VATICAN CITY (April 20) – Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were “serious” grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven. Theologians said the move was highly significant – both for what it says about Benedict’s willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church’s views on heaven, hell and original sin – the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with. Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,” said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. “Baptism does not exist to wipe away the “stain” of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church,” he said in an e-mailed response. Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of “pressing” pastoral needs – primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/catholic-church-reverses-teaching-on/20070420203609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001In other words, this is the infallible truth, unless lots of people don’t like it. Then the truth will change to a more popular infallible truth, and will take effect retroactively.I mean, really. How can people look at this and actually believe it to be true?
Apple_Christmas,
A: If you had read much of the babble you would realize it can be used to support any position. So there is little point in reading it.
1 (counting starts with zero of course): There are several here that have spent much time reading the babble, some have more knowledge of the babble than most christians do.
Thirdly: I for one have spent much time being respectful to christians and not pointing out the problems with their fantasy. That has given them a perception that I don’t exist and they have chosen to disrespect my position, which I may add is supported by evidence.
Lastly (for now): The christians are the ones that started the current attack on our public institutions, they are the ones that put their disgusting phrase on the money that I am obliged to use. They are the ones that pushed an idiot into the highest public office. They are the ones that haven’t the guts to remove him.
So don’t expect me to be nice and forgive the failings of christianity. They don’t deserve my respect at this time.*
*with the exception of spanders, of course.
I disagree. All that is necessary to know is that xianity holds in the reality of one or more supernatural gods. If they cannot validate this as a reasonable claim then the remaining biblical contents that do not address this claim are essentially irrelevant.
I for one am always disappointed when I let a theist engage me in a debate about the veracity of the contents of their holy book. It’s easy to drag me into this sphere because I can see soooooo many holes in the sacred writings. But after experiencing their typically willful refusal to see things as they are (or rather as I see them), I start to wonder why I even bothered. The essential point is that holding a belief in supernatural gods is an unreasonable and unjustified position, regardless of what a holy book does or does not say.
I want to point out a couple things here.
First, stop it with the conspiracy theories. You’re giving phreedm a big head and that just means he’ll be more obnoxious when he gets done with his sabbatical. The best way to make something go away is to ignore it, unless you’re talking about illnesses and such. Then you have to see the doctor and make sure you put the ointment on everyday. Phreedm, I’m talking about you there.
Second, I really don’t see the point in arguing with a christian about the existence of god by using the bible. Sure it’s their “holy” book and they live their lives by it and refer to it all the time, but to me it’s just a work of fiction, a really bad work of fiction. I really don’t know why it sold so many copies. Then again, the Davinci Code sold a lot of copies and it was poorly written. In any case, arguing with a christian about the existence of god by using the bible is the same as arguing with a christian about the existence of god by using The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series. You may both have read it, maybe you even liked it, or maybe you thought it sucked, but it’s still just a work of fiction and not a source to cite whenever arguing the existence of god.
Third (I know I only said two things, but I thought of another), Anne Marie, I am very happy. I don’t find myself bitter, only slightly saddened by the state of the world and the people in it. That doesn’t mean that sadness interferes with my life in any way, except that perhaps I live a more full and rich life because of it. Sure, I may be really sarcastic and seem cynical, but in honesty, I’m incredibly optimistic. I have great hope for the world, great hope that things can change and will get better. I have so much hope I’ve even decided to dedicate my life to seeing that it does get better, in whatever small way I can. If you are finding that people on this blog seem “unhappy,” just remember that the topics being discussed are very sensitive ones that people here feel passionately about. Having someone talk against something you feel passionate about usually makes a person pretty angry.
Pope Benedickhead tried to make the difference the difference between a theological “hypothesis” and established church doctrine.
What is the difference. The first 39 popes or so were married or had mistresses. Then all of a sudden it became theologically illegal for popes to have wives.
So, is the celibacy of priests and popes a “hypothesis” or the infallible doctrine? Even then, through most of Church history, popes had a jolly good time with women and fathered a multitude of children.
Not only does one have to suspend disbelief to accept Catholic dogma, one must be at least a couple of beers short of a six-pack.
bernarda,
And why the hell can’t a woman be a pope?! I bet it’s some sexist bullshit like women are too “hormonal.” Yeah, because men definitely can’t have too much testosterone and go apeshit and kill people for no damn reason.
I’d have thought that that was pretty obvious. God in His eternal wisdom has decreed that a woman’s purpose is to bare children – but only within the sanctity of a marriage contract. Now since Pope’s cannot marry, how would a woman fulfill her heavenly duties?
I’m amazed that you could not see this for yourself! For shame on you!
Can’t a dude be bitter about some things and happy about other things? I mean really, how one-dimensional.
HeatheNZ,
I know, I should have known that. I’m such a horrible ex-catholic. But then again, I am only a woman, and according to the church that means I am not capable of such deep thoughts.
r4d,
Yeah, you can be bitter about some stuff and happy about others. I just didn’t describe myself as bitter since I’m not bitter. I gave up being bitter about all the shit that’s going on in the world a while back. Now it just saddens me or annoys me.
