Thoughts on direction of the Catholic Church

[javasaurus]

I've been hearing/reading a lot of people say that they hope the new pope will lead Catholicism into the 21st century, or at least out of the 14th. Big issues include women as priests, married priests, gay rights, contraception, and abortion. But I'm not sure that I believe the church should change. Wait, don't start the flames yet! I'm not saying that I agree with the Catholic church on these issues! So what is Javasaurus talking about then? According to the Catholic church, based on a combination of history, dogma, word of God, of Jesus, etc., these things are wrong. It is not the place of the church to keep up with modern perceived morality, but to direct it, and to act as a moral rock. They should not determine what is sinful based on what mankind desires, nor on what is practical for mankind, but on their best interpretation of the will of God. For the church to change on such big issues, it will take the deep belief amongst the pope and cardinals that such changes are the will of God, not just the desires of the people. And then they have to cope with saying either, "we were wrong" or "God changed his mind."

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

And then they have to cope with saying either, "we were wrong" or "God changed his mind."

which is precisely the attitudes that have led to several splits within the episcopalian church in recent years, though they usually hit their peak when a new prayer book comes out. With the release of the '79, at least one church in every diosys suddenly became a "1928" church. Locally there is one on Seminary Rd, about 3 or 4 blocks east of the VA Theological Seminary (an Episcopalian church and the northern "seat" of the bishops when not in Richmond).

one has to look at the history of the witch trials to see just how long the process of changing dogma can take in some cases. simple ones (women priests in the Episcopal church) can change in a generation, but larger issues that supposedly are supported by biblical interpretation rather than adherance to tradition, can be much harder to affect.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

I hear what you are saying. The Catholic Church needs to be true to itself. However, the Truth that the church puts forth as TRUTH must be true according to the written word that the church states is its source.

If the Church (Catholic or otherwise) decides at some point that the [something] must be this or that, going back to what they were before that point may only be returning to the True Tradition of the church. For example, the United Methodist Church does not serve wine at communion, instead they serve grape juice following the logic that for some people, wine would be a problem (recovering alcoholics for example). If the UM Church decided to go back to wine as 'truly representing the Last Supper' I would understand that. If the Catholic Church were to go back to allowing the priesthood to have sexual relations (within the bounds of marriage maybe), that would merely be undoing the changes during the Renaissance (and would probably get a lot more of the less sexually messed up people interested in the priesthood).

I don't know much about the new pope but I hope (strongly) that he will be responsible for his flock and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as written in the bible. Taking down people who are using the church for their own gains IS a Christ-like thing to do. Being compassionate about those who make mistakes and truly want to change IS a Christ-like thing to do. Understanding the inter-play of secular life and church life IS a Christ-like thing to do (Give Ceasar what is due Caesar). What is not Christlike is turning a blind eye to the sins of the powers that be within the church, condemning people, using people, praising people who look like they did something then let the job lapse, etc..

"'Love the Lord God with all your heart and with all your soul'. This is the greatest commandment. And the second is like it 'love your neighbor as yourself' all the rest of the law, all the prophets have written is based on these first two." - Godspell by Stephen Schwartz, based on the Gospel of Matthewt

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

An interesting point. One I would agree more strongly with if I had any faith in revealed dogma anymore. As I see things, churches and religions, even those ideally inspired by divinity, are still expressions of a fundamental human need. We are always creating our own religion, as I see things. So, yes, the Church should be true to itself, but with history standing as it does cannot say that things don't or shouldn't change. The Catholic church is a master at changing things and then pretending that's how it's always been. Additional changes to suit modern needs would be more true to its nature than not changing, in some ways.

My $0.02, and no offense intended. I know I see religion a bit differently than a lot of people.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

no offence taken (by me, anyway). I meant this to start discussion, not push my viewpoint.