c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:If we are talking about official lines, contrary to certain secondary sources out there, what your saying doesn't correspond to how the "culture of death" is used by the Vatican's formal documents. Here are the parts of Evangelium Vitae in which definitions of the phrase are provided:
This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed....
Here we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the "culture of death", which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled people as intolerable and too burdensome. These people are very often isolated by their families and by society, which are organized almost exclusively on the basis of criteria of productive efficiency, according to which a hopelessly impaired life no longer has any value.this is a pretty standard theological move tho. making broad universalizing claims about how the weak are abused by the strong and material and economic pressure blah blah whatever, when the actual practice of the church is to promote anti-communist propaganda and opposition to anything that threatens the patriarch as the center of social life. anyway my interest in the theological presentation of the church's regressive and awful sexual politics is only academic much like exactly which laws are invoked to deny black people housing and livelihood. it will take whatever form is convenient for the moment.
Regarding Church teaching itself, it suffices here to say: Blessed be Jerusalem and its laws, the salve of my eye and strength of my feet, that frees me from the yoke of the nations.
But to speak about the politics of the matter, that is to say, the real immediate point of interest for us all here, I will elaborate:
1. Althusser, Judith Butler, Zizek, and all the rest of the scribblers of thesis fodder for lesser mandarins are “blah, blah, whatever." The salacious pseudo humanitarian social media noise-machines are "blah, blah, whatever." For that, matter, most of what we say here is pretty "blah, blah" too. But the Catholic Church is not blather, but a great social fact---as both the French and Russian revolution discovered, the former in a somewhat happier fashion than the latter. It is a transnational state with a global infrastructure of hospitals, schools, and charitable institutions, a concrete site of cross-cultural meeting and understanding for peoples on both sides of the Global North and South Divide, and an active diplomatic link between disparate countries. The Church’s talk about relieving poverty, promoting peace, and compassion for the weak is not merely academic rhetoric or an intellectual café game but is, to a point, backed up by actions.
Now, if you want to reject the principles by which its stands and/or operates, that is one thing—I wound’t be here, engaging with you all, if didn’t understand why people would do that. But to say you do it because it is all talk is simply absurd. Particularly if you are making that declaration on an LF spinoff forum. It comes across like Trot grouplets declaring that they and their sister parties are the ones really opposing US hegemony while joining in a chorus of derision against the PRC, IRI, and Syria.
You would better served in trying to figure out how to build up a cultural counter-system of similar scope and depth than in dwelling on real, and perceived, hypocrisies, of the Roman Church, since at the end of the day the mismatch between aspirations and deeds is always going to reflect worse on the hommes a principes who criticize much but build nothing than for the established institutions themselves.
Who knows, if you work and fight hard enough, after the dust has settled you and the Babylonian Harlot can sit down and have a nice chat about it all.
2. If your immediate concern is same sex marriage et al, you should not allow yourself to be dominated by exaggerated fears: As the recent decision by a Supreme Court in which 6 of its nine members are Catholics* demonstrated, Big Bad Rome is not so insidiously powerful as it is sometimes portrayed, nor are its children as politically homogeneous as even they sometimes would like others to believe. And if we consider the precedents of history, the widespread adoption of civic divorce was, theologically and politically, a bitter pill for the Church to swallow compared to which the expansion of the number of interpersonal arrangements the state will treat as marriages is nothing.
* I am surprised, but not shocked, that no one bought up that fact earlier in this thread.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
c_man posted:cars posted:c_man posted:im pretty sure homosex is right up there with contraception in the "culture of death" that i was always inveighed to battle with all my might, maybe the Cool Pope says gay sex is cool now but i havent paid attention since i haven't been forced to
whatever you're talking about is still not some sadistic shit about how gay bashing secures the manhood of a bunch of horn-rimmed white commie dorks
no it secures more catholic babies for the upcoming
race warspiritually trying times
Considering the stance of the bishops on immigration and the assistance provided to laborers without papers by Catholic institutions, I am confused by this sentence, because I didn't think you were the type of person worried about Latinos stealing jobs and taking over Our Country.
oh god someone brought it up, it was me i just did that im so so sorry
Well, now that the cat is out of the bag, official apologies have been issued by the Anglican Church of Canada, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, and the United Church of Canada. All together they accounted for less than 30% of the residential schools, while the Roman Catholic Church ran roughly 70%. The Roman Catholic Church touts the line that individual diocese hold legal responsibility for their actions, and thus the Church as a whole will not issue an apology. Some (but only some) diocese have issued their own individual apologies. The Pope has expressed an abstract "sorrow" over the situation, explicitly in lieu of an actual apology or admission of wrongdoing. Most of the indigenous community, many of them survivors of Catholic residential schools, understandably consider this to be a monstrous, insultingly halfhearted response to complicity with a program of genocide.
