Print
Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?
by Time
Thanks to Logicel for the link.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1737323,00.html
Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?
He may not have been thinking about it at the time, but Pope Benedict, in the course of his recent U.S. visit may have dealt a knockout blow to the liberal American Catholicism that has challenged Rome since the early 1960s. He did so by speaking frankly and forcefully of his "deep shame" during his meeting with victims of the Church's sex-abuse scandal. By demonstrating that he "gets" this most visceral of issues, the pontiff may have successfully mollified a good many alienated believers — and in the process, neutralized the last great rallying point for what was once a feisty and optimistic style of progressivism.
The liberal rebellion in American Catholicism has dogged Benedict and his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "Vatican II," which overhauled much of Catholic teaching and ritual, had a revolutionary impact on the Church as a whole. It enabled people to hear the Mass in their own languages; embraced the principle of religious freedom; rejected anti-Semitism; and permitted Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity.
But Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. Rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged." They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.
Rome pushed back, and the ensuing struggle defined a movement, whose icons included peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan, feminist Sister Joan Chittister, and sociologist/author Fr. Andrew Greeley. Its perspectives were covered in The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America. Martin Sheen held down Hollywood, and the movement even boasted its own cheesy singing act: the St. Louis Jesuits. The reformers' premier membership organization was Call to Action, but their influence was felt at the highest reaches of the American Church, as sympathetic American bishops passed left-leaning statements on nuclear weapons and economic justice. Remarks Tilley, "For a couple of generations, progressivism was an [important] way to be Catholic."
Then he adds, "But I think the end of an era is here."
To some extent, liberal Catholicism has been a victim of its own success. Its positions on sex and gender issues have become commonplace in the American Church, diminishing the distinctiveness of the progressives. More importantly, they failed to transform the main body of the Church: John Paul II, a charismatic conservative, enjoyed the third-longest papacy in church history, and refused to budge on the left's demands; instead, he eventually swept away liberal bishops. The heads at Call to Action grayed, and by the late 1990s, Vatican II progressivism began to look like a self-limited Boomer moment.
Then, the movement received a monstrous reprieve. The priest sex abuse scandal implicated not only the predators, but the superiors who shielded them. John Paul remained mostly silent. A new reform group, Voice of the Faithful, arose; the old anger returned, crystallizing around the battle-cry "They just don't get it."
Benedict's visit, however, changed the dynamic. And that's a problem for progressives. Says Fr. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center whom Benedict famously removed from his previous job as editor of America, "Reform movements need an enemy to organize against. As most bishops have gotten their acts together on sex abuse, they have looked less like the enemy and more like part of the solution. Enthusiasm for reform declined. With the Pope's forthright response, it will decline even more."
Not everyone agrees. Says Voice of the Faithful spokesman John Moynihan, "That's funny; I just came from a meeting of COR [Catholic Organizations for Reform], and there were a lot of people very buoyed up. We can now say to people, 'We have made a difference, and if you stick with us we are going to make a further difference'." Adds Peter Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal, now a director of Fordham's Religion and Culture Center, "I think there is continuity in terms of the issues and the questions about whether Church structures can be altered." He notes that a social justice group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, formed just three years ago.
But the familiar progressives-versus-Vatican paradigm seems almost certain to be undone by a looming demographic tsunami. Almost everyone agrees that the "millennial generation," born in 1980 or later, while sharing liberal views on many issues, has no desire to mount the barricades. Notes Reese, "Younger Catholics don't argue with the bishops; they simply do what they want or shop for another church." And Hispanic Catholics, who may be the U.S. majority by 2020, don't see this as their battle. "I'm sure they're happy that the celebration of the Eucharist is in the vernacular," says Tilley, "but they don't have significant issues connected to Vatican II."
And so, unless Benedict contradicts in Rome what he said in New York, the Church may have reached a tipping point. This is not to say that the (overhyped) young Catholic Right will swing into lay dominance. Nor will liberal single-issue groups simply evaporate. But if they cohere again, it will be around different defining issues. "It's a new ball game," admits Steinfels. As Tilley wrote recently in Commonweal regarding his fellow theologians, "A new generation has neither the baggage nor the ballast of mine. Theirs is the future. Let's hope they remember the Council as the most important event in twentieth-century Catholicism."
