Sharing and Commenting

7 Myths about the Catholic Church
Shameless Popery Podcast | 5 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkCCXvSi1pM

19:25 "there is never an unhappiness gap"*

I note Sweden is absent from the stats.

If Soviet Russia had been around and if North Korea had been polled, we might also have seen sth like that.**

20:50 Given the amount of Evangelicals who support ICR, AiG and CMI, one would hardly pretend they are overall anti-science either, for being YEC.***

You certainly have a point; for an external critic, the Galileo affair would be a very absurd reason to reject Catholicism.

Chesterton pointed out Galileo is always the go-to, meaning there is very little other go-to. Just as for Protestants, Alexander VI is a very given go-to, meaning there are very few other go-tos.

However, for a Catholic believing infallibility, it's different.

We cannot afford to say "the infallible magisterium once was not just fallible, but actually wrong" ...

What do I mean when I say that the judgement on Galileo is magisterium, it's not a bull like Cantate Domino? ... well, lets put it like this, if Galileo's errors which he abjured, we are not bound to reject them, neither are we bound to reject the erroneous reading Fr. Feeney made on Cantate Domino. Galileo and Feeney were sentenced in the same form. The difference is actually in favour of Feeneyism, though that doesn't mean Feeneyism is right.

Galileo reconciled to the Church immediately, and he did so by abjuring exactly the two theses that had been condemned.

Feeney, on the other hand, seems to, when he eventually two papacies (on your count) later reconciled to "Paul VI" (as you would call him), have pronounced simply a submission to the Pope (the wrong one, I'd say), and also the Quicumque vult ... I happen to know this from back when Charles A. Coulombe had a site. No, not the scientist of electromagnetics, the guy who wrote on Rum and on Papal Zuaves.

So, you could possibly wiggle out of this by saying "the scope of infallibility is restricted to faith and morals, and this is science, so outside its scope" ... no, for two reasons:

1) the more general one is that faith and morals do have overlapping areas with science and applied science, you would not agree that Pius XI could not condemn Eugenics on the specious ground that "that is applied science, not faith and morals" when Pius XI specifically said to various secular régimes in 1930, Casti Connubii, that it is morals, and also reminded Nazis of this and other issues in 1937 in a paragraph of Mit brennender Sorge, likewise, if the Church judges on Joshua 10 or on cosmology, we can at least presume it's about the faith;
2) and the 1633 judgement called the two theses, for one heretical in faith, as well as absurd in philosophy, and for the other at least erroneous in faith, as well as absurd in philosophy. So, the Church did say it falls under faith.

You could say "what about philosophy?" Well, St. Paul judges on philosophy. In Roman 1 he states Aristotle knows God from Geocentrism. See John of Damascus, see Thomas Aquinas. In Colossians 2:8 he is primarily speaking of Judaising tendencies, but as illustration condemns atomism, i e the ideas of Democritus, Epicure and Lucretius. The Church may not have the wherewithals to infallibly decide every philosophical question, but certainly to decide those where one side is not just philosophically false, but also opposed to faith and morals as well. A wherewithal that would clearly seem to have come to use in 1633.

Do you like this format?

A youtube, link posted, timestamps and comments related to what was said just before them, the comments first posted under the video and then transferred here under the link of the video?

If so, there is more, see:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/

Notes:

* The statistics never show higher percentages of non-religious people being happy, a list of 25 countries.
** Like an unhappiness gap.
*** The context is Joe Heschmeyer speaking of Atheists claiming Christianity is anti-science.