A Dangerously Incurious Pope

45

I can’t say I’m surprised that Pope Francis was Time magazine’s Person of the Year. And as an atheist, I’m not particularly disappointed by the decision. While Pope Francis hasn’t changed Church doctrine, he has at least changed its emphasis. I prefer a pope like Francis who focuses more on poverty and economic inequality than on birth control and gay marriage. I would have been more enthusiastic about Time’s choice had the Pope also acknowledged that birth control can help reduce poverty and that loving couples should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. In such an anachronistic and powerful institution, I would welcome small but significant reforms to Catholic Church doctrines that affect many outside the institution.

On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, harsh criticism of Pope Francis by the likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh has encouraged progressive Christians and even some atheists to get on the Pope Francis bandwagon. While people can find biblical support to justify any position, some positions are more tenuous than others. That’s why I’m amused by Religious Right arguments for why Jesus, unlike Francis, is an economic conservative who deplores redistribution of wealth. In making a case that Pope Francis is promoting sinLance Pritchett in Bloomberg Opinion justifies his economically conservative point of view with the 10th Commandment from Exodus 20:17: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, wife, slaves, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Even if I were a biblical literalist, I’d try to ignore passages that condone slavery and regard wives as property just like donkeys. And isn’t “coveting” the engine that drives capitalism?

Unfortunately, just as I was feeling more warmly disposed toward Pope Francis, he had to go and burst my bubble with a statement reminiscent of his predecessors. In arecent homily Pope Francis said, “The spirit of curiosity generates confusion and distances a person from the Spirit of wisdom, which brings peace.” He added that “the spirit of curiosity is not a good spirit” because it distances oneself from God. The Pope has a point, at least in my case. Curiosity really did distance me from god belief, and I’m far from alone. Curiosity has turned many religious believers into nonbelievers.

Written By: Herb Silverman
continue to source article at patheos.com

45 COMMENTS

  1. Bergoglio following the steps of Augustine: “There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn” (Confessions).
    Nothing new under the sun.

  2. @OP – Pope Francis said, “The spirit of curiosity generates confusion and distances a person from the Spirit of wisdom, which brings peace.” He added that “the spirit of curiosity is not a good spirit” because it distances oneself from God.

    Yep! Those heads must stay unquestioningly firmly planted in the woo-bucket, if supernatural belief in spiritual whizz-dumb (or Popish infallibility) is to be preserved!

    the First Vatican Council in 1869–70. The council has a section on “Faith and Reason” that includes the following on science and faith:

    “9. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.” (Vatican Council I)
    “10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.” (Vatican Council I)

    Still the same old RCC “faith which trumps both science and reasoning” as in 1870 !

  3. I don’t know why people find the Pope, or indeed any pope, humble. What’s humble about being the head of one of the best organized Ponzi schemes in the history of humanity? A “humble Pope” is a contradiction in terms.

    • In reply to #6 by aquilacane:

      I suddenly wonder what Cartomancer would say about this guy. Haven’t seen him in a while, anyone…?

      this website is defo the worst for his absence and not to forget the excellent contributions of mr zara, glad to see the other day the return of my fav dormouse corylus.

  4. In this article Herb Silverman puts the matter well. After the previous pope, one cannot help but like Pope Francis on account of his much more engaging personality and more humane outlook. But any hope of a more enlightened church emerging under his papacy is soon disappointed, as he reaffirms the church’s teachings and its traditional prohibition of questioning them. Popes and bishops may not tell their people to eat grass (like the pastor mentioned in another article here), but the same silliness is implicit in the traditional prohibition of curiosity.

  5. Mr DArcy, Agrajag, the mention of Beeblebrox is quite apt. As Galactic President his job was not to wield any power but to distract people’s attention away from those who were. On this count Pope Zaphod is probably doing a good job, while this “humble” man is riding on busses, washing feet and making the odd telephone call to his fans it is business as usual as far as the rest of RCC hierarchy goes.

    I would also never trust anyone who has taken an oath to be a liar, which as a Jesuit he will have done. Rule 13 of Ignatius Loyola’s Rules for Thinking with the Church said: “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity … if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.”

