Roman Catholic Church invites new syncretism

[Abdul Alhazred]

The Roman Catholic Church co-opted all those local goddesses as Our Lady, but what about more recent flavors of religious experience?

Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24598508) (MSNBC)

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer says that believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God.

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

In an interview published Tuesday by Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion "doesn't contradict our faith" because aliens would still be God's creatures.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The interview was headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother."

Funes said that ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom.



But did Jesus die for them? And if not, why not?

I think it's great the Vatican has a chief astronomer. They are NOT going to get into another embarrassing Galileo situation.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/Abdul-Alhazred/---%20NEW%20---/LightningLord.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/Abdul-Alhazred/---%20NEW%20---/CoolZinger.jpg Damn, I'm good!

[DOC]

They are NOT going to get into another embarrassing Galileo situation.

The Catholic Church has a history of learning from their mistakes. Maybe that's one reason (along with their faith) why they're still around after 2000 years and the Roman Empire is on the ash heap of history. Not to mention hundreds of other empires.

[Darat]

Sounds like the debates they used have in Medieval times regarding the Cynocephali (dogheads), which if memory serves me right concluded that they could be saved as they had rational souls not bestial souls. So extending that to "rational" aliens whilst they may not yet be saved they can be saved by the gift of Christ.

(And next we will discuss if it is possible that Harry Potter will achieve 4 or 5 grade A, "A" levels... ;) )

[DOC]

But did Jesus die for them? And if not, why not?

If Sin did not enter their world, they would have no need for redemption (which is salvation from sin through Jesus's sacrifice).

[Darat]

If Sin did not enter their world, they would have no need for redemption (which is salvation from sin through Jesus's sacrifice).

Not a RCC view.

[ceo_esq]

I think it's great the Vatican has a chief astronomer. They are NOT going to get into another embarrassing Galileo situation.

They had a chief astronomer back in Galileo's time, too - Christopher Clavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clavius), one of the pre-eminent scientists of his day. I think they've nearly always surrounded themselves with at least a few good science types.

[Wolfman]

I'm sure that a whole bunch of alien CTers are going to be jumping on this news as proof that the existence of aliens on earth is soon to be revealed, and that the Vatican did this in order to prepare their followers for the revelation. At least, if I was into the whole aliens-on-earth-kidnapping-people-and-probing-their-rectums thing, that's the conclusion I'd come to.

[Bikewer]

I found this vaguely interesting, as I had come up with such ideas all on my own as a young lad.
Back in the early 60s, when I was in high school, Catholic, and a science-fiction reader, I had the same notion. "What if there were alien races who had experienced their own little temptation incident ("Grorg, come taste of the Twilli-Willi fruit" "Never! The lord Gugblatz said we shouldn't!"....) and passed?
Most of the adults I expressed these weighty thoughts to seemed massively disinterested...

Odd that prominent theologians should express the same view some 50 years later.... I should have written it down.

[Darat]

It's been quite a popular theme in science fiction for quite awhile, from classics such as James Blish's 1950s "A Case of Conscience" to Mary Doria Russell's 1990s "The Sparrow".

Highly recommend both books even for those not that interested in religion, they are good novels that have at the heart of them interesting ideas generally considered to be quite esoteric.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Funny thing is, I've met people who believe -- for religious reasons -- that there cannot be intelligent alien life.

I've had this from an orthodox Jew as well as a fundamentalist Protestant (asked point blank).

I wish I could remember their arguments. Something about Genesis, but for the life of me.... Maybe that only humans are made in God's image?

Dang it, I'm not sure.

[David Swidler]

Well, here's one Orthodox Jew saying it's irrelevant whether there's alien life or not.

[ceo_esq]

It's been quite a popular theme in science fiction for quite awhile, from classics such as James Blish's 1950s "A Case of Conscience" to Mary Doria Russell's 1990s "The Sparrow".

Highly recommend both books even for those not that interested in religion, they are good novels that have at the heart of them interesting ideas generally considered to be quite esoteric.

Don't forget C.S. Lewis' "Space Trilogy".

