It surprises me how many people do not understand the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. But even most Catholics are unaware of the history of the doctrine. The Catholic Church did not adopt the doctrine of papal infallibility until late in the 19th century. Pius IX issued the doctrine. He also issued the Syllabus of Errors, which was basically a sort of childish tantrum denouncing every idea that differed from his own notion of traditional Catholicism. It denounced the Enlightenment; it denounced freedom of thought and freedom of religion; it denounced the right of civil authority to permit other religions than the Roman Catholic Church. Pius IX wanted to assure that his own reactionary and bigoted ideas could never be challenged by future church leaders, even by future popes. But the idea of papal infallibility actually originated in the 13th century, with Franciscans, who wanted to prevent reform within the church, since if papal edicts are infallible then they cannot ever be revoked. At that time, the doctrine was rejected by the Church and the Pope, because they did not want their power to be limited by the decrees of earlier popes. So it was not until the First Vatican Council that infallibility was adopted. But there's a problem, which remains unresolved to this day: Infallibility only applies to statements relating to dogma, made ex cathedra, but what of such statements made by popes before the doctrine was officially accepted as dogma? Which pronouncements of earlier popes, over the Church's 2,000-year history, fall under the rubric of papal infallibility, and cannot therefore be reformed? This question remains unresolved. Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope is perfect or sinless, or that his statements not made ex cathedra are necessarily free from error. Source for this post is the lecture series "The Catholic Church: A History" from The Teaching Company, taught by Professor William R. Cook, himself a Catholic, and disposed to believe all the god and christ nonsense one expects from Christians, but otherwise an interesting and well-presented course.
Is religion the only sphere of human activity in which complete rigidity is not just a major hallmark but is virtually its very definition? You might say governance and bureaucracy, but governance, especially modern governance, has facilities for change, like legislative bodies, and bureaucracies, while resistant to change, do embody processes to manage change if not actually embrace it. Institutionalized religion works only to make itself as indelible fossil as it possibly can. It's the most anti-life focus of mind I think I've ever encountered.
One item from the Syllabus of Errors asserted that it is an error to imagine that salvation is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. I.e. Pius IX claimed that you could not go to heaven unless he personally approved of your beliefs, right down to the most trivial item of dogma. Of course, many religions claim something similar (though liberal Protestant denominations typically allow some leeway on the less important theological questions). I am fascinated by religious beliefs in part because of this widespread belief that "If you don't believe exactly the same unfounded idiocy that I believe, a loving god will send you to a place of torture forever." How is it that a brain capable of any kind of reasoning at all could cling to such crap?
That is only a hallmark of the middle-eastern religions. Eastern religions do not have such theology. Hindu & Budhist believes, for eg., are mostly around the actions performed ("karma") rather than just beliefs. It could also be because of monotheism - once you say there is only one God (and that God is exactly like your religion describes him) - there is no compromise that can be reached with other religions. Polytheistic Hindus & Budhists (unless you want to say Budhism is really atheistic) find it a lot more easier to adopt and even embrace others Gods. Most Hindus consider Budha an "Aavatar" and essentially lived peacefully with each other for 2,500 years. Infact Hinduism has continuously absorbed various tribal Gods over the centuries ...
Religion is like ideology. You beleive in it only as long as you drink their kool-aid. But, if you see historically - even religions have changed a lot over the years. The I way I look at it - it is one of the most conservative institutions. But they do change - afterall the Pope apologized for torture of Galiloe - even though it came a "little" late. Or for that matter a lot of things Christ may have considered taboo (punishable by death) are hardly observed by anyone today (who is not a very religious Jew).
I just saw in today's paper that they have dug up Copernicus, and have entombed him with honor. I'm sure that comforts him and his family now...
the problem lies not with God, but man, who twists everything to suit his desires. if everyone loved unconditionally and followed the golden rule, the world would be a much better place. but we are more intent on the evil desires of our hearts.
I agree with this. The problem cannot lie with someone who does not exist. The problem lies with us. Or, to quote Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." I've long said that if people treated each other as they treat their loved family, the worst government in the world could not harm us; but that if people hate and fear each other, the best government in the world cannot help us. Unfortunately, religion fosters hate and fear. It preaches love even as it kills those who follow other beliefs.
you can't generalize like that. there is plenty of evil in the world that has no basis on man's belief in a divine creator. and there are millions of decent people who work every day at helping others because of their religious beliefs, and also many who have none.
The generalization is valid. One just has to look at the history of religions. You are correct that not all suffering is caused by religion, and correct that many people who believe in religion are good people. I do not judge PEOPLE based on their beliefs. The problem is with religion itself, which divides people from each other and tells people that "other" beliefs are misguided at best or "devil worship" at worst, and which teaches small children to accept WITHOUT QUESTION ideas which are preposterous from the start, and which an unbiased observer would reject out of hand. Not all tyrants are motivated by religion, but when religion holds political power it is always tyrannical. The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is a claim that god speaks directly to the Pope (or more precisely, that god prevents the Pope from making errors when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.) And the Catholic Church further claims that it is god's ONLY true representative on Earth. Anyone who believes this must necessarily believe that believers of all other faiths are outside of god's grace, and therefore less human or less important; and historically, when the Church had the political power to enforce its will, it murdered those people without compunction. Other religions have done the same whenever they held the political power to do so.
