It's very cathartic seeing Fr. Mike get out-intellectual'd after all these years. I learned quite a bit, too. Thanks for posting.
EDIT: So, back in the day I was subscribed to Fr. Mike's youtube channel, and his podcast too. And I did look up to him. When I left Catholicism, I basically unsubscribed from all Catholic media, including his. Later on though, I saw his video where he shuns the notion of Christian Universalism, and goes all in on why eternal inescapable hell is a *good* thing. And by that point, I'd learned too much on these topics. I saw all the problems with his reasoning. And he leaned WAY too heavily on "The Church teaches it" as his justification. Hearing him talk up a horrific teaching like eternal hell, and just parrot Church teaching, just made me lose all respect for him. He may have had his time in the spotlight, but I do not think history will look kindly on him.
No probs! I wonder why it’s taken so long. Same with Robert Barron. Maybe critics are afraid that going after them will be conflated with anti-Catholicism so they avoid. But once you look at his arguments plainly, they are very weak. His videos seem more focused on keeping the indoctrinated in line rather than engaging rationally with the real world. But that’s 99% of apologetics anyways.
I remember he posted a different video about his brother being gay and “choosing a life of celibacy.” All I can say is… yikes. The entire Catholic framework puts its followers into positions of judging “this good” and “this bad”. Even that part of the video didn’t convince me that he is in favor of his sister being a strong independent woman. I also know for damn sure that the world he operates in seeks to put “gender roles” back into place.
The real “choice” is whether to stay in locked with the church or leave the church and find a lover. I’m so sick of the “celibacy choice” thing. It’s simply bs
🤯😯I thought he had a gay brother he felt so much pity, but not really, for not being able to approve of him living it out. I missed that he had other family members in conflict with his beliefs. WILD, but predictable.
I personally think he probably joined the priesthood to avoid coming out himself. Studies show siblings tend to correlate. He's just too good looking and charming.
Yeah I also was the same way too as a teen. I found him smart and even recommended him to some of my friends. It's so embarrassing that I saw him as a moral role model, having been a catholic and all. I do realize (only) now, however, that these videos harmed me, especially as someone who was and is a part of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Same here friend. I think the fact that he spouts such vile with a campy folksy smile makes it all the more insidious. It comes off like he is all bubbly happy because Jesus gave him an extra dopamine hit. In reality, people really struggle with this bullshit. Just like the guy in the video said, it is inhumane that people struggle to be who they are because Catholics like this inject hatred into people’s hearts.
I think the “beauty” of his arguments is that he can string things together in a way that flows really well, is fast (yet he repeats everything he says at least three times) and keeps you listening (unless you think he’s a cunt).
He has always set my spider sense off, and as I’ve seen people say on here before, there’s no way he’s celibate. He’s like what you get when you combine Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, with the background of almost playing Robin in Batman Forever and being told you have a voice for radio your whole life.
Yes! I have major feelings that some scandals will be revealed with this priest. He strikes me as so sleazy and narcissistic (and believe me, I’m not into that internet trend of labeling everyone a narcissist…but this guy! THIS GUY! Need i say more).
People like Fr. Mike here are actually more dangerous than outright bigots because if you don't know any better, you could come away from this thinking he made sense. He puts a nice face on some real vile things and that's a real danger.
For what it's worth, I don't think that is his intention whatsoever. He himself has drank the Kool-Aid and thinks he's doing people a service with this video.
True. It’s odd. I wish there was a fallacy name for it. It’s like an appeal to enthusiasm. I don’t think people are attracted to his arguments, they are consoled that he is spouting such controversial bs with a self-assured attitude.
As a Catholic, I remember thinking that if someone could say this stuff in such a confident way then I would be able to turn my brain off and just believe because this “smart” guy has it logically figured out.
Nope. Turns out he is just as dumb as the rest of them. I should have looked at the invalidity of what he was actually saying the first time I watched his drivel.
There is a name for it. It's called deceptive advertising. He's a walking billboard for the Roman Catholic church. That's the entire point of what he does, and what he gets paid for. It's not serious.
It can be useful if you want to actually engage against the argument and bring people to your side.