[Darat]

I was referring to classics..... ;)

[Magic 9-Ball]

I think it's just another attempt to blur the lines between science and biblical beliefs. There's the real science: "the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth", and the attempt at blurring the lines: "Funes said science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion".

Case in point, yet another quote: "...why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation".

Plus they are appealing to the younger, Sci-Fi and "X-Files" type.

[Wolfman]

Funny thing is, I've met people who believe -- for religious reasons -- that there cannot be intelligent alien life.

I've had this from an orthodox Jew as well as a fundamentalist Protestant (asked point blank).

I wish I could remember their arguments. Something about Genesis, but for the life of me.... Maybe that only humans are made in God's image?

Dang it, I'm not sure.
There are a variety of arguments.

1) Sinful nature -- the Bible states that, before Adam and Eve sinned, they lived in a paradise that had no pain, no death, etc. It was a perfectly ordered system. When they disobeyed God, sin entered the world, and resulted in all the chaos we see around us. Some Christians hold that this chaos affected not just our planet, but the universe as a whole (as demonstrated by the generally chaotic nature of our universe, with exploding stars, colliding galaxies, etc.). They will then use this to conclude that, since God would not punish beings on another planet for the sins of humans, and since obviously other planets have been affected, therefore there must not be life on other planets.

2) Jesus died once -- If there were life on other planets, it would be reasonable to assume that at least some of them would also have sinned. But the Bible states, quite unequivocally, that Jesus died only once. The idea of him dying again and again on planets all over the universe just seems to cruel (suffering an agonizing and unfair death for humans is fine...just not if he has to do it again for others).

3) The Bible doesn't say it -- to put it as simply and plainly as possible, "if god had created other life, he would have told us about it in the Bible"

4) The earth is the center of the universe -- although Christians (or at least the vast majority of them) no longer believe that the Earth is literally the center of the solar system, they still believe that it is metaphorically the center of God's creation. We are unique, special creations. And just as the idea that "we are descended from apes" is viewed as an effort to deny our status as God's special creations, so too the idea that there are other intelligent beings out there would be to deny our status as unique or special creations.

[Beerina]

The Catholic Church has a history of learning from their mistakes.

Galileo sure taught them a lesson, though it took 400 years. Now they've interwoven evolution into their belief system, as have most major religions, though we are all brutally aware around here of the creationist crappola foisted by the more boisterous of the derivative offshoots, because it works to keep the cash flowing in.

In any case, this is just a pre-emptive strike. Any religion that claims there won't be any aliens would then be "disproven" by the existence of same.

(Not that that would stop them from re-writing their own history, please keep donating...)

[Ryan O'Dine]

Well, here's one Orthodox Jew saying it's irrelevant whether there's alien life or not.

Is that because not all Orthodox Jews are Biblical literalists, or because not all Biblical literalists deny the possibility of intelligent aliens?

There are a variety of arguments.

Thank you. Your #4 -- that people are the center of creation -- is closest to the flavor of the arguments I’ve heard. I just wish I could remember them specifically.

3) The Bible doesn't say it -- to put it as simply and plainly as possible, "if god had created other life, he would have told us about it in the Bible"

I’d be surprised if anyone actually uses this argument. It seems too easily refuted. (Microbes, and such.)

[Wolfman]

I’d be surprised if anyone actually uses this argument. It seems too easily refuted. (Microbes, and such.)Oh, I've heard it used by quite a few in the fundamentalist crowd. If they can ignore the evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, this one's incredibly easy to rationalize. Easiest way is simply say that the Bible does say God created life on earth; it does not list every single animal, or plant...just that God created life. So microbes fall within that description. However, the Bible does not say God created life anywhere else.

You are trying to apply logic; I'm afraid logic has no place in such debates.

[David Swidler]

Is that because not all Orthodox Jews are Biblical literalists, or because not all Biblical literalists deny the possibility of intelligent aliens?


I wouldn't know enough to determine whether biblical literalists as a group deny the possibility of alien life, but the statement that not all Orthodox Jews are biblical literalists is certainly true. It helps that there's no central tenet of Judaism requiring belief in the literal interpretations, and that many Talmudic statements can only be understood in light of a figurative approach to the beginning of Genesis.

