Support NeoGAF

[Bolivar687]

The thing here is the Vatican has no interest in creating interest or furthering the discovery of science.

The Roman Catholic Church is arguably the biggest patron of science in all of human history. Much like the Big Bang theory, many of the other the scientific achievements you take for granted originate from firmly within the priesthood (and the laity expands it even further). We call book keeping clerical work because the clergy in the Middle Ages spent much of their time gathering data and recording observations. The royal academies that gave us science as we know it today were based on the Pontifical model and even then, many of their prominent leaders like Isaac Newton and Renee Decartes would have themselves told you on any given day that they were theologians first and scientists second.

The quote in the OP is wrong and should be corrected: Father Lemaitre is THE originator of the Big Bang theory, not one of its proponents. This is something Stephen Hawking took it upon himself to correct the record on at this year's Pontifical Academy of Science, of which he has been a prominent member for decades. He did so because many of his secular colleagues have outright lied or intentionally omitted this fact because it's one of the many examples shattering the ahistorical fallacy that religion and science are separate, much less antagonistic disciplines.

 

[Shanlei91]

It was a Catholic preist who proposed the Big Bang theory.

Yup.

Blasphemy!

 

[Karsticles]

The big bang fits nicely into creationist thinking

They are opposites. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Big Bang fits with theistic evolution.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I appreciate the gesture toward accepting reality, but "a god started the Big Bang and evolution" is still not a scientific stance to hold.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I appreciate the gesture toward accepting reality, but "a god started the Big Bang and evolution" is still not a scientific stance to hold.

I think just ending every scientific statement with "and God is responsible" is a lot better than people pretending something doesn't exist or subscribing to theories that are wholly contradicted by the evidence (the age of the Earth.)

 

[The Albatross]

The thing here is the Vatican has no interest in creating interest or furthering the discovery of science.

This probably isn't as true as opponents of the Church would like to think. Consider that the Pope is the most influential advocate for climate change awareness in the world, more so than any other prominent scientist, politician, or celebrity, and that the Church has been outspoken on climate change since at least 1971 (you could even say 1963 with Pope John XXIII's encyclicals against nuclear proliferation, but that was primarily from a human-cost perspective than necessarily preserving the earth... though that was an aspect of it).

http://catholicclimatemovement.global/

http://catholicclimatemovement.global/text-of-encyclical-laudato-si-by-pope-francis/

 

[Karsticles]

I appreciate the gesture toward accepting reality, but "a god started the Big Bang and evolution" is still not a scientific stance to hold.

Look at the bigger picture. It's about teaching the millions of Catholics around the world to accept scientific ways of thinking. It doesn't have to align with science perfectly to be desirable. Right now, the enemy is Creationism and the general anti-science sentiment that has been growing in the west.

Vaccinations? Dangerous and cause autism!
Evolution? It's about killing God and morality!
The Big Bang theory? Then we're just a bunch of random atoms and life has no meaning!
Medicine? That interferes with God - you just need to have faith and he will cure you!

ANYONE who helps combat these dangerous ideas is an ally of modernity right now, and we need all the allies we can get. Don't let imperfection be the enemy of the good.

 

[seanoff]

I appreciate the gesture toward accepting reality, but "a god started the Big Bang and evolution" is still not a scientific stance to hold.

If Big Bang is what happened. Anything before the bang is open to discussion. I was raised a catholic but im firmly atheist. For the church to hold a theological view of pre the bang is not totally bizarre. Unlike US creationists who take genesis literally and put the earth at 6000 years old in spite of overwhelming science to the contrary.

 

[mavo]

I appreciate the gesture toward accepting reality, but "a god started the Big Bang and evolution" is still not a scientific stance to hold.

I don't think there is a any scientific stance to hold about the creation of the universe.

 

[Artdayne]

Pope: It's a lie

The Big Bang Theory was actually proposed by a Catholic priest.

