Magnifica Humanitas • Hacker News Board

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#491

Post by lukan » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #481

lukan wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You speak as if the Pope can just change that unilaterally, with no cost. Now, I don't know if Pope Leo actually believes in the full equality of men and women or if he's really being a hypocrite here. It's fully possible that you're absolutely right to scoff at him for it. But the thing is, the limitation of priesthood to men in the Roman Catholic Church is such a deeply ingrained thing, it would be very, very hard…

Yes, I am aware of that. And I don't know much about the current pope, but he seems progressive and can only go step by step, like Franziskus.

What I do know is, that a main motivation to introduce the celibate, was that priests don't inherit church land to their offspring anymore.

In other words, I applaud reforming what is possible, but I would not want that job as hypocrasy seems required. Because on the other hand all this should be gods own unique church and I could not preach that, while knowing about all the well, human compromises so to say.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#492

Post by gchamonlive » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

iamacyborg wrote: post #476

gchamonlive wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the papacy isn't about speaking out when the world in the eyes of the pope is taking a turn away from the catholic moral principles?

Given how those virtues have changed over time and how badly behaved a large number of popes have been, yeah, no. The more cynical read is that the Papacy has for a very extensive period been about increasing the personal worldly power of the Pope and his close associates.

> Given how those virtues have changed over time

Virtues change over time. You can't judge 16th century morals with our current view of virtues.

> how badly behaved a large number of popes have been

This is from our point of view. I think there should be legal guardrails so that gov and church don't mix, but this kind of moral separation is the kind of thing that created the conditions for the holocaust.

Of course the other extreme is to have a theocracy, so everything in balance.

> The more cynical read is that the Papacy has for a very extensive period been about increasing the personal worldly power of the Pope and his close associates.

This is a problem in every institution, it needs power and power corrupts absolutely. But the pope dedicates his life for a doctrine that if correctly applied presents a really important counterweight for the current system of morals that reduces the individual to what it can produce. This is why I think this is an important period to listen to our religious leaders, not because they have the answers, but because first they are deserving of some level or respect and second just because they have incentives that are different from our political leaders.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#493

Post by irdc » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #116

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…

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...

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#494

Post by lobocinza » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

Curosinono wrote: post #184

bem94 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only read a few passages (and some of the excellent quotes others have shared here), but I find the underlying message here so much more compelling than those found in the various "manifestos" which come out of Silicon Valley. I think reading this helps me imagine a version of the future I'd actually like to live in. A version where technology is used well (rather than preaching for abstinence from technology)…

[flagged]

The Vatican is guilty of being the most charitable organization in the world.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#495

Post by oersted » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #317

achierius wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is certainly the more interesting question, the unfortunate reality is that the ideological complex of capital (even if weakening, and no longer effectively reproducing itself) is still strong enough that most in the West can't even imagine a better world (other than "less bad capitalism"), much less think about how to get there. Consequently messages like the above are of great value in moving more people…

Well, in that case, my "how" has always been along anarchistic lines: establishing parallel forms of resource distribution, establishing habits and communities of mutual aid, and in doing so, delegitimizing and rendering obsolete the State, capitalism, and systems of hierarchy. Fun techcentric utopian speculation about this: Cory Doctorow's "Walkaway" and Ruthanna Emry's "A Half-Built Garden." Essentially, can we lev…

I really like the sound of that, but these proposals never acknowledge the monumental challenge of truly incentivizing people to help each other, beyond shallow niceties.

I'm not entirely cynical, people generally are very open to be generous with one another and collaborate for a common good, but up to a point.

Currently people spend the majority of their hours doing relatively hard work for the collective's benefit (kinda). Exactly because capitalism makes selfishness into selflessness (very kinda). Also people are relatively civilized to one another thanks to the considerable latent force of the state's monopoly on violence.

People will be nice to each other when it doesn't cost them much and/or when the opposite costs them dearly. But will they work as hard as now for each other just to be nice? Will they not harm each other when there are no significant consequences and something to gain?

A fair free market is far from a natural phenomenon, it needs to be protected and maintained by some external force. If you let things unfold naturally, what you get is kings, and many layers of dominating hierarchy underneath, exploiting the masses, which exactly what we had the whole time.

I suppose that the post-scarcity idea is that people neither need to work hard, nor have significant reasons to harm, if they have everything they want. Sure, let's talk if we ever get there, but until then we have other problems to deal with.

PS: Don't forget that people are able to do FOSS because they have well paid jobs that don't completely drain them of their energy. For others, getting the reputation and/or experience for a better job is the incentive. There's a very different social infrastructure making that work, FOSS doesn't sustain itself, not even close. But yes, it does prove that when people's needs are covered, some of them will do great things for everyone without much incentive, but usually not enough to cover everyone's wants.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#496

Post by dominictorresmo » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:58 PM UTC

fooker wrote: post #316

This is a surprisingly nuanced and technically literate take on this topic. Kudos. I wonder if this sort of thing got this dude elected, to navigate the changing times. (duplicating my comment from the other thread as this seems to have more traction)

maybe we will have a new Rerum Novarum

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#497

Post by ugh123 » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

plotti wrote: post #487

The answer is sortition a.k.a. democracy by lot. From my subjective understanding it is The only institutional democracy variant that puts a firewall between money and power.

A 2 term limit would be a good start

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#498

Post by lobocinza » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

Curosinono wrote: post #333

parasubvert wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Church" ok "and any kind of believe system hurts our society and divides us." People shouldn't believe anything? Disagreement and conflict are natural. How we handle these disagreements while striving for widespread peace and prosperity is the question.

I don't believe. I accept things i don't know and i know what i know. There is no inherant issue with this. in contrary it makes me mentally stronger. I can choose on my own terms if/when i want to end my life. If i get very sick, i don't have to hope for a god or priests blessing to end my life, i will just do it. But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is no…

> I don't believe.

You believe that you don't believe.

> But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is nothing i can argue about. Your priest told you this based on some book or story from 2000 years ago and you do not question this.

This isn't the Church doctrine. The Church doesn't target homosexuals or even homosexuality in particular but ALL sexual practices that deviates from the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality. Christians don't believe in this because a book written thousands of years ago say so but because deep in their souls it makes sense and is the truth for them. Homosexuals are welcome on the Church as any other sinner what is ridiculous is to expect the Church to condone sins and bless sinful relationships be them homosexual or heterosexual.

> I know plenty of strong christians and muslism in germany who do not like homosexual people. And its dividing our society.

Perhaps it is something else that divides.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#499

Post by chrisweekly » Mon, May 25, 2026, 6:04 PM UTC

vintagedave wrote: post #29

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…

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…

On what basis does the pope speak about gender equality and women's rights? As the representative of the catholic church, the cognitive dissonance is profound.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#500

Post by zaneyard » Mon, May 25, 2026, 6:04 PM UTC

po1nt wrote: post #477

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…

I don't believe there was an era in history more DEI accepting than nowadays.

What is the point of this comment? Do you mean to say we should cease the pursuit of DEI because we've "come so far"? Of course that's engaging with you with the assumption that you're not intentionally ignoring the weaponization of the movement in the US to further the goals of the current administration.