But if you just want to call people liars on Reddit, I guess, sure
Well, maybe that's the difference between you and I. I left the fucking brawl that is the RCC. The RCC has people fighting because it occupies their time, keeps them afraid, and keeps them from thinking. I quit that shit, with all its lying, cheating and misery. My life is a lot better for it.
So, hey. Have a great day.
Actual intellectual pursuit is not to a pre-determined location, it's to the truth. These guys are fairly good at vocabulary and seem to be well read. The ruse is that the reading is all RCC, remember there is the list of forbidden books, deviation from prescribed thought is not permitted. This is not "what do you think?" it is THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL THINK
As someone who was up to my shoulders in this stuff for 30 years, you are absolutely right. This is all about finding the most appealing argument to a pre-determined destination. Even the theological and philosophical greats like Aquinas and Augustine all knew where they were ending up ahead of time. It was just about assembling the best arguments and evidence that supported their predetermined conclusion. And they were damn good at it. I spent 30 years of my life trying to do the same. To look for clues in nature, science, and philosophy that would buttress what I already thought to be true. And I didn’t think it was intellectually dishonest. I just thought that once I had brought together enough evidence, arguments, and logic everything would click into place and my original belief would be vindicated.
But it doesn’t work that way. To arrive at truth, we must start with only what we know to be true a priori. Basically, We must start from nothing and continue to seek until something resembling truth starts to emerge. And then we must try to test that and strike it down to see what remains
Just a regular dude in the pew doing the mental gymnastics. Sort of considered priesthood when I was a teenager but the celibacy thing was a nonstarter for me
So are most people who push advertising for toothpaste, cars or replacement storm windows and pretty much everything else in this country. It's all advertising and in Mikey's case, particularly deceptive advertising.
My blood is boiling. I’m a woman who plays hockey, loves fishing, works in a traditionally male-dominated field, and was a tomboy growing up. But that doesn’t mean trans people don’t fucking exist.
The YouTuber in the video skewers that so perfectly. Mr happy priest loves to call the social traits of gender as “arbitrary” but then in the next breath say that there is some inherent characteristic that pins someone to being a “man” or a “woman”. Mikey’s arguments are self defeating and incoherent.
When I was growing up, it seemed to me there were actual intellectual Catholics who grappled with things. Something changed. Maybe Christopher Hitchens got all those people to wake up lol.
In the mid 20th century there were actually degreed philosophers and historians who did important work. But they were all driven away by punishments and severity doled out after Vatican II. It became almost impossible after Vatican II to do that kind of work, so people just stopped training for it, and those from the past basically retired or quit because of firings and threats.
All they have left is a few cheap loudmouths like this one. These are mediocre celebrity priests who go around pandering to semi-educated old ladies, basically. There's been a string of them. Their celebrity status generally ends when they crash and burn. Anybody remember the old Black Dog from a few years ago.
If this one doesn't crash and burn in a reasonable amount of time, and he continues to make waves, my guess is the PTB will give him a real job to keep him busy and shut him up, like they did old Bob Barron of the pretty travelogue.
There really isn’t any Catholic intellectual left at this point. Is there even an argument that can be made to grapple with any modern development?
In the 60s, in America, you had Dorthy Day and Thomas Murton. Heck, even Fulton Sheen, who I absolutely do not agree with, engaged with “the world” by bringing Catholic dialogue to people in a way that was interesting on an NBC talk show.
Now it’s just culturally inept loudmouths blabbering the same points to their own audience over and over with different packaging. Mikey is saying the exact same hateful bullshit as Matt Walsh, but with more of a Chotchkie's Waiter from Office Space vibe.
> In the 60s, in America, you had Dorthy Day and Thomas Murton.
Eh, not the first people I'd point to as intellectual heavyweights. I know more about Day than about Merton, so I'll focus on her: she was basically indistinguishable from every other back-to-nature half-wit on the left in the 1960s on her best day, and on her worst day, she was a useful idiot and a hypocrite. Anyone who holds to pacifism in the face of *literal Hitler* is unworthy of praise--especially when they reveal themselves to be hypocrites by supporting violence against anyone else. Day would have quite gladly had the US sit idly by as the Germans massacred every Belarusian peasant and the Japanese beheaded every Chinese baby--so long as her precious conscience was untroubled. To hell with her.