  6. As I plough through some of the seemingly endless deluge of online articles pontificating about the pontiff I am constantly mystified by why the authors seem surprised that despite his apparent humility, above all else pope Frank is still a pope. Do they actually expect him to immediately renounce two thousand years of dogma and doctrine as his first acts in office? Give him a while to get his feet under the table, find out who his friends and enemies are and then perhaps we’ll see what he’s really made of. Hopefully he has genuine aspirations to make a real sea change in the attitude of the Catholic establishment to bring it kicking and screaming out of the 14th century and perhaps into the 20th or even the 21st. However he’d be a fool to try and do this all at once. IMO he’s gone out as far on a limb as might be considered prudent already in his comments about LGBTs and atheists.

    As for curiosity, it’s long been mightily feared by the god botherers because it leads to disturbing conclusions, namely that pretty much everything they’ve had rammed down their throats since childhood is wrong. It’s why for instance they’re specifically prohibited from speculating on the nature of god in case they conclude there isn’t one. So let’s leave Franky to throw this one bone for his sheeple. I can’t begrudge him that if he’s genuinely working to modernise the church in other respects.

  7. I’ve just finished reading John Cornwell’s interesting book Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII. He was a career Vatican politician who was obsessively anti-communist (because of its embodied atheism) and whose deal with Hitler’s government essentially ensured its support for Catholic education and churches in Germany and Vatican silence in respect of the Final Solution and other Nazi atrocities. Even such barbarities as the obliteration of entire villages and their inhabitants in France and Poland in reprisal for local resistance successes failed to draw any criticism from the pope. After the war he was universally revered and his death in 1958 brought fawning tributes from many world leaders, including Harold MacMillan, Dwight D Eisenhower and even Golda Meir, Israel’s Foreign Minister.

    The future popes Paul VI and John XXIII held Pius XII in healthy disrespect, both deploring his god-like rule and his intolerance of dissent, but neither of these popes achieved memorable reforms, and here we are, 56 years after the death of Hitler’s pope, seeing little or no change in the Vatican. These people are usually elected pope in their 60s and 70s, towards the end of their working life. They have achieved their positions as cardinals by toeing the Vatican line and not making waves, and would otherwise have been looking forward to a rich and comfortable retirement within the following 10 years. How can we expect these people to start making life difficult for themselves? Any substantial reform in any major religion will have to come from the rank and file – not the leaders.

    And looking at the rank and file, I’m certainly not holding my breath.

    • In reply to #10 by Macropus:

      … The future popes Paul VI and John XXIII held Pius XII in healthy disrespect, both deploring his god-like rule and his intolerance of dissent, but neither of these popes achieved memorable reforms, and here we are, 56 years after the death of Hitler’s pope, seeing little or no change in the Vatican. …

      Pope John XXIII, who was elected as a caretaker pope after Pius XII’s death, caused an immense shake-up of the Catholic Church. He takes full credit for summoning and setting the agenda of the Second Vatican Council, which brought about a major reform of the church. John XXIII died after the first session of the council and was succeeded by Paul VI, who oversaw the remaining sessions of the council and the implementation of the reforms that the council decided on. I therefore have to disagree with your statement that “neither of these popes achieved memorable reforms.”

      After Paul VI came John-Paul I, who was pope for a month and died unexpectedly in bed. Then came the long pontificate of John-Paul II, who had immense charisma and political influence and at first tended to continue the reforming policies of the Second Vatican Council. He changed tack after Cardinal Joseph Archbishop Ratzinger became prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the remainder of his long pontificate saw the persistent and methodical reversal of the reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council. As we all know, the said prefect succeeded John-Paul II to the See of Peter and put the finishing touches to his years-long efforts to restore the church to its Counter-Reformation purity.

      It is now some twenty years since I ceased to be a Catholic, but I still think well of John XXIII and Paul VI (despite the latter’s encyclical Humanae Vitae) as two (very rare) popes who had their hearts in the right place and acted with integrity to reform the church and bring it up to date. All the others can consider themselves lucky that there is no hell for them to go to.

      • In reply to #26 by Cairsley:

        In reply to #10 by Macropus:
        It is now some twenty years since I ceased to be a Catholic, but I still think well of John XXIII and Paul VI (despite the latter’s encyclical Humanae Vitae) as two (very rare) popes who had their hearts in the right place and acted with integrity to reform the church and bring it up to date.

