Just say NO! ..... to the Pope

[Toad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7188860.stm

From the Article :
"
Vatican Radio said the protest at La Sapienza had "a censorious tone".
"

Um - what about those Inquisitions, at all Censorious to you Pope?

Toad.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

He's a funny looking bloke, that Cardinal Ratzinger, don't you think?

[DrS]

So this is the second time that he has quoted someone and the quoted remarks been taken as his own views. First, Muslim anger (was it last year?) at a quote from Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos, now university students up in arms about a quote made in 1990 from philosopher Paul Feyerabend. What is it with people? Don't they get the idea of a quote?

[brodski]

So this is the second time that he has quoted someone and the quoted remarks been taken as his own views. First, Muslim anger (was it last year?) at a quote from Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos, now university students up in arms about a quote made in 1990 from philosopher Paul Feyerabend. What is it with people? Don't they get the idea of a quote?

Yeah but quoting Feyerabend, arch anti-rationalist, is hardly a positive sign.

Also, the quotes one selects and the way eth quotes are used are an indication of the message one wants to convey.
What did eth inquisition hope to achieve by pointing out that a member of the lunatic fringe of academia tried to justify their persecution of Galileo?


Saying its just a quote does not absolve one for responsibility for their overall message, just because Enoch Powell quoted Virgil it didn’t mean that he wasn't a racist hatemonger.

[DrS]

I hear what you say, but the context isn't the issue. It's not the context that is being complained about. People seem unable generally to distinguish the opinion of the person making the original remark from that of the person quoting it. And I disagree that "saying its just a quote does not absolve one for responsibility for their overall message"; I think it does, or at least it can. If I quote some of the more rabid passages of Enoch Powell in order to demonstrate, let's say, how the remarks of a person of authority can undermine societal harmony, then I would claim that there is no way I could be associated with Powell's views, and my overall message would be positive despite the use of the quote. In fact, the quote of an opposing viewpoint would reinforce my meaning.

[Julia]

He's a funny looking bloke, that Cardinal Ratzinger, don't you think?

Yes, he's got a face to which only the late Francis Bacon could do justice.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

A bit of context here:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541

[Pebble]

In a speech delivered in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger endorsed the opinion of philosopher P. Feyerabend against Galileo. Ratzinger stated:

“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just” (17).

This seems a bit more than just quoting someone else. It appears from this link that Galileo did a little more than propose that the scriptures were wrong about the earth being stationary, also that they should be ammended. He should belatedly be made an honorary member of UKS.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/His...3_Galileo.html

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Pebble, you may well be right about Ratzinger's intention, but other views have been put forward. For example:
http://zadokromanus.blogspot.com/200...i-thought.html

It seems to me that the then-Cardinal does not even suggest that he necessarily agrees with Feyerabend. When he says:

If both the spheres of conscience are once again clearly distinguished among themselves under their respective methodological profiles, recognizing both their limits and their respective rights, then the synthetic judgment of the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend appears much more drastic. He writes: “The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”

he expresses neither agreement nor disagreement. Rather, reading in context, his emphasis seems to be the fact that there is a debate within secular thought itself regarding the progress made by science since the Galileo case.

I'm not at all sure what Ratzinger was getting at. Nor was he, I suspect. The whole thing has an air of postmodern waffle- much insinuated, little clearly stated. There may also be a bit of score-settling with Vatican II modernisers, of course, in which case clarity is to be avoided!

The Feyerabend quotation isn't easy to place, perhaps because he repeated himself a lot. I notice disagreement about the source here:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blo...uotes-f-1.html
At any rate, he is a dangerous man to quote, if only because he enjoyed playing the jester far too much.

To go back to the protest against the present Pope: if it is based, as it seems to be, on the principle that the church has not got, and never should have had, any power to control debate, whether about science or scripture or anything else, then all one can say is " of course".

[Pebble]

Lord Muck oGentry

Great link thanks,

Reading it, it is indeed a masterclass in obfuscation. The general thread leads to:

From the point of view of the concrete consequences of the turning point Galileo represents, however, C.F. Von Weizsacker takes another step forward, when he identifies a “very direct path” that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb.

So while I agree all options, from an interpretation stand point, are kept open, there can be little doubt about the impression this extract at least is intended to convey.

One would have to get the whole work and read it very carefully to be certain of his particular viewpoint. Nevertheless, even if he is a closet rationalist, the tenor of the piece certainly pushes the reader to the conclusion that he approves of the churches management of Galileo in the circumstances.

Aboslutely concur with your final point, though doubtless any church would argue the toss on the scripture element.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Pebble,

I'm sure you're right about the RCC's attitude to interpreting scripture.

But I say: hurrah for heresy, with a hey nonny no and a tirra lirra lay

[Julia]

Not to mention a day o, a diddle oh de day o.