You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
TakenusernameA on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Its an outright error, actually, religious tolerance (which is religious indifrentism in practice) was formally condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
In fact, religious pluralism is by definition retarded, since 99% of religions (especially Atheism) say the other 99% of religions are false and their precepts are sinful. Therefore it is a logical inconsistency to even believe religious co-existence and "ecumenism" are possible unless no one actually practices their faith. The only reason people believe religious indifferentism is because it *feels* good to pretend that we can all get along. Its all feeling based, theres absolutely zero rationality in it.
Be careful with your language here. The Syllabus of Errors condemns religious indifferentism and religious liberty. Religious tolerance, on the other hand, which means tolerating those who practice false religions, is actually consistent with Church teaching. For example, Sicut Judaeis Non says we must tolerate the Jews practicing their false religion, and we are not allowed to forcibly convert them into Catholicism. Similarly, we cannot forcibly convert anyone of any false religion. It may seem like I am nitpicking here, and apologies for that, but this is my first article in my 3 article series on religious indifferentism, religious liberty, and religious tolerance, and they are 3 distinct things.
In fact, religious pluralism is by definition retarded, since 99% of religions (especially Atheism) say the other 99% of religions are false and their precepts are sinful. Therefore it is a logical inconsistency to even believe religious co-existence and "ecumenism" are possible unless no one actually practices their faith. The only reason people believe religious indifferentism is because it *feels* good to pretend that we can all get along. Its all feeling based, theres absolutely zero rationality in it.