Vatican astronomer admits possibilty of life on other planets (spam on subject, only)

[fable]

From the BBC:

The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out. Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space. Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.

The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God. The official Vatican newspaper headlines his article 'Aliens Are My Brother'. Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian inventor of the telescope, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future. Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.

To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the censure of Galileo. Though heavy-handed, the guy was an arrogant, first class jerk. But the RCC celebrating Darwin? Noting that beings might exist on other worlds? That they might be free from original sin? What was Monseigneur Funes smoking the day he wrote all this? And what level of approval does he have from the currently arch-conservative RCC? What's next? Anime characters without original sin? An invitation to Christopher Hitchens to take the veil?

EDIT: All sarcasm aside, please comment on the substance of the report. Thanks.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by fable

What was Monseigneur Funes smoking the day he wrote all this? And what level of approval does he have from the currently arch-conservative RCC? What's next? Anime characters without original sin? An invitation to Christopher Hitchens to take the veil?

The only way I can think of to respond to this is to make snarky remarks like the ones you made above or a joke like the one that Nightmare made. Is that considered "spam on subject"?

[fable]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

The only way I can think of to respond to this is to make snarky remarks like the ones you made above or a joke like the one that Nightmare made. Is that considered "spam on subject"?

As long as it references the subject in hand, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But please note that while I was snarking, my comments had a serious edge. Funes is taking a position that I've never heard before from anyone in the RCC hierarchy. If he has Vatican approval on that--which he certainly must--it may represent a willingness by the Pope to allow for at least the idea of scientific speculation. Which is a damn sight further than some Pentacostal and Protestant groups will alow.

[Tricky]

I sure didn't know the Vat even had a fleeting interest in astronomy.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by fable

...Which is a damn sight further than some Pentacostal and Protestant groups will alow.

It's interesting how Protestant groups now have a reputation for being as dogmatic as the Catholic church. It wasn't always like that. Traditional Protestant groups originated during the period in history known as the Reformation specifically as an alternative to the dogmatism and papal authority of the Catholic church. Their guiding principle was that people should put their faith in the Bible, not in the words of a human being like the Pope, but most Protestant groups do not believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. Pentecostal groups arose in a separate movement, but some of them consider themselves to be Protestants. Their guiding principle is that people have a direct personal relationship with God through baptism. In practice, many Pentecostal groups allow a great deal of individuality and independent thinking. But the fundamentalist/evangelical groups seem to get the most attention (probably because they demand the most attention). They're the ones who believe in the literal truth of the Bible (or at least they claim to). Traditional Protestant groups such as Lutherans don't think about the "Second Coming of Christ" all that much, but fundamentalist Baptists are obsessed with it and seem to be convinced that it's going to happen in their lifetimes.

Anyway, Fable, I don't dispute what you said, but I would have been more specific and singled out evangelicals and fundamentalists instead of "some Protestant groups". I grew up as a Lutheran (I'm not religious anymore), and I still get kind of touchy about the way that Protestants are portrayed sometimes. I wouldn't want people to think I grew up in a fundamentalist/evangelical church.

[fable]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

It's interesting how Protestant groups now have a reputation for being as dogmatic as the Catholic church. It wasn't always like that. Traditional Protestant groups originated during the period in history known as the Reformation specifically as an alternative to the dogmatism and papal authority of the Catholic church. Their guiding principle was that people should put their faith in the Bible, not in the words of a human being like the Pope, but most Protestant groups do not believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. Pentecostal groups arose in a separate movement, but some of them consider themselves to be Protestants. Their guiding principle is that people have a direct personal relationship with God through baptism. In practice, many Pentecostal groups allow a great deal of individuality and independent thinking. But the fundamentalist/evangelical groups seem to get the most attention (probably because they demand the most attention)...

There are three separate large evangelical groups in the US, though the media never discusses this fact: the black churches--politically liberal, socially activist--the moderate white evangelicals, and the very conservative white churches of predominantly (but not exclusively) Protestant and Pentecostal faith. It's this last that grabs the headlines in a nation where the media are ruled by very wealthy, aggressively conservative barons.

Roman Catholicism is definitely not liberal, but its authoritarian, top-down management has meant a certain kind of self-reinforcing leadership. Those evangelical/fundamentalist churches, on the other hand, appear to me, at least, woven into the fabric of small communities. They seem to fasten on the social elements most fearful of societal change, and give them both a degree of reassurance and a heaping dose of fear of the sinful hordes trying to capture their bodies and minds.