 

[Bulzeeb]

Look at the bigger picture. It's about teaching the millions of Catholics around the world to accept scientific ways of thinking. It doesn't have to align with science perfectly to be desirable. Right now, the enemy is Creationism and the general anti-science sentiment that has been growing in the west.

Vaccinations? Dangerous and cause autism!
Evolution? It's about killing God and morality!
The Big Bang theory? Then we're just a bunch of random atoms and life has no meaning!
Medicine? That interferes with God - you just need to have faith and he will cure you!

ANYONE who helps combat these dangerous ideas is an ally of modernity right now, and we need all the allies we can get. Don't let imperfection be the enemy of the good.

the funny thing is that the catholic church is most of the time pro all of that.

Vaccinations? use them
Evolution? its usually not as clear, the church doesn't oppse this and is more on the side of god as the driving force behind the changes
The Big Bang theory? as in evolution, they are usually on the side of God as the driving force.
Medicine? the catholic church is the founder for quite a huge number of medical institutions in the world
and I'll add education and science, just look at how many Universities and college are being funded by the church worldwide,

Again, as someone who graduated from one, I was never told that everything in the bible is literal, they were always on the side of you must follow the scientific method but keep in mind that whatever you might find, God might be there in some way or another.

 

[UncleSporky]

They are opposites. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Big Bang fits with theistic evolution.

I'm not sure if Genesis really covers the time period of the Big Bang. Arguably only the first line does, and "God created the heavens and the earth" isn't very specific about what "created" means.

You could say the bits about "let dry land appear," "let there be plants," might be incompatible with science, but that's long after the Big Bang would've taken place.

 

[SRG01]

Yep, catholic school kid here, k - 12.

My physics and chemistry teacher in yr11 and 12 had doctorates in both and was a priest

To say he thought creationism was utter stupidity would be to undersell his response.

Most of the doctorate-level scientists I personally know in my life are Catholics too.

 

[NervousXtian]

Not surprised, there is no reason to try to defy science and stick to a book that didn't understand science. They believe the bible is the word of god, but it's written through man, and been translated multiple times.

To the Vatican evolution and the big bang don't necessarily have to be at odds with the bible. I went to catholic school in the 80's, we most definitely weren't taught to ignore science. We were taught that things at odds with science were parables, meant to teach moral lessons. The bible was written in fantastical ways to make the stories more interesting, and written by people who weren't above exaggerating to make there point. The more fantastical a story is told, the more attention it receives.

Adam and Eve is more about obedience to god, than about an actual snake or actual people.

As an atheist, I can I'm not against faith for people peace. That seems more the goal of the current Pope than anything else.

Also, religion and science stem from really the same part of human emotion and thought, the look for answers.

 

[mantidor]

Just to add to the list, the father of modern genetics was also a priest.

Thats just how the divide between the Protestants and the Catholic Church is, the Catholics were never too inclined to interpret the Bible literally, but they also didn't let most people read it, Protestants did the opposite, and now we have this insane world.

 

[Lothar]

I'm not sure if Genesis really covers the time period of the Big Bang. Arguably only the first line does, and "God created the heavens and the earth" isn't very specific about what "created" means.

You could say the bits about "let dry land appear," "let there be plants," might be incompatible with science, but that's long after the Big Bang would've taken place.

A few days isn't very long.

 

[SigSig]

GAFs hate boner for the Vatican is amazing.
Surely the church is super antiscience!!! It isn't? Oh, well, surely the church is kinda antiscience!!! Isn't? Well, they are only, like, kinda agreeing to science to keep up appearance, but actually are antiscience!!! Wait, a lot of important researchers were priests?
Is this an US thing, where people assume Christians are antiscience because your conservative hardliners happen to be Christian?

 

[Bulzeeb]

A few days isn't very long.

as stated in this thread before, Catholic church doesnt really takes the bible literally, one take could be that 7 days could mean billions of years for us, but only a week for God. There are also some priest that say that this was only used to represent the creation as some kind of work routine in order to explain God involvement to the people.

