Conspiracy Theorists

[rusmeister]

I don’t think Gurney is virtue signaling. We have had members before sport avatars that communicate things that undercut our faith, even if they express something the poster likes. I agree with him that your current avatar would make Catholics want to shut you off and dismiss whatever you say, however fair and just your words might be.

I think you are right in the main, but that it is essential to be polite to those that disagree with you and not suggest that they are merely whining, which is definitely an insulting put-down. It certainly doesn’t encourage people who disagree with you to trouble to think about what you have to say, and can even put off your allies.

 

[rusmeister]

I disagree categorically with calling priests or bishops names (as unfortunately, yes, has been done on this forum at times). Even when we disagree with our clergy we should do so with the proper respect befitting their office. But what I've also seen here is an opposite tendency to assert that belief in specific currently fashionable theories is an automatic part of the basic Christian worldview, when in fact that is not the case.

For example the meme you posted earlier in this thread with regards to the theories surrounding the coronavirus vaccine. I do not agree with any of that. I would personally consider them "conspiracy theories"* in the sense of "theories alleging a conspiracy which I do not believe have been sufficiently proven". And yet despite that I still believe in the basic Christian worldview espoused by the OP.

(*Though I would not use that word in conversation because it is often use to imply that those who believe in them are "stupid", which is equally false- I can disagree with someone about evidence without either of us being "stupid", we're just probably drawing from different sources)

I think you are quite right in saying that we should not insult clergy, or people in general.
But there IS something that I see in a general tendency of people to believe a certain set of beliefs that not all agree on also happen to believe in another set of beliefs that not all agree on. I have come to identify it as a war of fashion vs tradition, though even those terms oversimplify. By fashion I don’t mean clothing, but the idea of the dominant tendency of all things to be toward change and impermanence in practical terms. By tradition I mean the opposite: an insistence on the general tendency of the permanence of things. Those on the side of fashion tend to believe in human evolution, those on the side of tradition believe in the direct creation of a fully-formed man. Those on the side of fashion tend to believe more strongly in the virus as the greatest threat, the use of masks and so on, that the virus is coincidental and that there is no connection to the political movements happening around the world, and so reject the idea of any conspiracy. Those on the side of tradition tend to believe that there are greater threats than the virus that the various governments’ actions against have raised and exacerbate and even purposefully out of the lust for power, that the virus is being used as a means to deeper and darker ends. Those on the side of fashion tend to support liberality in the Church, and the promotion of a change in moral attitudes within the Church, particularly regarding sex and sexuality, of an emphasis on love that they believe should tolerate everything and condemn nothing within the Church (as opposed to how we deal with those outside). Those on the side of tradition tend to support conservatism within the Church, the preservation and promotion of the traditional teachings, and insist more on the harder side of love that tells us to admonish our brother when he acts or teaches against those teachings.

This even affects our bishops. The twin problem is the well-known and oft-repeated danger of truth without love (as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal), an unloving, harsh pharisaism rightly called “hyperdoxy”, and the equally bad but lesser-discussed opposite of love without truth, a John Lennon-type of “love” that effectively denies sin and says that it doesn’t matter, as long as one “loves” (and let the person imagine his own definition in his own heart).

 

[Dewi Sant]

.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I don’t think Gurney is virtue signaling. We have had members before sport avatars that communicate things that undercut our faith, even if they express something the poster likes. I agree with him that your current avatar would make Catholics want to shut you off and dismiss whatever you say, however fair and just your words might be.

I think you are right in the main, but that it is essential to be polite to those that disagree with you and not suggest that they are merely whining, which is definitely an insulting put-down. It certainly doesn’t encourage people who disagree with you to trouble to think about what you have to say, and can even put off your allies.

Sent PM

 

[Nick T]

But there IS something that I see in a general tendency of people to believe a certain set of beliefs that not all agree on also happen to believe in another set of beliefs that not all agree on. I have come to identify it as a war of fashion vs tradition, though even those terms oversimplify. By fashion I don’t mean clothing, but the idea of the dominant tendency of all things to be toward change and impermanence in practical terms. By tradition I mean the opposite: an insistence on the general tendency of the permanence of things. Those on the side of fashion tend to believe in human evolution, those on the side of tradition believe in the direct creation of a fully-formed man. Those on the side of fashion tend to believe more strongly in the virus as the greatest threat, the use of masks and so on, that the virus is coincidental and that there is no connection to the political movements happening around the world, and so reject the idea of any conspiracy. Those on the side of tradition tend to believe that there are greater threats than the virus that the various governments’ actions against have raised and exacerbate and even purposefully out of the lust for power, that the virus is being used as a means to deeper and darker ends. Those on the side of fashion tend to support liberality in the Church, and the promotion of a change in moral attitudes within the Church, particularly regarding sex and sexuality, of an emphasis on love that they believe should tolerate everything and condemn nothing within the Church (as opposed to how we deal with those outside). Those on the side of tradition tend to support conservatism within the Church, the preservation and promotion of the traditional teachings, and insist more on the harder side of love that tells us to admonish our brother when he acts or teaches against those teachings.

