Is the CCC official church doctrine?

[DebChris]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

I strongly believe in technology, but not earthly science. I believe our technology comes from an upper world. .

Technology is by definition applied science.
Scientists knew how electricity worked before the invention of the light bulb.
Are there ethical questions regarding how science might be used? That becomes a different question. Knowledge can be used for both good and evil. Yet scripture tells us that knowledge is from God, as is wisdom.
One of the intercessory prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours includes the phrase, "Source of our Science." It will take me a while to find specifically which day and week this can be found in the Psalter.

Originally Posted by Mintaka

The Book of Wisdom, Chapter 7, Verses 16-22:
"For in His Hand are both we and our words, and all wisdom, and the knowledge and skill of works. For He hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements, the beginning, and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the dispositions of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and rage of wild beasts, the force of winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such things as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me. For in her is the spirit of understanding...."

Technology is "the knowledge and skill of works." It is a gift of God when properly used, as all things in Creation are. He allows us to work it out with experimentation and creativity; but it comes from Him.

Likewise, in the Book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, we learn about God's gift of medicine and doctors and their technologies: (Sirach 38:1-14)

"Honour the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the Most High hath created him. For all healing is from God, and he shall receive gifts of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be praised. The Most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them. Was not bitter water made sweet with wood? The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the Most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honoured in his wonders. By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shall make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end. For the peace of God is over all the face of the earth.

"My son, in thy sickness neglect not thyself, but pray to the Lord, and he shall heal thee.Turn away from sin and order thy hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all offence. Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour, and make a fat offering, and then give place to the physician. For the Lord created him: and let him not depart from thee, for his works are necessary. For there is a time when thou must fall into their hands: And they shall beseech the Lord, that he would prosper what they give for ease and remedy, for their conversion."

[jschutzm]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

Earthly science is a scam!

You do realize that Science developed OUT of the Christian faith, particularly it can be traced back to Catholic Philosophers who sought to link what they believed to what they observed. They simply realized that if what they believed was true..they should be able to find SOME support for it in nature. Google Sir Roger Bacon and Thomas Acquainas. They are regarded as very early fathers of the Scientific method.

The Father or Genetics - a Catholic monk by the name of Gregory Mendel
The first to propose the Big Bang - a Priest by the name Georges Le Maitre

All of those stemmed from merely observing the world and making logical deductions and through that. discovering how God's world worked.

One can argue that the origin of Science is rooted in Theism.

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

..... I must say that I'm a professional researcher in psychology and I see all the fraud and corruption in this research. I believe that this fraud is rampant and invalidates earthy 'science.'

So you believe something, broadly, which you can not prove, and so condemn an entire branch of study on that basis, based on what you have personally seen.

Similar to the type of generalizations that Racists make. Condemning an entire group, it would seem, based on your personal experience with a minority.

I have no doubt that there are frauds, pressure to get results. Pressure to uphold the status quo and prove that previous conclusions were right. Even to get the results that your benefactor or funding source would like you to attain.

I have no doubt. But we must separate the abusers from the concepts or principles of Science and from those who DO do valid work.

For instance.. my mom believes that EVERY person who works for an Insurance company.. has anything to do with the Real Estate industry, from Bank clerks, to Realtors etc. to anyone in the media, to anyone in the health industry, AND Politicas are all crooks and out to steal her money. - Every single one of them.

And she has a list of offenses, both personal, second hand and through the news (the media which she doesn't trust) to prove that she is right and that I can't trust anyone.


When you condemn "earthly science" and don't define precisely what you mean and ellude to some knowledge of fraud, you start to sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist.

Just letting ya know how you might be coming across based on some posters responses.

[Robert Sock]

I'm really trying to convey my own personal beliefs which are related to the CCC.

By earthly science I mean that science that flows from research universities. Am I sinning by holding such a view.

By upper world I mean to imply hidden worlds that are far more advanced than we are. This is consistent with the Jewish belief that there are multiple worlds with ours as the absolute lowest!

Yes, I guess I am presenting a 'conspiracy' theory, but they do reflect my deepest beliefs. I deeply believe that humans have only been around for less than 6000 years.

Again, these are deep beliefs of mine that were there before the CCC was published.

[1ke]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

I'm really trying to convey my own personal beliefs which are related to the CCC.

Where your "personal beliefs" conflict with Church doctrine, you are obligated to conform to the Church.

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

By earthly science I mean that science that flows from research universities. Am I sinning by holding such a view.

If it is not a matter of faith or morals you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, and that does not conflict with Church teaching.

It will certainly not garner you any credibility with people beyond the age of 8, but you can believe it if you want to.

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

By upper world I mean to imply hidden worlds that are far more advanced than we are. This is consistent with the Jewish belief that there are multiple worlds with ours as the absolute lowest!