Edited by shriekingviolet ()
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
walkinginonit posted:Is it really important whether or not the Catholic Church uses the particular phrase "Culture of Death" to oppose gay rights?. If the Church actually opposes gay rights, it doesn't matter which sort of language the Church uses.
ohhh i see, yer one o' them Vatican II fellers, aintcha
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-paraguay-abortion-child-idUSKBN0NQ0YB20150505
HenryKrinkle posted:personally i think the Church's current role in suppressing reproductive rights in the global south is kind of bad, really bad:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-paraguay-abortion-child-idUSKBN0NQ0YB20150505
praise be, that baby could be the paraguayan martin luther king *crosses self*
RedMaistre posted:1. Althusser, Judith Butler, Zizek, and all the rest of the scribblers of thesis fodder for lesser mandarins are “blah, blah, whatever." The salacious pseudo humanitarian social media noise-machines are "blah, blah, whatever." For that, matter, most of what we say here is pretty "blah, blah" too. But the Catholic Church is not blather, but a great social fact---as both the French and Russian revolution discovered, the former in a somewhat happier fashion than the latter. It is a transnational state with a global infrastructure of hospitals, schools, and charitable institutions, a concrete site cross-cultural meeting and understanding for peoples on both sides of the Global North and South Divide, and an active diplomatic link between disparate countries. The Church’s talk about relieving poverty, promoting peace, and compassion for the weak is not merely academic rhetoric or an intellectual café game but is, to a point, backed up by actions.
i think its sort of bizarre that, here of all places, with the kkkonspiracy threads all over the place, you're expecting me to take seriously the claim the because some large, multinational ideological institution runs charities i should be expected to take its claim to have the people's best interests at heart seriously. why should i pay this any more mind that i would any other ideological charity-based nonprofit NGOs? should i take bill gates' claim that he truly has the interests of the people at heart seriously because he's sunk however many millions of dollars on whatever it is his foundation does? how is the church's involvement any less of a PR game? i guarantee that there are plenty of people at the gates foundation that believe as fervently that they are doing the right thing as the people working at the catholic hospitals in africa who refuse to hand out condoms in aids-stricken areas. im sure they're great friends.
Edited by c_man ()
shriekingviolet posted:I don't have a beef i dont understand this beef with Catholicism in particular, but you might want to be cautious brandishing about the whole "backed up by actions" thing lest someone bring up the Real Action contributions of the Roman Catholic Church to canada's genocidal residential school system-
oh god someone brought it up, it was me i just did that im so so sorry
Well, now that the cat is out of the bag, official apologies have been issued by the Anglican Church of Canada, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, and the United Church of Canada. All together they accounted for less than 30% of the residential schools, while the Roman Catholic Church ran roughly 70%. The Roman Catholic Church touts the line that individual diocese hold legal responsibility for their actions, and thus the Church as a whole will not issue an apology. Some (but only some) diocese have issued their own individual apologies. The Pope has expressed an abstract "sorrow" over the situation, explicitly in lieu of an actual apology or admission of wrongdoing. Most of the indigenous community, many of them survivors of Catholic residential schools, understandably consider this to be a monstrous, insultingly halfhearted response to complicity with a program of genocide.
We are in agreement that what happened at the Residential Schools was an abomination, and that more needs to be done in reparations for it. To quote from the apology issued by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate:
In sympathy with the recent criticisms of Native Residential Schools, we wish to apologize for the part we played in the setting up and maintaining of those schools. We apologize for the existence of the schools themselves, recognizing that the biggest abuse was not what happened in the schools but that the schools themselves happened…that the primal bond inherent within families was violated as a matter of policy, that children were usurped from their natural communities, and that implicitly and explicitly, these schools operated out of the premise that Europeon languages, traditions, and religious practices were superior to native languages, traditions, and religious practices. The residential schools were an attempt to assilimilate aboriginal peoples and we played an important role in the unfolding of the design. For this we sincerely apologize...
We want to support and effective process of disclosure vis-à-vis Residential schools. We offer to collaborate in anyway we can so that the full story of the Indian Residential Schools may be written, that their positive and negative features may be recognized, and that an effective healing process might take place.
We want to proclaim as inviolable the natural rights of Indian families, parents, and children, so that never again will Indian communities and Indian parents see their children forcibly removed from them by other authorities.