If you don’t believe in God and you think the Church is off it’s rocker, why would you care one way or the other if a woman could be Pope? Why give any aspect of the Church any thought at all? Why carry a post about the Pope? I assure you the Vatican is not wringing their hands or wailing about the Atheist position a whole heck of a lot. It’s the obsessive nature of the attack on something that is purported to not be believed in that I can’t get around.
Yea, yea, I haven?t read the recommended books yet, maybe the answers as to why all the focus on what you consider to be hocus pocus lies there.
This is an extraordinarily rich and influential organization who uses funds provided by its followers to protect, conceal, and relocate child molesters…
…individuals with some sense of morality would certainly care what an organization such as the Catholic church is up to.
One might then ask, why does one so rabidly protect (and blindly follow) such an organization?
Anne Marie,
You could use the same line of thinking in regards to the KKK.
“Why care about what the KKK does if you aren’t in it and you aren’t one of its targets? Why does what they do matter?”
Now do you see why we care?
Anne Marie
Um… forgive me if I do not find your assurance very reassuring.
Christian Today, March 16th 2007:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pope.slams.eu.for.excluding.god/10093.htm
The Pope’s expressed goal, as with religious leaders in this country, is to write Christianity into law – to give it special prominence – to force it down the throats of every citizen despite what their reason and their conscious tells them. You ask what we believe? We believe in making our own goddamn choices in what to believe or not believe, and that’s it.
And don’t come back to me with some tripe about ‘free will’ – you’re not going to say anything that we haven’t heard a million times before. If your leaders truly believe in free will, then they should stop trying to write their unsubstantiated and exclusory belief systems into laws that effect us all.
We didn’t pick this fight.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
I stand corrected
rna2dna:
HeatheNZ:
I haven’t read the whole bible, just parts of it. I do plan on reading the whole thing soon (I just bought the Oxford Annotated Bible). I am aware however of how silly it is, and I agree that the majority of it is absurd when read as an historical document. But I do think that as an atheist it’s worth knowing what motivates Christians.
But even if you don’t read it from that point of view, it’s still worth being familiar with even if only as a cultural artifact. It is without a doubt the most culturally important book in the Western tradition. If you enjoy literature at all, your enjoyment of it will be greatly enhanced if you have knowledge of the bible.
anne marie hate to break it to you but the church is full of atheists.yes it drives my pals here crazy but quite a few of us enjoy church even though we don’t believe.its a good place to meet the opposite sex make business deals and get started in politics.it is also an effective tool for controlling weak people for their own good.
btw if you like to eat go baptist or methodist.
Apple_Christmas:
I would suggest the Navarre bible commentary as a companion to any biblical reading you do. As we all know, the bible is an ancient text written by several different authors having lived in many different regions over thousands of years. Just as I would have been lost in The Iliad and The Odyssey, Chaucer, or even Shakespeare with out my classics professors as an undergrad, (Go Blue), biblical reading is easier with notations about context and a cross reference to other passages. The Navarre commentary is the most comprehensive and intellectually challenging I have found.
To the community of this blog:
I?ve enjoyed my time with you. I?ve found you to be just as any other cross section of humanity. The good, the bad and the ugly, the bright, the dim, and the just plain rabid. Although hospitality does not seam to be a priority to the group as a whole, I thank you for the information you have provided.
Anne Marie:
I think we can all agree that that’s a fair assessment. And thank you too for stimulating the discussion.
Apple_Christmas, I feel your pain.
“I haven’t read the whole bible, just parts of it. I do plan on reading the whole thing soon (I just bought the Oxford Annotated Bible). I am aware however of how silly it is, and I agree that the majority of it is absurd when read as an historical document. But I do think that as an atheist it’s worth knowing what motivates Christians.”
I have read it all once, and many parts more than once. It is largely a huge waste of time. Only rarely good literature. Excruciatingly either repetitive or contradictory, and even both at the same time. Just look at Genesis 1 and 2.
It doesn’t show you what motivates xians because the vast majority of them haven’t read it. They don’t have a clue.
All you really need to do is follow the talking points you run across in discussions by skeptics or jesus freaks.
After you read what they quote, just read the chapter before and the chapter after. You then know more than enough. You even know more useless things than you ever cared to.
If you insist on reading the bible, try this on-line annotated version.
http://bs4a.blogspot.com/2006/12/welcome-to-bible-study-for-atheists.html
Bible Study for Atheists
I SEE WHERE YOUR PROBLEMS ARE WITH SO MANY OTHER RELIGIONS WHO RULE MAJORITY. I HAVE EVEN SEEN PASTORS THAT THE PEOPLE SENT FOR FIRED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. FOR PREACHING THE THINGS THEY DIDN’T AGREE WITH EVEN THOUGH IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURES. WE CALL THEM HYPOCRITES.
GO TO OUR WEBSITE, AND SEE THE TRUTH.
http://www.theinfallibletruth.com
and visit us we practice what we preach that is why we are so little of a congregation or the narrowroad only a few will find it. so come and see for your self and listen on line to what we say. peace be to you!!