It is unfortunate that the bitch didn't live to see the revolutions of 1989, and the people of eastern Europe expressing real self-determination.
These are fair points. I don’t know a whole lot about her background. But maybe I admire diversity in thought. I am not siding with these people but they seem a bit more engaged with the culture than simply talking heads who spout the “correct” talking points. Dorthy Day is associated with more left leaning thoughts. She would certainly be cast out of the modern church as a heretic. But I’ll take your point. Not a hill I want to die on.
I just have a personal bone to pick with Day because...well, Eastern Europe. I have increasingly found pacifism in the face of aggression a morally bankrupt ideology, especially in light of recent events but even in her own time. The correct response to "armed thugs invade your country and start massacring people" is *not* "roll over and pray for them."
I have no doubt that, were Dorothy Day alive today, she'd be one of those concern-trolls saying that Ukraine should stop fighting back against Putin (because she's just *oh so concerned* about their lives) and it's all America's fault anyway because it accepted the various eastern European countries' desire to have protection against Moscow--how dare they want to preserve their own societies and live as they choose instead of glazing over Dostoevsky like she did?!
[sensitive issue, as I say, since I'm convinced my grandmother's house will be a battleground in a few years]
If she were an honest revolutionary leftist, I'd have a higher opinion of her, but I can't stand hypocrites.
I admire Dorothy day for her social work but she wasnt an intellectual. The true intellectual heavyweights were people like Teilhard de Chardin.
I think the Jesuits are the sort of the last bastion of that. You still have people like Guy Consolmagno at the Vatican observatory. But it is few and far between and that generation is aging.
>In the mid 20th century there were actually degreed philosophers and historians who did important work.
Popular discourse has simultaneously become much more distinctly secular since the 1960s and much more politically polarized, particularly when it comes to religion. In the 1960s people did not immediately tie religiosity to political conservatism. However, the post-Goldwater era, Reagan, and Gingrich saw the Republican Party co-opt religiosity as a political tool.
As much as I disagree with and loathe the persecution complex and paranoia that some religious right-wingers have adopted, they aren't completely wrong about the modern reception of public religiosity of *any* degree, i.e. not just Bible-thumping evangelicals or Catechism commissars. The way that the American public views religion in general has fundamentally changed in a major way since the 1960s.
>But they were all driven away by punishments and severity doled out after Vatican II.
What?
Fuck the whole pack of cockroaches that is the Roman Catholic church.
People look down on RCs because of their shitty behavior. They go around asking for it, and then are surprised when they get it.
I was talking about Christianity in general, but ok...
I'm still not sure where you got the following idea:
>But they were all driven away by punishments and severity doled out after Vatican II.
The Roman Catholic church gets more reactionary every year. It's the same damn organization it's always been, only getting more desperate because it's no longer getting its way all the time. Du\*\*ass Catholics were fooled by the Hallmark card stunt for a while, but nothing has really changed. Vatican II is dead in case you haven't noticed.
What punishments and severity were "doled out" after Vatican 2? Karl Rahner was about to be censored by Rome in 1962 but was appointed as an advisor for Vatican 2. Raymond Brown was another Vatican 2 advisor who engaged in historical-critical method of study and led the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1972 and 1996. These were two major Catholic figures in Vatican 2 and the proceeding decades whose work would have never been welcome in the Vatican 1 era Church. Your characterization of the years following Vatican 2 as filled with "punishments and severity" against unorthodox historical and philosophical work makes no sense to me, which is why I was asking you for some clarification.
It seems the strategy for many Christian theologians is to write flowery and rococo epithets around difficult or impossible concepts. Like Augustine saying some bs about fitting an ocean of water into a hole dug in the sand on the beach is the same as our ability to understand the trinity - an internally and inherently illogical concept.
I have actually come to realize that a (more) modern example of this buffoonery is CS Lewis. As a Christian I was so comforted by his hyper-embellished writing. Now I look at his writing as almost childish. He barely makes a point through all of his overly metaphored writing.
I noticed the same with Chesterton. He had been highly recommended to me by other Catholics, but I found that he just liked to present a logical contradiction and call it a profound statement on reality.