Which is not to say I haven't met Orthodox literalists; it's just that it's not a central pillar of the system, so demonstrating its untenability as such doesn't undermine very much.

[Meadmaker]

Not a RCC view.


Isn't it? I haven't looked this sort of thing up since I gave up Catholicisim a few decades back, but I think he got the RCC view correct.

Mankind was stained with original sin as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Their descendants were thus stained with original sin (except for Mary, who got a "Get Out of Original Sin Free" card, and of course Jesus, who didn't have any immediate ancestors with original sin, because Mary was sinless, and dad wasn't human.)

An alien life form wouldn't be a descendant of Adam and Eve, and thus no original sin. The Bible is silent on whether other intelligent organisms would be sinless and/or soulless. The Vatican is just saying that belief in such organisms would not contradict anything in their faith.


Just for the record, I think the whole "original sin" thing is silly, but I'm just passing along my understanding of Catholic doctrine.

[Darat]

Isn't it? I haven't looked this sort of thing up since I gave up Catholicisim a few decades back, but I think he got the RCC view correct.

Mankind was stained with original sin as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Their descendants were thus stained with original sin (except for Mary, who got a "Get Out of Original Sin Free" card, and of course Jesus, who didn't have any immediate ancestors with original sin, because Mary was sinless, and dad wasn't human.)

An alien life form wouldn't be a descendant of Adam and Eve, and thus no original sin. The Bible is silent on whether other intelligent organisms would be sinless and/or soulless. The Vatican is just saying that belief in such organisms would not contradict anything in their faith.


Just for the record, I think the whole "original sin" thing is silly, but I'm just passing along my understanding of Catholic doctrine.

Can you point me to something that supports your contention that according to the RCC a creature could not be a descendant of Adam and yet still have a rational soul?

[Darat]

Just had a quick dig and found in another report of the story that the priest involved said: "If other intelligent beings exist, it's not certain that they need redemption ..... [they could] have remained in full friendship with their creator....."

That seems to go against what I've read over the years regarding the "rational soul" being unique to humans or rather in Church speech "descendents of Adam". For an interesting historic perspective I suggest you look up "dog heads" and the theological discussion regarding whether they needed to be preached to to save their souls.

[ceo_esq]

Can you point me to something that supports your contention that according to the RCC a creature could not be a descendant of Adam and yet still have a rational soul?

Wouldn't they say that angels are creatures that are not descended from Adam and yet still have rational souls?

[Darat]

I didn't think so?

[The Atheist]

RCC has a dollar each way.

How unusual.

[ceo_esq]

For anyone interested, I have a couple of book recommendations on the history of Western thinking about the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life (including, among other things, the long history of Catholic theology on the topic):

Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (http://www.amazon.com/Plurality-Worlds-Extraterrestrial-Debate-Democritus/dp/0521319854)


Michael J. Crowe, The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900 (http://www.amazon.com/Extraterrestrial-Life-Debate-1750-1900/dp/048640675X)

[DOC]

Galileo sure taught them a lesson, though it took 400 years. Now they've interwoven evolution into their belief system...

Do you think the Jews would have followed Moses if he told them the earth went around the sun and their ancestors were bacteria. Oh, wait they didn't know about bacteria yet, because they didn't have microscopes.

And besides Christianity is mostly about the soul and spiritual things. How the body (the temple of the soul) came about, is of lesser importance.

[DOC]

RCC has a dollar each way.

And Science and Medicine care nothing about the dollar. They only care about the truth.

[bokonon]

I found this vaguely interesting, as I had come up with such ideas all on my own as a young lad.
Back in the early 60s, when I was in high school, Catholic, and a science-fiction reader, I had the same notion. "What if there were alien races who had experienced their own little temptation incident ("Grorg, come taste of the Twilli-Willi fruit" "Never! The lord Gugblatz said we shouldn't!"....) and passed?
Most of the adults I expressed these weighty thoughts to seemed massively disinterested...