Let's see.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1737323,00.html
Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?
He may not have been thinking about it at the time, but Pope Benedict, in the course of his recent U.S. visit may have dealt a knockout blow to the liberal American Catholicism that has challenged Rome since the early 1960s. He did so by speaking frankly and forcefully of his "deep shame" during his meeting with victims of the Church's sex-abuse scandal. By demonstrating that he "gets" this most visceral of issues, the pontiff may have successfully mollified a good many alienated believers — and in the process, neutralized the last great rallying point for what was once a feisty and optimistic style of progressivism.
The liberal rebellion in American Catholicism has dogged Benedict and his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "Vatican II," which overhauled much of Catholic teaching and ritual, had a revolutionary impact on the Church as a whole. It enabled people to hear the Mass in their own languages; embraced the principle of religious freedom; rejected anti-Semitism; and permitted Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity.
But Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. Rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged." They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.
Rome pushed back, and the ensuing struggle defined a movement, whose icons included peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan, feminist Sister Joan Chittister, and sociologist/author Fr. Andrew Greeley. Its perspectives were covered in The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America. Martin Sheen held down Hollywood, and the movement even boasted its own cheesy singing act: the St. Louis Jesuits. The reformers' premier membership organization was Call to Action, but their influence was felt at the highest reaches of the American Church, as sympathetic American bishops passed left-leaning statements on nuclear weapons and economic justice. Remarks Tilley, "For a couple of generations, progressivism was an [important] way to be Catholic."
Then he adds, "But I think the end of an era is here."
To some extent, liberal Catholicism has been a victim of its own success. Its positions on sex and gender issues have become commonplace in the American Church, diminishing the distinctiveness of the progressives. More importantly, they failed to transform the main body of the Church: John Paul II, a charismatic conservative, enjoyed the third-longest papacy in church history, and refused to budge on the left's demands; instead, he eventually swept away liberal bishops. The heads at Call to Action grayed, and by the late 1990s, Vatican II progressivism began to look like a self-limited Boomer moment.
Then, the movement received a monstrous reprieve. The priest sex abuse scandal implicated not only the predators, but the superiors who shielded them. John Paul remained mostly silent. A new reform group, Voice of the Faithful, arose; the old anger returned, crystallizing around the battle-cry "They just don't get it."
Benedict's visit, however, changed the dynamic. And that's a problem for progressives. Says Fr. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center whom Benedict famously removed from his previous job as editor of America, "Reform movements need an enemy to organize against. As most bishops have gotten their acts together on sex abuse, they have looked less like the enemy and more like part of the solution. Enthusiasm for reform declined. With the Pope's forthright response, it will decline even more."
Not everyone agrees. Says Voice of the Faithful spokesman John Moynihan, "That's funny; I just came from a meeting of COR [Catholic Organizations for Reform], and there were a lot of people very buoyed up. We can now say to people, 'We have made a difference, and if you stick with us we are going to make a further difference'." Adds Peter Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal, now a director of Fordham's Religion and Culture Center, "I think there is continuity in terms of the issues and the questions about whether Church structures can be altered." He notes that a social justice group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, formed just three years ago.
But the familiar progressives-versus-Vatican paradigm seems almost certain to be undone by a looming demographic tsunami. Almost everyone agrees that the "millennial generation," born in 1980 or later, while sharing liberal views on many issues, has no desire to mount the barricades. Notes Reese, "Younger Catholics don't argue with the bishops; they simply do what they want or shop for another church." And Hispanic Catholics, who may be the U.S. majority by 2020, don't see this as their battle. "I'm sure they're happy that the celebration of the Eucharist is in the vernacular," says Tilley, "but they don't have significant issues connected to Vatican II."