        Both these popes were a breath of fresh air after Pius XII, both were likeable and both wanted the administrative reforms decided at the Second Vatican Council. The most important of these was devolution of power from the Vatican – the sharing of authority between the bishops and the pope. This never happened. John XXIII died before he could ensure it and Paul VI, at heart a liberal, wavered between the progressives and the traditionalists without enforcing the Council decision. Instead, he produced his encyclical Humanae vitae, in which he decided, against the advice of the majority of the world’s bishops, not to sanction the use of the contraceptive pill. This produced the massive split between the conservatives and progressives which was inherited by John Paul II in 1978. Under his long reign, Vatican 2 became a spent force and the old monolithic Vatican of Pius XII re-established itself.

        Beware of smiling popes, the present one included. They work for the bad guys.

        • In reply to #29 by Macropus:

          Instead, he produced his encyclical Humanae vitae, in which he decided, against the advice of the majority of the world’s bishops, not to sanction the use of the contraceptive pill. This produced the massive split between the conservatives and progressives which was inherited by John Paul II in 1978. Under his long reign, Vatican 2 became a spent force and the old monolithic Vatican of Pius XII re-established itself.

          Well put, Macropus. The reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Council under Popes John XXIII and Paul VI remain memorable even if many of them have since been undone by the traditionalists. Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council of the church and its documents remain for all members of the church to consider. It is far too soon to say that they have lost their force.

          Although the present pope, Francis, is proving himself to be strictly conservative on matters of doctrine, he still seems not to have lost sight of everything that the Second Vatican Council sought to bring about. It would not surprise me if, for example, at some stage he moved to share with diocesan bishops some of the control that the Vatican has long regarded as its own. But only time will tell.

  8. It is easy to see why the RCC abhors curiosity, if it’s flock is curious then it may lead it think for itself and such ‘dangerous’ thinking is the start of the slippery slope towards criticism of the wretched church and dare I say it non belief.

  9. So the pope is focusing on economic inequality? Will he give up his state and all the valuables in it? Will he redistribute any of the churches vast wealth? Will the churches stop asking poor congregation members for money? Will he take pity on any of the disabled homeless people outside Vatican city? I think it might be i’m concerned about it but won’t give up anything to help the cause.

  10. I prefer a pope like Francis who focuses more on poverty and economic inequality than on birth control and gay marriage.

    As an Italian atheist and former catholic, I beg to differ: I very much prefer an hateful pope, forever talking of sin and hell, spitting condemns and excommunications, to this nice and likeable pope that shows such a soft surface, covering the very same doctrines and dogmas and power plays.

    His Italian has a pleasant accent, he smiles, does smalltalk and says gentle things, and he really is amiable, to the point that people seems to expect, as pointed out in comments, that he’ll abolish sin (as some unthinking Italian journalists have boldly stated and hurryingly retracted) and will change the doctrine into “don’t worry be happy”. Well, that’s not going to happen, the doctrine is just the same, and nothing is changing, except that some people is now thinking that the RCC may not be such a bad thing, after all.

    I’m optimist, though: sooner or later his bluff will be called, and he’ll be forced to back into talking of sin and condemn.

  11. The spirit of curiosity generates confusion and distances a person from the Spirit of wisdom, which brings peace.”

    curiosity: thinking about things without being told to.
    wisdom: acceptance of your lot.
    peace: everyone behaving

    • In reply to #18 by Steven007:

      Perhaps this begs the question – but have we ever had a satisfyingly curious pope?

      There was a pope back in the late 60′s or early 70′s. He was the first John Paul. I always think of him as the “hippy pope” because that is the way he was perceived in the working class Catholic families where I grew up. They hated him because he said a lot of the things the current pope is saying about the poor. Unlike the current pope though he did more than just talk a good game he made some actual reforms to the church. Some of them probably seem trivial to non-Catholics in retrospect but one example was saying mass in the native language rather than Latin. That was a huge deal at the time. Even today if you look hard enough you can find splinter Catholic parishes or at least priests who are pissed off about it.

      The curious thing is this pope didn’t live very long. I don’t think he even lasted a year and, I kid you not, he died under mysterious circumstances. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories about his death, I have no idea if they have any merit.