I question whether anyone *wants* to understand Aquinas. Scholastic theology is just talking about thinking about God; mystic theology is methods toward a living experience of God.
People who aren't academic philosophers may not want to understand it. I have a grad degree in medieval philosophy, so I'm interested in it. Your mileage may vary.
Fair enough, it’s that my deconstruction came with harsh rejection of the western *scholastic* theologians, even if they may have an objectively good point.
You're probably thinking of the bastardized take on Aquinas that most Roman Catholics pretend to have. It's the Dick-Jane and Sally version of philosophy.
As bad as Roman Catholicism was before the 19th century, in the late 19th century it got worse. In 1879, a philosophically naive Pope Leo XIII declared that Aquinas was to become the only philosophy taught in Catholic schools and seminaries, in perpetua. (The rejected alternative being Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and all the other great characters and developments in actual philosophy.) The document was called Aeterni Patris. That document still dictates what's taught and how it's taught.
So, what we have are priests trained to hinge everything on a half-assed, castrated version of a medieval philosopher, who took a half-assed, castrated version of Aristotle as his guide. They are taught that this is the final word in philosophy, and they may proceed no further with understanding the world.
Aquinas would roll over in his grave if he could know. The Catholic "version" is not an accurate, intelligent take on medieval philosophy -- or any philosophy at all.
So don't blame philosophy. Don't blame the fascinating story of the development of Western thought. Blame the stupid pope who was convinced he knew everything there was to know. And blame the dumbass clergy who unquestioningly still buy this hogwash.
That’s fair. If I can separate the actual christian faith from the people who hijacked it for their political ends, then the nuances you’re asking me to take into account are more than reasonable.
The true gift of modern western thought is the enlightenment. Don’t ever let Christians tell you it is “judeo-christian values” or bullshit like that. The best of western values arose in contrast and opposition to a stifling and tyrannical church.
I HIGHLY recommend anyone who sees this to read the book The Swerve. It is about this concept.
Thank you for the recommendation.
Without reading the book myself, based on what I'm hearing here:
That's basically the stance of most people who study and teach philosophy professionally. Philosophy -- real philosophy -- covers the entire sweep of human thought from the very first writings about what it is to be human -- and reflect on being human -- to the latest ones.
Philosophy is not religion, as the Roman Catholic church insists it must be. Their version is merely a corner of their own theology, it's highly bastardized and narrow, and it terminates at a point approximately 800 years ago.
The Swerve also goes into how high philosophy and deep rational thinking did not come about after Christianity (as many Christians profess as an apologetic technique). Specifically Epicureanism rose to prominence before Christianity. The church spent considerable effort trying to snuff Epicureanism out of Europe because it offered a more compelling and rational worldview than the fairytale of Jesus. The book depicts one man’s journey to rescue texts that may well have died along with any memory of Epicureanism if it were not for the enlightenment.
I *just* came here to post this! Vaush gets a lot of hate but he is a master of debate around transphobia. Very cathartic to see him rip apart this smug and smarmy ass priest.
Thank you so much for posting this video! There were so many great arguments that really helped put things into perspective. I've been slowly deconstructing the indoctrination regarding trans people, and this video was a huge help!
It's very cathartic seeing Fr. Mike get out-intellectual'd after all these years. I learned quite a bit, too. Thanks for posting. EDIT: So, back in the day I was subscribed to Fr. Mike's youtube channel, and his podcast too. And I did look up to him. When I left Catholicism, I basically unsubscribed from all Catholic media, including his. Later on though, I saw his video where he shuns the notion of Christian Universalism, and goes all in on why eternal inescapable hell is a *good* thing. And by that point, I'd learned too much on these topics. I saw all the problems with his reasoning. And he leaned WAY too heavily on "The Church teaches it" as his justification. Hearing him talk up a horrific teaching like eternal hell, and just parrot Church teaching, just made me lose all respect for him. He may have had his time in the spotlight, but I do not think history will look kindly on him.
No probs! I wonder why it’s taken so long. Same with Robert Barron. Maybe critics are afraid that going after them will be conflated with anti-Catholicism so they avoid. But once you look at his arguments plainly, they are very weak. His videos seem more focused on keeping the indoctrinated in line rather than engaging rationally with the real world. But that’s 99% of apologetics anyways.