We want to denounce imperialism in all its forms, and, concomitantly, pledge ourselves to work with Native peoples in their efforts to recover their languages, their sacred traditions, and their rightful pride.
HenryKrinkle posted:personally i think the Church's current role in suppressing reproductive rights in the global south is kind of bad, really bad:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-paraguay-abortion-child-idUSKBN0NQ0YB20150505
Give to God what is God's and to Moloch what is Moloch's.
if we're willing to condemn the biggest NGOs, USAID and much of the United Nations as status quo maintenance despite the fact that they do some good things, I don't see why the Catholic Church should get a pass.
UPDATE: i mean yeah they do have some impressively progressive economic doctrines. doesn't change the fact that they're still virulently anti-communist overall & oppose all major progressive revolutions (violent & non-violent) when push comes to shove.
RedMaistre posted:Regarding such matters, the primary contradiction in the world today is not between the opponents and supporters of access to abortion, but between those who, in the name of eugenic ideology of tech fetishism, Promethean accelerrationism, and/or straight out contempt for the poor, wish to weed out the "surplus population", in and outside of the womb, and those who oppose this agenda.
looking the global "pro-choice" movement's past and present, i will admit that there is a lot of truth to this. that said, you do realize that this logic could be used against Cuba for its liberal abortion policies or modern China for its genuinely cruel one-child policy?
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:1. Althusser, Judith Butler, Zizek, and all the rest of the scribblers of thesis fodder for lesser mandarins are “blah, blah, whatever." The salacious pseudo humanitarian social media noise-machines are "blah, blah, whatever." For that, matter, most of what we say here is pretty "blah, blah" too. But the Catholic Church is not blather, but a great social fact---as both the French and Russian revolution discovered, the former in a somewhat happier fashion than the latter. It is a transnational state with a global infrastructure of hospitals, schools, and charitable institutions, a concrete site cross-cultural meeting and understanding for peoples on both sides of the Global North and South Divide, and an active diplomatic link between disparate countries. The Church’s talk about relieving poverty, promoting peace, and compassion for the weak is not merely academic rhetoric or an intellectual café game but is, to a point, backed up by actions.
i think its sort of bizarre that, here of all places, with the kkkonspiracy threads all over the place, you're expecting me to take seriously the claim the because some large, multinational ideological institution runs charities i should be expected to take its claim to have the people's best interests at heart seriously. why should i pay this any more mind that i would any other ideological charity-based nonprofit NGOs? should i take bill gates' claim that he truly has the interests of the people at heart seriously because he's sunk however many millions of dollars on whatever it is his foundation does? how is the church's involvement any less of a PR game? i guarantee that there are plenty of people at the gates foundation that believe as fervently that they are doing the right thing as the people working at the catholic hospitals in africa who refuse to hand out condoms in aids-stricken areas. im sure they're great friends.
The difference between the Bill gates and the RCC is that the former is actively supportingeugenics and population control, and the latter is not. Just food for thought.
And for the record, I don't accuse the work of the Gates foundation or the US empire for the matter as being "merely" a PR game. Trying to neatly distinguish between what is merely PR and what is sincere in the activities of institutions of that size is a fool's game (see Soviet and Chinese Foreign policy for more examples ), and besides the point. That is not the basis upon which anyone should condemn such entities.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
RedMaistre posted:Regarding such matters, the primary contradiction in the world today is not between the opponents and supporters of access to abortion, but between those who, in the name of eugenic ideology of tech fetishism, Promethean accelerrationism, and/or straight out contempt for the poor, wish to weed out the "surplus population", in and outside of the womb, and those who oppose this agenda.
you could just as well pose this as an opposition between (almost exclusively male) holders of capital reinforcing their economic position by reinforcing the social relations that it relies on (both by being at the center of economic life and having consistent access to birth control whether or not it's legal) and those excluded from this. these aren't mutually exclusive nor are they exhaustive
HenryKrinkle posted:RedMaistre posted:Regarding such matters, the primary contradiction in the world today is not between the opponents and supporters of access to abortion, but between those who, in the name of eugenic ideology of tech fetishism, Promethean accelerrationism, and/or straight out contempt for the poor, wish to weed out the "surplus population", in and outside of the womb, and those who oppose this agenda.
looking the global "pro-choice" movement's past and present, i will admit that there is a lot of truth to this. that said, you do realize that this logic could be used against Cuba for its liberal abortion policies or modern China for its genuinely cruel one-child policy?
As I think I have made very clear in the past that I greatly respect both People's Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba; it would be rather undialectical, at the very least of, for me, however, to deny the existence of contradictions within the aims and executions of their policies.
