I've read Newman on infallibility and read carefully the comments of blogs. Have not reallychanged my mind totally, but can go along. Newman: Certainly if I am obliged to bring religion into after dinner toasts, I shall drink to the pope if you please--still to conscience first and to the pope afterwards.
Thinking of Newman, I am not surprised, I guess, that his path toward sainhood will probably never reach a goal, while two portuguese young boys of very dubious credentials were 'given' sainthood by JP2. I think Fatima is a clear case of childhood fantasy if not outright deception. Best thing I've read in years was Ratzinger's analysis of the
fatima "miracle". I find these 'apparitions' and the alleged "miracles" very weak evidence. Certainly the 'evidence' is subject to empirical analysis and , I hope, is not part of the of some 'lower' decree of the magisterium.
I know the private revelation scheme, but what if I say JP2 was badly off base.
Could a person agree with what I say and still not be a heretic? May be LOL to you, but rather important practical question.
Responses please. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think its a good question for Anna. I am not at all aware of Fatima, Lourdes, or any of those other things being anything like infallible. Even sainthood is fallible, right?
ReplyDeleteJPII was very saintly and charismatic. B16 seems very intelligent and less charismatic. He might just surprise all us liberals yet.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteLet me start with a few quotes from my Catechism:
" All that is needed for salvation has already been revealed. What are called private revelations, that is, messages such as those given by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Lourdes and Fatima, add nothing to what was publicly revealed up and through Christ but can help inspire a more profound commitment to what has been revealed through public Revelation."
"Public Revelation, which must be believed, ended with the death of the last Apostle. There can still be private revelation, which is intended only for the good of the person who receives it and does not need to be believed by others." [My bold emphasis. United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, pp 15 and 526, respectively]
Does that reassure you? Generally, when an "apparition" happens, the Church looks at the message the apparition conveys: if the message doesn't actually contradict something of the faith, then it will allow devotion to occur. The Church very specifically avoids ever trying to infallibly say that an apparition is real. John Paul II may have been a fan of Fatima and encouraged devotion in relation to it. The most that can be said of our assent is that we ought to give JPII's position serious consideration before rejecting it. It is definitely not heresy to think that Fatima was a case of childhood fantasy.
For myself, I know little of Fatima. I guess I have generally heard positive reports of results from it - that it has helped people to grow in their faith rather than separate themselves from God - so I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Thank you, Anna, I am familiar with the idea of "private revelation" But, of course you explain better. Making the case, then, for women priests!!
ReplyDeleteI realize I'm intruding on your time but could you spare a few moments to look at Ratzinger's analysis on Fatima. As you may know it angered many of the faithful. But as I have said before it makes great logical sense, kind of like Hume.
If you will do me this courtesy, I will ask my last question and then decide to join or not join my family. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI read this. Was this the analysis you had in mind?
As far as I can tell, all he did was emphasize the Church's teaching that you don't have to believe in private revelations like Fatima, and then give an interpretation of the third secret that basically amounted to a reiteration of things that we are already supposed to know.
To someone who believes passionately in Fatima, I can see how it would be a disappointment. Especially to those who were hoping for some "secret knowledge" - there may be a little bit of gnostic in all of us. But I wouldn't have any particular issue with it.
Anna, yes this is the report I was refering to. Within a catholic framework does this not seem a great distance from the impression JP2 gave? The "faithful" andI know some regard this as very close to heresy.
ReplyDeleteBy the way you notice he says nothing about the"dancing" sun.Which most Fatima "Believers" take as proof, even one of Joe's most perceptive commentators uses this as "proof". And, of course, you know all the 'prophcies' were not revealed until after the events had occured.
I guess my point is: it seems like Ratzinger is trying to put a good face on what had become a hugh debate between the "faithful" and the "doubters" the latter having by far the best empirical case I believe.
Thanks, for your time and response. Jack
Anna, one other point. You have pointed out on several ocassions that a 'good' catholic needs to give serious consideration to what a pope says. Does this not apply to B16, and why are his haters on this subject in some cases the most 'devout' catholics. Are they not flirting with 'disobedience"? Instead they are praised by many. Look at conservative blogs. They blast Vatican2 with impunity, and insist Fatima was not like Ratzinger says. Of course, he was not pope at time of report. But does not his analysis, because of his position, carry great weight? Jack
ReplyDeleteAgain
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteThose are just the traddies (Traditionalists). Sometimes RadTrads. They are conservative dissenters that are schismatics in their own right, but without the humility of liberal dissenters who usually realize they are falling short of catholic obedience.
