Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Tarsonis]

Look, at least we can all agree that bloodspatter analysis (and tbh probably a great deal of things admissible to court under the misnomer of "forensic science") is pseudoscience that exists only to expand the powers of police.

i will back you on the blood spatter
still unsure about the rest of forensics, though-

Cadaver dogs are hella sus as well, but for the most part forensics is pretty on the level. Though, it's not nearly as flashy as seen on tv

[The New California Republic]

Oh really? I'm gaslighting you now? What a load of shit.

You just told me, the highly insulting things said about me weren't insulting. That it wasn't wrong for someone to say such highly insulting things, but rather, it was wrong for me to be insulted by them.


I mean, what would you call that?

I was saying to you that's not how he meant it, and he even said so himself, so no I was not gaslighting you.

[The Archregimancy]

It's a controversy in the same way that vaccines are a controversy. There's a group of people that really, REALLY want there to be a controversy. And keep insisting that there is one, in spite of everything.

No one, and I mean no one, would seriously doubt the word of archeologists who say herringbone weave didn't exist in the 1st Century, if it wasn't for the religious appeal of this shroud.

Just to note, believing in the shroud of Turin is fairly harmless compared to being antivaxx. So let's also not make it bigger than it is.

You're correct, of course, which is why I deliberately avoided making the comparison when the topic first came up; it would have been needlessly inflammatory.

Defending the authenticity of the Shroud won't kill anyone. There is no moral equivalence between believing in the Shroud's authenticity and opposing the use of vaccines; whether generally or a COVID vaccine specifically.

But since the topic's come up... to me, as an actual archaeologist who's been involved in actual C14 dating, if they're by no means remotely morally equivalent, they are intellectually equivalent.

Both of them, and here they're also both similar to climate change denial, involve the dismissal of expertise on the basis of faith, regardless of whether that faith is driven by religion or politics. That alongside either simple misunderstanding of the evidence by people with little expertise in understanding that evidence, or deliberate obfuscation of that evidence in an attempt to 'prove' that there's more disagreement among experts than is actually the case, or simply to attempt to undermine the evidence. This is, understandably, deeply frustrating to me.

So, I repeat; the Shroud of Turin is not an authentic 1st-century AD artefact; there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as an archaeologist with a 30-year career, one who's the current president of an international professional society, and has previously been on the board of directors of another, and has worked extensively in the Middle East, that this is the case (and obviously no one in this forum is obliged to take any of the latter at face value, nor am I arguing that my professional expertise makes me infallible; I'll nonetheless let it stand). No, I've never worked directly and personally on the Shroud of Turin, but having read the relevant studies regarding the totality of the the evidence, I'm strongly of the opinion that said evidence is as close to conclusive as is possible under the circumstances. That I'm also a Christian is irrelevant on that point, though I concede that the fact that I'm not a Roman Catholic likely makes it easier for me to write as much.

However, much as it may disappoint me, I also recognise that there's also absolutely nothing I can say to convince those who take it as a matter of faith that the Shroud is authentic. No one's going to die because of this, no one is going to be harmed; but equally neither Catholicism specifically nor Christianity generally are going to be harmed if we accept the archaeological evidence.

It's not my intent to cause anyone anguish by noting any of this, and I'm genuinely sorry for any pain this does cause; but I also think it's important for all of us to stand up for our disciplines when they're challenged in this way. I would also stress that it's important to draw a distinction between stating that 'the Shroud is not Christ's burial shroud' and 'the Shroud is a deliberate forgery'; these do not automatically follow in historical context.


Finally, I would note that there have been times when C14 dating has provided evidence in favour of the authenticity of Christian relics held by the Catholic Church, so C14 dating and faith are not incompatible. The case I'm most familiar with, because of a personal connection, is the radiocarbon dating of the relics of Saint Chad of Mercia (that's just a short newspaper story; if you want technical details, try pp 446-447 here). In this case, while the relics had picked up a mysterious third leg along the way (they have a complex history I don't propose to outline here), as well as an extra bone from a later period, they mostly dated to the correct period - the late 7th century - and four of the five bones from the correct period were osteologically consistent with being from a single individual (though this couldn't be conclusively proven). So while the bones of three individuals have been jumbled together (most likely when Chad was reburied in Lichfield Cathedral in AD 700, nearly 30 years after his death), given the separate historical record of the relics, it seems likely that some of them are authentically those of Chad of Mercia. Chad is a saint across the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, though his relics are currently held by the Catholic cathedral in Birmingham (UK), and the Catholic Church has been happy to authorise continued veneration of the relics on the basis of the combined C14 and historical evidence of their likely authenticity.