Resistance by ordinary Chinese citizens against the one child policy is just as much part of the creation of a new China as the CCP's dramatic interventions into the traditional structures of family life was.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
RedMaistre posted:The difference between the Bill gates and the RCC is that the former is activelysupportingeugenics and population control, and the latter is not. Just food for thought.
And for the record, I don't accuse the work of the Gates foundation or the US empire for the matter as being "merely" a PR game. Trying to neatly distinguish between what is merely PR and what is sincere in the activities of institutions of that size is a fool's game (see Soviet and Chinese Foreign policy for more examples ), and besides the point. That is not the basis upon which anyone should condemn such entities.
my point was that what is "sincere" doesn't matter. it doesn't matter how much the people at the gates foundation believe in what they're doing, they're still participating in medical experiments, in the same way that the catholic hospitals are causing the deaths of women whose lethal pregnancies they refuse to terminate and the deaths of untold numbers of people by actively discouraging condom use in aids-epidemic regions, in a sense indulging in a type of social and medical experimentation of their own.
RedMaistre posted:And for the record, I don't accuse the work of the Gates foundation or the US empire for the matter as being "merely" a PR game. Trying to neatly distinguish between what is merely PR and what is sincere in the activities of institutions of that size is a fool's game (see Soviet and Chinese Foreign policy for more examples ), and besides the point. That is not the basis upon which anyone should condemn such entities.
the RCC provides PR for capitalism. more specifically, it serves as a gatekeeper for economic discourse by co-opting anti-neoliberal movements while explicitly condemning communism and upholding bourgeois rights such as private property.
ilmdge posted:Listen, the Church is very powerful in this forum and you'd do well to keep your criticisms to yourself if you don't want to be buried in an avalanche of downvotes. This is not a threat, it is simply a warning.
weird that there are so many apologists for a literal anti-communist nazi collaborator
c_man posted:ilmdge posted:Listen, the Church is very powerful in this forum and you'd do well to keep your criticisms to yourself if you don't want to be buried in an avalanche of downvotes. This is not a threat, it is simply a warning.
weird that there are so many apologists for a literal anti-communist nazi collaborator
Yep That IS weird. But it's the one true church, so whatchya gonna do, lol. If the Lord gives you lemons, make lemonade!
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:Regarding such matters, the primary contradiction in the world today is not between the opponents and supporters of access to abortion, but between those who, in the name of eugenic ideology of tech fetishism, Promethean accelerrationism, and/or straight out contempt for the poor, wish to weed out the "surplus population", in and outside of the womb, and those who oppose this agenda.
you could just as well pose this as an opposition between (almost exclusively male) holders of capital reinforcing their economic position by reinforcing the social relations that it relies on (both by being at the center of economic life and having consistent access to birth control whether or not it's legal) and those excluded from this. these aren't mutually exclusive nor are they exhaustive
If the description I gave and the description that you gave are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, than we are not actually disagreeing. But it should be noted that your position just schematically repeats the main contradiction as being between "capital holders" (which ones?) and non-capital holders (which ones?) when a brief look at current controversies over issues related to family and reproduction shows that, as with economic questions and imperialism, there is no simple break down along class lines.
Oh, Hell, you're in for it now. I warned you
RedMaistre posted:If the description I gave and the description that you gave are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, than we are not actually disagreeing. But it should be noted that your position just schematically repeats the main contradiction as being between "capital holders" (which ones?) and non-capital holders (which ones?) when a brief look at current controversies over issues related to family and reproduction shows that, as with economic questions and imperialism, there is no simple break down along class lines.
i agree that universalized issues like "access to birth control" are do not divide neatly down class lines, but unless you also agree that universal prohibitions like the one the chuch enforces on the people it holds moral sway over therefore have little to no progressive class content then we disagree. the controllers of capital will usually have access to what is socially necessary to reproduce their standing in society regardless of whether it is legal or forbidden by the church or not, while the poor will be the ones who deal with the consequences of moral and legal prohibitions, progressive or not. and in this case these universalized pronouncements that Erase Class will cause real problems for the people who dont have the ability to create the state of exception that ownership of capital confers.
HenryKrinkle posted:RedMaistre posted:And for the record, I don't accuse the work of the Gates foundation or the US empire for the matter as being "merely" a PR game. Trying to neatly distinguish between what is merely PR and what is sincere in the activities of institutions of that size is a fool's game (see Soviet and Chinese Foreign policy for more examples ), and besides the point. That is not the basis upon which anyone should condemn such entities.
the RCC provides PR for capitalism. more specifically, it serves as a gatekeeper for economic discourse by co-opting anti-neoliberal movements while explicitly condemning communism and upholding bourgeois rights such as private property.
