so in french there is an expression derived from this, condemning/forbidding can be called "putting things on the index" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mettre_%C3%A0_l%27index), and "index" is also the name of the pointer finger... so in 1990 a politician said (about a bishop, or was it about the pope himself?): "he doesn't understand how condom is to be used since he put it on the index"
kiney · 4h ago
same in germany
Lio · 8h ago
“Down with this sort of thing”
Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect[1] and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.
Umberto Eco once jokingly lamented the deprecation of the Index, writing that it was a "very handy canon of books one ought to read to call oneself an educated person".
dragonwriter · 7h ago
> Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.
The Wikipedia article on the Index note that a related list (the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at the time published separately but later had its function incorporated within the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_, and listed books subject to similar restrictions as the main index but only conditionally pending correction of specified errors) was called out for something like that use -- in 1627.
RGamma · 6h ago
Being added to "the index" (Liste der jugendgefährdenden Medien, list of media harmful for youths) was (probably still is) a great marketing vehicle in Germany. While the complete list isn't easy to view (there's secret parts and no official online publication), you would hear about it one way or another.
Lio · 4h ago
As a teenager I read Machiavelli's The Prince with trepidation knowing it was on The List (and me being brought up Catholic).
Afterwards I couldn't really see what the fuss was about.
smackeyacky · 7h ago
In a similar vein, one of my colleagues a few years ago after undergoing workplace sexual harrassment training said "oh learned a couple of new ones"
At the time I hoped he wasn't serious, sometimes it's hard to tell.
tzmudzin · 6h ago
> workplace sexual harrassment training
Well, it’s in the name already. The fact it’s not called “anti-harassment training” always makes me chuckle…
haritha-j · 6h ago
[flagged]
prmoustache · 4h ago
What does UK have to do with the catholic church and vice-versa? A minority of christians in UK are catholics.
trhway · 5h ago
A similar, though at much larger scale and in more grotesque way, thing in Russia these days - SWAT raids bookstores and publishers and arresting and filing felony charges against them and removing books for any hint of "propaganda of extremism and terrorism" - where even LGBTQ is declared to be extremism by the Russian Supreme Court and is among the main targets of the censorship and the SWAT.
In addition to the books prohibited for their content, any books by "foreign agents" are prohibited too with the "foreign agent" designation assigned directly by the government, bypassing any court, to any minimally public person who disagrees with the government policies.
The new law also prohibits public demonstration (which beside movie theaters also includes websites with more than 100K users) of foreign movies not in agreement with the "traditional values of Russia" (which is whatever the government would declare as such).
simianparrot · 5h ago
As one of the LGB I personally see a lot of extremism among the TQ+ crowd that somehow strong-armed themselves into our communities as part of the ever expansing umbrella term, and ruined a lot of the progress we’ve made in society over decades.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it terrorism but I can see how a more traditional society would.
graemep · 3h ago
Not more extreme than the Russian government though!
wizzwizz4 · 4h ago
Can you explain what you mean? I'm not seeing anything much different from 20th-century gay rights activism – if anything, it's way tamer. Nobody's breaking into broadcasting houses to photo-bomb live television broadcasts, and Pride is rarely a riot.
You might also consider revisiting your history: "GLBT" was a thing long before the "LGBT" ordering became prevalent – since the 70s, at least. Trans people, and queers of all sorts, have always been a part of gay activism, and in many cases were at the forefront of it. "Drop the T" is a recent movement (although the sentiment isn't new).
simianparrot · 4h ago
We're speaking from different cultural backgrounds here, clearly.
In Norway, trans was never part of the gay and lesbian movement. Even bi -- where I fall -- have traditionally been outcasts, often jokingly (or not) described as "the fence sitters". I fall into this category, where given said "fence sitting" I was lucky in that I never felt a need to "come out" because I would just date girls and carefully approach my attraction towards guys. But for a lot of personal experiences it also meant I never quite felt I belonged because I was not gay, nor was I like the majority and completely straight. The gays didn't like "people like me" who "couldn't decide" (something I've heard often, and keep hearing).