That is not compatible with Church teaching. Unless you mean the angelic choirs, which are not really hidden worlds, since the angels are in Heaven.

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

Yes, I guess I am presenting a 'conspiracy' theory, but they do reflect my deepest beliefs. I deeply believe that humans have only been around for less than 6000 years.

Knock yourself out, Robert. Don't expect most Catholics to support you in that theory. The Church does not teach science. But the Church certainly acknowledges both scientific truths and theories when they do not conflict with faith or morals.

The Church has no teaching on the age of humans. She does, however, teach that the first ten chapters of Genesis have multiple levels of the senses of scripture, allegorical for example, they are especially not considered literal science.

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

Again, these are deep beliefs of mine that were there before the CCC was published.

The Church has no doctrinal teaching on the age of the earth.

HOWEVER, the Church certainly does teach that faith and reason do not conflict and the Church would supports science and scientific theory. We are rational being who can observe the world around us and derive scientific principles from it.

You can choose not to believe in, say, the law of gravity despite all the scientific evidence but jumping off a building could pretty well be termed a sin against the virtue of prudence.

I mean we are not to be incredulous in these matters.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

I'm really trying to convey my own personal beliefs which are related to the CCC.

By earthly science I mean that science that flows from research universities. Am I sinning by holding such a view.

By upper world I mean to imply hidden worlds that are far more advanced than we are. This is consistent with the Jewish belief that there are multiple worlds with ours as the absolute lowest!
Yes, I guess I am presenting a 'conspiracy' theory, but they do reflect my deepest beliefs. I deeply believe that humans have only been around for less than 6000 years.

Again, these are deep beliefs of mine that were there before the CCC was published.

It sounds rather like a multiverse theory to me. Such theories are speculative and in fact more easily entertained by those in the secular sciences, than by the Church, which I don't believe would give it any support.

[Robert Sock]

Originally Posted by JimG

It sounds rather like a multiverse theory to me. Such theories are speculative and in fact more easily entertained by those in the secular sciences, than by the Church, which I don't believe would give it any support.

Funny, I just ran this by my Jewish psychologist and she was fine with it. I think it's a matter of perspective.

[thistle]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

Mortal Sin is what I get for being anti-science? It's not fair. People who really think about things are always at risk for committing this type of mortal sin. Earthly science is a scam! But I can counter that with the belief that science in the upper world is true and just. Did I sin here? I must say that I'm a professional researcher in psychology and I see all the fraud and corruption in this research. I believe that this fraud is rampant and invalidates earthy 'science.'

Mortal sin is what you commit when you reject any Church teachings.

[JimG]

I probably am not understanding just what it is you mean. You said you believe in technology but not earthly science. Later you said that earthly science is what comes out of research universities.

But not all science comes out of universities. Not even all basic science. In fact it was the Catholic Church that first invented universities. And there's no essential distinction between science and technology, although one might consider technology to be applied science. And if by an "upper world," you mean Apple Inc, and Microsoft, that's one thing, but you seem to have something more metaphysical in mind.

The Church recognizes the material world and the spiritual world, but it doesn't posit a layering of spiritual worlds over and above the human world. It recognizes human, angels, and God. It also says that there can be no contradiction between scientific knowledge and theological knowledge.

The angels have infused knowledge, not manknd. So how do we get science knowledge out of an 'upper world?'

[Robert Sock]

How did our society evolve over the past 150 years without God and an upper world?

Take notice of the great societal changes that took place over the past 150 years. Mass produced electricity, cars, planes, computers, cell phones and large cities across the world. Imagine how society itself could have just meshed together to produce itself. How could these changes occur without true social engineering from God and an upper world? Take Iraq for example, it’s not really a war of religion or anything else, but the effects of social engineering in progress. Everything is in God’s hands, and thus, everything just falls into place to produce a larger picture. As Saint Paul writes: In everything, God works for good.

Next, ask if you have the innate wit to mass produce simple boxes of toothpicks? Do you think a dozen top university professors could develop an effective method on their own? I doubt it very much! There would probably be more arguing than anything else. Now, consider our mass producing light bulbs, computer chips, cell phones and everything else found in our society today. Again, do any of us have the innate wit to figure out how to mass produce these things? Indeed, there must be a God and an upper world of existence that is capable of producing and advancing the technology in our world today.

Meditate and contemplate these things! Open your eyes see the lies right in front of you!

[Robert Sock]

...vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? ... What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already, in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after.
-ECCLESIASTES, Versus 1:2-3, 9-11

[thistle]

I would like to know which specific teachings you reject. Up to now you have simply made vague generalisations.
Give us the CCC paragraph numbers for the teachings you object to.