It is no good confusing ultraorthodox, orthodox, and ultramontane types with the likes of evil RadTrads. No good orthodox or ultramontane catholic would blast VII.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm about to say would probably make my own wife very angry... Let me put it this way to you... If Our Lady did have something to say at Fatima, I expect that it would have been a lot more profound, and would have sounded a lot less like a mid-level, anti-modernist, anti-communist Portugese cleric. In other words, what she supposedly said at Fatima doesn't sound like the Mary of the Magnificat to me.
I don't know. Private revelations do not have to be held De Fide. Lots of parishes are named after her, so I'm not going to ridicule it. I've noticed that a lot of hits to my website are to a link I made to a movie that was made about it.
In addition to what Anna pointed out, the Catechism points out the following, which includes a great quote from St. John of the Cross.
God has said everything in his Word
65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
There will be no further Revelation
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Thanks all of you. Will try to post once more tomorrow. Would like your comments, although I'm afraid I will appear petty.
ReplyDeleteYou should know by now I live in Tulsa. You might enjoy seeing pictures of Alice, my kids, my grandkids church. An excellent example of art deco If interested, look at Christ the King Church Tulsa.Alice's parents were very early members. Jack .
Jack,
ReplyDeleteWithin a catholic framework does this not seem a great distance from the impression JP2 gave?
I don't suppose I know all that much about JP2's opinion on Fatima, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. This is the way things get classified in my head:
(1) Church teaching/doctrine: says that public revelation needs to be believed, private revelation doesn't.
(2) Heirarchy opinions: not infallible, not heresy to disagree with. May differ widely from one member of the heirarchy to another.
If I cared greatly about Fatima, I would probably do a lot of research, including what both popes said about it, so that I could resolve anything that needed resolving to my own satisfaction. But I don't really care, so I haven't done that. It sounds like you have given it some serious consideration; if you have satisfied the demands of your own conscience and reason on the subject, I guess I wouldn't worry about it any more.
The "faithful" andI know some regard this as very close to heresy.
You know Jack, if everyone in the world who has been considered a heretic by someone Catholic were to suddenly die, there'd be precious few people left - probably not even many Catholics around! :) What matters is that when you look into what Church teaching really says - in other words, a reasonable, educated judgment - neither JPII nor Benedict said anything heretical about Fatima; they both simply gave some of their opinions on the matter (and Benedict re-iterated some Church teaching on the topic). You may be right that Benedict was trying to reconcile the doubters and the believers of Fatima; his words to me certainly sounded like he was trying to reign in the extreme believers while still giving them some room to believe.
You have pointed out on several ocassions that a 'good' catholic needs to give serious consideration to what a pope says.
It is my opinion that all Catholics *ought* to give serious consideration to what the pope, their bishop, and their priest say before disagreeing with it. This opinion of mine is sort of my own probably overly-simplified version of what the Church tries to teach about various levels of assent, etc. Most Catholics don't go around asking me before they post things on the internet, though, so it would hardly surprise me if there are small or gross violations to this. (said jokingly).
I would certainly apply this to B16 and the Fatima case. The irony is that I would also apply it to JPII and the Fatima case. Both opinions should carry weight, and someone who cares about Fatima ought to consider why both of the popes said what they said, so that they can evaluate those reasons for themselves. Do people do this? Maybe some do, probably many don't. (Because it takes work!)
Just because someone is conservative, or lauds fidelity to the Church, doesn't really mean they have any more inherent respect for the heirarchy than anyone else. I've heard some very negative things said about bishops and priests from some very conservative folks. Being "conservative" or "liberal" just gives you a guide to knowing which bishops (or which bishop/papal statements) someone is likely to agree or disagree with, not how charitable or reasonable they are going to be in their disagreements.
One more point I'd like to make. Just as I think that you are justified in coming to your own conclusions on Fatima if you have looked carefully into things, so do I also think that someone else is justified in coming to their own conclusion if they have looked carefully into things, even if they come to the opposite conclusion as you. Just as you would not be a heretic if you disagreed with JPII on Fatima, so would another person not be a heretic if they disagreed with B16 on Fatima.
Anna, I agree with what you say; as you could guess, I'm really not into the "heretic" business. You are also right in suggesting I've have studied the Fatima scene rather thoroughly. And find the Fatima "Story" simply without evidence---except as B16 'handles' it.
ReplyDeleteAgain I think of Newman. As an Anglican he went to Italy. He was shocked by the primitive beliefs and activities of the common people, but he said 'There is more real christianity here than in most of England'. Single quotes becuse I can't remember the exact quote.
I think part of the problem is the disproportionate dominance of Italians in church leadership.
Anna, we live in an age where science[a method, not a body of knowledge} has shown its ability to find truth. And so in most things I am a skeptic. The Padre Pio scene bothers me. Specifically the 'belief' he could be in two places at one time, which would of course destroy the law of non-contradiction, a very important part of human reason. I do not find answers like "God can do anything" acceptable, because the consequence would be "Anything can be believed" which would create intellectual anarchy.