Odd that prominent theologians should express the same view some 50 years later.... I should have written it down.
Well hell, I never ate any "fruit of the tree of knowledge." If mudman's "sneak-a-snack" damns a nice guy like me 6000 years and ten generations later, why should the Rigelians get a free ride?

[Civilized Worm]

Do you think the Jews would have followed Moses if he told them the earth went around the sun and their ancestors were bacteria. Oh, wait they didn't know about bacteria yet, because they didn't have microscopes.


What about when god told them they had dominion over all creatures? Did he just forget about micro organisms?


And besides Christianity is mostly about the soul and spiritual things. How the body (the temple of the soul) came about, is of lesser importance.


Does that mean you're going to drop the creationism nonsense then?

[bokonon]

Do you think the Jews would have followed Moses if he told them the earth went around the sun and their ancestors were bacteria. Oh, wait they didn't know about bacteria yet, because they didn't have microscopes.

And besides Christianity is mostly about the soul and spiritual things. How the body (the temple of the soul) came about, is of lesser importance.
If, instead of giving Moses stone tablets proclaiming how "jealous" he was about all the attention Baal was getting, God had given Moses a microscope and a telescope, they might not only have believed it, but jump started the Age of Enlightenment.

Honestly, is it really necessary for scientists to do EVERYTHING?

[DOC]

Does that mean you're going to drop the creationism nonsense then?

So the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe were not created??

[Civilized Worm]

Depends what you mean by "created". In the "goddidit" sense, no.

[The Atheist]

And Science and Medicine care nothing about the dollar. They only care about the truth.

Sorry to have to highlight more of your ignorance, but my comment had nothing to do with money at all - it's a colloquial saying.

I'll put it in terms which might make more sense to you:

The Roman Catholic Filth, as it always has throughout its 2000-year history of deceit, lies, murder and torture, yet again taken both sides of a metaphysical point to preserve its ability to be right.

Understand now?

Duplicity = the Roman Catholic Church.

Always has and always will.

(But if you want to talk about money and churches, why does god need so much cash?)

[Wolfman]

Do you think the Jews would have followed Moses if he told them the earth went around the sun and their ancestors were bacteria. Oh, wait they didn't know about bacteria yet, because they didn't have microscopes.So, your argument basically goes as follows:

1) Telling people that the entire universe was created in 6 days was "believable"; but telling them that the Earth revolved around the sun was "too much to expect"?

2) God will lie, or deliberately propagate untruths, if it happens to suit his needs/purpose at the time?

Besides which, your argument here opens up a whole new can of worms...for example, using your "logic", I could simply claim that the reason the Bible doesn't mention evolution is because the Jews wouldn't have followed Moses.

[Meadmaker]

Can you point me to something that supports your contention that according to the RCC a creature could not be a descendant of Adam and yet still have a rational soul?


Well, there's some comments by a Vatican astronomer recently...


There are lots of things that are left out of the Bible entirely, but the Catholic Church doesn't deny their existence. There's no mention of galaxies, or pulsars, or kangaroos, but their existence doesn't contradict RCC doctrine.

Man was given dominion over all the animals on Earth, and the RCC doctrine says that man is the only creature on Earth with a soul. It doesn't say anything about creatures outside of the Earth.

As CEO pointed out, Angels are an example of beings that have souls, and are not descendants of Adam. Martians or Andromedans could be another.

[Meadmaker]

Do you think the Jews would have followed Moses if he told them the earth went around the sun and their ancestors were bacteria. Oh, wait they didn't know about bacteria yet, because they didn't have microscopes.



They might have thought he was crazy.

However, today, the Jews still follow Moses, even though some other people have told them the Earth goes around the sun and their ancestors were bacteria. They figure that those things, which are believed by almost every Jew, weren't all that important to Moses, so it wasn't something he and God talked about.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Do you think the Jews would have followed Moses ...

Why suppose even that much is historically accurate?

You don't get so much as a weak correlation with historical events until the dynastic struggles within the Kingdom of Israel.

[qayak]

I think it's just another attempt to blur the lines between science and biblical beliefs. There's the real science: "the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth", and the attempt at blurring the lines: "Funes said science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion".

