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?
Anne Marie
The following is cut and pasted from the American Atheist page I referred you to earlier. it appears from your subsequent comments that you did not go to look at it.
While this goes beyond the basic lack of belief in gods, there is nothing in it that I take issue with.
As for what we base our (dis)belief on, for me it is the lack of evidence for the supernatural, or gods. It has been pointed out to you that the negative cannot be proven. Thus we look for proof of the positive, but find none.
Do you believe in Horus? If not, why not? Do you have empirical evidence?
What inventingly wrote:
Very good!
rna2dna
“Hi, I’m blackwater”
Actually, a more likely introduction would be a high whistling sound, then a thud as a bullet hits you in the head.
karen,
I don’t take issue with any thing there either except the male slant to the text.
What kind of happy tree did you buy?
Karen:
Thank you. You are right I didn’t go check out your reference. I’m cleaning my basement today, and well I’ve just been jumping on to see what I would get between trips to the down under of my home.
Thanks again for your posts and the info. I hope your new tree grows well. I’ll quit bugging you guys now.
See ya.
rna2dna
Actually, my friend bought 4 trees; she needed my minivan to haul ‘em in. We got 2 Bradford Pear, 1 pear Fruit Tree, and 1 Japanese Magnolia (?) I think that’s what the last one was. And a couple of bushes and some pansies. Her 2 yr. old looked like he was in the middle of the rain forest in the middle seat with all the foliage draping over him.
She’s using them to decorate her middle school prom (Theme: A Walk in the Garden), the next weekend she’s gonna plant everything in her yard.
We bought a bunch of stuff last weekend too. You shoulda seen us trying to inventively cram it all into her litttle sedan!
Karen
I call myself an atheist but I do not “believe”. Period. Belief is simply not neccessary. Now I know that you and others do not use the word “belief” in the same sense as the xians but I, for one, would simply like to see nonbelievers stop using the word in response to the believers “what do you believe” questions. A simple “I do not believe” would emphasize the distinction between beleiveres and nonbelievers more clearly.
What do you think?
karen accurately stated:
What a way to go, killed by blackwater. Yuk!!! And the christians would use it as ultimate proof that their god idea is true.
I’ve heard that the whistling sound can’t be heard by the target though. Something about doppler and the speed of sound but maybe a god idea would make an exception in my case just for dramatic effect.
karen, if the pear tree had fruit on it, the youngster could have been in the garden of eat’in
Anne Marie:
Okay, NOW you’re putting words in my mouth. Not appreciated.
Just because I use specific terminology to convey a concept, is not a tacit nod to that concept.
I don’t hate what ain’t there. Waste of energy.
Well, I used to be known as the reluctant atheist, but sadly, too many folks misconstrued the meaning.
I chose ‘crystals’ because they design themselves. Plus, I got tired of theists thinking I was a fence-sitter.
Gee, how much time you got? I can go on at length on this topic alone.
The bible’s non-historical, it contradicts itself, it doesn’t hold up to critical scrutiny AT ALL.
I can bring valid examples & scholarship to the table on this 1, but my posts will easily hit the 100 word mark & beyond.
You’re welcome to visit my blog (click on the link beneath my moniker), since that’s where I keep my online notes: but be forewarned – I tend to go on at length.
Why do I always feel that christians are less than genuine?*
*spanders excepted, of course.
What
I think it’s a semantic issue, really.
The word ‘believe’ is too often tied to a religious connotation, or the jump is made even if that is not intended.
If I weren’t so lazy, I’d be more careful about using the word, actually. On the other hand, i don’t think my vocabulary should be limited because of how others might choose to interpret it.
In the case of the example I quoted for Anne Marie, I could be quite satisfied with substituing the words ‘thinks” and “thoughts” for ‘believes” and “beliefs”. Or even “knows” and “knowledge” although I cannot prove what I “know”.
I think it was WC Fields who said “Everybody’s got to believe something. I believe I’ll have another drink.”
rna2dna
“garden of eat’in”
LOL
As a matter of fact, after we drove out to the school and dropped off the greenery, we stopped at the “french fry house” (Mickey D’s) and got the squirt a Happy Meal. But technically the garden of eatin’ was gone by then.
Thank the FSM. We saved the boy from sinning!
Ann Marie:
I know you said you were leaving the discussion, but just in case you stop by again…
A forum like this is a poor place to ascertain the philosophical justification for atheism. It would be impossible for any of us to write something really good in anything less than several pages, and in any case, there are probably as many different varieties of atheism represented here as there are varieties of Christianity. (well, maybe not quite that many…) My personal feeling is that some of them are logically justified and some of them are not. Even atheists will disagree among themselves on this matter.
If you are genuinely interested in learning about atheism (and you do seem to be; kudos to you), then I suggest Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith, a book which covers pretty much all the bases in one volume, and does so in a sound, logical way.