Anyway, Fable, I don't dispute what you said, but I would have been more specific and singled out evangelicals and fundamentalists instead of "some Protestant groups". I grew up as a Lutheran (I'm not religious anymore), and I still get kind of touchy about the way that Protestants are portrayed sometimes. I wouldn't want people to think I grew up in a fundamentalist/evangelical church.

I didn't write "some Protestant groups." To be accurate, I wrote "some Pentacostal and Protestant groups," and it's an accurate statement. It's also consistent with the theological divide of this thread that looked first at Roman Catholicism and its approach to scientific matters. If we discussed evangelical/fundamentalist churches, instead, we'd have to completely ignore the theological division, since there are some Roman Catholic churches and organizations that are quite as rabid and backwards as the most vicious Southern Baptist televangelist. Not as many, true, but enough to wreck a discusion of the RCC and science. Not sure I'm making my point; let me know if I haven't.

[VonDondu]

Fable, I think we're straying off topic, but I was trying to limit my own remarks about various denominations to matters of theology rather than conservative-versus-liberal-politics. Like you, I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. My point is that not all Protestants believe that everything the Bible says is literally true (and I do not want to be associated with the ones that do), and it's "interesting" how the ones who, for example, want to ban the teaching of evolution are the ones who get the most attention. That doesn't contradict anything you wrote.

I agree with your observation that evangelical/fundamentalist churches "seem to fasten on the social elements most fearful of societal change", but I think that is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. In other words, one of the main reasons that such denominations sprang into being was to maintain a culture based on certain ideals. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with theology but instead is a way of using theology as a means to an end. The Lutheran church is completely the opposite: the church is based on certain theological priniciples, and the rest is secondary. Most lifestyle choices are left up to the individual (for example, whether a woman should work or stay at home). Evangelical Protestants are much more activist by their very nature. I think the fact that some denominations are obsessed with conformity and telling people how to live their lives has blurred the distinction between theology and political/social movements. That's one reason why it's so difficult to discuss a subject like this with any clarity (not to mention the enormous differences between the various denominations).

For what it's worth, most Protestant denominations do have a central authority. For example, there's the Southern Baptist Convention which definitely distinguishes between Southern Baptists and other Baptists (such as those to the north). I grew up in the "Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod" which is somewhat different from the American Lutheran Church, which is loosely controlled by a different governing body. Whenever a community wants to build a new Lutheran church, the synod sponsors it and appoints people who will make sure it conforms to the various guidelines (pertaining to fundraising, the liturgy, appointment of a temporary pastor, and so forth). The church starts out as a "mission church" with a temporary pastor, and when it is ready to become a full-fledged church (financially independent, finished erecting its own church buildings, ready for a permanent pastor, etc.), a permanent pastor is officially "installed" (that's the technical term they use), and the new church (the congregation as well as the abtract entity we call the "church") is officially part of the synod (it's known as a "member church"). If it is not associated with the larger governing body, then it's not a Lutheran church.

Televangelists and charismatic churches whose leaders form their own congregations have blurred the distinction between centralized churches and community-based churches. That's another reason why someone like me (who grew up in a more traditional Protestant church) is reluctant to be associated with the evangelical movement even in the most peripheral sense. It's just not the kind of world I grew up in, so it seems strange that the term "Protestant" is such a large umbrella.

Back on topic, even when I was a practicing Lutheran, I thought that Baptists were silly for doing things like trying to ban the teaching of evolution, and I thought the Catholic church was very silly, too, for putting so much effort into denying reality by trying to define their own little universe. I think the reaction in the case at hand ("You mean that someone at the Vatican has actually suggested there could be life on other planets?") speaks volumes.

[fable]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

I agree with your observation that evangelical/fundamentalist churches "seem to fasten on the social elements most fearful of societal change", but I think that is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. In other words, one of the main reasons that such denominations sprang into being was to maintain a culture based on certain ideals. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with theology but instead is a way of using theology as a means to an end.

