Addressing participants in the international Symposium "Man-Woman: Image of God.” Pope Francis describes so-called gender ideology as the “ugliest danger” of our time, because it cancels out all differences that make humanity.
Pope Francis on Friday again spoke out against gender theory describing it as an “ugly ideology of our time”, because it erases all distinctions between men and women. To ceancel this difference “is to erase humanity. Man and woman, instead, exist in a fruitful ‘tension’”, he said.
The Symposium
The remarks came as he opened his address to participants in the international Symposium “Man-Woman: Image of God. Towards an Anthropology of Vocations” held in the Vatican on March 1-2.
The Congress is organized by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect Emeritus of the Dicastery for Bishops, together with the Centre for Research and Anthropology of Vocations (CRAV) and is a follow-up to the previous 2022 Symposium dedicated to the theology of the priesthood.
Introducing his address the Pope said he still has a cold and asked his assistant Monsignor Filippo Ciampanelli to read it out for him, "so I don’t get so fatigued.”
In the prepared text the Pope reflected on the theme of the Congress which is aimed first of all at highlighting the anthropological dimension of every vocation.
The human person is a vocation
Indeed, he remarked, “the life of the human being is a vocation” which has a relational character: “I exist and live in relation to who generated me, to the reality that transcends me, to others and to the world around me, in which I am called to embrace a specific and personal mission with joy and responsibility.”
“Each one of us discovers and expresses oneself as called, as a person who realizes oneself in listening and response, sharing our being and gifts with others for the common good.”
This fundamental anthropological truth is sometimes overlooked in today’s cultural context, where human beings tend to be reduced to their mere material and primary needs. Yet, Pope Francis said , they are more than this: created by God in His own image, man and woman “carry within themselves a desire for eternity and happiness that God himself has planted in their hearts and that they are called to fulfil through a specific vocation.”
“Our being in the world is not a mere fruit of chance, but we are part of a design of love and are invited to go out of ourselves and realize it, for ourselves and for others,” the Pope said.
“We are called to happiness, to the fullness of life, to something great to which God has destined us.”
We all have a mission in Church and society
Recalling Cardinal Saint John Henry Newman’s “Meditations and Prayers” Pope Francis further remarked that not only we have all been entrusted with a mission, but ”each and every one of us is a mission.”
The Pope therefore welcomed the symposium and the studies conducted on this topic because, he said, “they spread awareness of the vocation to which every human being is called by God”, and are also useful to reflect on today’s challenges, on the ongoing anthropological crisis, and on the need to promote human and Christian vocations.
Promoting a more effective “circularity” of vocations
He also emphasized the importance of promoting “a more effective circularity” of the different types of vocations in the Church, including lay vocations, ordained ministry and consecrated life, so they “can contribute to generating hope in a world overwhelmed by death.”
“Generating this hope, placing oneself at the service of the Kingdom of God to build an open and fraternal world is a mission entrusted to every woman and man of our time,” he said.
The courage to seek God’s will
Closing his address, Pope Francis encouraged the participants in the Symposium not to shy away from risks in seeking God’s will in their work, reminding them a living faith is not an artifact in a museum:”The Holy Spirit asks us fidelity, but fidelity moves, and often leads us to take risks”, he said.
“Move forward with the courage to discern and risk seeking God's will.”
Tbh if you really think it’s not a mystery you probably haven’t really delved deep enough into it. It’s only not a mystery if you keep your thinking on the highest possible level, if you want to find out anything concrete (how exactly would a physical system lead to a conscious experience) you quickly hit a dead end, both on a philosophical level and with concrete data/models.
For example I’m entirely unsatisfied with how mainstream science handwaves the “philosophical zombie” argument, you can’t just say “it just do be like that” without having a coherent model of how it actually is like that.
Filling in the gap with “electrical signals somehow doing a consciousness” feels equally unsatisfying as filling the gap with souls and God.
I suppose? At least we have physical evidence for the electrical signals, there’s no evidence (or even room) at all for any souls or god. How could we observe the soul? Measure it? Do anything scientific with it.