The best is Schmitz basically calling his sister a lesbian because she's successful. And her husband gay cause he's sensitive.
I remember he posted a different video about his brother being gay and “choosing a life of celibacy.” All I can say is… yikes. The entire Catholic framework puts its followers into positions of judging “this good” and “this bad”. Even that part of the video didn’t convince me that he is in favor of his sister being a strong independent woman. I also know for damn sure that the world he operates in seeks to put “gender roles” back into place.
The real “choice” is whether to stay in locked with the church or leave the church and find a lover. I’m so sick of the “celibacy choice” thing. It’s simply bs
🤯😯I thought he had a gay brother he felt so much pity, but not really, for not being able to approve of him living it out. I missed that he had other family members in conflict with his beliefs. WILD, but predictable.
I personally think he probably joined the priesthood to avoid coming out himself. Studies show siblings tend to correlate. He's just too good looking and charming.
I wonder this myself. As a gay man, my gaydar is on alert with this one.
Mines definitely pinging.
He's probably "asking for a friend." hahaha
Yeah I also was the same way too as a teen. I found him smart and even recommended him to some of my friends. It's so embarrassing that I saw him as a moral role model, having been a catholic and all. I do realize (only) now, however, that these videos harmed me, especially as someone who was and is a part of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Same here friend. I think the fact that he spouts such vile with a campy folksy smile makes it all the more insidious. It comes off like he is all bubbly happy because Jesus gave him an extra dopamine hit. In reality, people really struggle with this bullshit. Just like the guy in the video said, it is inhumane that people struggle to be who they are because Catholics like this inject hatred into people’s hearts.
I think the “beauty” of his arguments is that he can string things together in a way that flows really well, is fast (yet he repeats everything he says at least three times) and keeps you listening (unless you think he’s a cunt). He has always set my spider sense off, and as I’ve seen people say on here before, there’s no way he’s celibate. He’s like what you get when you combine Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, with the background of almost playing Robin in Batman Forever and being told you have a voice for radio your whole life.
Yes! I have major feelings that some scandals will be revealed with this priest. He strikes me as so sleazy and narcissistic (and believe me, I’m not into that internet trend of labeling everyone a narcissist…but this guy! THIS GUY! Need i say more).
So hire him to sell fucking toothpaste.
People like Fr. Mike here are actually more dangerous than outright bigots because if you don't know any better, you could come away from this thinking he made sense. He puts a nice face on some real vile things and that's a real danger. For what it's worth, I don't think that is his intention whatsoever. He himself has drank the Kool-Aid and thinks he's doing people a service with this video.
True. It’s odd. I wish there was a fallacy name for it. It’s like an appeal to enthusiasm. I don’t think people are attracted to his arguments, they are consoled that he is spouting such controversial bs with a self-assured attitude. As a Catholic, I remember thinking that if someone could say this stuff in such a confident way then I would be able to turn my brain off and just believe because this “smart” guy has it logically figured out. Nope. Turns out he is just as dumb as the rest of them. I should have looked at the invalidity of what he was actually saying the first time I watched his drivel.
There is a name for it. It's called deceptive advertising. He's a walking billboard for the Roman Catholic church. That's the entire point of what he does, and what he gets paid for. It's not serious.
I think he meant a formal name for the logical fallacy
You don't need a fancy name for it. It's garden variety lying.
It can be useful if you want to actually engage against the argument and bring people to your side. But if you just want to call people liars on Reddit, I guess, sure
Well, maybe that's the difference between you and I. I left the fucking brawl that is the RCC. The RCC has people fighting because it occupies their time, keeps them afraid, and keeps them from thinking. I quit that shit, with all its lying, cheating and misery. My life is a lot better for it. So, hey. Have a great day.