 

[WaterAstro]

People should understand that the Bible isn't some ancient device that trascended time and space with the exact words of God. It's written by people from the Roman age.

I consider Genesis, and a lot of the early testament, to be metaphorical. The world was made in seven days, but what is seven days to a being that is considered eternal? Days weren't even a metric until we made it one.

I think Science and Religion can coexist perfectly, but there are a lot of people that are thick headed and take the words of the Bible too literally.

 

[Ithil]

Pope Francis invites scientists to the Vatican after Catholic Church realises the Big Bang is real

with a gigantic explosion

Expansion, not explosion. There's a pretty big difference there.

 

[Lothar]

as stated in this thread before, Catholic church doesnt really takes the bible literally, one take could be that 7 days could mean billions of years for us, but only a week for God.

The line after this about the creation story being just a story is fine. But for this take to make sense, you'd have to believe we had grass and plants for about a billion years before we had the sun, the moon, and stars. There's no good argument for a day meaning a billion years that makes sense. It's fine to believe they just wrote a completely fictional story to teach a message though.

 

[Straight Edge]

There's a reason why Protestant religions dislike Catholicism.

 

[jstripes]

GAFs hate boner for the Vatican is amazing.
Surely the church is super antiscience!!! It isn't? Oh, well, surely the church is kinda antiscience!!! Isn't? Well, they are only, like, kinda agreeing to science to keep up appearance, but actually are antiscience!!! Wait, a lot of important researchers were priests?
Is this an US thing, where people assume Christians are antiscience because your conservative hardliners happen to be Christian?

The Vatican is extremely complicated. Much of the hate towards it comes from the fact that it's extremely corrupt and covers stuff like child abuse up, and its antiquated ways like not allowing priests to marry leads to the assumption that it's anti-science.

 

[Into the Light]

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Being less bad doesn't make you good.

Neither are pro-Science and neither deserve your respect for being pro-Science.

Well you're wrong. The Catholic Church (the one headed by the Pope, not the Republican Party) believe it or not is pro-science. They do a lot of other shit we may not like but they don't stand opposed to science. Trust me I know, I was on a Catholic school. Everything from evolution to the Big Bang we were taught.

 

[darkwing]

I think people are confusing the Roman Catholic with Born-Again Christians/Evangelicals etc.

Roman Catholic is more into science than those groups

 

[Alex_Mexico]

The meeting is likely less for them as it is projecting an image to creationists and other anti-science folk, especially any who espouse themselves to be Catholics.

So. Much. THIS!

This is going to be a great reminder to Christians and Catholics that the Pope and the Catholic creed doesnt deny shit like global warming and stands against the bullshit of creationists or evangelical anti-science mumbo jumbo.

 

[Bulzeeb]

The line after this about the creation story being just a story is fine. But for this take to make sense, you'd have to believe we had grass and plants for about a billion years before we had the sun, the moon, and stars. There's no good argument for a day meaning a billion years that makes sense. It's fine to believe they just wrote a completely fictional story to teach a message though.

Well, we are usually open to debate on what if and where do you think God might be in the equation, some could say that God is the life force that motivates living beans to evolve and so on,and the time frame given was only to make it more tangible.

Also, take into account that the church is usually very skeptical on everything, for example, the Big Bang while being the most logically sounding and plausible explanation for the creation of everything, it is still a theory, maybe in a few years some scientist can find another particle or something on the field of quantum physics can find some hidden element and change everything, thus why the Catholic church will not add that to their preaching.

The Vatican is extremely complicated. Much of the hate towards it comes from the fact that it's extremely corrupt and covers stuff like child abuse up, and its antiquated ways like not allowing priests to marry leads to the assumption that it's anti-science.

that I cannot deny, the Vatican is really corrupt and the excuses some priest day for the child abuse controversies are so shitty that you want to punch them in the face and lock them with the perpetrators. But again, this is not related with how the Catholic church handles its relation with science.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I think people are confusing the Roman Catholic with Born-Again Christians/Evangelicals etc.