Trans just has never been a thing culturally here. For one because we have strict laws of medical interventions on underage people, so the so-called "gender-affirming care" situation has not yet hit us. And most people don't feel this way when they reach adulthood, as it's _typically_ a part of puberty. Not to say gender dysphoria doesn't exist, but there's also no actual solution to it right now. You cannot transition from female sexual organs to functional male ones, nor vice versa. We're not there yet with medical technology, and truthfully I don't think it's likely we ever will. Until then all we can offer are cosmetic changes.
But because of internationalization and the media, trans has been lumped together with the LGB cause which is causing backlash and misunderstandings from the general population.
I realise writing this on a US-centric website is likely to get me ostracised but sometimes I think it's important for different cultures to talk about their differences. We want multiculturalism, right? This is what that means.
nathan_compton · 3h ago
I'm not placated by your response here. Whether or not there is good treatment for gender dysphoria, which you seem to think is the key issue, is beside the point. Many trans people don't even want medical treatment, they want the freedom to perform their gender in whatever way makes them feel comfortable (more or less the same way that you want the freedom to perform your sexual orientation in whatever way you feel comfortable).
Trans rights is not about a specific interpretation of the experience of being trans and thus it isn't about hormones or surgery. It is about trying to encourage the world to be open to a broader set of gender expressions and more freedom for people to live out the life that they want.
There are some tough issues here, yes. But the analogy to the gay rights movement is pretty straightforward.
simianparrot · 3h ago
Trans is not just an extension of the gay rights movement -- it's a separate thing altogether. There are so many things that are different. Gay men will not demand others let them into areas exclusive to women _for legitimate reasons_. Toilets, housing institutions, and prisons being some.
Self-identifying as another gender carries with it requirements of others far beyond simple acceptance.
I don't care if I placate you or not. I'm speaking from the POV of someone from a different culture. I don't require you to accept it, just as I respect your different cultural opinions.
nathan_compton · 53m ago
But gay men have been and are excluded in some places from places which are viewed as exclusive to heterosexual men (for example, the army). I think you are right that trans rights presents a somewhat more radical case to the public, in the sense that people ask that their gender identity be recognized, but this is hardly either an argument against trans rights nor, really, an argument of a fundamental distinction between gay and trans rights.
For example: some Americans currently deny the existence of gay people (and they view homosexual behavior as purely pathological). Thus, part of the gay rights movement is the demand that the possibility of gayness existing is real and that gayness is legitimate be recognized. This is very concordant with the trans rights struggle.
You probably have heard of NAMBLA. Lots of anti-gay rhetoric focuses/focused on this extreme, frankly absurd, organization. There were elements of the gay community which defended it as well. We can repudiate NAMBLA without repudiating gay rights, but many conservative forces want us to view them as inseparable. When we allow the reactionary right to select the most absurd versions of trans rights and tell us they constitute a total repudiation of trans rights, we fall into what should be an obvious rhetorical trap. Again, if progressive people had fallen into this trap in the 70s, if gay people had allowed this rhetoric to silence them, you'd probably still be in the closet.
And also, I don't know what your talk of cultural differences is supposed to accomplish. I'm an upright liberal minded modern guy, I'm not going to show up with militarized police and force you to change your mind. But cultural differences really do not compel me to respect your opinions. I respect your right to have an opinion, I can still disagree, and vehemently.
wizzwizz4 · 2h ago
Academically, gay rights come from romanticism, and trans rights come from feminism, but they're all part of the same fight: same as anti-racism, class conflict, religious pluralism, pacifism, and environmentalism. Historically, the movements have long been linked: gay folk and trans folk ran in similar circles, being trans was classified as a type of homosexuality by the medical establishment… Now that being gay is "normal", but being trans remains "abnormal", respectability politics has led to a lot of historical revisionism. These fights are a lot more related than you think. It's no coincidence that Norway's legislature has been on the forefront of gay rights, trans rights, and intersex rights wrt legal protections (or would you like to try to explain that?) – though your observations do match the relatively-late protections for bi rights, and Norway's fallen behind on protections for intersex infants.
But I do appreciate your perspective, as a source of information: many things you're saying are factually incorrect, but it's important to know that some people believe them.
wizzwizz4 · 3h ago
I'd be more inclined to support your "multiculturalism" claims, if you weren't using language and rhetoric from a British hate group. Do you really say "LGB" in Norway?
> And most people don't feel this way when they reach adulthood, as it's _typically_ a part of puberty.
