How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[Ajidica]

I would say that's far more a Protestant thing than a Catholic one - certainly in this country it's far more Anglican than Catholic.

I was under the impression Anglicanism is basicaly Catholicism replacing the Pope with the Head of State.

 

[Flying Pig]

I was under the impression Anglicanism is basicaly Catholicism replacing the Pope with the Head of State.

Gah! Don't say that too loud people will hear you!

From an online essay I just found:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The differences are in the details, for the most part. These differences flow from one central issue: who is in authority. The Roman Catholic Church has over the centuries steadily increased the power and prestige of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. In our day, the combination of an extraordinarily gifted pope, John Paul II, with the mass media and globalization, have raised the office of pope to its highest level ever. The peripatetic pontiff has traveled far more than any of his predecessors. When he visits a country, it is to speak, not to listen, however. His bishops around the world act more as his prefects than as overseers of the regional Christian community. St Augustine's famous saying, Roma locuta causa finita est (Rome has spoken and that settles the matter) has never been more true than today.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Despite the attempts of Vatican II to create local synods at the diocesan and national levels, they serve still in a purely advisory capacity. No other body has any authority over the pope, either. For example, when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ forbidding birth control, he ignored the recommendations of the commission he had appointed to advise him. The Vicar of Christ holds all the reins. Authority flows from him down and outward.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The churches of the Anglican Communion have resolutely sought to disperse that absolute authority among several places. A famous report on authority in Anglicanism spoke of this peculiarly Anglican view of authority, which flows, it says, from the edges to the center. Each Anglican Church belongs to the Anglican Communion because it is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and seeks to uphold the catholic faith and reformed order inherited from the Church of England. Yet each one is independent. The Archbishop has no legal authority outside of the Diocese of Canterbury. He serves as spiritual leader and symbol of unity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The laity have real power at all levels of the Anglican churches (though with local variations). Anglicans look to their diocesan and national synods of bishops, clergy and laity to interpret matters of faith and order. Unlike the Church of Rome, with its admirable clarity of decision-making, the Anglican churches are messy and often disagree with each other. For instance, some churches ordain women to all three orders of ministry. Many do not at all, and the Church of England ordains women to the diaconate and the priesthood, but not the episcopate at this time of writing. Women bishops were present at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops every ten years. But since the decisions of Lambeth have no authority other than as recommendations, their presence was not disruptive.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This 'messiness' means that Anglicans have greater latitude officially than Roman Catholics do both individually and in their dioceses and national churches. In general, the laity are expected to use the resources of the church, especially regular common worship, in developing a Christ-like character, and ability to reason morally. The different emphases present in Christianity find their adherents among Anglicans. Thus some Anglicans have elaborate liturgies modeled on medieval English worship. Others emphasize evangelistic preaching and relatively simple worship. Still others show the influence of the Pentecostal movement, or the iconography of the Eastern churches. Some Anglicans are mystic; others are intensely concerned with social justice. Moreover, each national church adapts the faith and order to its own culture.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since Roman Catholics tie membership in their church to the person and authority of the pope, they do not ordinarily allow intercommunion. They do not recognize the validity of Anglican Orders, and so re-confirm and re-ordain Anglican converts. Anglicans on the other hand tend to practice open communion, and do not re-confirm or re-ordain Roman Catholic converts, because they recognize Roman Orders as valid. The difference is being in communion with the pope for Roman Catholics, and for Anglicans, it is adhering to the catholic faith as it has been inherited from the earliest Christians. One permanent feature of Anglicanism has been seeking to restore the faith and order of the primitive church. This is the principle of its reformation, while Rome's counter-reformation was to restore and enhance the medieval concept of papal authority.[/FONT]

In short:

• The Church of England has no central authority. As such its general emphasis is on listening to the message of the church and forming your own moral conclusions, rather than being spoon-fed them from on high

• Anglicans do not see themselves as members of the only true church and everyone else as 'wrong'; we have a different view of God but are generally tolerant of others and will allow them to take communion in our churches: the Catholics will not generally do this

• A CofE church and ceremony is far more restrained and lacks the pomp of a Catholic equivalent (mostly - churches are nearly all the same colour on the inside as the outside whether you're in a Welsh parish or a cathedral), and has always been spoken in English.

 

[Ajidica]

That actualy sounds alot like American Catholicism, so guess it is a cultural difference.
(IIRC, American Catholicism is more liberal then European Catholicism.)
I'm curious, where did you find the link? It seems to take an overly negative view of Catholicism and their take on Papal authority seems to run counter to what LightSpectra has said.

 

[magicfan101]

That is simply not true. When Hitler used the word "evolution" he misused it, much in the same way that people continue to misuse Darwin's theory by claiming that Social Darwinism and Eugenics are based in science.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution

please dont use Mein Kampf as proof that hitler was a creationist. this book was a propaganda tool used by Hitler.Hitler was an agnostic or atheistic evolutionist, he just lied to get what he wanted. The nazi regime was anti-christian and anti-Semitic. Hitler just took the theory of evolution once step further through social darwinism.

Joseph Goebbels Diary

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city

Afterward, long discussions about Vatican and Christianity. The Fuhrer is a fierce opponent of al that humbug, but he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons. And so for a decade now I have paid my church taxes to support such rubbish. That is what hurts most

 

[Ajidica]

Hitler was a populist. I believe he once said "I am a socialist to the poor and a capitalist to the rich". As such, it should come as no surprise he treated religion as a chinese menu, taking the bits that appealed to him at a given time.

 

[Traitorfish]

please dont use Mein Kampf as proof that hitler was a creationist. this book was a propaganda tool used by Hitler.Hitler was an agnostic or atheistic evolutionist, he just lied to get what he wanted. The nazi regime was anti-christian and anti-Semitic. Hitler just took the theory of evolution once step further through social darwinism.

"Fie on your proof, for I have blind ideological assertions and made-up terminology! Everyone knows they trump such petty things as "facts" and "evidence"!"

As it happens, Adolf Hitler's religious views were complex as all hell, and was largely subservient to his fervent belief in a transcendently superior Aryan race; as such, about all that can be said of him is that we was not a secular Darwinist. Of course, why this matters when his regime was largely comprised of people who were explicitly and enthusiastically Christian is beyond me; we would do well, I think, not to so enthusiastically buy into Hitler's own megalomaniac insistence that he was the Nazi state personified. That way, perhaps, we may actually learn something beyond the personal eccentricities of a mad Austrian corporal.