      • Thanks for the info, RD. I think I vaguely remember that Pope. Humor always works well with the rhetoric about Jesus and the poor. My default go to quote comes from Stephen Colbert:

        “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus is just as selfish as we are or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition… and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

        In reply to #20 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #18 by Steven007:

        Perhaps this begs the question – but have we ever had a satisfyingly curious pope?

        There was a pope back in the late 60′s or early 70′s. He was the first John Paul. I always think of him as the “hippy pope” because that is the way he was perceived in the working class…

      • In reply to #20 by Red Dog:

        Hello, Red Dog. Pope John Paul I was pope for only thirty-three days. It is known that he was fully in favor of continuing the reforms that had been set in motion by the Second Vatican Council, but he did not have a chance to implement any policy of his own. Whereas many, perhaps most, in the Curia were not well impressed with him, he was a skilled communicator, and the public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, took a liking to his warmhearted personality. The only thing for which he is remembered was his smile – he was nicknamed the Smiling Pope. The reforms that you mention, like the use of the vernacular instead of Latin in the liturgy, were initiated by the Second Vatican Council, which had been called by John XXIII. The vernacular was already being used in the liturgy by the time of John Paul I’s election. Both of these popes were much loved for their warmth and humanity; perhaps you have conflated these two in your memory.

        • In reply to #27 by Cairsley:

          In reply to #20 by Red Dog:

          Hello, Red Dog. Pope John Paul I was pope for only thirty-three days. It is known that he was fully in favor of continuing the reforms that had been set in motion by the Second Vatican Council, but he did not have a chance to implement any policy of his own. Whereas many…

          Yes I was mixing them up. Thanks for clearing it up,

  12. Why is he so proud ???….Just today on UK news – a woman from Northern Ireland who was in a Catholic orphanage as a child and she said….
    “A Nun used to put me to the back of the confessional queue so that a particular priest could abuse me and then when I complained and asked for help I was branded a delinquent “….The poor woman was crying as she recalled the voiceless horror she endured at the hands of Catholics with the full complicity of the female NUNs and Abusive Priests who kept it all under the radar….Utterly Despicable…

  13. Seems Frankie has at last come out of the closet on abortion, unfortunately. Just like all the men in dresses before him. So sad so many children will not be born. Maybe he can ask his invisible friend why there are so many potential children flushed down the pan, presumably because said invisible friend doesn’t want them born.

    I had some very slight hope this idiot might be less of an idiot than those who preceded him. Oh well, better luck next time.

  14. A dangerously incurious world population.

    I am frequently in classrooms of teachers of younger kids. The kids are so so so curious. Curious and eager to ask and answer. There are huge benefits from this. Then, sometime in middle school years…. POOF! It vanishes. Where? Why? How?

    Damn, figure this one out and fix it and I’d hazard a Nobel in your future.

    • In reply to #30 by Dr Bob:

      Don’t be fooled folks…

      This one is just as bad as any other Pope – he just seems to have a better PR team…

      Pope Francis denounces ‘horror’ of abortion

      POPE FRANCIS AFFIRMS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS ANTHROPOLOGICAL REGRESSION

      So much for “focusing more on poverty and economic inequality than on birth control and gay marriage.”

      They are all as bad as each other, make no mistake…

      You are right, Dr Bob. Regardless of how much power, for example, the Vatican can be induced to share with metropolitan bishops or whether Roman Catholic priests will ever be allowed to marry, the Roman Catholic Church is stuck with what it believes and asserts to be its divinely revealed doctrines. Some of us ex-Catholics may enjoy discussing the sayings and doings of the church’s hierarchs, but really the world will be a saner and safer place when that whole sprawling institution has been closed down.

  15. This article misunderstands what Pope Francis refers to as “curiosity”. Pope Francis is not saying that we should not ask questions. In fact, he celebrates wisdom and uses [mere] curiosity as a term to contrast with it. He explains, “The spirit of curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom because all that interests us is the details, the news, the little stories of the day.” He’s not saying that details are unimportant, but warns that they need to be incorporated into an overall world view – what he refers to as wisdom.

    To use a practical example, it would be a mistake to understand a gun purely in terms of how it works. Such technical knowledge is incomplete without considering non-scientific questions such as whether it’s right or wrong to use them.

    Pope Francis sets out his beliefs and priorities very clearly in [Evangelii Gaudium] (http://goo.gl/zXUmQj). Those seeking to debate his agenda would be much better off starting here.