Most people don't feel this way in childhood, either – but most people who do feel that way in childhood, also feel that way in adulthood.
> Not to say gender dysphoria doesn't exist, but there's also no actual solution to it right now.
See, I can tell you haven't spoken much to trans folk, because that's not true. The only things we're missing are gonadal function, and natural erectile function in phalloplasties: everything else (including pregnancy, for trans women) is possible with current medical technology, albeit hideously expensive.
Most trans people don't opt for such interventions, because they don't care about them all that much – or because they carry risks, such as vocal surgery. The most common interventions (such as exogenous sex hormones) are extremely effective at alleviating treating gender dysphoria.
> Trans just has never been a thing culturally here.
Trans people are well attested in ancient Scandinavian cultures – way more so than in Ancient Britain, where we only have fragmentary evidence and some etymological fun facts. I know that has little bearing on your current cultural attitudes, which are as I understand quite rigid about the gender binary, but I'm a pedant.
> For one because we have strict laws of medical interventions on underage people,
Norwegian law allows puberty blockers for children in Tanner stage 2, and hormones at the age of 16, subject to medical gatekeeping (which, provided waiting lists are reasonable, isn't so bad). The laws prohibit treatment to non-binary people, which is pretty bad, but they're hardly as you've described them.
nathan_compton · 4h ago
Deranged. I cannot believe people can be fooled into blaming trans people, of which there is a vanishingly small number, for a concerted campaign by conservatives and other forces to use them as a political wedge. All trans people are guilty of, as far as I can tell, is not behaving in some impossible way, so that conservatives wouldn't pay attention to them. It is our duty to stand up for progressive values, not to condemn a small number of people for not behaving as ideal minorities in a largely cooked up culture war.
If liberal people in the 60s had the attitude you have now you'd probably still be in the closet.
I'm sympathetic to you, frankly, because the current political environment constantly makes people feel like the problem is that we want a better world and if we had just shut up the barbarians wouldn't have taken over, but that is bullshit. Our side of the "culture war" would be doing a lot better if we had some courage to our convictions.
> The Index was enforceable within the Papal States, but elsewhere only if adopted by the civil powers, as happened in several Italian states.
Wow, such a hugely important list that nobody seemed to care about.
dragonwriter · 7h ago
The fact that it wasn't incorporated into civil law didn't mean no one cared about it (also, there were a number of states that didn't formally adopt the Vatican index, but which had their own similar list, and, where they were Catholic states, they often largely mirrored the Vatican list with some local changes.)
notorandit · 7h ago
As a Catholic I can say that was B.S.
Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.
It's a good thing that the index has been abolished in 1966.
boxed · 6h ago
Of course all those things can be sins. The two first leads directly to atheism, and the third can be used to spread atheism.
graemep · 5h ago
Atheism is not a sin - not if a sincere belief. An honest mistake is not sin.
If you are arguing that intrinsically good things (reading, thinking, speaking) can be turned to bad purpose, then so can almost anything. If done with honest intent I cannot see how reading, thinking of speaking atheism is sinful.
Is there anything in the the Catechism that says otherwise.
rob74 · 5h ago
Well, the first of the ten commandments is "You shall have no other gods before Me" , and that, according to a widespread interpretation, also forbids atheism:
> There is manifestly contained in this commandment AN IMPLICIT DENIAL OF ALL ATHEISM. The command, "Thou shalt have none other gods before Me," rests on the assumption that there is one true and living God. The law therefore forbids atheism as being a denial of God. (https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/barrett/the_first_commandm...)
graemep · 5h ago
Does that make it a sin? Commandments are not detailed guides, but general principles. There are clearly accepted exceptions to most of them, including honest belief.
Who exactly is the source you cite for the claim atheism is breaking the commandment and therefore sinful? He does not seem to be a Catholic, let alone someone with authority to define the church's teachings. Can you link to a similar statement in the Catechism, a church Council, or at least a papal encyclical?