And so, unless Benedict contradicts in Rome what he said in New York, the Church may have reached a tipping point. This is not to say that the (overhyped) young Catholic Right will swing into lay dominance. Nor will liberal single-issue groups simply evaporate. But if they cohere again, it will be around different defining issues. "It's a new ball game," admits Steinfels. As Tilley wrote recently in Commonweal regarding his fellow theologians, "A new generation has neither the baggage nor the ballast of mine. Theirs is the future. Let's hope they remember the Council as the most important event in twentieth-century Catholicism."
Let's see.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 36 of 36 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #175843 by irate_atheist on May 6, 2008 at 6:34 am
I'm really not that interested in the opinions of a group of self-deluded, wilfully ignorant, man-fools. Other Comments by irate_atheist
3. Comment #175848 by MPhil on May 6, 2008 at 6:42 am
Ha ha ha! Indeed, Carto! Other Comments by MPhil
4. Comment #175857 by Layla Nasreddin on May 6, 2008 at 6:53 am
"Liberal" Catholicism? Define "liberal"...
On a related point,this has long been an interesting issue to me: why do "liberal" mainstream Protestant churches in America hemorrhage members, while hardcore conservative ones grow by leaps and bounds? My answer to that (from my own experience) is that a lot of people LIKE their religion to adamantly stand for "The Truth," which it insists that it and it alone has, and then, armed with this "knowledge," tell its members what God (or Allah) wants them to do.
Also, you know, if neither you nor the preachers actually believe in what they're preaching, why not just sleep in? Seems like a much better use of one's time to me! ;)
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
5. Comment #175863 by ~manic-depressive on May 6, 2008 at 7:02 am
a lot of people LIKE their religion to adamantly stand for "The Truth," which it insists that it and it alone has, and then, armed with this "knowledge," tell its members what God (or Allah) wants them to do.
Human beings crave certainty. A bad explanation is preferred over no explanation. It's all so sad...
the greatest irony is found in Jon Stewart's words, "Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion."
Other Comments by ~manic-depressive
6. Comment #175879 by EvidenceOnly on May 6, 2008 at 7:36 am
Let's see the Pope for what he really is: the CEO of the largest pedophile organization in the world.Would the head of a non-religious child care organization with thousands of pedophiles stay out of jail by simply apologizing for this child abuse?
Bastions of Dogma do not need to grow up. They should disappear!
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
7. Comment #175884 by j.mills on May 6, 2008 at 7:46 am
Limerick Summary News Service!
Liberalist Catholics decline!
See the counter-intuitive sign:
"The child abuse scare
Demonstrates that we were
Not sufficiently hard in our line!"
Other Comments by j.mills
8. Comment #175905 by BNCbright on May 6, 2008 at 8:23 am
j.mills - very nice. Althought there must be something we can do to tidy up the penultimate line..."aware", perhpas, as the final word (obviously with a reworking of the rest of the line!)
"The child abuse scare
Now makes us aware
we were far too soft in our line!"
BNC
Other Comments by BNCbright
9. Comment #175907 by HourglassMemory on May 6, 2008 at 8:25 am
by ~Manic-Depressive"Human beings crave certainty. A bad explanation is preferred over no explanation. It's all so sad... "
I think that human beings craving STABILITY would be a better way to put it.
A mind needs to have stability. Faith makes it stable. WAY too stable.
It's like you then forget what it is to have a dynamic changing mind.
It's a curious situation in which human beings find themselves.
The only thing that we seem to want, stability, is the thing that bores us the most when we acquire it. To want stability and right away only finding thrill and pleasure in change. It seems we have been put in quite a circular position.