So they are on the same page as the Soviet Union, then:
The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.
addition to its basic income from the public collective-farm enterprise, every household in a collective farm has for its personal use a small plot of land attached to the dwelling and, as its personal property, a subsidiary establishment on the plot, a dwelling house, livestock, poultry and minor agricultural implements in accordance with the statutes of the agricultural artel.
And for that matter, the PRC:
The proportion of planning to market forces is not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not equivalent to socialism, because there is planning under capitalism too; a market economy is not capitalism, because there are markets under socialism too. Planning and market forces are both means of controlling economic activity. The essence of socialism is liberation and development of the productive forces, elimination of exploitation and polarization, and the ultimate achievement of prosperity for all. This concept must be made clear to the people. Are securities and the stock market good or bad? Do they entail any dangers? Are they peculiar to capitalism? Can socialism make use of them? We allow people to reserve their judgement, but we must try these things out
.
if anyone thinks that catholics are required to surrender their moral authority to the pope, consider that at one point, there were three of them at once
cars posted:you can either believe or not believe that a huge amount of catholics keep their faith while angry at the church's leaders, but i would recommend accepting it quickly and moving on because it's not about to change
i also know that there are plenty of people who think they're going to change the democratic party from the inside
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:If the description I gave and the description that you gave are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, than we are not actually disagreeing. But it should be noted that your position just schematically repeats the main contradiction as being between "capital holders" (which ones?) and non-capital holders (which ones?) when a brief look at current controversies over issues related to family and reproduction shows that, as with economic questions and imperialism, there is no simple break down along class lines.
i agree that universalized issues like "access to birth control" are do not divide neatly down class lines, but unless you also agree that universal prohibitions like the one the chuch enforces on the people it holds moral sway over therefore have little to no progressive class content then we disagree. the controllers of capital will usually have access to what is socially necessary to reproduce their standing in society regardless of whether it is legal or forbidden by the church or not, while the poor will be the ones who deal with the consequences of moral and legal prohibitions, progressive or not. and in this case these universalized pronouncements that Erase Class will cause real problems for the people who dont have the ability to create the state of exception that ownership of capital confers.
Classes are intrinsically neither "progressive" or "anti-progressive." They are social bodies with various needs and interests that are placed, by external forces and by themselves, in a state of more or less greater antagonism at any one time with other social bodies (antagonisms which Marx, and others following him, have often very ably described). Your model presumes a Luckesian temporal subject which, just by being what it is in the grand plan of history, has the power that both latently contains and wills in deed the solution to all problems. But since truth is only seen retrospectively, no one can simultaneously act and comprehend their actions in thought, with the consequence no one can know within history can know the real 'truth' of what they do. Thus no particular social class at any one time, to the disappointment of millerenians everywhere, can claim to possess the comprehensive key to all social existence.
The long road towards the development of a more peaceful, democratic, and socialized global system does not depend on that type of schematic sociology or the summoning of immanent saviors by means of the System.
cars posted:huh and What might be the difference between the membership of the united states democratic party and the world membership of the Roman Catholic Church??
you'll have to tell me, i haven't got a clue
cars posted:'fish hasn't posted in months so i don't think there is a single person on this forum who would give the roman catholic hierarchy a pass. i was raised by parents very active in the local diocese who also refused to donate to any but a very specific number of societies within the church and who filled dinner conversation talking about how the bishops were covering up child rapists and Red baiting elections and how they should all be fired
if anyone thinks that catholics are required to surrender their moral authority to the pope, consider that at one point, there were three of them at once
Nor do I give the hierarchy a free pass either. As should be clear enough.
RedMaistre posted:Classes are intrinsically neither "progressive" or "anti-progressive." They are social bodies with various needs and interests that are placed, by external forces and by themselves, in a state of more or less greater antagonism at any one time with other social bodies (antagonisms which Marx, and others following him, have often very ably described). Your model presumes a Luckesian temporal subject which, just by being what it is in the grand plan of history, has the power that both latently contains and wills in deed the solution to all problems. But since truth is only seen retrospectively, no one can simultaneously act and comprehend their actions in thought, with the consequence no one can know within history can know the real 'truth' of what they do. Thus no particular social class at any one time, to the disappointment of millerenians everywhere, can claim to possess the comprehensive key to all social existence.
The long road towards the development of a more peaceful, democratic, and socialized global system does not depend on that type of schematic sociology or the summoning of immanent saviors by means of the System.
i know what a class is, i was talking about the content of universal pronouncements which can be progressive or not depending on how their content relates to the class antagonism