Roman Catholic is more into science than those groups

Honestly I think a lot of it is people just getting Catholic and Christian conflated. All Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholic.

Spoiler

Protestants, especially Baptists, are usually the crazy ones when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[mattwhite924]

I'm all for promoting science within the church! I wish my denomination would do that.
But noooooo, most Baptists seem to think science is some evil thing that's out to get them. Is their faith so weak that they're scared of truth? If all truth comes from God, then shouldn't Christians embrace science?

But nope. Let's just sit around and be willfully ignorant because anything that might make us question things is scary.

 

[Raven117]

Yeah. I grew up in a Catholic school and evolution was taught. I learned about the Big Bang through the same school.

lol

Same.

 

[Anteo]

as stated in this thread before, Catholic church doesnt really takes the bible literally, one take could be that 7 days could mean billions of years for us, but only a week for God. There are also some priest that say that this was only used to represent the creation as some kind of work routine in order to explain God involvement to the people.

Heck, as a student in a catholic school I was taught to identify the diferent stories in different pharagraphs of the bible. You can even identify 2 different stories one where god is a human like entity that has to travel around and another when it was omnipresent and both stories are next to each other. They taught us to not take these as real in any way.

Oh and evolution and the big bang were taught as well.

 

[Yamauchi]

Pope: It's a lie

As far as I understand the Big Bang theory, as strictly a theory of natural science, it accords with the predominant metaphysical and theological frameworks of Western Christianity, especially with those described by Thomas Aquinas.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Nah, Catholic Church is open to the big bang just as much as a community of scientists is... That is to say, it could be a plausible theory for the creation of our universe.

I think the Church would probably struggle with multi-verse or many-verse theories, though. I'm not sure if that could be consistent with Catholic ideas around free will or, at base, the primacy of the soul.

The Church is open to scientific theories insofar as they don't contradict the Catechism of the Church. The Catechism of the Church is primary to the Church, which is a completely reasonable position. The Church being against contraceptives is internally consistent with the theology of the Church. Beyond that, though, I don't think that science has some position on how morally sound contraceptives are... It's not the realm of science. I'd imagine the scientific position on contraceptives would be, "Contraceptives exist. They work at preventing conception. End chapter," and the Church would have the same position, except the Church has a moral disposition against contraceptives for reasons that Science is not interested in.

And especially this Pope, who was a Chemist before he joined the Church.

Most scientists might view it as an opportunity to help educate a world leader and arguably one of the most influencial people in the world. Not so much "What can I take away from this scientifically," but "what can I provide scientifically." Beyond that, most scientists might very fairly recognize that Pope Francis is a smart person who is worth listening to... Maybe not on issues of science, as he's no scientist, but perhaps on some aspect of the human condition that they haven't otherwise considered.

Keep in mind, also, that Pope Francis is probably the most powerful person in the world who is passionate about climate change, and has some influence on about 1 billion people worldwide.

Yep, this, and I'd like to expand... The Church is less interested, morally, in the 'wasting your seed' concept than it is sexual abuse. Of course, what the Church sees as sexual abuse is very different than what a modern, Western liberal society would see as sexual abuse (and obviously the Church has lost a lot of moral standing when it comes to sexual abuse because of the decades (or centuries...) long sex abuse scandal within the Church). The church doesn't really put that much special emphasis on 'your seed,' as it did, say, 500 years ago back before people understood human biology as well as they do today. Sex cells, semen, or what have you, is about as important to the Church today as hair cells, skin cells, or the cells that make up your fingernails are. I say "about as," relatively here... They're more important on a relative scale, but there isn't some 'seed worship.'

