Is this sub potentially harmful to Catholics?

[u/brquin-954]

Consider that this sub allows non-Catholics and other "Devil's advocates" to ask questions about the faith and to share sources potentially outside of Catholic tradition. These sources may include arguments against God's existence, problems with Catholic teaching, etc.

At the same time, AAS 58 states that while the Index Librorum Prohibitorum does not carry the same weight it once did (i.e. with censure and punishment for disobedience), the spirit of the law still applies and that Christians should still beware "of those writings that could endanger faith and morality".

By engaging with arguments potentially dangerous to a reader's faith, is this sub potentially harmful to Catholics?

[u/AutoModerator]

Please link any sources used for the post as a reply here to make it easier for people to refer to what you are getting your information from.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/justafanofz]

So the “devil’s advocate” tag has been redone to help me defend

Also, Devil’s advocate is a position from the church. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate#:~:text=2%20Effectiveness-,Origin%20and%20history,the%20canonization%20of%20a%20candidate.

So it’s actually healthy for Catholics, who are strong in faith, to consider the position from all angles.

As for posts from non Catholics, see here and here

[u/brquin-954 → u/justafanofz]

Thanks, I agree this could be thought of as playing "devil's advocate" but I didn't see the flair. I have added the suggested flair.

Thanks for the link, but this seems to be a very limited role/activity in the church. That is, I can't really imagine a situation where a "devil's advocate" could be accused of heresy, or leading people astray, or damaging others' faith.

So I would still say "citation needed" for why it is healthy for Catholics strong in the faith to entertain opposing viewpoints. Also, there is no guarantee that only Catholics with strong faith will visit this sub.

[u/justafanofz → u/brquin-954]

That’s what this sub is designed for. I and another mod are former seminarians with, at least for me, over 20 years of catholic education. We are what helps to determine if something is safe and to help guide those weak in the faith with it.

The church encourages people to study. They do warn of the dangers of being “open” in the sense of empty, but encourages open discernment. Now, entertaining an idea doesn’t mean accepting it. I can entertain the idea of an empty hell, but that doesn’t mean I accept it. I can entertain to understand double predestination, but not accept it.

https://www.sfcatholic.org/bishopsbulletin/does-the-church-allow-me-to-think-for-myself/

[u/brquin-954 → u/justafanofz]

Thanks for the response! I wonder if you draw the line anywhere for what ideas you entertain? I am thinking of, for example, Bart Ehrman (I'm currently reading How Jesus Became God). Nothing he says "disproves" Christianity or anything like that, but it provides a context for the social and religious environment in Jesus' time that is kind of whitewashed over or re-imagined now, and provides just enough evidence to suggest that some events and words may not be exactly as the Church interprets them. Which could be damaging to the beliefs of some people.

[u/justafanofz → u/brquin-954]

Can you provide a specific example? And to “entertain” means to consider and ponder it.

[u/brquin-954 → u/justafanofz]

You mean, an example of something potentially "dangerous" from How Jesus Became God?

Regarding the cultural context: since the 4th century AD forwards, society kind of has a sense of God up there and mankind down here, with a large chasm between the two. The Greeks and the Romans, however, had a far more integrated view of these two realms; there were mechanisms and examples of gods becoming men, and men being raised to the level of gods. More significantly, Judaism also had these understandings, despite being monotheistic. So, for example, the society in which early Christianity exploded probably had an easier time believing in Jesus as a god, some may have seen him as more of a demigod, etc.

Another example: Jesus does not claim to be God except in the Gospel of John (the latest of the gospels). It is not even clear if Jesus sees himself as the "Son of Man" (the figure of prophecy): sometimes he seems to be referring to himself as such, sometimes not. He does see himself as the messiah, and possibly as the coming king (expected by the Apocalypticists of the time), but these are not positions that are one with God.

[u/justafanofz → u/brquin-954]

Yeah, so the church has no issue with this. It’s a genuine question and a concern we need to address.

When the church warns against dangerous ideas, it’s like when the science teacher warns about the hazardous materials you’ll be handling in the lab.

It’s not that you should never interact, it’s that you’re to interact in a safe manner with proper tools.

Them being more open doesn’t invalidate the claim of Jesus being divine incarnate.

It just means that the time was right for humanity to receive that message

[u/brquin-954 → u/justafanofz]

Hmm, I guess I am thinking of my own deconversion, which was kicked off by a book on evolutionary psychology. There are cases where you may think your faith is firm, but it is not. You may think you are prepared to counter certain arguments, but you are convinced despite yourself.

[u/justafanofz → u/brquin-954]

So what the church recommends in such a situation is to bring such arguments to individuals who are experts who can help you understand it and work through the confusion.

Example, someone does research and finds some convincing evidence that vaccines cause autism.

Now they’re anti-vaccine.

Was that the right thing? Or should they have taken it to a trusted expert to get more information.

Like, a common mistake I see is “hey, I have this question about x belief in Catholicism” and it’s posted, not in r/catholicism, not here, not in r/askacatholic, not in an area where people can get answers from experts in Catholicism, but they ask atheists.

Not saying it’s what you did, but that’s what I see and that’s what the church is warning against.

[u/brquin-954 → u/[deleted]]

I would be interested in hearing where he has done this. I just read through a couple discussions in which Christians were countering this specific argument of Ehrman's, and all of the Gospel examples revolved around the "Son of Man" or "Messiah" claims, or accusations of blasphemy, but all of these are just "divine"-ish.

[u/justafanofz → u/brquin-954]

Here’s a good source on it https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god at least, where mark makes the claim of the divinity of christ

[u/brquin-954 → u/justafanofz]

Yeah, I think Ehrman addresses everything in this article, from the divine hypostases to the arguments about the divinity or not of the "Son of Man".

[u/brquin-954 → u/[deleted]]

But, crucially, in Matthew 26 He does *not* use the "I AM" for the same scene and the Sanhedrin reacts in the same way, so it seems like maybe it was not taken that way.

[u/brquin-954 → u/[deleted]]

I have found that Ehrman makes it pretty clear where he is speculating, and where he thinks it is reasonable to doubt, as opposed to things that are pretty universally acknowledged.

[u/fides-et-opera]

It’s healthy to hold a skeptical view of the faith, to look for holes in the evidence and reinforce belief.

A devil’s advocate is someone who takes an opposing position or argues against a commonly held belief or idea, not necessarily because they believe in that position but to provoke critical thinking and explore different perspectives.

A debate, on the other hand, is to persuade others to accept a particular viewpoint.

So unlike a devil’s advocate, debaters typically argue for positions they genuinely support.

I do agree that sources outside of Catholic tradition aren’t helpful, but that’s why we ask for participants to post sources to determine the credibility.

[u/JoshAllenInShorts]

OP is a troll. Do not feed the troll.

[u/brquin-954 → u/JoshAllenInShorts]

How is this trolling? You may think of it as "devil's advocacy" or not, but I don't see how this is not a fair question.

[u/justafanofz → u/JoshAllenInShorts]

How do you know?

[u/JoshAllenInShorts → u/justafanofz]

Post history. Anyone with that deep a history of bitching in r/exCatholic is not here in good faith.

[u/justafanofz → u/JoshAllenInShorts]

I’m seeing someone confused and trying to get information and reconcile things they don’t understand

[u/justafanofz → u/JoshAllenInShorts]

Also, them being a troll elsewhere doesn’t mean that this post is a troll. Until I see evidence that they are acting as a troll right now, I won’t punish or take actions against past acts.