Apr 24, 2012 -- 9:58PM, WaveringCC wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 9:06PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:36PM, WaveringCC wrote:

Eventually they just drop out of the conversation.  So will the "progressives" and the "conservatives" ever truly be able to grasp where the "other side" is coming from - understand how they form their beliefs, which leads to their "goals"?

Here is a book which I haven't read but from reviews and discussions may addresses your question:

www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/...

FYI: This review suggests that Haidt says "conservatives" understand "progressives" but not the other way around.

I don't think either side really understand the other - especially in the political realm. While the book sounds interesting, it does not seem that it would answer my question.  He is primarily concerned with the political realm, specifically the American political realm. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" within the context of Roman Catholicism do not always refer to the same individuals identified by those terms in the American political realm. Sometimes, but certainly not always.  I am referring instead specifically to a handful of conservative Catholics who used to post on this board regularly.  They disappear from discussions as soon as they are asked questions beyond the simplistic, child-level catechetical level, and usually also when asked to explain their views w/o quoting from a papal or other official church document. 

I always explain my religious views by quoting from the Saints.  I decided some time ago my personal opinions about God and Christianity are not worth very much.  I decided that I should model my mindset on that of the Saints, and so turn to them for all of my opinions.

I am always amused by people who "think for themselves."  First, almost nobody is good at thinking outside their fields of expertise.  Second, almost nobody has an original opinion and their personal thoughts are instilled in them by propaganda and social pressures, usually without their consent or even awareness that it is happening.

Many people do the equivalent of quoting from a papal document except that they are quoting an opinion of a TV sitcom character that got directly injected into their subconscious without their noticing because they were laughing at the time.

Nobody is immune from propaganda and the best we can do is decide consciously who to trust.

Apr 25, 2012 -- 2:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Part of the problem when discussing religion is when a person says "I (or my view or religion) is right because God (through scripture or official church documents or prophet or saint) said so, and nobody who is a decent person disagrees with or questions God," how does dialog take place? I mean, that basically shuts down any dialog right there. We saw an exchange along those lines between jlb and happygardener in a thread last week. It went nowhere, and I don't se how it can go anywhere once the "I know I'm right because God said so" card is played. And for some religious people, failure to play that card means one is not a "true believer." So, if you're trying to dialog with such a person, I don't think you'll get far. And if a God-believer is trying to dialog with a non-believer, obviously the non-believer is not going to accept any of the purely religious sources as valid, so how far does that go? I suppose that would allow for some dialog between religious progressives, who generally don't think their way is the only way, to dialog with atheists, but I don't see how much dialog is possible beetween a religious conservative and an atheist beause they used completely different approaches and do not agree on what is a "fact" or a "reasonable argument."

Where was the dialog between jlb and happygardener supposed to go?

Where are dialogs between religious progressives and atheists supposed to go?

I will also point out that "not going anywhere" is the preferred outcome for conservatives, by definition.  So we conservatives tend to prevail in these dialogs.

My background is Catholic healthcare--30 years worth.  All working for communities of religious women. 

There are some things wrong; but more things right.

I refer you to this book--Ministry & Meaning: A Religious History of Catholic Health Care in the United States.

If Catholic Bishops had one iota of the courage of these nuns, I might find them believable.  As it is, they have nothing.

Carondelet--Sent sisters to deal with typhoid and deaf children in St. Louis  (priests???)

Mercy--Sent sisters to open Philadelphia hosptials to care for Civil War injured.  (priests????)Also had to 'fight' to keep Catherine McAuley's legacy ($$$) from being taken by the local bishop in Ireland.

Carondelet--travelled by wagon train from LA to Tucson to open schools and hospitals (priests????)

Charity of Leavenworth--travelled from the east coast to KS to open schools/hosptials (priests???)

Etc, Etc.

Oh, I know the argument.  Well, the local bishops asked them to come--and that's because THEY and their BROTHERHOOD would do nothing.

By comparison, Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are absolute WIMPS.

Apr 25, 2012 -- 10:22AM, SeraphimR wrote:

Where are dialogs between religious progressives and atheists supposed to go?

I will also point out that "not going anywhere" is the preferred outcome for conservatives, by definition.  So we conservatives tend to prevail in these dialogs.

LOL! Good thing early humans didn't believe that.....

How can conservatives lose when they change and claim they never change?

Today, I am a client of the Catholic Credit Union, when I borrow money I pay interest (usury);  today I don't have to question whether I am human and worthy of God's love; my daughter is free to marry who she wants and my son didn't marry the young woman I thought would be a perfect soul mate for him.... Usury used to be against scripture yet today we don't even think of paying interest or gaining interest; during the 16th Century the Progressive theologians from the School Of Salamanca were arguing that the indigenous people of the Americas were fully human and thus it wasn't moral for the Church and Europeans to plunder and kill the natives simply to take what belonged to them; the conservative Christian communities from Puritans to Orthodox, Catholics to Presbytarians didnt' think anything of stealing from the savages who were apparently considered less than human; until the 4th Lateran Council people married who the parents deemed appropriate, today people marry out of love; and, the church no longer profits from the slave trade, though it still supports serfdom in Latin America and it continues to keep the land and precious metals it stole from the natives and today even the most conservative bishop is likely to say I am fully human and covered by "natural law."  

So it is  not that conservatives don't change, it is simply that they refuse to awknowledge that people always change, including conservatives. BTW: It is a good thing Christ wasn't so conservative that he obeyed the priests and religious leaders of his time, but you are right, over the short  term conservtives fear change so bad that they Crucified Christ for the crime of blasphamey.... good thing there were  Jewish progressives.....

Apr 25, 2012 -- 2:11PM, TemplarS wrote:

I do not know any way to engage in such discernment other than dialogue.  I do not think relying on a work written 2,000 years ago (or, for that matter, things written by saints in different times and cultures)  can be done without serious thought about how to translate these  principles into our day and time.  I think we can rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit,  but I do not think this guidance descends on Churchmen only (at least, history seems to indicate it does not).  This is an activity required of the whole Church. 

 

Although I agree with what you say, you raise the fundamental stumbling block.  According to RCC conservatives, dialogue is unnecessary BECAUSE the Holy Spirit speaks to churchmen.  Actually, a more accurate way to say it is that only churchmen are capable of hearing the Holy Spirit and deciphering its words without veering into error.  Because they believe that churchmen are incapable of being led down a wrong path, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, or whether cultures, norms and mores change over time.