The Church maintains that sex should always be ultimately open to procreation, and so contraceptives are, at base, a rejection of the moral imperative of sex to procreate. Likewise, sex acts that don't ultimately have some end in procreation are considered in the same light (which is why oral sex and other sexual acts can be okay as long as they're sort of there to ... warm up the engine, so to speak). There are other aspects of this as well, like how sex can often lead to abuse, hurt feelings, feelings of self-worthlessness, anxiety, and other personal issues. I'm not religious (I'm an atheist), but I think that the Church is touching on a perspective that a lot of sexual awareness advocates also touch on, that sex bares a lot of responsibility. Over the last 5-10 years, you've seen a lot more social awareness about what's appropriate when it comes to sex, that not all sex is good sex, and that consent is not always simple, clear concept that we pretended it was for 3 decades. Going back to the point of sex cells being about as morally important as your skin cells, this might not seem like the case because, well, isn't the Church technically against masturbation? It sure is (though, often this is something that modern Catholic sexual moralists would kinda shrug at), but not from the perspective of 'wasting seed,' but from the perspective that masturbation is usually also accompanied by some misuse of the act of sex... maybe thinking of someone in a way that doesn't respect who they are as a person, thinking of someone as a sexual object, pornography, or maybe if you are married, it's a slight to your partner if you're thinking outside of your relationship.

Bringing this back to the original point that other poster made, I don't think that science -- at least, biological, chemical, atomic, physical, (etc) science -- is really very concerned with any of that. So, I don't think the Church has an 'anti-scientific' perspective on contraceptive, it's got an extra-scientific perspective on contraception. Scientifically, the Church agrees, contraception works at preventing conception, and anything beyond that science isn't really concerned, but the Church is.

At least.. theologically.

This probably isn't as true as opponents of the Church would like to think. Consider that the Pope is the most influential advocate for climate change awareness in the world, more so than any other prominent scientist, politician, or celebrity, and that the Church has been outspoken on climate change since at least 1971 (you could even say 1963 with Pope John XXIII's encyclicals against nuclear proliferation, but that was primarily from a human-cost perspective than necessarily preserving the earth... though that was an aspect of it).

http://catholicclimatemovement.global/

http://catholicclimatemovement.globa...-pope-francis/

I'd like to take a second to appreciate the work you're doing here Albatross, and encourage more people to pay attention to and read the stuff being posted here. These are some of the most clear and concise explanations for Catholic teaching I've seen here in a while, at least in regards to its relationship with scientific endeavor.

 

[Fenderputty]

The big bang fits nicely into creationist thinking

Meh ... when I think of Creationism I think of Young Earth Creationists. I realize there are old earth creationists as well, but that's basically what every non crazy religious person is.

 

[Kid Ying]

If may come as a shock to some but the Catholic Church hasn't been anti-science for centuries. Catholic schools teach evolution for fucks sake, they employee scientists and even have their own observatories.

Lots of cientific advances comes from priests and monks. Never understood the way people act how the relationship between the church and science as antagonistic. It certainly was, but that was centuries Ago.

 

[Aureon]

Pope: It's a lie

nah
Pope: God made it happen (just like everything else)

Catholicism is actually pretty pro-science. It's only a few issues where there's moral clashes that they object (Stem cells, mostly).

Perhaps surprisingly so, the church very rarely denies scientific facts, if at all.

Even in the middle ages, one should remember that science as we know it didn't exist at all - They were certainly in the business of shutting up major challengers to their knowledge primacy by any means necessary (See Galileo, first of all) - but that'd because they had a knowledge primacy in the first place - Pretty much all of the medioeval universities where catholic.

Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted, but they were catholic scientists in the first place. As absurd as it is, the catholic church itself created the environment where the father of science as intended in the modern sense of it could come up with the scientific method, only to shut him up for PR reasons.