You are saying, to be a catholic you are free to say a church leader {a pope} can believe something which you believe is false. I accept that.
We need not discuss Fatima again. Alice once said she was going to have me committed if I brought it up again. She agreed with me it is nonsense, but is not part of the deposit of faith.
Jeff, your comments were really on the mark. You obviously have given some time to the matter because your "impression" dovetails quite closely to what so many believe.
Still planning to post my "petty" problem. Please read and comment. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAnna, we live in an age where science[a method, not a body of knowledge} has shown its ability to find truth.
Interesting. Given the way science has of completely flipping itself over every now and then, I'm mildly surprised you consider it a way of finding truth. (Not that I'm necessarily opposed to that thought).
Padre Pio:
How would someone being in two places violate the law of non-contradiction? I agree that it makes no sense to say that God can do something which contradicts itself (such as make a rock so big he can't lift it, or make a square circle). But as far as I know, being in two places at once is something which we simply *haven't* seen people do, not something which actually contradicts human nature to do. (Kind of the way people might have thought it impossible to be both a man and a woman at the same time, until hermaphroditism become more known).
Let me make a case for bilocation. Have you ever read Flatland? Fascinating look at spatial dimensions. Picture a two-dimensional world, a flat plane. "People" in this world are circles, squares, triangles. They run around in their little flat world, never aware that there is a third dimension around. Along comes a sphere. If it enters the two-dimensional world, the native residents will see it as a circle. (Never mind the issue of how they have eyes or move, this is just to make a point). If a cube enters the two-dimensional world, it will appear like a square.
Now let's say there's a garden hose around. Mr. Hose sticks one end through the two-dimensional world. Natives see him as a circle. Now Mr. Hose, without moving the part of him that is already in 2D-Land, moves his other end around and sticks that through 2D-Land also. What do the other people see? They see Mr. Hose in two places, at the same time. Mr. Hose is bilocating. How is this possible, they ask themselves? They have no concept of another dimension in which someone could be "connected" from one body to the other.
Now go back to Padre Pio. String theory already suggests that there are some 10 spatial dimensions to our universe, even though only 3 of them are extended in such a way that we are aware of them. For my bilocating analogy, there need only be one extra dimension, a fourth spatial dimension. We normally perceive only three dimensions, but that doesn't mean that we don't have some inherent potential for movement and extension of ourselves through higher dimensions, which would allow bilocation, among other things.
Anna, we get along so well but on ocassion startle each other. Thus my feeling toward your use of string theory to 'justify' bilocation for Padre Pio. Have you read Karl Popper? Are you aware that NO example of bilocation has ever been shown; that the theory has no predictive power. But most startling your comment suggesting that science has no value in finding truth{although you back off a little} a doctrine that would shock the pope!!and every catholic philosopher I've ever heard of.
ReplyDeleteOf course you know the principle of parsimony {Occam's razor}. So which is the most efficient explanation: that Padre Pio appearing at two places at once proves string theory or that out of piety and the notorious unreliability of personal witness the claim is false. Please check Catholic idea of bilocation in Catholic Encyclopedia>
The rest of your comment was, as usual, very good!! Please don't stop communicating. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading "The Elegant Universe", so string theory is on my mind. It's really a fascinating read.
I haven't read Karl Popper, no.
Are you aware that NO example of bilocation has ever been shown; that the theory has no predictive power.
Miracles in general have no predictive power. They are by definition exceptions to the natural order of things. Bilocation, if and when it happens, would certainly constitute a miracle.
My relating bilocation to dimensions was not meant to suggest that all people have some inherent ability most of us just aren't aware of. Rather, it was to suggest a physical mechanism that would explain how bilocation does not have to be metaphysically impossible.
But most startling your comment suggesting that science has no value in finding truth
It startled me when you suggested science as a mode of finding truth, in the context of knowing that you like to make a distinction between fact and truth. I think of science as dealing more with facts than with metaphysical truths. (Although perhaps what you mean by truth is not metaphysical). My comment was also something of a reflection on my recent reading of the string theory book, because it validly points out, "The history of science teaches us that each time we think that we have it all figured out, nature has a radical surprise in store for us that requires significant and sometimes drastic changes in how we think the world works." It seems to me that the more science progresses, the more our previous ideas get overturned. The very notion of space and time itself are being challenged now. So I want to say that, while we really are progressing, at the same time there isn't any theory of science which I am confident to label "truth".
I don't know the evidence for or against Padre Pio bilocating. Like Fatima, it's just not something I care a whole lot about. However, I would definitely take issue with the idea that miracles don't happen, because of Occam's Razor or any other idea. While I think God normally acts through the natural order that he created in the first place, I also believe that he can and does sometimes supercede it in the form of miracles. To me, that seems to be one of the basic messages of the Bible.
