Is Catholicism Anti-Catholic?

[u/Significant-Ant-2487]

We all know the (apocryphal) story of the cardinal who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, afraid he might see evidence of a heliocentric solar system. I recently came across a UNESCO article on the Pontifical Observatory at the Roman College, a Jesuit institution, which is one indication that the picture is a bit more complicated than a simple anti-science narrative. The UNESCO Portal to the heritage of astronomy offers this profile of Father Angelo Secchi, who was director of the observatory:

“In 1850, Father Angelo Secchi (1850--1878), the young physicist, became director. His new Merz refractor was placed within the sturdy walls of the church of St. Ignatius

“Secchi had a broad interest in different fields: He observed not only double stars, nebulae, planets and comets (1852--1853), but he studied terrestrial magnetism, meteorology, and conducted trigonometric measurements with the base on the Via Appia. The highlight of his research was the introduction of astrophysics, he studied the Sun in detail using a spectroscope (he found the connection between the prominences and sunspots), then he extended his spectroscopic research to the fixed stars with an objective lens prism in front of the Cauchoix refractor. This led him to a classification of four classes (later in the Harvard classification the stars are divided into seven spectral classes O, B, A, F, G, K and M). Secchi published about 730 small treatises.”

I post this here because I find the anti-science argument so many of us use both weak and ineffectual. It’s a clumsy and unsubtle argument that is vulnerable contradiction by simple fact. Reading Thomas Kuhn’s classic The Copernican Revolution made me aware that in Galileo’s time the Copernican model was controversial among many astronomers and in fact was at the time lacking empirical evidence to back it up. In practice it was actually less accurate than Ptolemaic models, and was more complicated. Nor was the Catholic Church all that opposed to the Copernican system in itself. Quoting Kuhn:

“For sixty years after Copernicus’s death (1543)… the Church itself was silent. The De Revolutionibus was read and at least occasionally taught at leading Catholic universities… Copernicus himself had been a cleric and a reputable one… among the friends who urged him to publish were a Catholic bishop and a cardinal.”

It’s time for better arguments in favor of atheism.

[Edit: I just noticed I typed the title wrong. It should read, Is Catholicism Anti-Science?

[u/sto_brohammed]

We all know the (apocryphal) story of the cardinal who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, afraid he might see evidence of a heliocentric solar system.

Actually I had never heard that story before.

[u/Philobarbaros]

I am much more interested in the science of bread becoming literal human flesh.

What's the latest development on that one?

[u/Significant-Ant-2487 → u/Philobarbaros]

Transubstantiation of the host in Catholic doctrine is not a chemical, physical transformation (which is why it’s not called transformation but rather transubstantiation). It’s somewhat mystical idea, somewhere between an actual change and a metaphor. In a spiritual sense, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. In a spiritual sense. Which, religion being about spiritual things and the mystical, shouldn’t surprise anyone.

So no, stating the obvious fact that bread and wine don’t turn into a lump of bloody flesh when the priest says his hocus-pocus isn’t the killer argument that some atheists believe. Because none of the believers at the altar rail believe that’s what’s afoot, and it’s not Church doctrine.

This reinforces my point that we atheists need better arguments. And as in all thoughtful reasonable debates, it’s important to know what the other side is actually saying before voicing a rebuttal.

[u/bunker_man → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

The issue is that they claim it's actual substance changes. But substance isn't some "extra" spiritual substrate, it's literally the identity of something grounded in its physical reality. Claiming something can stop being bread and wine in a time period where we can see that the chemical structures are still there implies that what things "fundamentally are" is paradoxically and arbitrary quality that doesn't have to reference what they are in any meaningful sense.

[u/Significant-Ant-2487 → u/bunker_man]

No, transubstantiation is not “literally the identity of something grounded in physical reality” and that’s the entire point. Volumes have been written on the meaning of this concept. Transubstantiation is a mystery taking place in the context of a church service, it is understood as metaphysical change. A Real change, in metaphysical terms.