Case in point, yet another quote: "...why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation".

Plus they are appealing to the younger, Sci-Fi and "X-Files" type.

Let's face it, the vatican employs scientists who are willing to set aside truth when it contradicts RCC dogma, or when a religious fanatics needs to ignore it. That isn't to say scientists willing to prostitute themselves aren't employed by other religions, they are.

The RCC is faced with the fact that REAL scientists are actively searching for extraterrestrial life and with the new unmanned mission to the martian polar cap, those scientists have their best chance ever of finding life and the vatican wants to be in a position to say, "We knew it all along!"

The tripe about god's giving man dominion over all things on Earth somehow supporting the RCC position of aliens not contradicting their beliefs leads to other issues. Specifically, if life is found on Mars or anywhere else, man has stepped into the domain of god. Shouldn't the RCC be warning us that science is about to anger the ever living hell out of their skydaddy? Also, doesn't this show that god is not above man, that man is perfectly capable of running with the big dogs? If god doesn't smite science and scientists for their audacity, does it mean he doesn't exist, or just doesn't care?

[qayak]

Wouldn't they say that angels are creatures that are not descended from Adam and yet still have rational souls?

I don't know. Could you provide an angel for us to examine?

[ceo_esq]

Let's face it, the vatican employs scientists who are willing to set aside truth when it contradicts RCC dogma, or when a religious fanatics needs to ignore it.

First, RCC dogma is by its nature pretty well insulated from the likelihood that a scientific truth could contradict it. That possibility seems inherently implausible. Second, what evidence do you have that the Vatican employs scientists who are willing to set aside any kind of scientific truth?


The RCC is faced with the fact that REAL scientists are actively searching for extraterrestrial life and with the new unmanned mission to the martian polar cap, those scientists have their best chance ever of finding life and the vatican wants to be in a position to say, "We knew it all along!"

You seem to have some notion that RCC-affiliated scientists are less "real" than other scientists. This is a mistake; they tend to be as distinguished in their fields as other scientists (and the field of the search for extraterrestrial life - including on Mars - is no exception). The Church is actually pretty invested in SETI - not in any particular outcome, mind you, just in the search. In fact, as I suggested earlier, the RCC has possibly taken a longer interest in the topic of extraterrestrial life than any other institution in Western history. They're not exactly latecomers to the ball here.

With your amazing claimed ability to read the thoughts of the Church, you should consider applying for Randi's $1 million.


The tripe about god's giving man dominion over all things on Earth somehow supporting the RCC position of aliens not contradicting their beliefs leads to other issues. Specifically, if life is found on Mars or anywhere else, man has stepped into the domain of god.

I doubt the Church would see it that way. Why would they? They're actively sponsoring research in this area.


Shouldn't the RCC be warning us that science is about to anger the ever living hell out of their skydaddy?

They think science, as such, is a way of honoring their God.


Also, doesn't this show that god is not above man, that man is perfectly capable of running with the big dogs?

How would it show them that God is not above man? And who are the "big dogs"?


Wouldn't they say that angels are creatures that are not descended from Adam and yet still have rational souls?
I don't know. Could you provide an angel for us to examine?
Don't be foolish. The question Darat asked had to do with whether the RCC would think that a non-human creature could have a rational soul. I suggested that they'd say that angels fit that bill. To answer that question, what we'd want to examine, if anything, would obviously be a Catholic, not an angel. :rolleyes:

[Darat]

...snip...

Man was given dominion over all the animals on Earth, and the RCC doctrine says that man is the only creature on Earth with a soul. ...

...snip...

No it doesn't.

...snip...

As CEO pointed out, Angels are an example of beings that have souls, and are not descendants of Adam. ...snip....

Cite?

[qayak]

First, RCC dogma is by its nature pretty well insulated from the likelihood that a scientific truth could contradict it. That possibility seems inherently implausible.

:rolleyes: Yeah, right.

Second, what evidence do you have that the Vatican employs scientists who are willing to set aside any kind of scientific truth?

The record of said scientists.