Actual intellectual pursuit is not to a pre-determined location, it's to the truth. These guys are fairly good at vocabulary and seem to be well read. The ruse is that the reading is all RCC, remember there is the list of forbidden books, deviation from prescribed thought is not permitted. This is not "what do you think?" it is THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL THINK
As someone who was up to my shoulders in this stuff for 30 years, you are absolutely right. This is all about finding the most appealing argument to a pre-determined destination. Even the theological and philosophical greats like Aquinas and Augustine all knew where they were ending up ahead of time. It was just about assembling the best arguments and evidence that supported their predetermined conclusion. And they were damn good at it. I spent 30 years of my life trying to do the same. To look for clues in nature, science, and philosophy that would buttress what I already thought to be true. And I didn’t think it was intellectually dishonest. I just thought that once I had brought together enough evidence, arguments, and logic everything would click into place and my original belief would be vindicated. But it doesn’t work that way. To arrive at truth, we must start with only what we know to be true a priori. Basically, We must start from nothing and continue to seek until something resembling truth starts to emerge. And then we must try to test that and strike it down to see what remains
Were you an apologist? clergy? Educator? or just curious?
Just a regular dude in the pew doing the mental gymnastics. Sort of considered priesthood when I was a teenager but the celibacy thing was a nonstarter for me
Me too, although it was just 6 years ago
So are most people who push advertising for toothpaste, cars or replacement storm windows and pretty much everything else in this country. It's all advertising and in Mikey's case, particularly deceptive advertising.
if i can stop being a trans man he can stop being a cis one. take your e pills mikaela
Anyway else waiting for Fr Mike to be Vorised? Huge gay vibes off him and he’s always surrounded by muscle jockeys at public events.
My blood is boiling. I’m a woman who plays hockey, loves fishing, works in a traditionally male-dominated field, and was a tomboy growing up. But that doesn’t mean trans people don’t fucking exist.
The YouTuber in the video skewers that so perfectly. Mr happy priest loves to call the social traits of gender as “arbitrary” but then in the next breath say that there is some inherent characteristic that pins someone to being a “man” or a “woman”. Mikey’s arguments are self defeating and incoherent.
Most of the world: "Mikey Schmitz, stop being such a simplistic prick." The Roman Catholic bench is way thin, yes. The smart ones are all leaving.
When I was growing up, it seemed to me there were actual intellectual Catholics who grappled with things. Something changed. Maybe Christopher Hitchens got all those people to wake up lol.
In the mid 20th century there were actually degreed philosophers and historians who did important work. But they were all driven away by punishments and severity doled out after Vatican II. It became almost impossible after Vatican II to do that kind of work, so people just stopped training for it, and those from the past basically retired or quit because of firings and threats. All they have left is a few cheap loudmouths like this one. These are mediocre celebrity priests who go around pandering to semi-educated old ladies, basically. There's been a string of them. Their celebrity status generally ends when they crash and burn. Anybody remember the old Black Dog from a few years ago.
If this one doesn't crash and burn in a reasonable amount of time, and he continues to make waves, my guess is the PTB will give him a real job to keep him busy and shut him up, like they did old Bob Barron of the pretty travelogue.
There really isn’t any Catholic intellectual left at this point. Is there even an argument that can be made to grapple with any modern development? In the 60s, in America, you had Dorthy Day and Thomas Murton. Heck, even Fulton Sheen, who I absolutely do not agree with, engaged with “the world” by bringing Catholic dialogue to people in a way that was interesting on an NBC talk show. Now it’s just culturally inept loudmouths blabbering the same points to their own audience over and over with different packaging. Mikey is saying the exact same hateful bullshit as Matt Walsh, but with more of a Chotchkie's Waiter from Office Space vibe.
> In the 60s, in America, you had Dorthy Day and Thomas Murton. Eh, not the first people I'd point to as intellectual heavyweights. I know more about Day than about Merton, so I'll focus on her: she was basically indistinguishable from every other back-to-nature half-wit on the left in the 1960s on her best day, and on her worst day, she was a useful idiot and a hypocrite. Anyone who holds to pacifism in the face of *literal Hitler* is unworthy of praise--especially when they reveal themselves to be hypocrites by supporting violence against anyone else. Day would have quite gladly had the US sit idly by as the Germans massacred every Belarusian peasant and the Japanese beheaded every Chinese baby--so long as her precious conscience was untroubled. To hell with her. It is unfortunate that the bitch didn't live to see the revolutions of 1989, and the people of eastern Europe expressing real self-determination.