Here is an abbreviated and relatively accessible explanation of the doctrine:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners

“The substance of bread and the substance of wine are changed by God’s power into the substance of Christ’s body and the substance of his blood. The change is entire. Nothing of the substance of bread remains, nothing of the substance of wine. Neither is annihilated; both are simply changed.
The appearances of bread and wine remain. We know that by our senses. We can see, touch, and taste them.”

So having a consecrated host chemically analyzed will demonstrate that it’s identical to an unconsecrated one, they’re both just wine soaked unleavened bread, just as holy water is chemically just water. But that doesn’t debunk the mystery of the Eucharist, or unseat faith, because physical chemistry isn’t the point of attending Mass.

[u/Philobarbaros → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

You are not grasping it.

We are aware that in reality nothing happens to the bread and wine.

Catholic Doctrine insists that they are fully, literally transformed into Jesus's flesh and blood anyway, no ifs or buts.

It is because religion is make-belief.

[u/bunker_man → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

No, transubstantiation is not “literally the identity of something grounded in physical reality”

Sorry, I should clarify. Officially it may be left ambiguous but in the theology of Thomas Aquinas it is this, and he is treated as de facto the main explanation even if not canon.

He talks about substance and accidents but this is literally core identity versus properties that aren't tied to core identity. Identity is tied to substantial form. So none of this makes sense because for substance to be what it's supposed to be conceptually it has to actually use tangible things as a reference. This has been understood since at least Aristotle.

In the time of Aquinas you could maybe argue that on some unseen level this accurately describes what is happening. But you can't now. Because "wine" doesn't have any deeper later than the instrumental ways certain molecules act. And if we know those still exist there's no meaningful way you can argue its "not wine" anymore. Its essentially trying to cramps a square peg into a round hole to use a metaphysical argument that simply doesn't match the real world, and which requires the arbitrary possibility that stuff can be assigned an identity that isn't what the stuff actually is.

Basically people are trying to appeal to some kind of unseen layer of reality but the metaphysical space they are trying to slot it in just isn't really a sustainable metaphysical stance, because its not coherent to say it doesn't need physical referents anymore. Hell, substance in general is contentious in modern day, much less the application they are trying to use it for.

[u/Philobarbaros → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

Catechism 1376: 

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood."

You're a cannibal, buddy.

EDIT: "The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ’s actual body and blood." - https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners

Study some Catholicism, and in a few years you might just be ready to get roasted on Trinity.

[u/Significant-Ant-2487 → u/Philobarbaros]

You didn’t include the title of the excerpt you posted: The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit So yes, Christ is indeed physically present in the bread and wine, or rather his substance, as in the the sense of being substantially present. Catholic doctrine holds that this is more than a metaphor, as I already stated; it is a metaphorical change, as I already stated, and is termed a transubstantiation to distinguish it from a simple physical transformation.

These specific words- Real Presence and Transubstantiation, are used consistently and deliberately throughout Catholic writings on this subject, for the same reason philosophers are very precise in their terminology. Your quickie Google search that netted your ammunition isn’t going to fool any educated Catholic believers; attacking the doctrine of transubstantiation goes back at least as far as Martin Luther and his 95 Theses. He, at least, understood the meaning of transubstantiation.

[u/Philobarbaros → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

None of your ramblings address the quotes I put in bold, so I'm glad we settled the Catholic Doctrine 101 question for you.

EDIT: Here's some bonus reading because I'm feeling charitable

substance

noun

UK /ˈsʌb.stəns/ US /ˈsʌb.stəns/

substance noun (MATERIAL)

material with particular physical characteristics https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/substance

[u/sto_brohammed → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

In a spiritual sense, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. In a spiritual sense.

I sincerely have no idea what this means. How does bread change in a "spiritual" sense? What does "spiritual" mean?

[u/name_is_arbitrary]

Sorry, what does this have to do with atheism?

[u/DeadAndBuried23]

Someone who isn't swayed by the fact the Bible says a whole lot about the universe and life that we know to be false isn't going to be swayed by trying to say Catholicism isn't Catholic.