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
10. Comment #175918 by Cartomancer on May 6, 2008 at 8:38 am
They have Brights at Brasenose? I must have misjudged the place. Seemed very murky to me last time I looked... Other Comments by Cartomancer
11. Comment #175931 by SilentMike on May 6, 2008 at 8:54 am
In It's good to know that catholicism will always be there, providing us with an endless stream of examples for the evils and the follies of both blind faith at it's stupidest, and orgenaized religion at its most corrupt state.Other Comments by SilentMike
12. Comment #175935 by Logicel on May 6, 2008 at 8:56 am
manic-depressive writes: Human beings crave certainty.______
The excellent Dr. Harriet Hall has just reviewed (fresh from my fabulous news reader) On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by the neurologist, Dr. Burton:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=103
Other Comments by Logicel
13. Comment #175940 by Geodesic17 on May 6, 2008 at 8:59 am
Is a liberal religion a slippery slope to no religion?Other Comments by Geodesic17
14. Comment #175951 by Stafford Gordon on May 6, 2008 at 9:20 am
Priests rape children because of secularism? Er, try again. Secularism causes priests to rape children! Once more. Secularists rape children because of priests! Er, nope. Priests rape children because of religion's repressive and unnatural sexual customs! Got it! So, what is the Pope talking about?He is trying to apportion blame for the crimes committed inside the community of which he is head to everyone outside of that community.
Par for the course for a politician; blame everyone else.
Mind you, he's got much posher frocks than most politicos.
Other Comments by Stafford Gordon
15. Comment #175957 by RSP on May 6, 2008 at 9:30 am
"they simply do what they want or shop for another church"Says a lot.
Other Comments by RSP
16. Comment #175959 by Spinoza on May 6, 2008 at 9:33 am
Priests rape children because of religion's repressive and unnatural sexual customs!
Actually, I don't think that's right either.
My grandmother tried that one a while back...
Think about it.
It sounds a heck of a lot like you're accusing people of becoming pedophiles because they haven't been permitted to have sex, and if they were permitted to marry/have sex, then, according to your logic, less pedophilia would occur.
That can't be right.
Priests are not raping children because they are sex-starved (otherwise a heck of a lot more husbands would be raping their childrens' playmates). Priests are raping children because the priesthood has become a safe-haven for pedophiles.
Whether religion or genes caused them to BE pedophiles is somewhat irrelevant to the moral issue, which is that the religion has not, and is not dealing with the problem appropriately.
Other Comments by Spinoza
17. Comment #175995 by CambrianExplosion on May 6, 2008 at 10:32 am
This is something I have /never/ understood. The whole point of religion is to have a community that shares your belief in something without evidence. If you differ from your community, you certainly have no evidence to backup your point. That's the nature of religion in the first place. Why bother "reforming" the church? Just start your own, or quit altogether.I don't think it's a problem that young people don't stick with it. Good on them for realizing the church doesn't represent them and getting out, rather than desperately trying to convince someone out of a strongly held opinion with no evidence.
If there really are so many liberal Catholics out there, they shouldn't have any problem forming a new religion. Why be afraid of the authority of the Pope? If you don't think he's correct in his interpretation of the religion, then that means he's already *not* speaking to *your* god. The idea for him is that he's in direct communication, so this difference of opinion means that these so-called "liberal" Catholics don't think he's really got the ear. So find someone who does (ha), start your own religion, and stop belly aching that your own religion does not represent you.
Or they could just grow a brain and join the people who are scientifically and logically sound...
Other Comments by CambrianExplosion
18. Comment #175997 by SilentMike on May 6, 2008 at 10:34 am
16. Comment #175959 by SpinozaThat isn't accurate. You see a lot of the priests didn't pick on prepubescent boys, but rather on teenagers. This isn't pedophilia per-se. These are homosexual people who's sexuality has been repressed to the degree of them becoming criminals. They didn't have any problem giving up women (and men aren't allowed anyway) so they became priests. But they had sexual urges, and the alter boys were there so...
Basically if you don't allow someone's to sexuality to develope there's gonna be trouble. The world is full of people who's view of sex has been seriously messed up.
Other Comments by SilentMike
19. Comment #176000 by hungarianelephant on May 6, 2008 at 10:38 am
16. Comment #175959 by Spinoza on May 6, 2008 at 9:33 amPriests are not raping children because they are sex-starved (otherwise a heck of a lot more husbands would be raping their childrens' playmates). Priests are raping children because the priesthood has become a safe-haven for pedophiles.
Whether religion or genes caused them to BE pedophiles is somewhat irrelevant to the moral issue, which is that the religion has not, and is not dealing with the problem appropriately.