[The Blaatschapen]

Saying I'm the same as a Ken Ham creationist and anti-vaxer, is.

That part likely just slots in nicely with the aforementioned unreasonableness, as a continuation of it for emphasis, rather than saying that someone is dumb.

A better example could have been given by relating it to the creature of loch Ness. Also not something true, but a fairly harmless idiosyncrasy that I'll let people have.

Well, I'll make fun of it, but when do I not

[The New California Republic]

Saying I'm the same as a Ken Ham creationist and anti-vaxer, is.

That part likely just slots in nicely with the aforementioned unreasonableness, as a continuation of it for emphasis, rather than saying that someone is dumb.

A better example could have been given by relating it to the creature of loch Ness. Also not something true, but a fairly harmless idiosyncrasy that I'll let people have.

Well, I'll make fun of it, but when do I not

Yes, and Neanderthaland actually acknowledged that it was difficult to think of a single exemplar for emphasis that would perfectly encapsulate what he was driving at. I saw what Neanderthaland was driving at with it, but I can see how Tarsonis interpreted it differently. Even using the Loch Ness Monster as an example could have been interpreted incorrectly in the same manner, so it was probably one of those unavoidable traps that couldn't be helped regardless of the example used.

[Lost Memories]

Vatican:
Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex

TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED:
Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE:
Negative.

Explanatory Note

Article of Commentary on the Responsum ad dubium

The new statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a question – in classical terms, to a dubium – occasioned, as is normally the case, by pastors and faithful who require clarification and guidance concerning a controversial issue. When questions are triggered by problematic assertions or practices in important areas of Christian life, an affirmative or negative response is provided, along with a statement of the reasoning that supports the response presented. The purpose of such interventions is to help the universal Church to respond better to the demands of the Gospel, to settle disputes, and to foster healthy communion among the holy people of God.

In the present case, a disputed question has arisen in the framework of the “sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith” (Explanatory Note), as indicated by the Holy Father Pope Francis at the conclusion of two Synodal Assemblies on the family: “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives” (Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, n. 250). These words are an invitation to evaluate, with appropriate discernment, projects and pastoral proposals directed to this end. Among these are blessings given to the unions of persons of the same sex. It is therefore asked whether the Church has the power to impart her blessing: this is the formula contained in the quaesitum.

The answer - the Responsum ad dubium – is explained and motivated in the attached Explanatory Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated February 22, 2021, to the publication of which Pope Francis himself has given his assent.

The Note is centered on the fundamental and decisive distinction between persons and the union. This is so that the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons.

Persons first and foremost. In their regard, what is stated in n. 4 of the Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons written by the same Congregation, and recalled by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, must never be forgotten: “According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’ (2358)”. This teaching is recalled and reaffirmed by the Note.

As for unions of persons of the same sex, the response to the dubium “declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such”. The Explanatory Note bases the illicitness on three interconnected reasons.

The first reason arises from the truth and value of blessings. They belong to the genre of sacramentals, which are “liturgical actions of the Church” that require consonance of life with what they signify and generate. There are meanings and outcomes of grace that the Note explains in concise form. Consequently, a blessing on a human relationship requires that it be ordered to both receive and express the good that is pronounced and given by the blessing.

Thus we come to the second reason: the order that makes one fit to receive the gift is given by the “designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord”. These are designs to which “relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage” do not correspond, for they are “outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life.” However, not only these unions – as if the problem were only such unions – but any union that involves sexual activity outside of marriage, which is illicit from the moral point of view, according to the perennial teaching of the ecclesial Magisterium.

This all implies a power that the Church does not possess, because she does not have the power over God's designs, which would otherwise be rejected and denied. The Church is not the arbiter of these designs and the truths they express, but their faithful interpreter and witness.

The third reason is to avert an error into which one would easily be led: that of assimilating the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex to that of matrimonial unions. Because of the connection between blessings of persons and the sacraments, the blessing of such unions could in a sense imply “a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing”, imparted to a man and a woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony. This would be erroneous and misleading.

