Posted on 11/30/2007 10:50:29 AM PST by Pyro7480
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in an encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.
The 75-page "Spe Salvi," which takes its Latin title from a quote by St Paul (in hope we were saved), is an appeal to a pessimistic world to find strength in Christian hope.
In the second encyclical of his papacy, Benedict urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, wealth or political ideologies.
Atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism," particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.
Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."
History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.
"It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," the Pope said. Such a concept was grounded in "intrinsic falsity."
Marxism, the Pope wrote, had left behind "a trail of appalling destruction" because it failed to realize that man could not be "merely the product of economic conditions."
ATHEISTS REACT
The encyclical is the highest form of papal writing and addresses all members of the Church. This document is written in a highly academic, professorial style in which the Pope quotes saints, philosophers and writers to make his point.
Atheism has been a hot topic recently thanks to best-selling books questioning the value of religion such as "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens.
The Pope seemed to be addressing the fresh interest in atheism in the developed world with phrases such as: "Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."
Italy's Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists (UAAR) said by taking such stands the Pope would push more people away from the Church.
"The existence of a billion non-believers in the world should be enough to make the Pope understand that man can live very well without God, but with reason," a statement said.
The Pope urged Christians to put their hope for a better future in God.
"We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he said.
Christian hope also meant protecting the planet, even if people felt powerless to make changes in their lifetimes, he said.
"We can free our life and the world from the poisons and contaminations that could destroy the present and the future. We can uncover the sources of creation and keep them unsullied, and in this way we can make a right use of creation, which comes to us as a gift..." he said.
(Editing by Janet Lawrence)
The issues that separated Protestants from RCC in reformation times still remain. Surely you know what they were. If not, I suggest see an encyclopedia.
Nice stock answer, but you stated:
The Christianity of the New Testament (and the Christianity of the Fathers), is a very different Christianity from what arose centuries later, called Roman Catholicism
When did Catholicism begin not to be "real" Christianity in your opinion?
This is a cultural achievement?
In the minds of those of us who see a long lineage of medical progress, yes it is. As soon as humankind discovered that sex=babies, it was necessary to have rules (codified in religion) about who can have sex, and when. Science has changed that.
Those who are still stuck with the old rules can follow them, and the rest of us can figure out what we want to do, and when we want to do it. Even if you don't see it as 'progress', you have to admit it changed the way the old formulas worked, and as such, is an achievement.
I guess that would make Margaret Sanger and Madelyn Murray O'Hare, Catholics too.
Exactly why it was the atheists who were most driven in their will to power. Christians on the other hand realize that their soul is eternal and power, wealth and governments are fleeting, fading like sunlight on the grass.
When did Catholicism begin not to be “real” Christianity in your opinion?
“While men slept,” Matthew 13:25. Weeds were sown among the original seed (wheat), early on. The syncretistic state church of the sixth century, headquartered at Rome, was the result.
Quite right; the essential difference between left and right is the difference between ideology versus theology. Atheists by and large worship at the altar of State, Theists at the altar of God. The Left believes that power resides solely in Man, the Right believes it rests with God.
You have an interesting list there, but besides the Marxists/Communists, the only one I really associate with mass violence is the French Revolution. I thought most Americans regarded that as a "good thing", overthrowing monarchy in favor of republican forms of government has been very messy, but it has been part of the path of progress.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the Godfather of modern conservatives, Edmund Burke. His 'Reflections On The Revolution In France' draws a sharp distinction between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, ergo, their's was not "a good thing".
The other things you mention seem to be in the tradition of Europeans always wishing to fight each other over something, whether it be different flavors of Christianity, or Christians versus those who would throw off Christianity. If you want to judge atheists by the worst among us, then allow us to judge Christianity by its most infamous practitioners as well. Or, we could just both admit that social change in bygone years was accompanied by far more violence than Western civilization will tolerate today.
I disagree, it seems that an honest reading of history would show Christianity as a restraining force in civilization but once the"shackles of religion" were tossed off Western Civilization became exponentially bloodier and bloodthirsty, just as that famous atheist Freidrich Nietzche predicted it would.
Oh please. The ACLU and People for the American Way and a HOST of liberal/leftist activist groups are atheistic in orientation. Prayer did not disappear from our schools because the Christians made it happen, same for many of the artifacts from the culture wars.
Same can be said for genocide and abortion.
Let me throw this into the stew.
"...[Everyone] benefits from doctors and scientists using the truths uncovered by evolutionary science to cure their ills."
I don't know of any such truths which have any relevance to medical advancement. Creationists and ID-ers have no problems with the genetics of microbiology and the shifting variation and distribution of traits through what some would term "micro-evolution": the things we can see happening today. The things which are actually observable, testable, and predictable.