"One protestant preacher said" is not proof of what the Catholic Church believes.
boxed · 1h ago
> Commandments are not detailed guides, but general principles
That's a far stretch. How is "keep the sabbath holy" a "general principle" in any way? How is "thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
1718627440 · 5h ago
Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god. Not sure how you define atheism if it doesn't include that.
graemep · 1h ago
> Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god.
its not obvious to me. I cannot see how an honestly held belief can be a sin. Is it evil to be an atheist because you believe there is no God? Clearly not, so how can you say its a sin?
falcor84 · 4h ago
"gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at." Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
nathan_compton · 4h ago
Atheism is not per se a sin, but it may as well be, precisely because Catholics believe everyone is born sinful and only the correct configuration of beliefs in one's head is sufficient to undo that state of affairs. This is my big problem with Christianity. Salvation, in the end, is a matter of assigning the correct truth value to purely historical statements, not moral ones.
Like to be saved, most Christians say, one must believe a litany of things about the historical figure of Christ. But that is just a history exam! It seems highly implausible that the God most people think of when they think of the Christian God would assign torture and torment based purely on a failure to come to a certain historical conclusion.
umanwizard · 29m ago
Catholics don’t really believe that AFAICT.
Different branches of Christianity are very different; you can’t assume that Catholics believe something just because most Protestants do.
graemep · 3h ago
Most Christians? I very much doubt it.
It is NOT the teaching of the Catholic church for a start:
Nor do they believe hell to be a place of torture, but a state of separation from God. Read CS Lewis's Great Divorce if you are interested in a better metaphor than flames and torture.
boxed · 1h ago
From the first URL:
> but it means that God labors tirelessly to bring all people — Christian or not — to salvation in Christ.
That is a hilarious quote. Only believers can say that with a straight face and not see the absolute madness it implies. How could "God labor[] tirelessly" to help everyone into salvation? That's on its face absolute garbage. Is God so incredibly weak that he could only show the path to salvation to 12 dudes 2000 years ago? If so, why should we worship that god, which seems like a pitiful figure compared to many nobel prize winners. I certainly would think we owe more worship to Normal Borlaug than a god that can't get his message across because he could only intervene in a credible way once in front of 12 people, and then never again.
nathan_compton · 1h ago
Rhetoric.
While its true that various pieces of Catholic "stuff" admit the possibility of salvation _without_ explicit belief in Christ, the vibes are still very much "if you know about Jesus/The Gospel then you probably need to believe in him to be saved, with some possible exceptions."
And a "state of separation" from God is expected to be a state of torture. Like maybe the idea of demons literally poking you in the eyeballs with hot pokers is out of fashion, but its clear Hell is still understood to be a deeply unpleasant place.
renox · 3h ago
> Atheism is not a sin - not if a sincere belief. An honest mistake is not sin.
Historically, religions (when there in position of power of course) have not been especially kind with atheists..
I envy modern Christians for their ability to make up their faith by pretending the scriptures don’t exist. “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”
graemep · 3h ago
> “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”
That is a straw man. I am sure you can find some one who says that somewhere out of billions of Christians, but it is effectively something no one says.
sapphicsnail · 7h ago
Imagine thinking that Jesus wants you to be like the legalistic Pharisees of his time.
dkiebd · 7h ago
One has to read the scripture. In many cases we are talking about things that were clearly defined as sins in the scripture. Just read the scripture instead of making up the rules.
majoe · 5h ago
"Just read the scripture" is not enough. Catholics are supposed to use the historical critical method, when interpreting texts from the bible. There are other Christian groups, which take the bible verbatim, but Catholicism is none of them.
For that and other reasons there are plenty of things presented in the old testament as sins, which Christians don't consider to be sins. The most obvious example is probably rules around kosher food.
lurquer · 6h ago
Are you suggesting the scriptures do not obligate church leaders to protect the flock from heresy?
1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”
2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences.
Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading.
Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.”
2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.”
Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them.
Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people.
Etc, etc, etc.
dkiebd · 6h ago
Are you giving a list of things that support what I said?
lurquer · 4h ago
Perhaps there was some ambiguity in your post. The verses speak for themselves. If they support your views, good.
ysofunny · 7h ago
there is no way I gotta stop thinking if your head hurts
thinkingemote · 7h ago
"I confess ... that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words."
abrenuntio · 6h ago
Not sure whether an index is still pragmatic.
But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?
karlgkk · 7h ago
> Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.
the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition.
indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence.
the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this
which is to say,
reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion
graemep · 5h ago
The thing is what works, thoughts or speaking is abhorrent?
It would have to be something sinful in itself, so, for example, planning a murder is clearly a sin, although only a thought. Taking pleasure is someone else's suffering is also a sin.