    • How interesting.

      Pope Francis sets out his beliefs and priorities very clearly in [Evangelii Gaudium] (http://goo.gl/zXUmQj). Those seeking to debate his agenda would be much better off starting here.

      I wonder if you take your own advice when it comes to the pope’s stance on evolution? Especially since 1996 saw one pope declare it fact (Truth cannot contradict truth) and 1950 saw another declare it fact (Humani Generis).

      In reply to #33 by Humbug:

      This article misunderstands what Pope Francis refers to as “curiosity”. Pope Francis is not saying that we should not ask questions. In fact, he celebrates wisdom and uses [mere] curiosity as a term to contrast with it. He explains, “The spirit of curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom…

    • To use a practical example, it would be a mistake to understand a gun purely in terms of how it works. Such technical knowledge is incomplete

      Oh, and you are wrong, here. This is exactly what technical knowledge is. You want to discuss the ethics of using a gun in different situations? Then, you are talking about something other than the technical knowledge of the gun. You are into all the what if’s and might be’s, and woulda shoulda coulda’s…… Which is fine, but do NOT espouse that this is technical information, it is OPINION. Technical information is FACT.

      Many many many religious folks get these hopelessly confused.

      In reply to #33 by Humbug:

      This article misunderstands what Pope Francis refers to as “curiosity”. Pope Francis is not saying that we should not ask questions. In fact, he celebrates wisdom and uses [mere] curiosity as a term to contrast with it. He explains, “The spirit of curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom…

  16. In reply to #35 by crookedshoes:

    but do NOT espouse that this is technical information, it is OPINION. Technical information is FACT. Many many many religious folks get these hopelessly confused.

    You can rest assured that I’m not one of those people who confuse opinion and fact. The point Pope Francis made is that fact, taken in isolation, is incomplete. Professor Richard P. Feynman explains the same concept as follows:

    “If a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, or wrong, or stupid. Scientists take all those things that can be analysed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean that those things are unimportant. They are, in fact, in many ways the most important. In any decision for action, when you have to make up your mind what to do, there is always a “should” involved, and this cannot be worked out from “if I do this, what will happen?” alone. You say, “Sure, you see what will happen, and then you decide whether you want it to happen or not.” But that is the step the scientist cannot take. You can figure out what is going to happen, but then you have to decide whether you like it that way or not.”

    Richard P. Feynman, “The Meaning Of It All”

    • The point that the pope makes is that a fact in isolation IN HIS OPINION is incomplete. So, it seems you might very well be one of those people who does confuse fact with opinion. Feynman shares the popes opinion about facts ( I think most people do, as well ).

      but then you have to decide whether you like it that way or not.”

      His last sentence is proof that what Feynman is speaking to is OPINION.

      But, technical knowledge IS facts in isolation. The circumference of Neptune is a technical fact. If you use this knowledge to blackmail your neighbor’s wife into sleeping with you (somehow), then you are taking the fact and “completing it”. If you use the circumference of Neptune to somehow relate it to the density of black holes, then you are “completing it”. But, since we all can “complete the fact” our own ways, it is OPINION.

      I know it seems I am bearing down on your selection of language (technical knowledge), but scientists ARE very exact in their language and that is exactly what allows for clear delineation between fact and opinion.

      In reply to #36 by Humbug:

      In reply to #35 by crookedshoes:

      but do NOT espouse that this is technical information, it is OPINION. Technical information is FACT. Many many many religious folks get these hopelessly confused.

      You can rest assured that I’m not one of those people who confuse opinion and fact. The point Pope F…

      • In reply to #37 by crookedshoes:

        The point that the pope makes is that a fact in isolation IN HIS OPINION is incomplete. So, it seems you might very well be one of those people who does confuse fact with opinion.

        Facts, as you explain, can be “completed” in many different ways. This completion falls outside the realm of science. This is a fact.

        Pope Francis and Professor Feynman state that a fact, in isolation, cannot answer many questions. This is a fact.

        Deciding how such questions should be answered is open to debate. This decision is an opinion, but the fact that the decision has to be made is a fact!

        Anyway, I’m quite happy to agree with your opinion that I am one of those people who does confuse fact with opinion if it can get us back to the discussion of Pope Francis, which is what this article was all about.