(And a few years ago, Galileo got a statue within the Vatican walls, which is very rare for anyone who hasn't been sanctified or a high-ranking member of the church)

Galileo was ordered not to support Copernican theory in 1616, but in 1632, after receiving permission from a new Pope (Urban VIII) to address the subject indirectly through a dialogue, he fell foul of the Pontiff by placing the pope's views in the mouth of an imbecile within the text, and was hauled before the Inquisition. The Inquisition found him guilty of defending Copernican theory as a probability, "vehemently suspect of heresy", and placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

It's been a bumpy relationship, but wholesale denial of facts hasn't ever been the general modus operandi of the church, especially in modern times.

I do have to wonder what the hell there is to talk about.

"So scientists, about the big bang..."
"What about it, Pope?"
"It was pretty neat, wasn't it?"
"Yes, it was."

It's most likely the Pope wanted some insights in contemporary cosmology.

 

[Artdayne]

Yep, this, and I'd like to expand... The Church is less interested, morally, in the 'wasting your seed' concept than it is sexual abuse. Of course, what the Church sees as sexual abuse is very different than what a modern, Western liberal society would see as sexual abuse (and obviously the Church has lost a lot of moral standing when it comes to sexual abuse because of the decades (or centuries...) long sex abuse scandal within the Church). The church doesn't really put that much special emphasis on 'your seed,' as it did, say, 500 years ago back before people understood human biology as well as they do today. Sex cells, semen, or what have you, is about as important to the Church today as hair cells, skin cells, or the cells that make up your fingernails are. I say "about as," relatively here... They're more important on a relative scale, but there isn't some 'seed worship.'

The Church maintains that sex should always be ultimately open to procreation, and so contraceptives are, at base, a rejection of the moral imperative of sex to procreate. Likewise, sex acts that don't ultimately have some end in procreation are considered in the same light (which is why oral sex and other sexual acts can be okay as long as they're sort of there to ... warm up the engine, so to speak). There are other aspects of this as well, like how sex can often lead to abuse, hurt feelings, feelings of self-worthlessness, anxiety, and other personal issues. I'm not religious (I'm an atheist), but I think that the Church is touching on a perspective that a lot of sexual awareness advocates also touch on, that sex bares a lot of responsibility. Over the last 5-10 years, you've seen a lot more social awareness about what's appropriate when it comes to sex, that not all sex is good sex, and that consent is not always simple, clear concept that we pretended it was for 3 decades. Going back to the point of sex cells being about as morally important as your skin cells, this might not seem like the case because, well, isn't the Church technically against masturbation? It sure is (though, often this is something that modern Catholic sexual moralists would kinda shrug at), but not from the perspective of 'wasting seed,' but from the perspective that masturbation is usually also accompanied by some misuse of the act of sex... maybe thinking of someone in a way that doesn't respect who they are as a person, thinking of someone as a sexual object, pornography, or maybe if you are married, it's a slight to your partner if you're thinking outside of your relationship.

Bringing this back to the original point that other poster made, I don't think that science -- at least, biological, chemical, atomic, physical, (etc) science -- is really very concerned with any of that. So, I don't think the Church has an 'anti-scientific' perspective on contraceptive, it's got an extra-scientific perspective on contraception. Scientifically, the Church agrees, contraception works at preventing conception, and anything beyond that science isn't really concerned, but the Church is.

At least.. theologically.

I'm not really sure who modern Catholic sex moralists are but the Catholic church teaches that masturbation is a mortal sin, as in, you will go to hell if you do not go to confession from a priest, do not perform perfect contrition or you somehow do not satisfy the three components of committing a mortal sin. Even the act of fantasizing over someone without physically acting on anything can be a mortal sin.

Frankly I think the moral superiority that church clergy claim to have pontificating what is moral while covering up what was probably the greatest sex abuse epidemic in history, it's absurd.