Of course other atheists here would recommend other books, but the diversity of atheist opinion should not be considered a liability of the atheist position itself.
Phreedm:
That recommendation goes for you too (Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith). If I can manage to get through Lee Strobel’s books, then you can surely manage to get through this one
What:
I think the religious co-opt too much of our language as is.
Witness how Anne Marie implied that my use of the term ‘Armageddon’ was an implicit declaration of belief.
Never mind that Iraq used to be Babylon (in their own mythology). Or the prophecies in Revelation (brrhhh!) tacitly state that it’ll happen in the ME.
It doesn’t take an xtian to put the pieces together.
I use language to convey a meaning: I dislike allegory, because lotsa believers drag some hidden context from a passing reference.
Usually, when I say a thing, it’s just that: no Freudian slips, Jungian bras, etc.
& let’s face it: no matter what terminology gets used, it’ll be open to semantical fiddle-faddling.
Krystalline and Karen
I agree that the religious co-opt much of our language. In addition there is much evidence to suggest that language shapes not only how we communicate but how we think as well. The semantic opening in the window of reason is what the rabid believer looks for when making their arguments. I say shut the windows and simply do not refer to atheism with words of “belief”.
Anne Marie
“I’m cleaning my basement today,”
You may want to dust the old “attic” up a bit too.
KA
“no matter what terminology gets used, it’ll be open to semantical fiddle-faddling.”
Fiddle-faddle? Are you referring
the mouth-watering popcorn treat the whole family will love? Available in two out-of-this-world flavors?
Or have I got the semantics wrong?
What,
I’m with you on the “belief” stuff. However, I also like this quote from karen:
It puts the christian belief system in the proper perspective.
What:
Nicely phrased, but there are those who will break the glass & claim special exemption.
I used ‘fiddle-faddle’ in place of FUBAR I suppose.
Luckily, I can control the sudden mysterious desire I’ve just experienced for that calorically empty snack.
You know, the single most annoying and unpersuasive thing that religious people do is to blithely misstate what atheists believe. Kind of like what this post does with Catholic theology.
The article itself says that the Church has never had any formal doctrine on the matter of limbo. In other words, the church has never declared it to be an “infallible truth”.
Basically, the church is struggling with a basic problem underlying its theology and has acknowledged that it really doesn’t pretend to know. This actually enhances whatever credibility they might have.
This is an example to be emulated.
Now wait a minute, a god idea can whip up a universe complete with a seductress in six days flat but can’t figure out how to retrieve a mythical soul without the help of a poop.
And you are going to admonish an atheist for not being able to sort out that logic?
“Basically, the church is struggling with a basic problem underlying its theology and has acknowledged that it really doesn’t pretend to know.”
The church is spending more time trying to figure out how to hide boy-buggering clergy.
There is nothng about the church, catholic or otherwise, that is worth emulating.
Rampling is right, the title is not accurate. I suspect too much enthusiasm and an excessive application of hyperbole.
The curious thing is that change is a noteworthy event in a religion. Once a particular faith has identified what is believed to be the Truth and what is heresy, it is propagated to the flock who must take it, pretend to take it, or leave.
Science is always tentative and can never finally determine Truth. New discoveries refine understanding or fill in known blanks. Occasionally the old idea is simply abandoned. This is always based on evidence and the power to predict data from new experiments.
No evidence was collected to allow a determination that limbo doesn’t exist. All they seem to have done was taken a poll. People are going to find it easier to believe if they don’t have to pretend limbo exists.
What is interesting about Anne Marie is how she carries over so much from her religious thinking and projects it onto the subject of her inquiry.
There would have been no confusion if she had asked the followers of some other religion what their beliefs were. She might have heard about tree spirits or an elephant holding the earth on its back. These would not likely have persuaded her, but she would have been satisfied that an answer had been made to the question.
One argument of mine against religion that I seldom see others mention is the incredible waste of time that it is responsible for. Millions of person-years, surely.
All the time that people have dedicated to rationalising away doubts and praying could have been so much more usefully spent. Insert reference to St. Mattress here.
Memorising the Kor’an or the Bible may train one’s memory in a way that proves useful elsewhere in life, but why not start with something useful to begin with?
DD
Anne Marie was a Phreedum sock puppet. It’s a bit obvious.
No, Anne Marie wasn’t phreddy. IP addresses are way different.
Phreddy’s not up on that sorta thing.
Phreedy’s on vacation then. Using his mothers machine in Crawford, Texas. Jeeeehad!
Phreedumb, evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory. It is a theory that has been tested thousands of times and found to correspond to facts in the real world.
No religious tenet, doctrine, or dogma has been tested, indeed they cannot be because they are just entirely arbitrary statements based on nothing in the real world.
They are just the delirious statements of deluded men who think that their wishing it makes it so.