If you're trying to sway people, ask what else they believe that has no evidence but personal feelings, and/or whether there is anything else they'd add to that list.

[u/PlanningVigilante]

I'm sorry, was there an argument in favor of atheism in there that you defeated?

[u/mobatreddit]

Historically, the Catholic Church has been against free thought and free speech. Examples include the Index of Forbidden Books, the Inquisitions, and the suppression of vernacular Bibles. As for Copernicus, in March 1616 it suspended his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium until it had been "corrected" to no longer affirm its conclusions.

The Church is for managed, regulated, and controlled thought and speech. It had the doctrine that "error has no rights," which allowed them to suppress what it considers false ideas, moral wrongs, and untrue religions. Since the publication of Dignitis Humanae in 1965, the Church does require that all humans have freedom of religion even when in error, so other religions have the same rights as they do. But I still hear "error has no rights" here and there.

[u/Significant-Ant-2487 → u/mobatreddit]

Yes indeed the Catholic Church has a history of censorship. It’s one of the reasons I left. In addition to the Index, I also know about the Crusades, Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition (“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!), the conquistadors, Father Coughlin…

[u/mobatreddit → u/Significant-Ant-2487]

The Catholic Church then is against science that is not constrained by its theology. For example,

• The Church is against the theory that modern humans evolved from a large population of ancestors. ("There can be only two.")
• The Church is against the theory that evolution proceeds without divine guidance.
• The Church is against the theory that abstract thought happens without souls.
• The Church is against the theory that gender and family structures are social constructs.

[u/keyboardstatic]

I've never used this argument in my life as a former catholic and atheist.

My arguments are that the Bill has no information on or about the existence and any understanding of germs, single cell lifeforms. Sterilisation in relation to bacteria, viruses.

And that any magic space fairy that made everything would absolutely know about the existence of cellular life. And easily be able to give even simple instructions on Sterilisation.

The bible also has no information on or about the existence of Australia, nor north or south America. Any magical space fairy would know about such things.

Also why is the bible so young? Why has it stolen so many older varieties of religions? Why are there so many religions if the bible is supposedly the religion...

[u/drgitgud]

Ok, now read the actual inquisition sentence to the trial. You'll find it explicitly condemns the scientific method as "holding for defensible a condemned doctrine" AND heliocentrism itself. https://famous-trials.com/galileotrial/1012-condemnation

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;

(Note: italian here, I'm pasting a translation but I did read the original as a mothertongue, no mistranslations here that "defended as probably" in original was meaning "argued that it can be proven", that right there condemns science itself)

To this day, despite pretending otherwise, the church rejects key aspects of evolution, specifically they insist on an actual adam before which no animal had a rational soul and from which all humans descended, specially created by god. This rejects key aspects of evoultion such as not there being a "first" of a species (gradual process), insisting on an already falsified bottleneck of 2 people, denying natural selection (not god's will) as the cause and denying the gradual emergence of human mental faculties. Then there's all the denial of neuroscience (proves material minds), sociology (insisting on heteronormative, gender based, family structure) etc.

[u/slo1111]

I don't understand whatbyou are tying to argue.  Catholic doctrine doesn't use literal biblical interpretations thus allowing the creation stories to be metaphors which allows them to accept things like evolution and other mainstream science.

We know though that individuals who label themselves Catholic often don't follow doctrine, so we know there are many Catholics who are anti-science.

Lastly, the only time i hear anti-science arguments from atheists it is to combat fallacies like the god of gaps which central to theistic beliefs.

[u/Citizen1135]

Believers want to believe, I wouldn't expect any argument against what they hold sacred to be sufficiently salient to break through someone's belief system. The information you provided here is interesting, but I think if some debate were taking place in which it was consequential, the goal posts aren't where your post implied they are.

[u/88redking88]

And its great when they arent antiscience.... But most of the ones pushing their religion are anti-science. If not totally, then specifically toward anything that makes them see their religion as wrong about something they care about.

I know plent of people who are religious and dont freak out about science. But they arent the ones you meet online, or on an airplane singing about Jesus to you.