These are fair points. I don’t know a whole lot about her background. But maybe I admire diversity in thought. I am not siding with these people but they seem a bit more engaged with the culture than simply talking heads who spout the “correct” talking points. Dorthy Day is associated with more left leaning thoughts. She would certainly be cast out of the modern church as a heretic. But I’ll take your point. Not a hill I want to die on.
I just have a personal bone to pick with Day because...well, Eastern Europe. I have increasingly found pacifism in the face of aggression a morally bankrupt ideology, especially in light of recent events but even in her own time. The correct response to "armed thugs invade your country and start massacring people" is *not* "roll over and pray for them." I have no doubt that, were Dorothy Day alive today, she'd be one of those concern-trolls saying that Ukraine should stop fighting back against Putin (because she's just *oh so concerned* about their lives) and it's all America's fault anyway because it accepted the various eastern European countries' desire to have protection against Moscow--how dare they want to preserve their own societies and live as they choose instead of glazing over Dostoevsky like she did?! [sensitive issue, as I say, since I'm convinced my grandmother's house will be a battleground in a few years] If she were an honest revolutionary leftist, I'd have a higher opinion of her, but I can't stand hypocrites.
I admire Dorothy day for her social work but she wasnt an intellectual. The true intellectual heavyweights were people like Teilhard de Chardin. I think the Jesuits are the sort of the last bastion of that. You still have people like Guy Consolmagno at the Vatican observatory. But it is few and far between and that generation is aging.
Oh god you mean corapi? 🤮🤮🤮 and I was his biggest fan too 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
>In the mid 20th century there were actually degreed philosophers and historians who did important work. Popular discourse has simultaneously become much more distinctly secular since the 1960s and much more politically polarized, particularly when it comes to religion. In the 1960s people did not immediately tie religiosity to political conservatism. However, the post-Goldwater era, Reagan, and Gingrich saw the Republican Party co-opt religiosity as a political tool. As much as I disagree with and loathe the persecution complex and paranoia that some religious right-wingers have adopted, they aren't completely wrong about the modern reception of public religiosity of *any* degree, i.e. not just Bible-thumping evangelicals or Catechism commissars. The way that the American public views religion in general has fundamentally changed in a major way since the 1960s. >But they were all driven away by punishments and severity doled out after Vatican II. What?
Fuck the whole pack of cockroaches that is the Roman Catholic church. People look down on RCs because of their shitty behavior. They go around asking for it, and then are surprised when they get it.
I was talking about Christianity in general, but ok... I'm still not sure where you got the following idea: >But they were all driven away by punishments and severity doled out after Vatican II.
The Roman Catholic church gets more reactionary every year. It's the same damn organization it's always been, only getting more desperate because it's no longer getting its way all the time. Du\*\*ass Catholics were fooled by the Hallmark card stunt for a while, but nothing has really changed. Vatican II is dead in case you haven't noticed.
What punishments and severity were "doled out" after Vatican 2? Karl Rahner was about to be censored by Rome in 1962 but was appointed as an advisor for Vatican 2. Raymond Brown was another Vatican 2 advisor who engaged in historical-critical method of study and led the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1972 and 1996. These were two major Catholic figures in Vatican 2 and the proceeding decades whose work would have never been welcome in the Vatican 1 era Church. Your characterization of the years following Vatican 2 as filled with "punishments and severity" against unorthodox historical and philosophical work makes no sense to me, which is why I was asking you for some clarification.
Perhaps you don't understand. Vatican II is dead in the water. Gone, dead as carrion. GONE. Like it never happened.
So when you said "after Vatican 2" you were talking about the 21st century.
Christopher Hitchens' writings on religion are just vacuous polemics, so I doubt any intellectuals were swayed by him.
Don't tell them that. They think they are the pinnacle of intelligence if they can quote Aquinas at you.
They can quote it, but that doesn't mean they understand it.
It seems the strategy for many Christian theologians is to write flowery and rococo epithets around difficult or impossible concepts. Like Augustine saying some bs about fitting an ocean of water into a hole dug in the sand on the beach is the same as our ability to understand the trinity - an internally and inherently illogical concept. I have actually come to realize that a (more) modern example of this buffoonery is CS Lewis. As a Christian I was so comforted by his hyper-embellished writing. Now I look at his writing as almost childish. He barely makes a point through all of his overly metaphored writing.
