A Roman Catholic must also subscribe to a certain set of beliefs: trinity, virgin birth, life after death, purgatory, saints, miracles etc. These beliefs are laid down by the church and, as such, are without any evidence.
Well, the Roman Catholic church, like all organized religions, seems to think it has evidence in spades. That you or I don’t agree is hardly important to the church.
This seems very much like blind adherence, especially when excommunication is the penalty for lack of adherence.
It may seem like it but it’s not. I would agree that the majority of Catholic blindly adhere to these and all the other supposed mysteries of faith. Yet, the point is that blind adherence is not a requirement to be a member. In fact, technically, a member is required to consider deeply the tenets of their faith. A member can easily pursue a course of questioning any or all of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith and not be excommunicated for that questioning. There is no where within the Roman Catholic dogma where blind faith is required to be a member.
I am principally talking about so called universal revelations, as they are the only ones that would require adherence to dogma.
It works either way, since a personal revelation may, in part, go against universal revelations.
As an aside, I would also add at this point that I have been quite impressed and have quite enjoyed this discussion with you. As with the best discussion, while we obviously hold differing viewpoints, there has been a very open dialogue and I have actually learned quite a bit, both from addressing these questions, and from answering yours. It is for this reason that I came to this forum and it is always a pleasure to meet, in dialogue, an individual such as yourself. My hat, if I owned one, would be tipped to you.
They then list several specific examples. I think that essentially proves my point: the church has dogma, via "revelation", that cannot be questioned if one is to remain a RC.
You are partially correct. The Roman Catholic church may (and obviously does) reject personal revelation when considered “erroneous”. Yet you are incorrect that an individual who has had a personal revelation, which might go against universal dogma, must then either adhere or be removed from membership. The article pointed out two examples where this was the case with Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich. Both remained Roman Catholic and continue today to be held up as examples of good members. I want to say both are beatified as well.
I think this turns on the interpretation of the term "blind adherence" (BA for short). [snip]
In my view, if a person accepts some statement of fact on authority alone and that statement is not subject to the person rejecting it on insufficient evidence, that is BA.
I agree with this definition. In fact, I’ve never thought we disagreed on the meaning of BA. What I’ve disagreed with is your statement, “Boiled down to its essence, most religious systems
encourage blind obedience to dogmatic authority, and discourage questioning and letting conclusions follow the evidence.” [emphasis added]
To this point, I have shown that BA is not a requirement or even really encouraged by “most religious systems” and specifically that of the Roman Catholic church, certainly one of the most dogmatic authorities to be found within the realm of religion.
This is not to say, as I pointed out to Acleron, that blind adherence doesn’t occur, and occur in the majority of members. Only that the dogmatic authority doesn’t require BA, and that questioning of the authority is allowed of members.
I don't know. That may be changing under Herr Pope.
Could be, I wouldn’t put anything outside the scope of reality. By that I mean it could also be revealed that Jesus was an alien, and that Pope Benedict is an android planted by the CIA. I would, however, be willing to bet a sizable amount against the Roman Catholic church issuing an edict requiring blind adherence to its religious dogma.
So, wanna bet!?