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

Is the CCC official church doctrine that we must accept as true, or is the CCC just unofficial doctrine that we may disagree with? .

You should consider the CCC as official doctrine and accept it as true. My goodness, did you even bother to read John Paul's intro:
"With today's promulgation of ...the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as...a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

For example, the CCC is pro-science, whereas I'm anti-science

The Church is pro-truth. Science is a valid means of achieving particular truths relating to the created world. It is in the sense that science is a term describing the organized use of our God-given intellectual capabilities to arrive at a knowledge of God's creation and thereby know God more completely that the Church is "pro-science". I'm confident most people believe that the truth is worth knowing and that science can reveal certain truths and are therefore pro-science. I'm not sure what your gripe with science is but I'd be willing to bet it's not actually with science per se, but with the scientific community or with the abuse of science.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

How did our society evolve over the past 150 years without God and an upper world?

Take notice of the great societal changes that took place over the past 150 years. Mass produced electricity, cars, planes, computers, cell phones and large cities across the world. Imagine how society itself could have just meshed together to produce itself. How could these changes occur without true social engineering from God and an upper world? Take Iraq for example, it’s not really a war of religion or anything else, but the effects of social engineering in progress. Everything is in God’s hands, and thus, everything just falls into place to produce a larger picture. As Saint Paul writes: In everything, God works for good.

Next, ask if you have the innate wit to mass produce simple boxes of toothpicks? Do you think a dozen top university professors could develop an effective method on their own? I doubt it very much! There would probably be more arguing than anything else. Now, consider our mass producing light bulbs, computer chips, cell phones and everything else found in our society today. Again, do any of us have the innate wit to figure out how to mass produce these things? Indeed, there must be a God and an upper world of existence that is capable of producing and advancing the technology in our world today.

Meditate and contemplate these things! Open your eyes see the lies right in front of you!

Technology doesn’t just emerge full blown. It is invented piece by piece—by human beings. Henry Ford started out by having teams build cars from one location, with parts being brought to them as they went along. Later, he developed a moving production line where the workers stayed in place while the autos moved. No mystery there.

Mass produced electricity also did not emerge all at once. Edison thought direct current was the way to do it. His first generating station produced 110 volts DC for 59 people living in Manhattan. But AC turned out to be easier to distribute, and it won out. There was no magic involved in the continued development of generating stations. Also no university professsors.

One technology can build on another. Photographic technology helps in the manufacture of circuit boards. I don’t see ‘upper world’ involvement in any of this.

Yes, everything is in God’s hands, but it always has been, regardless of the degree of development of science or technology.

[TypesAndShadows]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock

Next, ask if you have the innate wit to mass produce simple boxes of toothpicks? Do you think a dozen top university professors could develop an effective method on their own?

Yes, I do. I was trained as a chemical engineer, and I do know how I'd do it. I wouldn't use a team of "a dozen top university professors": I'd put together a team of scientists and engineers. I might need a good materials scientist (which can be considered a branch of chemistry) to advise on the production of the little boxes and the glue for the labels. I'd need to pick appropriately trained individuals (technicians and engineers) to design and make the machines. If I wanted an automated system, I would need the help of people who design those because sadly that was never my strong point, but there are other chemical engineers who could do that bit themselves. I would design the overall process, and integrate systems where possible for maximum efficiency.

Nobody is saying that an individual can discover the whole of modern science and technology from scratch themselves, even as a group. It is cumulative: any work someone like me does into surface tension and bubble formation, for example, builds on work done by generations of scientists before us (Joseph Plateau for one, a Catholic, did wonderful work on soap films after he went blind) and on more recent work, and relies on collaboration. But I can reproduce much of the work, and understand it, and use it to produce useful things. I can use recent theories of non-electrostatic properties of ions to tweak a mixture so that it foams more or less, whichever is most useful for the process in question.

I can use physical models, using science, to predict how different particles settle in a particular fluid, and from that design a settling tank for effluent as part of a process that cleans your sewage. Of course all wisdom comes from God, but that doesn't mean science isn't real. The level of conspiracy required for your theory, given that it is entirely possible to map out every stage of the process from research science to working technology, would require a significant proportion of the population to be in on it.

I guess, as a psychologist, you didn't have to learn much actual science, let alone spend any time in industry learning how theory becomes practice. Are you also, perhaps, fairly young, and so only exposed to more recent technology that you cannot take to pieces, see how it works, and put it back together? Did you ever make your own circuits at school? Did you make simple motors? Did you ever make your own device for listening to vinyl records? There are all sorts of simple applied science experiments you can do, that bridge the gap between science and technology.

That psychology is still not really a full science doesn't mean other areas are just pretending.

[1ke]

Still waiting for a coherent response from th OP with CCC paragraphs that he "disagrees" with.