You seem to have some notion that RCC-affiliated scientists are less "real" than other scientists. This is a mistake; they tend to be as distinguished in their fields as other scientists (and the field of the search for extraterrestrial life - including on Mars - is no exception). The Church is actually pretty invested in SETI - not in any particular outcome, mind you, just in the search. In fact, as I suggested earlier, the RCC has possibly taken a longer interest in the topic of extraterrestrial life than any other institution in Western history. They're not exactly latecomers to the ball here.

Can you enlighten us as to the actual work they have done in this area?

With your amazing claimed ability to read the thoughts of the Church, you should consider applying for Randi's $1 million.

Actually, you are the one who continually speaks for the RCC. You never see me doing that. I simply state the obvious, and verifiable, interpretation of their actions and you bend over backwards with explanations of what the RCC really meant.

I doubt the Church would see it that way. Why would they? They're actively sponsoring research in this area.

Evidence.

They think science, as such, is a way of honoring their God.

:dl:

How would it show them that God is not above man? And who are the "big dogs"?

Man isn't limited to the realm supposedly given to him by the catholic god.

Don't be foolish. The question Darat asked had to do with whether the RCC would think that a non-human creature could have a rational soul. I suggested that they'd say that angels fit that bill. To answer that question, what we'd want to examine, if anything, would obviously be a Catholic, not an angel. :rolleyes:

No, he asked for evidence that the RCC believes a non-human creature could have a rational soul as part of their dogma. You suggested angels would fit the bill although you provided no evidence that this is the catholic church's belief.

I asked for you to produce an angel for our examination before I decided if it indeed fits into any dogmatic belief of the RCC.

[Meadmaker]

No it doesn't.



Cite?

I'm assuming that the nuns that taught Sunday school were knowledgable of their religion. I'm sticking with my assertion that according to the RCC, humans have souls, angels have (or are?) souls, and animals do not have souls.

Look it up yourself if it's something you find interesting.

[Darat]

I'm assuming that the nuns that taught Sunday school were knowledgable of their religion. I'm sticking with my assertion that according to the RCC, humans have souls, angels have (or are?) souls, and animals do not have souls.

Look it up yourself if it's something you find interesting.

I have and that is why I know you are wrong, unless of course the RCC has recently changed their views on this?

[Soapy Sam]

Sounds like the debates they used have in Medieval times regarding the Cynocephali (dogheads), which if memory serves me right concluded ...

I think we have a candidate for the current secret identity of Le Compte de Saint-Germain...

[Darat]

I'll take that as a compliment...

[Meadmaker]

I have and that is why I know you are wrong, unless of course the RCC has recently changed their views on this?:rolleyes:


So, I went to google and used "Do animals have souls" and "catholic".

Hit number one led me to "forums.catholic.com" and this post:


Re: Do animals have souls?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All living things have souls, but only angels and humans have spiritual souls. Animal and plant souls are material principles that cease to exist at death. Angels do not die, and human souls survive the death of the body.

We do not know God's plans for creation, including animals and plants. A hint that creation may be glorified at the end of time can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Quote:
For the cosmos, revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God ... in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. ... We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (CCC 1046).

The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ (CCC 1047).

In short, it is possible that God may re-create and glorify creation, including animals and plants. We may hope then that it may be possible to meet deceased animal friends in the next life.


I must admit that I had never heard the "material principles" of the animals that cease to exist at death referred to as "souls", so I suppose I stand corrected on that point. However, I think I, and the nuns that taught me, can reasonably claim correctness on the point that we were making.


I am confident that this message is an accurate statement of Catholic doctrine, more authoritative even than an atheist on a skeptic forum who contributes nothing but demands evidence from anyone who does. Curiously, though, it lacks any reference to the possibility of alien life, whether or not those aliens have souls (by which I mean "spiritual souls"), whether or not they were stained by original sin, or whether or not they needed or received redemption throught the death of Jesus Christ, on Earth, or whether it is possible that God became incarnate at some other time on a planet circling Sirius in the form of a giant cockroach-like alien. It's almost as if Catholic doctrine were entirely silent on such a weighty issue.

