Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#521

Post by lobocinza »

Amezarak wrote: post #416
dgellow wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory only and all Catholics recognize the authority of the pope. In practice it’s a mess as far as I understand, with a bunch of American catholic groups who rejected church reforms that happened during the 20th century, resulting in people calling themselves catholic who do not actually believe that the Catholic Church has authority over their religion. Add to that the fact that the pope has a cultural influenc…

I'm not aware of any Protestants that see the Pope as important except in a very negative way - that's practically the defining feature of Protestantism and one of the few things all the Protestant denominations have in common, whether "low church" or "high church". Heck, it's a struggle to convince many of them that Catholics are Christian at all, and "the Pope is the antichrist" used to be a normal, mainstream comm…

Any serious Protestant (mainline and knowledgeable) listen and give weight when the Pope speaks. They would certainly refuse the Pope authority and inerrancy ex Cathedra but not necessarily disagree with him. Theologically there's much less division between Protestants and Catholics today than in XVI. A large share of disagreeements are due to residual historical animosity.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#522

Post by api »

idiotsecant wrote: post #483
vintagedave wrote: post #10

> a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. > We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including…

We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully that to a ton of people it no longer means 'people who are different are made valuable by that difference'- it's been demonized into essentially meaning 'give black people and women jobs they don't deserve'. It's a prime example of propaganda through language pollution. For whatever reason HN has been slowly goose ste…

It also refers to a wide range of different policies that need to be evaluated on their merits. These policies are not all the same.

It’s become a thought stopping cliche. Modern discourse is absolutely loaded with thought stopping cliches so it’s not the only one by any stretch.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#523

Post by canibal »

Manuel_D wrote: post #511
vintagedave wrote: post #10

> a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. > We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including…

Opposition to DEI is not opposition to diversity so much as it is opposition to discrimination. More than just discrimination, DEI often came in the form of a particularly dishonest and two faced approach to it. Unlike affirmative action - which in my experience tends to acknowledge that sometimes justice requires a measured and deliberate exception to equality - DEI often tried to simultaneously condemn the idea tha…

[flagged]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#524

Post by hammock »

vintagedave wrote: post #34
vintagedave wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction…

> the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. ... Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods. Immaterial and cultural goods. This i…

I think he is saying we need big cross-border government to force compliance and fight against Trump and his cronies, and more taxes / debt to fund this

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#525

Post by Forgeties79 »

Curosinono wrote: post #443
9087653545 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The racial quota is used to support minorites. You don't need to generate a new account just to spew racism. You can argue that yo udon't think DEI helps and suggest an alternative but DEI is not racism even if you put it like this on purpose.

Is interesting to me that I often see that kind of default response (“racial quotas”) as if that’s all DEI is when you get down to it. It’s really about creating a space that includes everybody and creates opportunities for all. There are many ways to approach that.

I know in my brief time being involved with a DEI initiative the discussion was never about how many of any particular demographic we hired. It was about asking if we had internal barriers that disproportionally impacted certain groups. I think that’s a very different mindset than “quotas.” But people arguing in bad faith generally aren’t looking for nuance so here we are.

Edit: to be clear, this is directed at the other commenter not you

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#526

Post by ethanwillis »

switchbak wrote: post #468
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it wrong? Individuals were absolutely getting dehumanized in Kafka's time, but also since then are becoming ever increasingly more so, so it makes sense to speak of it continuing to happen and get worse. It is not binary.

"Individuals were absolutely getting dehumanized ... since then are becoming ever increasingly more so" - do you mind backing this up? I and everyone I know has it a whole lot easier than a couple generations prior. I don't know a single person working the fields, doing dangerous work in a factory, working a coal mine, etc. Of course, I am fortunate enough to be in this position. Power is continuing to squeeze people…

> but I think we still have it a whole lot better than a century ago (by and large).

Worse, they won't even give you the dignity of a claim to contribution to society. Then the lack of contribution is weaponized against you.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#527

Post by jjtwixman »

bombcar wrote: post #307
exceptione wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The current crop doesn't have an idea for what they hoard their billions, it's just...emptiness. I propose we explain the tech's attachment to Accelerationism as a profound boredom and lack of purpose. "What does it mean to be human"--they don't value that question. Peter Thiel got interviewed a month or two ago, and he could not be brought to say that he sees value in preserving humanity. He would rather tur…

I’m reminded (and apropos as the Pope quoted him) of Tolkien’s description of the “eternal life” the Ring gives to mortals, and how it’s … not so desirable in the end.

Indeed It's far more necessary that the utter dregs of humanity (e.g. Peter Thiel) eventually die of old age. Or put another way the damage of mortality killing good people is more than offset by the good of it killing the worst people with the most power. Because in the end it's probably not going to be your sweet mother who will get to live forever, it'll be people like Peter Thiel. No thanks, for the good of our species.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#528

Post by elmomle »

lukan wrote: post #437
vintagedave wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction…

"It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society truly and fully recognizes that women have the same…

Many Catholic believers are huge stickers for tradition. The previous Pope didn't go nearly so far as to allow female clergy, and he was not viewed with respect by many conservative Catholics. If the Pope declared that the church must allow female clergy, and if that didn't cause a literal schism, he would nevertheless lose the respect of most Catholics who didn't already agree with him.

If the Pope decides that it doesn't actually accomplish much good to force the issue when Catholics as a whole aren't ready for it, he could either try to advance women's rights without tipping the boat over, or he could just not bother.

This Pope is choosing to try to be a voice for good, and seems to do so from a deep desire for moral justice in an imperfect world. I'm grateful for that.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#529

Post by learntofly »

irdc wrote: post #493
bombcar wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “mystery of the person” is a common theme in Catholicism - it can be seen in other (especially the “social”) encyclicals. Rerum Novarum by the current pope’s namesake is worth a study.

Not a Roman Catholic but I am occasionally interested in what the Church has to say on ethical matters. What does the Church understand by "mystery of the person", and how does it relate to the assertion by the Church that, for example, gender (one aspect of the human subjective experience) can be understood purely in terms of biology?[0] 0. https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgen...

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#530

Post by hammock »

lukan wrote: post #437
vintagedave wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction…

"It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society truly and fully recognizes that women have the same…

The textbook answer, not that I am agreeing with it, is that no women priests is not a choice that the Catholic Church makes, but rather a reflection of received wisdom and ground truth. The same way perhaps a man is understood to be unable to get pregnant, a woman is understood to be unable to perform the sacraments. Or as John Paul II stated in 1994, “the church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women” even if it wanted to
Post reply on HN