."
- akadien 16y ago
  Of course you can't condemn anyone to hell because there is no such thing as hell.
  - iron_ball 16y ago
    Spoken like a man who has never made a Javascript webapp work in IE6.
- Dove 16y ago
  There is a certain crowd of atheists that believe religion--any religion--is not merely incorrect but is actually transparently irrational. Notionally, that if a religious person would just take an afternoon and think carefully over what he knows, he must either (A) become an atheist or (B) be quite intellectually dishonest or (C) not be very smart. It naturally follows that atheists are inherently smarter or at least more honest than religious folks of any stripe. So when someone from this crowd comes across a religious person who is plainly intelligent, who indeed they look up to, who clearly cares and thinks about religious things . . . well, the result is generally some sort of spit-take. I see it once or twice a month at least. I expect some folks are a bit shell-shocked that the great patio11 also claims to be Catholic.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    So bigots are surprised to find out that their ignorance-based beliefs don't always hold? :)
  - cubix 16y ago
    I'm an atheist and think it is transparently irrational, however, not to those afflicted by the more virulent forms of religion from early childhood. I would expect completely freeing oneself from the effects of such an upbringing would take years, if not a lifetime, and come at considerable cost to one's friends and familial relationships. You would have to be callous and remarkably ignorant of human psychology to think it could be overcome in an afternoon of contemplation. I've known many smart but religious people, so I'm not terribly shocked. However, I'm yet to encounter -- and doubtful I ever will -- an intelligent person, raised in a healthy, secure and atheistic home, who as an adult earnestly embraced some established religion like Catholicism.
    - eru 16y ago
      Here's an anecdote: A friend of mine, a girl who studied mathematics with me, got herself christened when she was around 20. Her parents aren't in any church. She grew up in atheist East Germany. It's seems quite rare for adults to change their religion, though.
    - 16y ago

What? Are you serious?

by pavs 16y ago

What? Are you serious?

I'm confused as to the reaction to this post. Someone made an offhanded remark about something they think that Catholics do: condemning people to hell. We don't do that. It is important that we don't do that, both internally (salvation is kind of a hot topic in theology) and externally (i.e. anyone with the understanding that Catholics are routinely saying "X is going to hell" is likely to have a poor opinion of us, based off of misinformed prejudice). So I tried replying with the thumbnail sketch of what the Church actually teaches regarding this.

mbateman 16y ago
Is this a modern thing? Pope Pius IX is famous for anathematizing people who advocated the freedom of religious worship.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  Anathematizing a person isn't the same thing as condemning a person to hell. Rather it is a form of excommunication (prohibition from receiving communion). The ultimate fate of the person in question is understood to be in God's hands.
  - mbateman 16y ago
    To answer my own question, yes, it's a modern thing. Here's the original ritual of anathematizing: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Looks like this was changed to exclude the hell bit in 1917. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema#Catholic_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema#Catholic_Church
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      That quotation doesn't say exactly what you seem to be suggesting. After all, it specifically includes the hope "that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - mbateman 16y ago
        Hey, I never said Pius condemned anyone to hell for eternity. :)
        joshuacc 16y ago
        Well, in Catholic theology that's the only thing that being condemned to hell can mean. :-) Admittedly, the wording is very confusing for those not familiar with Catholic theology, but this quotation basically means "If X continues on his present course, he is in danger of damnation. We withdraw the Church's spiritual protection in this life in the hope that he will repent and be saved from damnation." Is that helpful at all?
pavs 16y ago
Ok, I think I know what happened here. Overwhelming large number of HNers are atheists (according to recent polls), including me. But that alone should not be a reason to downvote a comment about religious beliefs, just because we don't agree with that (or any) religious beliefs. My first impression from reading your comment was that your were portraying your religious beliefs as universal facts. Maybe my initial interpretation and reaction was wrong, but thats how I saw it. After reading your second comment and going back and reading the previous comment again I can see why you got the downvotes for expressing your (catholic) religious views. I think it would have been better if you have said "According to catholic belief" instead of "We". Anyways, nothing personal. As a former very religious Muslim, I can understand where you are coming from.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  In context it seems very clear that he meant "We Catholics."
akadien 16y ago
Of course you can't condemn anyone to hell because there is no such thing as hell.
- iron_ball 16y ago
  Spoken like a man who has never made a Javascript webapp work in IE6.
Dove 16y ago
There is a certain crowd of atheists that believe religion--any religion--is not merely incorrect but is actually transparently irrational. Notionally, that if a religious person would just take an afternoon and think carefully over what he knows, he must either (A) become an atheist or (B) be quite intellectually dishonest or (C) not be very smart. It naturally follows that atheists are inherently smarter or at least more honest than religious folks of any stripe. So when someone from this crowd comes across a religious person who is plainly intelligent, who indeed they look up to, who clearly cares and thinks about religious things . . . well, the result is generally some sort of spit-take. I see it once or twice a month at least. I expect some folks are a bit shell-shocked that the great patio11 also claims to be Catholic.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  So bigots are surprised to find out that their ignorance-based beliefs don't always hold? :)
- cubix 16y ago
  I'm an atheist and think it is transparently irrational, however, not to those afflicted by the more virulent forms of religion from early childhood. I would expect completely freeing oneself from the effects of such an upbringing would take years, if not a lifetime, and come at considerable cost to one's friends and familial relationships. You would have to be callous and remarkably ignorant of human psychology to think it could be overcome in an afternoon of contemplation. I've known many smart but religious people, so I'm not terribly shocked. However, I'm yet to encounter -- and doubtful I ever will -- an intelligent person, raised in a healthy, secure and atheistic home, who as an adult earnestly embraced some established religion like Catholicism.
  - eru 16y ago
    Here's an anecdote: A friend of mine, a girl who studied mathematics with me, got herself christened when she was around 20. Her parents aren't in any church. She grew up in atheist East Germany. It's seems quite rare for adults to change their religion, though.
  - 16y ago