They dispute the never-observed long-ago macro-processes whereby all phyla supposedly descended from a common ancestor.
Present-day medicine, in my view, owes nothing to an evolutonary worldview which purports to explain "the origin of species and the descent of man."
Our understanding of the actual microprocesses you refer to, owes much more to scientists like Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Jerome Jeune (all Catholics, by the way)--- whose key discoveries owed nothing to the metatheory of dogmatic materialism, and whose discoveries are both scientifically impeccable and actually usable.
"Birth control, whereby people can decide to space out their families, or have no offspring at all, if that's what suits them."
My dear, people have always been able to space out their families or have no offspring at all, if that's what suits them. It's a question of method.
If you want to claim for atheism the glory of the technologies which do this by weakening, impeding, or sabotaging natural sexual functions, you're welcome to it. The people who developed natural and healthy ways to control fertility (people like Dr. Konald A. Prem, Drs. John and Lyn Billings) were, both excellent Christians and excellent scientists.
"Astronomy, whereby we come to know the origins of our own planet..."
...was not developed by atheists.
Many cultures developed accurate observations of the skies (Mayas, Hindus, classical Greeks, Egyptians, Confucians, etc.) but the ones who really developed the modern science of astronomy were (brace yourself) largely Catholics. The Catholic Church and the Universities of Europe founded by the Church were the overwhelming promoters,and practitioners of modern astronomy in the 14th, 15th, 16th centuries. (Don't forget that Copernicus lived and died a good Catholic cleric and academic, in no ecclesiastic trouble at all!) Here's an excellent book (read revciew) for you to digest.
I respect your rights to your opinions, too.
Gotta go now. Have a good weekend.
The wars fought over the Reformation were not subject to the 'restraining force' of Christianity's message of 'love your neighbor', and I would submit that the fact that wars got bloodier and bloodier was a function of technology. The atom bomb that a Christian nation dropped on a Shinto one was the act that killed more people with one strike than anything else in history. Personally, I'm glad they did it, but Christianity is not overly connected in history with peacefulness.
The Christian religion learned tolerance and respect when it was finally stripped of civil power (the reform that needs to happen to a certain other Religion Of Peace, ASAP).
Abortion was practiced in America in colonial times, and there have been 'recipes' for abortifacients going back to ancient Egypt. Genocide has been practiced for even longer, technology has merely changed the speed at which it can be accomplished.
Equating the control of one's own fertility with genocide is fallacious.
I already explained that — Christian institutions were stripped of political power a few centuries back (and afterwards, lo and behold, learned the value of forebearance and tolerance).
Nice try, however WWII was NOT a Christian war it was a political war. The bomb was dropped in the name of democracy, not Christ. Ideology rather than theology: the basis of all atheistic creeds.
I did NOT equate them I was pointing out the fallacy of your own justification i. e. Even if you don't see it as 'progress', you have to admit it changed the way the old formulas worked, and as such, is an achievement.
It's merely about having to admit that it changed the way the old formulas worked. Birth control, abortion and genocide all fit that description. (Even if YOU don't see it as 'progress')
The "old formula" I was referring to was the one where the big shot, with the enforcement of religion, decreed that one man and one woman would pair off, and that's the only way you get to have sex. Of course, there was always an exception for the kings to have multiple concubines, and there was always raping during pillaging, and even prostitution. But reliable conception control meant that you could have sexual relations with somebody outside of being part of a pillaging army, or knocking off enough of your brothers to be ruler, or marrying someone.
I know that many people here still like that old formula, and they're entitled to it. This whole thread is because the Pope (faithful guardian of the old formula) is knocking those who would change the formula, well, we have a right to knock back. I know that doesn't happen within the RCC, but in America, and on FR, we get to do it.
Have you even read the actual encyclical letter? Relying on Reuters' focus on one paragraph, which isn't even the main theme of the document, seems to be a bit of an unsubstantiated overreaction. The main theme of the encyclical is the theological virtue of hope, not an "attack on atheism." That [attack] is Reuters' spin and you have accepted it without question because it fits your worldview. Just like the lamestream media took one sentence out of context from a lecture he gave last year in Germany which was merely part of his introduction to his main point. Benedict XVI is a world-class scholar who doesn't talk in sound bites that lazy journalists can cut and paste into their "news" pieces. (And if you think he isn't willing to debate his point of view, check out this book.)
The Pope is a Christian who believes that the Catholic faith is the one, true faith. He is being quite charitable by pointing out what he sees as the danger of atheism. Atheists may see it as an attack, but that is not his intent. Rather, he is warning them that they are going down a wrong path.
You’re right, I didn’t read the whole thing, and I really have no intention of doing so. I used to subject myself to the rulership of the pope, I no longer do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.