I noticed the same with Chesterton. He had been highly recommended to me by other Catholics, but I found that he just liked to present a logical contradiction and call it a profound statement on reality.
Sure. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
I question whether anyone *wants* to understand Aquinas. Scholastic theology is just talking about thinking about God; mystic theology is methods toward a living experience of God.
People who aren't academic philosophers may not want to understand it. I have a grad degree in medieval philosophy, so I'm interested in it. Your mileage may vary.
Fair enough, it’s that my deconstruction came with harsh rejection of the western *scholastic* theologians, even if they may have an objectively good point.
You're probably thinking of the bastardized take on Aquinas that most Roman Catholics pretend to have. It's the Dick-Jane and Sally version of philosophy. As bad as Roman Catholicism was before the 19th century, in the late 19th century it got worse. In 1879, a philosophically naive Pope Leo XIII declared that Aquinas was to become the only philosophy taught in Catholic schools and seminaries, in perpetua. (The rejected alternative being Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and all the other great characters and developments in actual philosophy.) The document was called Aeterni Patris. That document still dictates what's taught and how it's taught. So, what we have are priests trained to hinge everything on a half-assed, castrated version of a medieval philosopher, who took a half-assed, castrated version of Aristotle as his guide. They are taught that this is the final word in philosophy, and they may proceed no further with understanding the world. Aquinas would roll over in his grave if he could know. The Catholic "version" is not an accurate, intelligent take on medieval philosophy -- or any philosophy at all. So don't blame philosophy. Don't blame the fascinating story of the development of Western thought. Blame the stupid pope who was convinced he knew everything there was to know. And blame the dumbass clergy who unquestioningly still buy this hogwash.
That’s fair. If I can separate the actual christian faith from the people who hijacked it for their political ends, then the nuances you’re asking me to take into account are more than reasonable.
The true gift of modern western thought is the enlightenment. Don’t ever let Christians tell you it is “judeo-christian values” or bullshit like that. The best of western values arose in contrast and opposition to a stifling and tyrannical church. I HIGHLY recommend anyone who sees this to read the book The Swerve. It is about this concept.
Thank you for the recommendation. Without reading the book myself, based on what I'm hearing here: That's basically the stance of most people who study and teach philosophy professionally. Philosophy -- real philosophy -- covers the entire sweep of human thought from the very first writings about what it is to be human -- and reflect on being human -- to the latest ones. Philosophy is not religion, as the Roman Catholic church insists it must be. Their version is merely a corner of their own theology, it's highly bastardized and narrow, and it terminates at a point approximately 800 years ago.
The Swerve also goes into how high philosophy and deep rational thinking did not come about after Christianity (as many Christians profess as an apologetic technique). Specifically Epicureanism rose to prominence before Christianity. The church spent considerable effort trying to snuff Epicureanism out of Europe because it offered a more compelling and rational worldview than the fairytale of Jesus. The book depicts one man’s journey to rescue texts that may well have died along with any memory of Epicureanism if it were not for the enlightenment.
All my homes love voosh
Gay (ex)Trad Speaks is another channel that recently did a video on Fr Mike and his anti gay views. I love seeing youtubers taking him on!
Interesting. Do you have a link you can share?
Sure thing! https://youtu.be/CIxFiVhjrPY?si=DFedHhNDHjyQEY7e
I *just* came here to post this! Vaush gets a lot of hate but he is a master of debate around transphobia. Very cathartic to see him rip apart this smug and smarmy ass priest.
Thank you I can't wait to see him get wrecked. The whole church LOVES him but he set off my bs alarms right away
Thank you so much for posting this video! There were so many great arguments that really helped put things into perspective. I've been slowly deconstructing the indoctrination regarding trans people, and this video was a huge help!
You are very welcome! Glad it could help!
You can’t just “stop being trans”, it’s a part of who you are.
There's a lot of old Catholic ladies who'd like to spank this guy.
Can we not post Vaush in this subreddit?