Undoubtedly, if there is ever a practical need to address this issue, the Pope will discuss it in some sort of Papal pronouncement. We can only wait until the time when, during the reign of Pope John CCCLXIII, mankind ventures to the stars and encounters intelligent alien life. For the moment, though, a priest in the employ of the Vatican says that there is nothing about belief in intelligent aliens that contradicts the Catholic faith. I'm afraid that's about the best we will get on that subject. Pope Benedict isn't likely to issue a clarification any time soon.

[Darat]

:rolleyes:


So, I went to google and used "Do animals have souls" and "catholic".

Hit number one led me to "forums.catholic.com" and this post:



Why bother posting this, it only confirms what I said and contradicts what you said i.e.:

You: ...and the RCC doctrine says that man is the only creature on Earth with a soul...

Me: You're wrong

Your quote: "All living things have souls,....."

[Meadmaker]

Why bother posting this, it only confirms what I said and contradicts what you said i.e.:

You: ...and the RCC doctrine says that man is the only creature on Earth with a soul...

Me: You're wrong

Your quote: "All living things have souls,....."

If anyone wants to understand Catholic doctrine, they can read what the author wrote and I quoted in my previous post.

If anyone is interested in clever parsing to declare a "winner", they can read yours. Congratulations, Darat. You are right again.

[Darat]

If anyone wants to understand Catholic doctrine, they can read what the author wrote and I quoted in my previous post.

If anyone is interested in clever parsing to declare a "winner", they can read yours. Congratulations, Darat. You are right again.

What on earth are you going on about? You said that the RCC doctrine is that only humans have souls, this would be new to me so I asked about it and then when you find out you were wrong somehow that is me using "clever parsing"? That just doesn't make sense.

[Meadmaker]

What on earth are you going on about? You said that the RCC doctrine is that only humans have souls, this would be new to me so I asked about it and then when you find out you were wrong somehow that is me using "clever parsing"? That just doesn't make sense.

Well I'm just glad we got it cleared up. According to the Catholics, all living things have "souls", but not all living things have "spiritual souls". The souls of animals and plants cease to exist at death, but the souls of humans live on. Angels have spiritual souls, but there is no death, so that clause is not applicable. Hypothetical aliens, meanwhile, are not covered under existing doctrine, so we don't know what to say about them.

If that's what you were saying all along, I must have misunderstood, but it's all cleared up now.

[Darat]

Well I'm just glad we got it cleared up. According to the Catholics, all living things have "souls", but not all living things have "spiritual souls". The souls of animals and plants cease to exist at death, but the souls of humans live on. Angels have spiritual souls, but there is no death, so that clause is not applicable. Hypothetical aliens, meanwhile, are not covered under existing doctrine, so we don't know what to say about them.

If that's what you were saying all along, I must have misunderstood, but it's all cleared up now.

My first post in this thread was (with a couple of words highlighted):

Sounds like the debates they used have in Medieval times regarding the Cynocephali (dogheads), which if memory serves me right concluded that they could be saved as they had rational souls not bestial souls. So extending that to "rational" aliens whilst they may not yet be saved they can be saved by the gift of Christ.

(And next we will discuss if it is possible that Harry Potter will achieve 4 or 5 grade A, "A" levels... ;) )

[ceo_esq]

First, RCC dogma is by its nature pretty well insulated from the likelihood that a scientific truth could contradict it. That possibility seems inherently implausible.
:rolleyes: Yeah, right.

How many times in 2,000 years has it happened? Think of the kind of dogmatic claims the RCC makes, and how few (if any) of those claims are even empirically falsifiable.


Second, what evidence do you have that the Vatican employs scientists who are willing to set aside any kind of scientific truth?
The record of said scientists.

So you say. Show us, then. Which scientists and what record? Be specific. You might consider starting with the staff of the Vatican Observatory (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/Staff.html), then moving on to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20020103_academicians_en.html).


Can you enlighten us as to the actual work they have done in this area?