 

[WaterAstro]

I'm not really sure who modern Catholic sex moralists are but the Catholic church teaches that masturbation is a mortal sin, as in, you will go to hell if you do not go to confession from a priest, do not perform perfect contrition or you somehow do not satisfy the three components of committing a mortal sin. Even the act of fantasizing over someone without physically acting on anything can be a mortal sin.

Frankly I think the moral superiority that church clergy claim to have pontificating what is moral while covering up what was probably the greatest sex abuse epidemic in history, it's absurd.

Mortal sin is far more grave than sexual fantasies. Not sure where you got all that.

For something to be considered mortal sin, they would have had to take someone's life or take their own life.

 

[Beartruck]

The only way for organised religion to survive is for the doctrine to adapt to facts that weren't around when it was written, so yeah, I think Pope Francis has a good grasp on this. You can retcon the Big Bang into Creation, especially since it's unlikely we'll have hard facts on what caused it in the first place either for a long time, or maybe even ever.

Seems like a smart move, incorporate modern day science into Catholicism.

Yep. They've already stated that the 7 days of creation are metaphorical, so this seems like the next logical step.

 

[Aureon]

The thing here is the Vatican has no interest in creating interest or furthering the discovery of science.

I want to get on this separately, because it's kind of important.

Spoiler

I should also specify i'm an Atheist through and through, and i definitely have no simpathy for the catholic church as an institution. However, facts are facts.

The catholic church has been the primary force for knowledge for literally millennia.
There's no institution that has done more for knowledge than the Catholic Church.
While largely wrong, it has accurately passed on the works of Aristotle and so many others for a timespan that generally turns facts into legend.
It was the only major institutution employing teachers for, again, literally a millennia, and also the only institution employing scientists.

Part of galileo's works were suppressed, but most others were still teached, even by himself.

Without historical context, it's easy to go "Just like Republicans today, the Catholic church denied facts for political\economic expediency" - But in the 1500s, the rules were completely different. The concept of scientific truth barely existed, and once it started to exist, it was due to the contributions of so many scientists educated and funded by the church.

Yes, the church was a millennial organization with a lot of inertia that has occasionally and not suppressed knowledge for their own gain. However, for a much longer time before and since, they've been practically the sole force for education and research in europe until modern-ish times.

 

[Artdayne]

Mortal sin is far more grave than sexual fantasies. Not sure where you got all that.

For something to be considered mortal sin, they would have had to take someone's life or take their own life.

I got it from my education in Catholic seminary before I left the church.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/mortal-sin

There are three conditions that make an act a mortal sin:

An act of grave matter that is...
Committed with full knowledge and...
Deliberate consent.

The term grave matter means a serious act contrary to the moral law.

The Ten Commandments are the standard reference point for defining grave matter.

Remember that each commandment is really a category, though. Don't think you're off the hook because technically you didn't ”worship a false idol", for example!
A good Catholic Examination of Conscience will help you sort out the kinds of things considered to be grave matter.
I should clarify two important things here.

First, a serious act is required. Telling your mother you forgot to put your shoes away (when you didn't), is not the same as perjury or tax fraud. Minor violations are usually seen as venial sins unless serious harm results, or they are committed with real malice. (See Catechism, 2484)

Second, don't look at that point about serious acts and try to use it as a loophole! The term ”act" also includes deliberate thoughts. As Christ himself said, ”I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:28) We take that seriously.

A deliberate thought can be a mortal sin, according to Catholic teaching.

The thing here is the Vatican has no interest in creating interest or furthering the discovery of science.

I want to get on this separately, because it's kind of important.

Spoiler

I should also specify i'm an Atheist through and through, and i definitely have no simpathy for the catholic church as an institution. However, facts are facts.

The catholic church has been the primary force for knowledge for literally millennia.
There's no institution that has done more for knowledge than the Catholic Church.
While largely wrong, it has accurately passed on the works of Aristotle and so many others for a timespan that generally turns facts into legend.
It was the only major institutution employing teachers for, again, literally a millennia, and also the only institution employing scientists.

