From: rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 8 Jan 93 09:36:46
Organization: Knowledge Systems Lab, Stanford University
	<1993Jan5.002733.5359@cs.unca.edu> <C0D77L.7tH@ecf.toronto.edu>
	<RICE.93Jan5114333@HPP.stanford.edu> <1993Jan8.063631.9589@hfsi.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpp-ipc-2.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: ata@hfsi.uucp's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:36:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.063631.9589@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
   In article <RICE.93Jan5114333@HPP.stanford.edu> rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice) writes:
   >
   >Yes, papal infalibility is an official dogma (axiom of
   >faith) of the catholic church.  This was proclaimed in
   >1870 by Pius (!) IX.

   Yes there is, but it is widely distorted as this posting shows.

I had no intention of getting sucked into this infantile thread, all I
intended to do was supply a reference to the dogma in question, using
the only source I had at hand (having just moved house, most of my
books are in boxes).  As soon as I got to a more thorough source, I
cited it.  Looks like I'm responding, anyway.  Since I'm a sci.skeptic
reader, I'd like to ask for the evidence of the abovementioned
distortion.

   >
   >To quote a passage that puts this bull in the broader
   >picture of Catholic power politics, here's a bit from
   >"Alone of All Her Sex" by Marina Warner (a very
   >interesting book on the cult of the (virgin!) Mary, from
   >my 1978 edition published in paperback by Quartet in the
   >UK (I don't know if its available in this country, but
   >it's worth looking for) p236-7:
   >

   You have taken a teaching of the church with one example, and have
   totally distorted it with the commentary you have added from MW.
   If you would like some valid information on the doctrine of
   infallability, I will be happy to continue this discussion by
   Email.

I posted the quote (which you deleted for non-obvious reason) and
then you suggest that I have distorted things.  It is entirely
possible that Marina Warner (the author of the passage in question)
distorted things, but as far as I can tell she was expressing an
opinion concerning the Vatican's counter-reformationoid power politics
based on historical facts that are not in question.

I fail to see how you conclude that: "You have taken a teaching of the
church with one example..".  I don't recall giving any examples of
anything, other than an instance of someone's opinion.  Perhaps we use
the word differently.  I'd be delighted to get some "valid
information", though I'd like to know first what makes you think I
should take it as valid (hint/example, I don't accept the bible as a
valid source of anything much other than man's stupidity).

The author of the passage I quoted I know not to be biblical scholar,
but her book recieved substantial critical acclaim at the time and is
not a theological work, it is (in my opinion) a reasonably well
researched history and commentary on the development of the cult of
Mary in the RC church.  My later message cited the EB, which is
generally thought to be a reasonable source of data.

I have been corrected concerning the globality of the Infallibility
dogma in other posts, for which I am grateful.  However, the belief
that papal infallibility is applied more generally was held by a
number of RC people whom I knew during my formative years.  Even if
the pope does not choose to speek \em{ex cathedra}, his followers in
my experience seem unaware of the distinction and feel typically
guilty for not believing/following.

Of course, the fact that the church can at any time go into
infalibility mode in order to keep its believers on the straight and
narrow of orthodoxy is threat enough for me.

   >
   >Rice - 


   -- 
   John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
   HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
   7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
   McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Going back into opinion giving mode now (humility not being one of my
common traits), I am still of the opinion that any religion that can
make it an article of faith that you are compelled to believe a set of
assertions, or are to be branded a sinner and will hence spend yet
more years in pergatory is a viscious and wicked institution.  The
catholics I knew in my youth genuinely seemed to think that they would
accumulate ever more theological brownie points for believing ever
less logical and plausible sounding things.

Although I have met a bunch of screwed up people, RCs are by a fair
way the most fucked-up people I have met (Jehovah's witnesses are a
not too distant second).  Catholics are also in, my experience, the
most theologically ignorant believers in an established religion
that I have encountered.






Rice - alt.messianic removed from this thread because I got
snotty mail from there.  Maybe everyone gets snotty mail from
alt.messianic.