pbray's recent activity
-
Comment on The war on stolen content in ~tech
-
Comment on Priests won't comply with law: SA church in ~humanities
pbray (edited )Link ParentI'm not sure about the use internationally. I think it got its name because the American bishops commissioned the new translation. Wikipedia says it is used in the Philippines as well, which makes...I'm not sure about the use internationally. I think it got its name because the American bishops commissioned the new translation. Wikipedia says it is used in the Philippines as well, which makes sense. Appears different editions are used in England.
To the substantive bits of the post, the Catholic position is often punishment averse in ways that can look freakish from other religious perspectives. Medieval theologians were concerned that the only standard that allowed punishment was a confession. Admittedly there was a hypocrisy in allowing a lot of what would today be considered "punishment" (read torture) in order to produce such a confession with arbitrary ad hoc rules to limit what could be done in order to get a confession. I am not entirely sure about the Catholic theology of self-preservation. I vaguely remember there being a saint that let a traveler into his home even though he knew he would be murdered and that being considered praiseworthy (though not obligated). Generally, if one works directly from scripture, the Bible appears to assume that Christians will not be in power from now until the end of times. Unlike Quran, for example, which from what I understand has quite a bit to say about appropriate governance (this may be in the hadiths, not a Catholicism expert, definitely not an Islam expert), the New Testament focuses on the relationship from the perspective of the governed. Christianity is a fundamentally personal religion, even for Catholics, and almost all of its ethical problems need to be seen it that light for the answers to be comprehensible.
edit: When I say the Catholic position is punishment averse, I mean that it rarely suggests the Church or its members should go around punishing. Its opinions on the legitimacy of the state punishing are outside of my knowledge.
edit 2: I tried to get a sense of the Catholic theology around the issue. It sounds like a quagmire. I'm fairly comfortable regarding the matter as unsettled, which makes sense in light of my earlier comments about it being outside the principle focus of Scripture.
-
Comment on Are any of your political or social views exhausting to defend? in ~talk
pbray Link ParentAlong related lines, it seems that an important stage of this exchange is establishing exactly what the common assumptions are so that the underlying disagreements can be discussed. We shouldn't...Along related lines, it seems that an important stage of this exchange is establishing exactly what the common assumptions are so that the underlying disagreements can be discussed. We shouldn't just raise our hands and give up just because perspectives are very different since they rarely have no common ground. I feel people often make these appeals to perspectives being too different to reconcile when one party is not trying in good faith to reconcile them. This need not be the party using this appeal. I often see discussions, for example on gun control, where one of the parties is refusing to think of the second amendment the way the other side wants to. Conservatives often see it as an implicit protection of a right to revolution, liberals often think of it in terms of personal use (thus the often heard discussions of whether or not a weapon could reasonably be used for hunting or self-defense, which is an irrelevant concern for certain iterations of the conservative position). In my experience, these discussions have become much more productive once framed in terms of the fundamental disagreement.
-
Comment on Priests won't comply with law: SA church in ~humanities
pbray Link ParentThe kind of obedience here should be read more generally than blindly obeying every statute. Clearly, the Catholic Church is not of the opinion that governments cannot go wrong, given that the...The kind of obedience here should be read more generally than blindly obeying every statute. Clearly, the Catholic Church is not of the opinion that governments cannot go wrong, given that the crucifixion was literally a government deciding to kill God. Even St. Paul himself (the author of this passage) violated Roman law at times because it contradicted the word of God.
There are two main principles at work here (and probably in Christian thinking more broadly): forgiveness and detachment from the material. Even if government officials are wrong, we should be forgiving, because God is all-forgiving, and even if ultimately the person does not deserve forgiveness, this is a matter for God to decide. In the Catholic position, there is not any worry about duly punishing people in this life, since God will ensure eternal punishment in the next. If a ruler is unjust, our moral obligation is to learn to love them despite this and treat them as well as we are able without violating our responsibilities to God. This is especially true for abuses that affect only the material world, thus the part later about paying taxes. (It's in the page linked for anyone interested. Romans 13:7) Rulers may be despotic in their reign over the material world, but ultimately this is supposed to be irrelevant. Suffering now is even to our benefit if we can keep our faith through it because it helps purify us from the material and focus more on the spiritual. This purity and this focus help us get into heaven and receive God's eternal reward. These considerations ultimately oblige us to be obedient fully whenever laws are congruent with faith and to not violently revolt, since trying to kill our rulers would not be forgiving them. Thus, the directive to obey rulers should not be read as "follow the king's every whim", but as a more subtle statement against anarchy and revolt.
This is written in first person plural mostly because that is the convention I usually see in Catholic theological work (from Church sources, I don't have much exposure to analysis of Catholic doctrine from outside), and while I am not a Catholic, it easier to write that way. I also should note that I am far from an expert on this, and (in true Catholic fashion) recommend speaking to a priest about these matters, especially any concerns about Canon law.
As a final aside, the King James Bible (a variant of which is linked and quoted) is a Protestant Bible. There are differences in translation that can be important, and the King James was translated in part to support Anglican theology (at least in the Church's view, I won't claim to know the history myself). This link (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm) has a list of approved bibles. The differences are not too important for this matter, the largest gap is the inclusion of certain books from the Old Testament. Catholics put some in which Protestants do not. Romans is New Testament and thus appears in both. The form used in Catholic churches today is the New American Bible.
edit: I put in the aside mentioning why I brought up the King James Bible.
I don't see how. Blockchains create immutable records of who owns what, but as far as I am aware offer absolutely no facilities to prevent copying of data. As long as people can record their screen this will still be possible.