Reading to learn, honest thoughts, and honest speech cannot be sins. I think those are what the post you are replying to had in mind.
ivape · 5h ago
God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament.
With that said, doubt is part of faith, and exploration of that is just an articulation and not outright denial. I would bucket “honest confusion” the same way. To be confused in the desert is to be confused in the desert, akin to throwing a non-swimmer into water. The confusion before faith (before swimming) is okay, I believe. That’s all I can postulate from my own meditation.
Anyway, we have to always remember that Christ went toe-to-toe against his own religion. These Christian denominations must always know Christ will reject them outright if they are misinterpreting (and how could anyone think otherwise is beyond me, going up against Judaism was his first major imperative).
He was a very serious activist, beyond.
graemep · 1h ago
> God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament.
Have you drawn the correct conclusions from that? It is certainly not the conclusion the Catholic Church draws which is what we are discussing here. You may think the Catholic church wrong about this, but that is a different argument.
> going up against Judaism was his first major imperative
Everything he said and taught was in the context of the Jewish tradition. He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" - Matthew 5:17
ralfd · 5h ago
Knowing how LLM work made me more sympathetic to curating my own „training set“ though.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF · 5h ago
I dunno. Depends how many people hear it.
ahoka · 7h ago
They still don't allow condoms to be used. They are the bullshit.
umanwizard · 7h ago
In case you care: that the index was abolished in 1966.
Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with.
Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present.
For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon.
And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present!
To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.
dragonwriter · 5h ago
> Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker,
Specifically, using the combination "has been ... in". Either "was abolished in" (simple past in the passive voice) or "has been abolished since" (present perfect in the passive voice) would work (simple past describing the event of abolition, past perfect describing the continuous state of having been abolished from the point of that event up until and continuing through the present moment) would work.
umanwizard · 25m ago
Yes, you’re right.
adrian_b · 7h ago
I believe that in such a case one can use both "has been abolished in 1966" and "was abolished in 1966", but they mean different things.
"Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
"Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today.
So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
umanwizard · 34m ago
Absolutely not, you can never say “has been abolished in 1966” in standard American English (and I’m 99% sure the same is true of standard British English). The sibling poster is correct that you can say “has been abolished since 1966”, though.
dragonwriter · 6h ago
> "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
ivape · 5h ago
It’s interesting that even those that concluded God like Descartes were banned.
Christ specifically was impressed with a Centurion that sought his healing power (for another, not himself) without even being a Jew or follower of Christ. As in, Christ was simply amazed:
“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” (Matthew 8:10, NIV)
Descartes would haven fallen under such faith. I really need to study how the Catholic Church butchered so many interpretations.
bormaj · 3h ago
I think the Catholic church's actions could be rationalized through the lens of preserving influence. Descartes' ideas could be viewed as fostering a mindset of self-reliance and independence which is antithetical to a dependence on the church.
bravesoul2 · 6h ago
> Typis Polyglotis
That's me!
Ylpertnodi · 5h ago
Is Freemasonry acceptable, yet?
b800h · 5h ago
No. Speaking as a Freemason, it's completely understandable that the Vatican would ban masonry for Roman Catholics, both from a practical perspective and a theological one.
DagsEoress · 5h ago
No, and it never will be.
everyone · 6h ago
I find it hilarious that Copernicus is forbidden, they cant possibly afford to let those incendiary heliocentric ideas get out!
graemep · 5h ago
Copernicus's book was forbidden subject to the removal of one section.
Copernicus was himself a priest and heliocentrism per se was never the problem. Even Galileo got into trouble for making the specific claim that it had been proved that the sun was the centre of the universe.
flohofwoe · 4h ago
I find the helio- vs geocentrism debate infinitely fascinating, because if you just go by the 'scientific method' of observing the night sky from the Earth, then geocentrism also totally makes "scientific sense" as a hypothesis, it just requires a complicated explanation for the complex movement patterns of planets.
Turns out that just moving the coordinate system origin from the Earth to the Sun (e.g. literally just a change of perspective) replaces any complicated explanation for those complex movement patterns that are visible from Earth with a much simpler explanation (but a simpler explanation alone doesn't mean yet that it's more correct than the complicated explanation - it's at best more likely until proven). It took until Newton and Einstein to really understand why planets move predictably around the sun and not entirely erratically (AFAIK Newton still believed the movement to be preserved by intervention of God - don't quote me on that though).