For the above reasons “the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit”. This statement in no way detracts from the human and Christian consideration in which the Church holds each person. So much so that the response to the dubium “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching”.

[Old Tyrannia]

A little ironically given the recent discussions in this thread that pitted the beliefs of some Christians against the views of scientists, today I learned that the Rev Canon Sir John Polkinghorne, former physicist turned Anglican priest and theologian, passed away last Tuesday. He was amongst the leading lights of contemporary Anglicanism, a personal favourite theologian of mine and a vocal advocate for the compatibility of faith in general and Christianity in particular with a scientific worldview. His passing is a grave loss to the church.

[Luminesa]

A little ironically given the recent discussions in this thread that pitted the beliefs of some Christians against the views of scientists, today I learned that the Rev Canon Sir John Polkinghorne, former physicist turned Anglican priest and theologian, passed away last Tuesday. He was amongst the leading lights of contemporary Anglicanism, a personal favourite theologian of mine and a vocal advocate for the compatibility of faith in general and Christianity in particular with a scientific worldview. His passing is a grave loss to the church.

I have not heard of this man, but any loss of a theologian trying to connect science and religion is a big loss. May he rest with God. It hurts when our heroes die.

[Tarsonis]

Happy Lent to our Orthodox brethren.

[Kowani]

Larry Walker, last translator of the New International Version of the Bible passed away at 88

[The New California Republic]

Larry Walker, last translator of the New International Version of the Bible passed away at 88

The version I read most often. R.I.P.

[SimTropican]

Happy Lent to our Orthodox brethren.

I appreciate it

[Luminesa]

Larry Walker, last translator of the New International Version of the Bible passed away at 88

May he also rest in peace. Geez that's two serious theologians we've lost in one day.

[The Archregimancy]

Happy Lent to our Orthodox brethren.

Thank you; much appreciated.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Happy Lent to our Orthodox brethren.

Thank you; much appreciated.

You're Orthodox?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

You ever feel like God hates you and wants you to suffer endlessly?

[Tarsonis]

Happy Lent to our Orthodox brethren.

Thank you; much appreciated.

Happy Lent to our Orthodox brethren.

I appreciate it

Stay strong, the hanger will pass.

[Tarsonis]

You ever feel like God hates you and wants you to suffer endlessly?

The dark night of the soul is something we all must face at times.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

You ever feel like God hates you and wants you to suffer endlessly?

The dark night of the soul is something we all must face at times.

Okay but what if that "dark night" has lasted for 24 years and you've only been alive 24 years and each year it just gets darker and darker?

[The New California Republic]

The dark night of the soul is something we all must face at times.

Okay but what if that "dark night" has lasted for 24 years and you've only been alive 24 years and each year it just gets darker and darker?

Lucky. Just wait until that feeling of existential dread has been there up until getting to almost middle age and it is still there...

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Okay but what if that "dark night" has lasted for 24 years and you've only been alive 24 years and each year it just gets darker and darker?

Lucky. Just wait until that feeling of existential dread has been there up until getting to almost middle age and it is still there...

Pass the nightvision goggles, would you? I have a feeling I'm going to need them.

[The Blaatschapen]

Okay but what if that "dark night" has lasted for 24 years and you've only been alive 24 years and each year it just gets darker and darker?

Lucky. Just wait until that feeling of existential dread has been there up until getting to almost middle age and it is still there...

Woah! I'm not 40 yet!

Alright, Trollzyn, are you able and willing to get professional help? Because a dark night for 24 years sound well outside of the scope any goodwilling Christian/Samaritan from the internet can help with.

[Maineiacs]

Okay but what if that "dark night" has lasted for 24 years and you've only been alive 24 years and each year it just gets darker and darker?

Lucky. Just wait until that feeling of existential dread has been there up until getting to almost middle age and it is still there...

Or when it's still there when you're in your mid-50s.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Lucky. Just wait until that feeling of existential dread has been there up until getting to almost middle age and it is still there...

Woah! I'm not 40 yet!

Alright, Trollzyn, are you able and willing to get professional help? Because a dark night for 24 years sound well outside of the scope any goodwilling Christian/Samaritan from the internet can help with.

Nah, it's not that bad.

Yet.

[The Archregimancy]

Thank you; much appreciated.

You're Orthodox?

I wonder what subtle clues might have been there to give it away over the last 12 years of these forums' existence?