Hacker News Reader

Comment by imgabe | Hacker News Reader

What he's actually saying in the Reddit thread linked in the sibling comment is that the Catholic church condones slavery in some circumstances (I'd have to take his word about that, I don't know anything about church doctrine) and that insofar as the church is the expression of God's will, that makes it moral.

It's no crazier than any other religious belief if you're going to imagine some omnipotent deity just makes up whatever rules they want and they're beyond human reasoning.

I have no idea what the circumstances are in which the Church condones slavery, but it's not like the guy is arguing that we should reinstate plantations or that Epstein was a good guy who did nothing wrong or anything.

View on HN

Just to be clear, the Catholic Church condemns slavery at this time. But what I think this Bitcoin guy may be referring to is that in the past there was not always s sufficient moral understanding for people to know _why_ all forms of slavery are wrong.

Good article that explains it: https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-changing-circumstances-of-sl...

I'd encourage you not to take his word for it, these are extreme views that are not reflective of Catholics in general (and I saw at least one person in those threads pointing this out, though I didn't read the threads closely). I've met at least one Catholic who would describe his views as heretical.

I'd also encourage you to reexamine if "slavery is okay sometimes" is really equivalently "crazy" to other religious ideas (like say, "love thy neighbor"), I think that is pretty uncharitable to religious people.

He might not address Epstein, but he does argue that "heretics can be executed as long as there's due process." That is some low key religious fascism ("it's okay to execute heretics as long as we control the government first"). Most Catholics I know oppose the death penalty (they successfully lobbied to make it illegal where I live, because they felt it was incompatible with their religious convictions).

You might look more into "Traditionalist Catholicism" if you are interested. I enjoyed this short (45m) documentary. https://youtu.be/icwDF8wRgF4

The views of Catholics in general are irrelevant. The church doctrine either says something or it doesn't. He's arguing that the doctrine says that and always has.

I think taking someone's words out of context and twisting it into "this guy is pro-slavery" so you can gloat about them being robbed is just a shitty thing to do.

It doesn't "just say what it does or doesn't" is what I'm trying to tell you, there's a lot of controversy about this within the Catholic community, and his views are specifically counter to current doctrine (which he views as illegitimate). (See the edit I made when you were typing this.)

Gloating about them being robbed is shitty though.

That's not the point. There's still a difference between arguing in the abstract "my interpretation of the doctrine says this is permitted" and "I support and advocate doing this". Even the 13th Amendment permits slavery for prisoners.

It reads much more like a pedantic nerd who wants to argue the technicalities of the rules rather than someone who's just itchin' to own some slaves.

I guess? It's not a distinction with a very compelling difference. (The 13th amendment is wrong, morally speaking, to do so.)

> It reads much more like a pedantic nerd who wants to argue the technicalities of the rules rather than someone who's just itchin' to own some slaves.

I think if you understood the context better you may feel differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com