No, it just puts him in the same philosophical camp as most of the civilized world, in that you should be punished for deliberately insulting someone.
I'm not sure what "civilized world" you live in, but I have no expectation of being just in striking someone for an insult, regardless of the context. When I encounter ideas and opinions I dislike, I attack them with ideas and words, not fists and weapons.
Would it really feel emotions? Pain, rage, joy, fear, ennui? Or is it just mimicking them?
Why should we assume that anything is "really" feeling emotions? What is the difference between "really feeling" something and "mimicking feeling" something? You have a lot of assumptions flying there.
If we had some objective means of determining the morality of something, we could have a scientific theory of ethics and morals.
And if the Catholic church made no formal claims about anything physical, this would be a valid critique. It is not. The church makes claims about evolutionary history(see Humani Generis, the Catechism, etc), miracles(see virtually any beatification process), mental illness(see any "possession" case), decay(see the silliness about incorruptible bodies), etc. This is ignoring such silliness as transubstantiation("this process is physical, but can't be detected pretty much by meaningless distinctions about substance and accident").
The Catholic church clearly uses the scientific method when it comes to natural events.
And you miss the point. The church STARTS by asserting that a whole host of events, both historical and on-going, are not natural events. Those events are ignored in terms of the scientific method.
And they often only pay lip service to claims of scientific evaluation. It doesn't take much digging around in the miracle claims for beatification, things like eucharistic miracles and the ever present Marian visitations(just for a few random examples) to see that a lot of "evidence" is just hand-waving over dubious claims.
You use the scientific method when you want to prove or disprove natural events or processes. I don't see why you'd use it to determine if X belief is heretical to Catholicism.
Hmm, all of those papal encyclicals, catechisms and other teachings are obviously out of date, then, since they often make claims about physical processes which are very much in the area of scientific investigation. You should mention this to your bishop, so he can pass it on.
They use it when studying the stars, biology, etc.
Ah, that's why they have jettisoned the idea of a single couple as the genesis of the whole human race as it's scientifically untenable. Oh, wait, they didn't. That's defined in Humani Generis:
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
So, no, a basic fact of human evolution is ignored because of its theological implications. That's not a scientific viewpoint.
Granted they may not be AS thorough and not seek to find a natural explanation for one of those events once they've exhausted what modern science can tell us.
They don't even go that far. Hell, they've even regressed in modern times, since JPII gutted the office of the Promotor fide(better known as the Devil's Advocate). It wasn't rigorous before; now it's a rubber stamp. And don't get me started on exorcisms.
I was a Catholic and active in apologetics for many years. This nonsense was a large part of what made believing in that church an untenable position.
I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine
The RCC likes to pretend that it accepts evolution. But it puts restrictions on the events(such as insisting on a single couple being the start of the human race) in such ways that it is really incompatible with science. It's just a dodge.
Miracles aren't magic, they are occurrences with incredibly low probabilities
Well, you should explain to all of your miracle-believing friends that they are completely wrong.
The bible doesn't contradict science, although many religious people unfortunately do.
By your own logic, the bible is riddled with errors, as it supposedly documents MANY impossible, not improbable, events. It takes an almost completely figurative reading of the bible to come up with the idea that it's not contradicting science.
It's only useful as an argument against specific Christians who have previously invoked the Old Testament and I don't consider "The Bible says..." to be invoking the Old Testament.
In other words, it's only useful against the vast majority of Christianst. If you've studied Christianity and haven't realized that, you might want to dig a bit deeper.
The Catholic Church canonized a Bible to contain many of their beliefs.
Yup, it's a tight bit of circular logic that apologists like Keating attempt to ignore by making silly claims about a "lawful spiral" and other such nonsense.
Oh, you mean the modern scientific method that the Catholic Church basically wrote the book on how to do?
That's some specious reasoning, there. Of course Catholics were involved with the development of science. But it certainly wasn't a church function.
That being said, I think that the OP was not being clear. It is not that the pope doesn't accept the scientific method and reasoning in general. It's just that he uses compartmentalized thinking to avoid applying those principles to certain cherished beliefs. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is fairly common, even among those who understand science and skepticism, and it's not limited to religious thought.
Of course, that's going to require you to actually put fourth a little effort: Read the Bible.
Been there, done that. It's a fairy tale with no more validity than any other religion. Special pleading for your favorite deity is a fallacy. Waving hands and whispering "mystery" is silly.
Don't lay the blame solely on Christianity.
I didn't. I said that Christianity was instrumental in creating the cultural climate which enabled Hitler to scapegoat the Jews by tapping into existing prejudice. The fact that he also abused others has zero bearing on these facts.