Ah, touche!!! I was careless with fact and truth. Truth is what ought to be or what necessarilly would happen. So Oedipus is true but not fact.
ReplyDeleteI really don't object to your string theory remarks. Along with most catholic theologians, they are not claiming the theory as "everyday" occurrence in natural world but in terms of a miracle. So the Padre Pio story would need to be miracle which would take it out of proof or disproof discussion.I do not believe catholic thinkers accept bilocation as a natural event. I still think parsimony plays a part Jack. Still need help on RCIA. If you get a chance, take a look. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteSo the Padre Pio story would need to be miracle which would take it out of proof or disproof discussion.
Reason can still be applied to miracles. It just has to take into account things that science normally doesn't. But when considering whether a particular miracle happened or not, the same basic standards apply that apply to considering whether any particular event happened in the past: the reliability of the witnesses, number of witnesses, etc. Parsimony may play a part in this analysis, but it sounds a little like you see parsimony as being fundamentally opposed to any miraculous occurrence, and I would disagree with that way of thinking.
Anna. I believe Hume settled the miracle problem in the 18th century. A miracle is a suspension of a law of nature. Which is better for evidence: a universally accepted law of nature {you can't be in two places at one time}or a few eye witnesses with possible interest in outcome and with the generally recognized fallibility of eye witness reports.
ReplyDeleteAt Fatima supposedly half the crowd saw the son 'dance' or crash toward the earth. Both of which would destroy the solar system at minimum.
Miracles to most are a suspension of the 'laws' of nature and should not be judged by the normal standards of evidence. Jack
Thanks for still being there!
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI recommend reading some of John C. Wright's comments on reason and faith and evidence, found here and also here (look under his point #2 in the second link). I thought there was somewhere he put it better, but this was what I could find. It might give you an idea of how I think evidence can be used to evaluate miracles. His words are in the context of the debate over God's existence, for the most part, but I think they apply to the existence of individual miracles reasonably well.
Specifically, the problem I have with your approach is that you are pitting the "universal laws of nature" against any and every evidence that might be in favor of the miracles. But if you believe in God himself, then you have accepted the existence of the supernatural. You have accepted that there can be occurences which violate our normal understanding of physics. (Jesus' resurrection, for example). However, just because they violate our normal understanding of physics does not mean they violate human nature. All the same rules of witness reliability apply: how many saw it? were they drunk or otherwise incapacitated? do they have a motive to lie? are they superstitious (i.e. are they prone to seeing Mary's face in toast, or are they not)? If the answers to these questions indicate that the witnesses are unreliable, then we have reason to not believe in the miracle. However, we have to actually ask those questions and find their answers - we can't assume that because some witnesses are unreliable that *these* witnesses are unreliable, just because what they saw violates our notion of physics. If we ask the questions and find that the witnesses are, indeed, reliable, that they were not incapacitated, not superstitious, and had no motive for lying, then reason compels us to believe them. This, in fact, is one of the reasons we believe the apostles when they tell us that Jesus rose from the dead. There were many of them that saw the risen Jesus over a period of time; they were persecuted greatly for claiming this, so it was not in their self-interest, yet they maintained it anyways.
As for the sun crashing into the earth, I agree that if it had actually done so, that would have caused the death of all of us. However, I don't think anyone is claiming that the sun actually danced or crashed in the sense that it changed its usual motion with respect to the earth. Rather, they are claiming that it appeared to dance... the perception of the sun changed from the normal perception of the sun. Unless you want to claim that the sun appears to dance through natural means (or that the dancing is a product of overactive imaginations), this is still a miracle, even if it doesn't involve catastrophic change to gravitational orbits.
Oh, and I meant to add, in reference to you saying:
ReplyDeleteThanks for still being there!
No problem! I'm enjoying it. :)
Anna, I'm not so sure we disagree. Maybe a matter of terminology. You seem to switch between "miracle" and natural happenings.
ReplyDeletethe resurrection, it seems to me and most others, comes under "miracle." Empirical evidence would be very weak. I dont believe the church would say empirical evidence would be determinative in this case.
I have no problem with "miracle", but it has much different standards than empirical. UFO's might seem to have empirical evidence,
esp the same but using Hume's theme these are not recognized as 'facts'. Empiracle evidence is not equal to discounting laws of nature.
Thanks again. Have important comment for you on my blog. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI think I'm inclined to agree. Empirical evidence would only really be relevant for those who immediately witnessed any supposed "miracle" (or UFO): the reliability of the witnesses, rather than empirical evidence, would be about all that a non-witness would have to go on.
We really don't disagree. Thank you for comment. Jack
ReplyDelete