So the initial stance of the Catholic Church to insist on geocentrism wasn't "unscientific" in the same sense that today's Flat Earthers, astrologists or anti-vaxxers are - compared to those, the 16th century Catholic Church was hardcore rationalist. The church finally recognized heliocentrism in the mid 18th century (so at least they only waited until Newton's death and not Einstein's death lol).
But hey, what's a few centuries in the history of the Catholic Church ;)
Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect[1] and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_Saint_Tibulus
The Wikipedia article on the Index note that a related list (the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at the time published separately but later had its function incorporated within the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_, and listed books subject to similar restrictions as the main index but only conditionally pending correction of specified errors) was called out for something like that use -- in 1627.
Afterwards I couldn't really see what the fuss was about.
At the time I hoped he wasn't serious, sometimes it's hard to tell.
Well, it’s in the name already. The fact it’s not called “anti-harassment training” always makes me chuckle…
In addition to the books prohibited for their content, any books by "foreign agents" are prohibited too with the "foreign agent" designation assigned directly by the government, bypassing any court, to any minimally public person who disagrees with the government policies.
The new law also prohibits public demonstration (which beside movie theaters also includes websites with more than 100K users) of foreign movies not in agreement with the "traditional values of Russia" (which is whatever the government would declare as such).
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it terrorism but I can see how a more traditional society would.
You might also consider revisiting your history: "GLBT" was a thing long before the "LGBT" ordering became prevalent – since the 70s, at least. Trans people, and queers of all sorts, have always been a part of gay activism, and in many cases were at the forefront of it. "Drop the T" is a recent movement (although the sentiment isn't new).
In Norway, trans was never part of the gay and lesbian movement. Even bi -- where I fall -- have traditionally been outcasts, often jokingly (or not) described as "the fence sitters". I fall into this category, where given said "fence sitting" I was lucky in that I never felt a need to "come out" because I would just date girls and carefully approach my attraction towards guys. But for a lot of personal experiences it also meant I never quite felt I belonged because I was not gay, nor was I like the majority and completely straight. The gays didn't like "people like me" who "couldn't decide" (something I've heard often, and keep hearing).
Trans just has never been a thing culturally here. For one because we have strict laws of medical interventions on underage people, so the so-called "gender-affirming care" situation has not yet hit us. And most people don't feel this way when they reach adulthood, as it's _typically_ a part of puberty. Not to say gender dysphoria doesn't exist, but there's also no actual solution to it right now. You cannot transition from female sexual organs to functional male ones, nor vice versa. We're not there yet with medical technology, and truthfully I don't think it's likely we ever will. Until then all we can offer are cosmetic changes.
But because of internationalization and the media, trans has been lumped together with the LGB cause which is causing backlash and misunderstandings from the general population.
I realise writing this on a US-centric website is likely to get me ostracised but sometimes I think it's important for different cultures to talk about their differences. We want multiculturalism, right? This is what that means.
Trans rights is not about a specific interpretation of the experience of being trans and thus it isn't about hormones or surgery. It is about trying to encourage the world to be open to a broader set of gender expressions and more freedom for people to live out the life that they want.
There are some tough issues here, yes. But the analogy to the gay rights movement is pretty straightforward.
Self-identifying as another gender carries with it requirements of others far beyond simple acceptance.
I don't care if I placate you or not. I'm speaking from the POV of someone from a different culture. I don't require you to accept it, just as I respect your different cultural opinions.
For example: some Americans currently deny the existence of gay people (and they view homosexual behavior as purely pathological). Thus, part of the gay rights movement is the demand that the possibility of gayness existing is real and that gayness is legitimate be recognized. This is very concordant with the trans rights struggle.
You probably have heard of NAMBLA. Lots of anti-gay rhetoric focuses/focused on this extreme, frankly absurd, organization. There were elements of the gay community which defended it as well. We can repudiate NAMBLA without repudiating gay rights, but many conservative forces want us to view them as inseparable. When we allow the reactionary right to select the most absurd versions of trans rights and tell us they constitute a total repudiation of trans rights, we fall into what should be an obvious rhetorical trap. Again, if progressive people had fallen into this trap in the 70s, if gay people had allowed this rhetoric to silence them, you'd probably still be in the closet.