Why not both, promulgating theology and cultural stasis? Aren't we products of our cultures, however much (in today's Western individualistic world) we deny this? Why couldn't an organization have expressed purposes, yet also take a form and pursue goals not consciously intended by its members? From my admittedly limited reading, all religions tend over time to reinforce certain goals perceived within their cultures as desirable. This doesn't invalidate their core mystical experiences. It just makes them more complex and harder to analyze. So when the hardline Protestant communities began forming in the US, with especial success in the South and Midwest, back during the Great 1830s Revivals, this wasn't an attempt to solidfy societies that felt under threat. It was a genuine emotional reaction against what was considered an orthodox kneel-read-leave kind of religious service in many contemporary churches. Over time, these evangelical Protestant churches came to reflect the values of their communities not, I think, deliberately, but because that always happens. A church/ashram/temple/whatever is supposed to meet the needs of its congregants, we are told. Sympathetic associations form. Communal prayer becomes in itself a cultural manifestation of community (secular) ritual alongside the sacred ritual.

Have you ever read any of the essays in Lewis Hyde's The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property? Because he mentions the Western insistence upon individual liberty in actions as having its equivalent in loneliness and lack-of-belonging. Seen in this light, the cultural reinforcement of churches is a move towards cutural anchoring, with an attendant loss in individual liberty. The cultural bunkers of the Southern Baptists would then be an attempt to anchor in some cultural past. -Of course, if you get enough people to do this, you can turn the past into the present. It's happened before.

The Lutheran church is completely the opposite: the church is based on certain theological priniciples, and the rest is secondary. Most lifestyle choices are left up to the individual (for example, whether a woman should work or stay at home).

Although I'm not familiar with your particular local church, and haven't spent much time comparing Missouri and Wisconsin synods among Lutherans, I'd suggest the percentage mix of theology and cultural reinforcement varies in any religious structure only by degree. Luther himself was very much a product of his time and place despite his intense theological bent, as his zealously anti-Semitic tract, "Of the Jews and their Lives" shows. My point obviously isn't that Lutherans as a group are anti-Semitic, but that if an acknowledged master of Christian theology should display all the warts of his culture, how much less can be expected of most people, who largely accept theology based on their parents' religious preferences? And yet these same people arguably form the bulk of most churches.

I suspect you'll tell me that of course all religions are like this, but that Lutherans can't be compared to the likes of Pentacostals in terms of consciously separating theology from their own cultural beliefs. And I can only respond that I don't want to challenge your beliefs and make this personal, but that I think our cultures instill a form of blindness to the ways our sacred institutions reinforce our secular ones.

(Perhaps we should agree to ignore for the purposes of conversation the really strange little Pentacostal one-shot churches that spring up when someone has a personal revelation. They are historically identical to the grim, hardshell tiny Protestant sects that appeared throughout Northern Europe, and especially Scandanavia, back in the 16th through 19th centuries, but otherwise seem to me to be aberrations.)

For what it's worth, most Protestant denominations do have a central authority. For example, there's the Southern Baptist Convention which definitely distinguishes between Southern Baptists and other Baptists (such as those to the north)...

Having lived in the US for 56 years, yes, I know this. But if we could assume for the moment that I am occasionally aware of my environment, I think we can accept that my earlier remarks concerning the "authoritarian, top-down management" of the RCC did not automatically imply other Christian denominations lack structural hierarchies--only that, again, we are dealing in matters of degree. The RCC has an enormous human infrastructure in which guidance always comes from the higher elements down; it is famous for this, and will in fact defend this as mirroring its sacred hierarchy. I can't speak to the various other Othodox churches that the RCC split off from, but none of the Protestant and Pentacostal churches I'm aware of come anywhere near the RCC in respect to X-theory management. All the evidence shows that they have the leadership on that locked down.

Back on topic, even when I was a practicing Lutheran, I thought that Baptists were silly for doing things like trying to ban the teaching of evolution, and I thought the Catholic church was very silly, too, for putting so much effort into denying reality by trying to define their own little universe. I think the reaction in the case at hand ("You mean that someone at the Vatican has actually suggested there could be life on other planets?") speaks volumes.

But so does the willingness of this relatively high ranking theologian within the RCC to admit the possibility of life on other worlds, right? And to admit that life wouldn't be involved in original sin: what does that imply for Roman Catholics? Are we supposed to accept that Genesis, then, after its first few chapters, is a record of life only on earth? The implications of this for the RCC are fascinating, though of course, since it doesn't come from the pope, it has no theological stamp of approval.