I think you're right in pointing out two tendencies, but I would say that in my personal opinion the way these two tendencies cut across various aspects of peoples lives is more to do with perceived, rather than real, links between the matters at hand.

We are humans and humans (including myself) have a desire to categorise ourselves into groups and tribes. This is not a bad thing, after all it is the root of why we identify with our family and our nation which are both God-given and positive things. But it can also lead us to "factionalise" and group together issues that in reality have little objective link. If I consider myself traditional/progressive as part of my fundamental identity then my instinctive reaction when viewing a new problem is to try and work out "which of these sides is more traditional/progressive" and this often devolves into a form of self-reinforcing group-think: x view must be the more traditional because look- its what my fellow traditionalists are supporting and all the wicked progressives are on the other side. And vice-versa. But that doesn't mean that grouping in fact necessarily follows in the merits of the issues themselves- our need for a group-identity is what causes it to form. This is even more highlighted when we try and group together eternal objective truths like those of the Church and Christ and fit them in with more mundane issues which in reality are often disagreements on purely material facts. For example either a specific vaccine has a microchip in it or it does not: this is a question of a material fact- either the microchip is physically there or it is not. Whether Christ rose from the dead, women should/shouldn't be priests, outside of the Church there is no salvation, ect. or any other eternal truth of the faith does not have any necessary causative bearing on this question of whether the physical microchip lies within. The only way we can link the truths of the Church to the question of the vaccine is through the mathematics of groups identity: The truths of the Church are "traditional" and thus fit into the "traditional" camp--> "progressive" politicians opposed to "traditional" politicians are supporting the vaccine- it is thus a "progressive" and anti-traditional vaccine--> those who support the truths of the church should therefore oppose the vaccine.
But what if I don't subscribe to this mathematics? What if I consider the question of traditionalism/progressivism (or fashion as you put it) to depend on the specific traditions that are being questioned rather than on the concept of tradition in abstract? It might be a common tendency to identify a support for the permeance of church tradition with those groups outside the church that uphold the permeance of their own traditions, but I don't think it necessarily follows.

This even affects our bishops. The twin problem is the well-known and oft-repeated danger of truth without love (as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal), an unloving, harsh pharisaism rightly called “hyperdoxy”, and the equally bad but lesser-discussed opposite of love without truth, a John Lennon-type of “love” that effectively denies sin and says that it doesn’t matter, as long as one “loves” (and let the person imagine his own definition in his own heart).

Well observed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure if this is directed at me or even sure what it means. If you perceive me to be virtue signaling, you don’t know me very well. I see that you PM’d Rus, so maybe if you feel I’m virtue-signaling you, you could PM me and we could talk about it.

View attachment 291391

 

[rusmeister]

I think you're right in pointing out two tendencies, but I would say that in my personal opinion the way these two tendencies cut across various aspects of peoples lives is more to do with perceived, rather than real, links between the matters at hand.

We are humans and humans (including myself) have a desire to categorise ourselves into groups and tribes. This is not a bad thing, after all it is the root of why we identify with our family and our nation which are both God-given and positive things. But it can also lead us to "factionalise" and group together issues that in reality have little objective link. If I consider myself traditional/progressive as part of my fundamental identity then my instinctive reaction when viewing a new problem is to try and work out "which of these sides is more traditional/progressive" and this often devolves into a form of self-reinforcing group-think: x view must be the more traditional because look- its what my fellow traditionalists are supporting and all the wicked progressives are on the other side. And vice-versa. But that doesn't mean that grouping in fact necessarily follows in the merits of the issues themselves- our need for a group-identity is what causes it to form. This is even more highlighted when we try and group together eternal objective truths like those of the Church and Christ and fit them in with more mundane issues which in reality are often disagreements on purely material facts. For example either a specific vaccine has a microchip in it or it does not: this is a question of a material fact- either the microchip is physically there or it is not. Whether Christ rose from the dead, women should/shouldn't be priests, outside of the Church there is no salvation, ect. or any other eternal truth of the faith does not have any necessary causative bearing on this question of whether the physical microchip lies within. The only way we can link the truths of the Church to the question of the vaccine is through the mathematics of groups identity: The truths of the Church are "traditional" and thus fit into the "traditional" camp--> "progressive" politicians opposed to "traditional" politicians are supporting the vaccine- it is thus a "progressive" and anti-traditional vaccine--> those who support the truths of the church should therefore oppose the vaccine.
But what if I don't subscribe to this mathematics? What if I consider the question of traditionalism/progressivism (or fashion as you put it) to depend on the specific traditions that are being questioned rather than on the concept of tradition in abstract? It might be a common tendency to identify a support for the permeance of church tradition with those groups outside the church that uphold the permeance of their own traditions, but I don't think it necessarily follows.



Well observed.

Thank you!
I DID say "tendency" and "tend" repeatedly. That means, not that it is a universal rule, and that all are on one side or the other in an across-the-board manner, but that it IS very common, and more often than not, I find it to be the case among almost everyone I know personally, at the very least. But of course there certainly are exceptions to that.