        Feynman shares the popes opinion about facts ( I think most people do, as well ).

        In other words, Pope Francis expressed an opinion shared by many – even an eminent, atheist theoretical physicist like Professor Feynman!

        • In reply to #39 by Humbug:

          Deciding how such questions should be answered is open to debate. This decision is an opinion, but the fact that the decision has to be made is a fact!

          On what questions would the view of Pope Francis be of any interest?

          • In reply to #41 by aldous:
            >

            On what questions would the view of Pope Francis be of any interest?

            Judging by the fact that he was chosen as Person of the Year by Time Magazine, The Times and The Advocate (a magazine campaigning for gay rights) among others, many people across the world are interested in his opinions on a wide range of social justice issues.

        • Cool, the departure was a bit fun, but back to brass tacks….

          The current pope’s agenda is, in fact, of widespread interest as is evidenced by, well, this thread itself!!! Not to mention the publications to which you’ve already alluded.

          I am interested, marginally, in this man’s world view. I am more interested, though, in how much sway his world view may (or may not) have on others, especially those in his flock. Will his flock soften their views on specific things as result of their leader having softer views? I am especially interested in the view he brings to the table on homosexuals.

          BUT, a bigger deal is the actions of the church under his guidance. That all remains to be seen.

          In reply to #39 by Humbug:

          In reply to #37 by crookedshoes:

          The point that the pope makes is that a fact in isolation IN HIS OPINION is incomplete. So, it seems you might very well be one of those people who does confuse fact with opinion.

          Facts, as you explain, can be “completed” in many different ways. This completion f…

  17. In reply to #34 by crookedshoes:

    I wonder if you take your own advice when it comes to the pope’s stance on evolution? Especially…

    I’m interested in discussing Pope Francis and his agenda, which is what this thread is all about.

    However, I should point out that your quotes on evolution are not factually correct. Neither Pope John Paul II in [Truth Cannot Contradict Truth] (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm) nor Pope Pius XII in [Humani Generis] (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm) declared evolution to be fact. They are not scientists and it is not their place to do so. (Of course, even a scientist would not say that evolution is technically a fact; it is a theory supported by compelling evidence.) What both Popes did was to explore the implications of the theory of evolution for the Catholic faith. In doing so, they celebrated scientific research, but also demonstrated that such discoveries have important implications that fall outside the realms of science.

    This brings us back to #36

  18. Are facts truths? If so, then the very name of the papal address deems it a fact. But, we can split hairs about facts and theories another day. And, I agree with you, this thread is not the place because it is dedicated (as you have correctly stated) to discuss the current pope’s agenda. I will leave you to it.

    BTW, why not speak to my last post regarding the pope’s opinion about facts???


    • In reply to #40 by crookedshoes:

      Are facts truths? If so, then the very name of the papal address deems it a fact.

      If you’re referring to the Papal Address, Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, don’t you mean, “Are truths facts?”

      All facts are true, but not all truths are facts. A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. A truth is something that is in accordance with fact or reality.

      I am a man and I love my wife. The former is a statement of fact that can be proved scientifically; the latter is a truth that I cannot prove.

      Shakespeare’s history plays are not factually correct, in that they are not historically accurate. However, they reveal profound truths about human nature that still ring true hundreds of years later.

      The Church has a long and fascinating history of exploring this question, remembering Pilate’s words to Jesus: “Truth? What is truth?” (Jn 18:38) I hope this clarifies that Pope John Paul didn’t use “truth” as a synonym for “fact”.

      BTW, why not speak to my last post regarding the pope’s opinion about facts???

      I thought I had in #39? However, I’d be very grateful if we could return to the debate about Pope Francis and his agenda – [Evangelii Gaudium] (http://goo.gl/zXUmQj)

      • I am a man and I love my wife. The former is a statement of fact that can be proved scientifically; the latter is a truth that I cannot prove.

        Nice job on this explanation, I get your point. (Now back to the thread)….

        In reply to #44 by Humbug:

        In reply to #40 by crookedshoes:

        Are facts truths? If so, then the very name of the papal address deems it a fact.

        If you’re referring to the Papal Address, Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, don’t you mean, “Are truths facts?”

        All facts are true, but not all truths are facts. A fact is something t…

Leave a Reply