And also, I don't know what your talk of cultural differences is supposed to accomplish. I'm an upright liberal minded modern guy, I'm not going to show up with militarized police and force you to change your mind. But cultural differences really do not compel me to respect your opinions. I respect your right to have an opinion, I can still disagree, and vehemently.
But I do appreciate your perspective, as a source of information: many things you're saying are factually incorrect, but it's important to know that some people believe them.
> And most people don't feel this way when they reach adulthood, as it's _typically_ a part of puberty.
Most people don't feel this way in childhood, either – but most people who do feel that way in childhood, also feel that way in adulthood.
> Not to say gender dysphoria doesn't exist, but there's also no actual solution to it right now.
See, I can tell you haven't spoken much to trans folk, because that's not true. The only things we're missing are gonadal function, and natural erectile function in phalloplasties: everything else (including pregnancy, for trans women) is possible with current medical technology, albeit hideously expensive.
Most trans people don't opt for such interventions, because they don't care about them all that much – or because they carry risks, such as vocal surgery. The most common interventions (such as exogenous sex hormones) are extremely effective at alleviating treating gender dysphoria.
> Trans just has never been a thing culturally here.
Trans people are well attested in ancient Scandinavian cultures – way more so than in Ancient Britain, where we only have fragmentary evidence and some etymological fun facts. I know that has little bearing on your current cultural attitudes, which are as I understand quite rigid about the gender binary, but I'm a pedant.
> For one because we have strict laws of medical interventions on underage people,
Norwegian law allows puberty blockers for children in Tanner stage 2, and hormones at the age of 16, subject to medical gatekeeping (which, provided waiting lists are reasonable, isn't so bad). The laws prohibit treatment to non-binary people, which is pretty bad, but they're hardly as you've described them.
If liberal people in the 60s had the attitude you have now you'd probably still be in the closet.
I'm sympathetic to you, frankly, because the current political environment constantly makes people feel like the problem is that we want a better world and if we had just shut up the barbarians wouldn't have taken over, but that is bullshit. Our side of the "culture war" would be doing a lot better if we had some courage to our convictions.
> The Index was enforceable within the Papal States, but elsewhere only if adopted by the civil powers, as happened in several Italian states.
Wow, such a hugely important list that nobody seemed to care about.
Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.
It's a good thing that the index has been abolished in 1966.
If you are arguing that intrinsically good things (reading, thinking, speaking) can be turned to bad purpose, then so can almost anything. If done with honest intent I cannot see how reading, thinking of speaking atheism is sinful.
Is there anything in the the Catechism that says otherwise.
> There is manifestly contained in this commandment AN IMPLICIT DENIAL OF ALL ATHEISM. The command, "Thou shalt have none other gods before Me," rests on the assumption that there is one true and living God. The law therefore forbids atheism as being a denial of God. (https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/barrett/the_first_commandm...)
Who exactly is the source you cite for the claim atheism is breaking the commandment and therefore sinful? He does not seem to be a Catholic, let alone someone with authority to define the church's teachings. Can you link to a similar statement in the Catechism, a church Council, or at least a papal encyclical?
"One protestant preacher said" is not proof of what the Catholic Church believes.
That's a far stretch. How is "keep the sabbath holy" a "general principle" in any way? How is "thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
its not obvious to me. I cannot see how an honestly held belief can be a sin. Is it evil to be an atheist because you believe there is no God? Clearly not, so how can you say its a sin?
Like to be saved, most Christians say, one must believe a litany of things about the historical figure of Christ. But that is just a history exam! It seems highly implausible that the God most people think of when they think of the Christian God would assign torture and torment based purely on a failure to come to a certain historical conclusion.
Different branches of Christianity are very different; you can’t assume that Catholics believe something just because most Protestants do.
It is NOT the teaching of the Catholic church for a start:
https://uscatholic.org/articles/202212/what-does-the-church-...
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun...
Nor do they believe hell to be a place of torture, but a state of separation from God. Read CS Lewis's Great Divorce if you are interested in a better metaphor than flames and torture.
> but it means that God labors tirelessly to bring all people — Christian or not — to salvation in Christ.