Part of galileo's works were suppressed, but most others were still teached, even by himself.

Without historical context, it's easy to go "Just like Republicans today, the Catholic church denied facts for political\economic expediency" - But in the 1500s, the rules were completely different. The concept of scientific truth barely existed, and once it started to exist, it was due to the contributions of so many scientists educated and funded by the church.

Yes, the church was a millennial organization with a lot of inertia that has occasionally and not suppressed knowledge for their own gain. However, for a much longer time before and since, they've been practically the sole force for education and research in europe until modern-ish times.

I mean, Catholicism was the only game in town in Europe for a long time, so I don't really think they deserve a lot of credit for having universities. Also, Isaac Newton was Anglican and he's considered by many to be the father of modern science.

 

[WaterAstro]

Yeh dude, you're taking some words and interpreting it yourself.

Catholicism utilizes traditions of teaching through priesthood in addition to the Bible. Go ask a priest if masturbation automatically sends you to hell, cuz I'd bet they would laugh in your face.

 

[Ogodei]

It's always interesting how USGaf acts like everyone from whatever church is anti science.

Because a lot of American Catholics (even people with stronger ties to the church) will deny stuff like this. Many US Catholics are just evangelicals who take communion.

 

[Faiz]

GAFs hate boner for the Vatican is amazing.
Surely the church is super antiscience!!! It isn't? Oh, well, surely the church is kinda antiscience!!! Isn't? Well, they are only, like, kinda agreeing to science to keep up appearance, but actually are antiscience!!! Wait, a lot of important researchers were priests?
Is this an US thing, where people assume Christians are antiscience because your conservative hardliners happen to be Christian?

It's an internet atheism thing.

 

[Artdayne]

Yeh dude, you're taking some words and interpreting it yourself.

Catholicism utilizes traditions of teaching through priesthood in addition to the Bible. Go ask a priest if masturbation automatically sends you to hell, cuz I'd bet they would laugh in your face.

Some of what I posted is directly from the Catechism, which is the Catholic authority on morality, dude.

Mortal Sin
Its subject matter must be grave (or serious).
It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.[4]

1858. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.[5]

It's quite clear that there's a lot more in the 10 commandments than just "though shall not kill". Hell, "though shalt not covet thy neighbors wife" is in there. Do you know what that means? "Though shalt not take the lord's name in vein" is also in there. So according to the Catholic Catechism, saying the Lord's name in vein could be a mortal sin if you have knowledge of the sinful act and if you commit it deliberately.

 

[WaterAstro]

Just talk to a priest for real answers.

 

[Mael]

The Vatican would know not to take the Bible literally, they have records about how it was compiled and everything.
It's idiots in bumfuck nowhere that think it's actually some kind of God given document or something.
These people have more in common with the image South Park gave of Mormons than of actual Christian religious people.
As for the Church being pro-science? It would seem logical considering the whole Vatican is built around people who discuss and try to understand/explain religion to begin with.
I mean to say that the whole thing is people thinking all day about stuff and questioning their faith and stuff.
Of course, they'll be interested in science and stuff.

 

[EGM1966]

so what's the deal?

Will the Pope try to convince the scientists the Big Bang was executed by a thinking or conscious being called "God"?

nobody can answer that, all we can do is say "maybe? who knows, let's have beer and Pizza"

So far as I'm aware the Vatican has already accepted science plus the Big Bang etc. The offical view from the church is that God existed beforehand and pressed the "start" button but since then its been evolution and so on as accordingly to science (but based on God's original design).

Even Dawkins I believe commented it was a very shrewd move and effectively put the religion clear of influence of science in terms of trying to challenge it with out-dated beliefs.

Of course how many Catholics are even aware of that or take the Church's lead is another matter.

 

[StrategyFan]

does the vatican still believe the whole virgin birth of jesus & miracles & resurrection stuff?