Of course, it would be very time-consuming to survey all the research being done at or in collaboration with the world’s Catholic research institutions in areas relevant to the search for extraterrestrial life (everything from exoplanet surveys (http://physics.nd.edu/Faculty/bennett.html) to Martian petrology (http://www.nd.edu/%7Ecneal/)). But for example, though, one of the three research teams to have found methane on Mars a few years ago was based out of the Catholic University of America, led by Vladimir Krasnopolsky (http://iacs.cua.edu/people/vladimir/). A Vatican Observatory representative (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/WStoeger.html) sits on the SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics’ SETI Permanent Study Group. Another Vatican representative (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/GConsolmagno.html) was recently the Chair of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society.


Actually, you are the one who continually speaks for the RCC. You never see me doing that.

I said you seem to have some secret knowledge of the mind and motivation of the Church. At the very least, you frequently write things that presuppose such knowledge.


I simply state the obvious, and verifiable, interpretation of their actions and you bend over backwards with explanations of what the RCC really meant.

I merely question your interpretations. You say your interpretations are "verifiable". How do you propose to verify your latest interpretation, that the Vatican's interest in extraterrestrial life is merely reflective of a self-serving desire "to be in a position to say, 'We knew it all along!'"? Verify away.


I doubt the Church would see it that way. Why would they? They're actively sponsoring research in this area.
Evidence.

See my remarks just above, regarding such research. Again: why would the Church see it that way?


They think science, as such, is a way of honoring their God.
:dl:

Must you insist on showing off your ignorance? The notion that the natural world is God's handiwork and that devotion to its study therefore honors God is a very old idea in Catholicism (and Christianity generally), dating back to the foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages and before. It was treated at length in the "Is religion slowing us down? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763)" thread.


Man isn't limited to the realm supposedly given to him by the catholic god.

Whoever said he was supposed to be? At any rate, that realm, as far as Catholicism seems to be concerned, is creation itself (the natural world), not the boundaries of planet Earth as such.


I asked for you to produce an angel for our examination before I decided if it indeed fits into any dogmatic belief of the RCC.

Why would this depend on producing an angel? We were talking there about what the RCC thinks (that is, its ideas of angels). Whether angels exist or, if so, what their actual characteristics might be, is irrelevant to that question.

[Meadmaker]

My first post in this thread was (with a couple of words highlighted):

Great. Absolutely clear now. Perfect elucidation of Catholic doctrine.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Update: Zinger zings his astronomer

Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Pope-sacks-astronomer-evolution-debate.html) Mail (UK)

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See's endorsement of "intelligent design" theory, which essentially backs the "Adam and Eve" theory of creation.

Benedict favours intelligent design, which says God directs the process of evolution, over Charles Darwin's original theory which holds that species evolve through the random, unplanned processes of genetic mutation and the survival of the fittest.

But Father Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory for 28 years, is an outspoken supporter of Darwin's theory, arguing that it is compatible with Christianity.

He has been replaced by Argentine Jesuit Father Jose Funes, 43, an expert on disk galaxies.

...

Do you really think the new guy believes in Adam and Eve? Or is he merely willing to keep his mouth shut for the sinecure?

The Catholic Church is clever enough and rich enough to have genuine scientists to provide cover, though maybe not biologists.

American creationists wish they had so sweet a deal.

[zooterkin]

Update: Zinger zings his astronomer

Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Pope-sacks-astronomer-evolution-debate.html) Mail (UK)
Well, not that much of an update, since that was dated 23 August 2006, and Funes is the astronomer named in the OP.

However, it does back up the assertion that only scientists who follow the approved RCC line are likely to keep their jobs (hardly a surprise). I hadn't realised that the RCC had come out in support of ID, though.

[ceo_esq]

However, it does back up the assertion that only scientists who follow the approved RCC line are likely to keep their jobs (hardly a surprise).

No, it doesn't. There's no evidence that Fr. Coyne was sacked at all, notwithstanding the fevered speculations of the Daily Mail. Coyne was 73 years old and suffering from cancer when he decided to retire as head of the Vatican Observatory. Moreover, he is still on the staff of the observatory itself; he now heads the Vatican Observatory Foundation; and he remains a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican's ultra-elite scientific advisory body.