Found this article quite interesting. Goes along with a lot of the discussions we have in here.
Interesting read. So are some of the articles mentioned below it. I’ve read about and heard Jim Wallis several times, interesting guy. An instant “success” that only took 20+ years in the making.
I found it odd that Catholicism is listed as a “strict” religion.
I guess it depends on your definition of “strict”. To many, including notably American Catholics, the unwillingness of the Church to modify its rules to some extent based upon modern conventions. Maybe to them what is confusing are the changes from the Vatican II. If switching from Latin to English was ok, why not other changes?
The language part of Catholicism is intriguing to me. One of the plusses in my eyes to Islam and Judaism is that in order (most times) to participate you have to fully awash yourself in the culture and language. You have to learn the language to participate. To me that is a “strict” viewpoint that can bring about a small but devout base. For these reasons you can find Muslims from any country, any walk of life who can meet during their pilgrimage to Mecca and easily converse (Malcolm X’s experience with this is what caused him to recant from his militant views and separationalist mindset). Maybe this is something the Catholic Church should consider reinstating.
I found some interesting references to a 1972 book “Why Conservative Churches are Growing”. And based on that this paper: http://www.glam.ac.uk/sot/doms/Research/cgrowth/Strictpaper.pdf
I however (like the cheapskate I am) can’t find the book your article references online. If you find it please let me know, it’s make for good “down time” reading at work.
I come from a long long line of Presbyterians (UCC’ers at that), so I don’t really come from the “strict” mindset. I’m more of a religious “I’m ok, you’re ok” frame of reference.
To many, including notably American Catholics, the unwillingness of the Church to modify its rules to some extent based upon modern conventions. Maybe to them what is confusing are the changes from the Vatican II. If switching from Latin to English was ok, why not other changes?
I think this thread just intersected with that other thread. Hmmm.
Let’s see, where to begin? . . . Well, in the first place, the changes implemented by Vatican II were much more extensive than simply replacing Latin in the Mass with the vernacular. That isn’t even the biggest change in the Mass, actually- it’s a whole different rite. And the changes, or course, went far beyond just the Mass.
I think you’re right, though, in that people basically look at the situation and say, if we could make those changes, why not go all the way? I think Vatican II was basically an attempt to meet the world half-way, the thinking being that the world would be thrilled with that. Turns out the world wants the Church to come the whole way. Oops.
I have to say that I’m confused by the article’s claim that Catholics have been left with the worst of “both” worlds. Really, what’s the best that can be gained by a liberalized Church? If the problem, as I understand the author to be saying, is that the Church is stuck midway between strict and permissive (couldn’t think of a better word), what benefit does anybody see in moving full-on to the permissive side of things? Has any Church thrived by doing so? Has any Church been able to give anything to its believers by doing so? Has any Church maintained real relevance in that way? Not that I know of. If a Church does that, it can only lose any semblance of cohesiveness, and is destined for irrelevancy. IMO.
I don’t perceive the Catholic Church as being overly strict. The issues that are hot buttons are more so buttons with people outside of the Catholic faith. For example, I don’t sit in the pews on Sunday and here about birth control or priests marrying. In fact, those are ancilliary issues that aren’t part of the core catechism that the church teaches. So we don’t eat meat on Fridays of lent…so we believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation where we speak our sins to a priest or only allow those who’ve gone through the sacrament to receive communion.
I had the very discussion about Vatican II with my mom last night. Those changes angered her dad so much that he went to church but did not receive communion. His reason was that alot of the “discipline” of the church was lost when Vatican II was implemented.
I view religion and faith in a way as a discipline. With anything it takes work and effort to follow doctrine that is a part of any organized belief system. Much of Catholicism is based on rutual and tradition. Those rituals and traditions reminds us and reinforce our catechism. While it may seem ritualistic and boring it is done for a reason and serves a purpose. It’s been said many times here and elsewhere that the Church needs to get up with the times and change but nothing about the bible or religion has changed since the beginning of time. If they mean that the church needs to look into priests marrying and the issue of birth control then I’ll agree…those issues need to be entertained and considered.