I’m willing to change my mind if there’s new information that suddenly comes out but I just don’t think that’s going to happen, and I think scientists would have found the answer already; if something only exists in the abstract then it doesn’t exist in reality, does it?
You’re perhaps not observing souls but you are observing your own consciousness at every single point of your waking life, the same consciousness that doesn’t really fit into any of our physical models of the universe. “Observing” in of itself is just a process within your conscious mind, no observing ever happens outside of consciousness so it’s kinda weird to me how people can so easily handwave this away.
Well yes of course, because how could we experience or observe anything outside of our minds? Our brains are physical, the processes by which consciousness occurs are also physical, these are just the limitations we have as physical beings.
Well that’s the whole thing though, we have no idea how phenomenal consciousness really fits in a (supposedly) completely physical universe. Our current models are just mathematical descriptions of fields and particles, we have no mathematical model for “love” or the “redness of red”.
It certainly appears as if consciousness is at least partially non-physical simply due to the fact that it contains properties (i.e. qualia) not described by any of our physical models of reality, if it does somehow completely supervene on the physical nobody came even close to rigorously modelling it, the closest I’ve found is Integrated Information Theory but even that is pretty vague and comes to some pretty weird predictions where seemingly unconscious systems are actually highly conscious.
But this just isn’t true. We have an understanding of emergence, emergent properties, and emergent processes. Consciousness (including experience and qualia) are emergent properties of all that mathematical physics we understand quite well. Any time the whole “why do feel then and why am I not a philosophical zombie?” question comes up as a response to this, it’s asking a question that doesn’t have an answer. And not in the way that it’s a question that doesn’t have an answer because we haven’t discovered it yet, but a question that doesn’t actually even make sense when you consider the philosophical context.
To use another example… It’s like asking “why is there a universe?” Well, who says there even is a “why” answer to that question? If we do end up resolving the issue of how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don’t perfectly align in extreme conditions, we may well answer the question as to how there is a universe (which actually still is an unsolved problem). But again, asking “why” there is a universe is making a giant and unfounded assumption that there is a “why” or a “reason” that the universe exists when there is absolutely nothing that necessitates there being a “reason” for “why.”
The supposed hard problem of consciousness is no different. Qualia/experience is an emergent property of mathematical rules the same way that the complex and unpredictable undulation of schools of fish is an emergent property of individual fish following very simple rules of how to move relative to the fish next to them, and there being a “why” beyond that is ultimately just nonsensical. Obviously, you can give it further and separate explanations that seem to provide a “why,” like: “fish evolved to do this because those that did were more likely to reproduce, that’s why.” And that’s perfectly valid, but so too is saying “consciousness evolved this way because it was likewise beneficial to the reproduction of the systems that produced it, that’s why.” But that’s all just other angles to addressing the “how.” We have all the “how” necessary to explain consciousness, even if there are gaps here and there, just as there are gaps to every single scientific question there is. I know that may not feel satisfactory to a lot of people, but honestly, I think that’s only because of a combination of the unfortunate reductionist scientific paradigm and the resulting underappreciation for and misunderstanding of emergence as a real (scientific) phenomenon.
“Emergent properties” are just patterns in the physical world that were recognized and categorized as a distinct qualitative change by a conscious mind. The “emergence” really only happens in your mind because the patterns you observe feel qualitatively different from what appeared before so I don’t see how you can explain the mind itself with this concept alone. This happens to people arguing for physicalism a lot, they try to explain consciousness with more consciousness while completely missing the point of the discussion.
Even if you could you’re still pretty far off, mainstream science has only the promise of being able to do this.
Which rules tho? If you just say “well there’s definitely some rules somewhere but I don’t know them” you have a belief system, not a scientific theory.
I’m not asking “why is there a universe” tho, I’m asking “how does your metaphysic of choice make sense?” and I’m not getting a straight answer.
That’s another hole in physicalism IMO, if consciousness completely supervenes on the physical and thus has no direct causal efficacy on the physical world why would evolution select for it? It doesn’t really make sense for consciousness to have evolved under physicalist premises since it by definition isn’t necessary for things to keep happening as they do in the physical world.