h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Catholic church has apparently decided that, after over seven hundred years, it was wrong all along about "limbo", the place where people born before Jesus turned up, and any babies who die before they're baptised, go. Apparently in limbo one does not suffer but neither does one "enjoy God".

Are believers at all embarrassed by this?

By which I mean - the belief system the Pope and millions of other subscribe to has a gaping flaw. For seven hundred years that gaping flaw has been addressed by... making up a story. Now, they've decided that the story actually isn't that great, so... what? I'm not aware that they've made up a better one or in any other way addressed the gaping flaw in their belief system that required the story in the first place.

My question to any Catholics is this - are you in any way embarrassed that the central philosophy of your life works like this? Given the doctrine of Papal infallibility, doesn't this, coming on top of Mr. Rapsinger's recent backtracking apologies to Muslims and Jews, rather sound like, well, fallibility?

I'd be interested to hear other non-believers' takes on this also, obviously.

Thank you.

Has not this been on the cards since Vatican II?

So whats the new word instead of limbo?

There's not a new word. The whole concept has gone. The Pope said:":”Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis".

Isn't the whole Catholic Faith a "theological hypothesis"?

<>

If you replace Catholic with Christian, you'd be onto something, SWL.

As a lapsed Catholic, I couldn't give a toss, personally.

I agree, you could say the same of all religions but I highlighted Catholicism because the Popes mixed up in that branch.

The word for most western Catholics these days is "a la carte". Any Catholic I know has tended to take on board the things they agreed with and not bother with the things they had a problem with. Most Catholics are not literalists: rules and dogmas are there to be broken etc. etc.

From my understanding, limbo was a concept most people were happy to ditch after Vatican II came in. It hasn't been mentioned very much for about 30 years. However when people were less educated, and the RC church held more sway, concepts such as limbo caused no end of harm: I remember coming across an "unconsecrated graveyard" on Achill Island some years ago. One of the saddest things I ever saw. I can only imagine the anguish of the people who had to bury their babies there. That sort of stuff doesn't sound like a "theological hypothesis" to me.

Certainly a literalist Catholic (ie. everything in the Cathecism is true and the pope is infallible etc) would and should have a problem with the Church dropping a dogma: i.e. we never make mistakes because we possess the true understanding of God, we used to believe this, we don't believe it any more, ergo we made a mistake, ergo our first statement is incorrect.

"The Catholic church has apparently decided that, after over seven hundred years, it was wrong all along about 'limbo'"

Maybe I've had my head up someplace warm and dark of late, but I hadn't heard about this startling development in church teachings! Could you please be so kind as to give a source or link for this?

Regardless, assuming you're correct about this, and I have no reason to doubt it, this is simply yet another example of the total absurdity of organized religion. Richard Dawkins captured the thought rather well in his essay Viruses of the Mind (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi//Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html) in which a fallen away seminarian is quoted as saying about the doctrine of transubstantiation, "For all I could tell, my typewriter might be Benjamin Disraeli transubstantiated ...." Same sort of thing. Total puffery!

As for the a la carte Catholics, one has to wonder how they do it. Amazing! I'll believe whatever it's convenient for me to believe, but expect the whole big reward at the end of the line (presumably heaven, etc.) just as though I'd done it the hard way! Amazing the mind games people play!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5406552.stm

Thing about this is that if you have a taught something for hundreds of years such as limbo, then within 20 years say 'wait its all wrong. We take it back', it makes you wonder what else is wrong in what is being taught right now. This isn't change naturally. This is just 'you're now going to believe this because we say so'.

So what are they coosing to believe now? I read the BBC link and it doesn't say what they are considering instead - are they reverting to the pevious state where they thought all unbaptised people went to hell because of original sin?

It'll be a fudge what ever they choose because they will have to pick a cut off date.

It does all look a little ridiculous doesn't it? I remember having to spend quite a lot of time at school praying for the poor souls in limbo...

"This is just 'you're now going to believe this because we say so'. "

Bingo! You've just distilled organized religion into a single sentence!

Most members of organised religions are not forced to believe anything. They may consider a lot of it worth believing in, but if it's too off-the wall or in direct conflict with their own experience they will not believe it.

It's not simply a case of just because one thing is (or many things are) wrong, then it's all wrong. People often seem to take the line that there is something right (to them) about the religion, but that certain views or beliefs are not acceptable to them, irrespective of who says it from the Pope on down.

and one of the things that's taking a bit of a battering is papal infallibility I'd think...

Logic seems to go out the window when dealing with religious dogma. We are supposed to use our reason in all other areas of our lives, but just blindly follow the leader when it comes to religion.

I agree with Woodpigeon. Because something in a religion or philosophy is wrong, it doesn't make all of it worng. Or because something in it is correct, it doesn't follow that all of it would be.

and is it better to be honest and say we were wrong about this or to just carry on doing businesss as usual. Shouldn't the Catholic Church get a point or two for trying to develop a more reasonable philosophy over the past few decades? It's better than what the Fundies are doing in my opinion.

" if it's too off-the wall or in direct conflict with their own experience they will not believe it."

I believe someone (wish I could remember who) once said, "There is the law or there is not the law."

We don't get to pick and choose just the laws with which we happen to agree. Try telling the judge, "your honor, sir, I don't agree with the law that says the speed limit there should be 55 mph; that law is too off-the-wall for me; therefore, I trust you'll dismiss my citation for speeding?"

All of the Catholics I know here in Spain (and many I've known elsewhere) practice birthcontrol, or have done at some point in their lives. Most only go to mass on high holidays or for specific rituals such as baptism, first communion, confirmation, which is usually seen as a good excuse for a party. Weddings too. So 'a la carte' Catholicism is very wide spread here.

I also know Catholics who are quite religious and can't stand the Pope and disagree with almost everything he says. They have no problem with that as they consider their religion to be personal.

It's very interesting to be living in a so-called Catholic country and see most believers take a very pragmatic stance when it comes to how they live their lives.

And most refreshingly, the Spanish president is doing his utmost to separate church and state here. There was a big hooplah when the Pope visited here recently and ended up having a meeting with the president. Apparently their 'discussion' ended up being quite civilised. Man, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during that one!

az

Azahar - it's the same in Ireland.

Interestingly the really controversial speech made by Pope Benny a few days ago was actually on the subject of using rational argument and not forcing particular religious views down people's throats. That message kind of got lost somewhere. I think if there were an attempt made, in Europe at least, to get people to sign up to a particularly strict view of the Catholic Cathecism, it would cause a meltdown. (As if it isn't happening already, you might say..)

Ultimately, the vast majority of Western Catholics are heretics..

And very happily so, it would seem.

az

JCNS : "We don't get to pick and choose just the laws with which we happen to agree."

But personal beliefs are not laws. You are assuming that Catholics must follow each tenet of the Church or else (insert some horrible thing like torture or excommunication or someone reading you from the pulpit). There is no punishment whatsoever for a Catholic telling the world that he uses a condom or has sex before marriage. Some people may be annoyed but "screw them" would be a stock answer for that...

Interestingly, if you wanted to *join* the Catholic Church from another religion or non-religious background you might easily be presented with having to accept some awful rubbish before they would let you in. When you have been a Catholic since birth it's a lot different. You didn't ask to be let in and you spend most of your life trying to find the exit door . The Catholic confirmation ritual happens at the age of 12, when, like, you know all you need to know about life (as if) - it's laughable.