That is a hilarious quote. Only believers can say that with a straight face and not see the absolute madness it implies. How could "God labor[] tirelessly" to help everyone into salvation? That's on its face absolute garbage. Is God so incredibly weak that he could only show the path to salvation to 12 dudes 2000 years ago? If so, why should we worship that god, which seems like a pitiful figure compared to many nobel prize winners. I certainly would think we owe more worship to Normal Borlaug than a god that can't get his message across because he could only intervene in a credible way once in front of 12 people, and then never again.
While its true that various pieces of Catholic "stuff" admit the possibility of salvation _without_ explicit belief in Christ, the vibes are still very much "if you know about Jesus/The Gospel then you probably need to believe in him to be saved, with some possible exceptions."
And a "state of separation" from God is expected to be a state of torture. Like maybe the idea of demons literally poking you in the eyeballs with hot pokers is out of fashion, but its clear Hell is still understood to be a deeply unpleasant place.
Historically, religions (when there in position of power of course) have not been especially kind with atheists..
That is a straw man. I am sure you can find some one who says that somewhere out of billions of Christians, but it is effectively something no one says.
For that and other reasons there are plenty of things presented in the old testament as sins, which Christians don't consider to be sins. The most obvious example is probably rules around kosher food.
1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”
2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences.
Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading.
Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.”
2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.”
Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them.
Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people.
Etc, etc, etc.
But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?
the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition.
indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence.
the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this
which is to say,
reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion
It would have to be something sinful in itself, so, for example, planning a murder is clearly a sin, although only a thought. Taking pleasure is someone else's suffering is also a sin.
Reading to learn, honest thoughts, and honest speech cannot be sins. I think those are what the post you are replying to had in mind.
With that said, doubt is part of faith, and exploration of that is just an articulation and not outright denial. I would bucket “honest confusion” the same way. To be confused in the desert is to be confused in the desert, akin to throwing a non-swimmer into water. The confusion before faith (before swimming) is okay, I believe. That’s all I can postulate from my own meditation.
Anyway, we have to always remember that Christ went toe-to-toe against his own religion. These Christian denominations must always know Christ will reject them outright if they are misinterpreting (and how could anyone think otherwise is beyond me, going up against Judaism was his first major imperative).
He was a very serious activist, beyond.
Have you drawn the correct conclusions from that? It is certainly not the conclusion the Catholic Church draws which is what we are discussing here. You may think the Catholic church wrong about this, but that is a different argument.
> going up against Judaism was his first major imperative
Everything he said and taught was in the context of the Jewish tradition. He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" - Matthew 5:17
Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with.
Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present.
For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon.
And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present!
To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.
Specifically, using the combination "has been ... in". Either "was abolished in" (simple past in the passive voice) or "has been abolished since" (present perfect in the passive voice) would work (simple past describing the event of abolition, past perfect describing the continuous state of having been abolished from the point of that event up until and continuing through the present moment) would work.
"Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
"Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today.
So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
Christ specifically was impressed with a Centurion that sought his healing power (for another, not himself) without even being a Jew or follower of Christ. As in, Christ was simply amazed:
“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” (Matthew 8:10, NIV)
Descartes would haven fallen under such faith. I really need to study how the Catholic Church butchered so many interpretations.
That's me!
Copernicus was himself a priest and heliocentrism per se was never the problem. Even Galileo got into trouble for making the specific claim that it had been proved that the sun was the centre of the universe.
Turns out that just moving the coordinate system origin from the Earth to the Sun (e.g. literally just a change of perspective) replaces any complicated explanation for those complex movement patterns that are visible from Earth with a much simpler explanation (but a simpler explanation alone doesn't mean yet that it's more correct than the complicated explanation - it's at best more likely until proven). It took until Newton and Einstein to really understand why planets move predictably around the sun and not entirely erratically (AFAIK Newton still believed the movement to be preserved by intervention of God - don't quote me on that though).
So the initial stance of the Catholic Church to insist on geocentrism wasn't "unscientific" in the same sense that today's Flat Earthers, astrologists or anti-vaxxers are - compared to those, the 16th century Catholic Church was hardcore rationalist. The church finally recognized heliocentrism in the mid 18th century (so at least they only waited until Newton's death and not Einstein's death lol).
But hey, what's a few centuries in the history of the Catholic Church ;)