Absolutely correct. The celibacy rule is a red herring.
The enquiry into sexual abuse by priests in the Ferns Diocese in Co. Wexford, Ireland, concluded that a number of paedophiles had joined the priesthood precisely because of the trusted access it would give them to children.
The Catholic church will never deal with this issue - and possibly couldn't even if it wanted to. Let's not forget that Ratzinger was probably the man who knew more than any other single person about what had been going on, and orchestrated the cover-up.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
20. Comment #176003 by chezzyd on May 6, 2008 at 10:41 am
Human beings crave certainty. A bad explanation is preferred over no explanation. It's all so sad...
the greatest irony is found in Jon Stewart's words, "Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion."
I think there is a massive boulder of truth in this... in fact it explains a LOT! Religion appeals to the part of us that wants to remain in a state of perpetual infantilism, to be told what to do and snuggle up to a security blanket. It then also appeals to those egomaniacs who will abuse this in order to feel 'special' i.e. by subjugating others, to be worshipped and by extension to become 'immortal'.
I've always had a bit of a problem with the notion that we all have an inbuilt morality. If that were the case how come so many people ignore it and are violent, abusive, selfish arseholes? Who is to say how any of us would react in a Lord of the Flies type situation?? I wonder if mankind evolved to throw up percentages of wolves and sheep in order to maintain some kind of balance between co-operation and conquest. Civilisation is a thin veneer - take away our comforts and what happens?
The human animal is a really fucked up one. We are animals with delusions of moral and spiritual grandeur.
Other Comments by chezzyd
21. Comment #176007 by hungarianelephant on May 6, 2008 at 10:44 am
The article doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to presuppose that the only reason for a rebellion against the Catholic hierachy is its dealings with abuse by priests. Rat says "I feel deeply ashamed, though not ashamed enough to do anything about it" and everyone says "Oh, that's alright then. Revolution's off. See you Sunday."One thing is right, though. If you don't like it, you can always shop elsewhere. Especially now that they don't have the power to burn heretics. A rebellion would be about as useful as an attempt to depose the Tesco board because you don't like their carrots.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
22. Comment #176067 by rod-the-farmer on May 6, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The Onion strikes again. The Pope tells dog about his visit to America.http://www.theonion.com/content/node/78813
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
23. Comment #176069 by Garnok on May 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Layla Nasreddin said:why do "liberal" mainstream Protestant churches in America hemorrhage members, while hardcore conservative ones grow by leaps and bounds?
Others have given answers to your question, but another reason that liberal churches are declining in membership is that for some the message that the churches give becomes so wishy- washy and stripped of any meaning they leave the congregation open to question the message (a big no- no for an insitution built on faith). Those that are more hardlined in their beliefs pick the more conservative churches, even if they might be a little uncomfortable with the church's stances on some topics and issues.
On the other hand, members that have never really given any thought about their beliefs, just always went along because they were born into it or what not, decide to find other religions or philosophies or just drop the whole thing all together. Some take up Eastern religions, like Buddhism, or New Age beliefs while others just adopt the "spiritual but not religious" mantle. There are also some that realize that there was never anything to their religious beliefs to begin with, adding to the (hopefully continuing) growing number of atheists and agnostics.
Other Comments by Garnok
24. Comment #176114 by liberalartist on May 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I think agnosticicm is the next logical step from "liberal church". So while fundamentalist congregations are growing, the overrall number of religious people declines. Eventually we will be world of atheists/agnostics and fundies. Boy doesn't that sound like fun!?
The growth of religous conservatism in the US and the growth of the hispanic population have all been good things for the Vatican. They see potential to take back what they nearly lost thanks to Vatican II. But if the catholic church thinks they are going to change peoples minds about birth control, women's roles in the church, etc., they are deluding themselves. Let them try, and lets see how many more followers say, chuck it!
Other Comments by liberalartist
25. Comment #176138 by mjwemdee on May 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm
On ploughing through this absurd article, the following three words kept coming to mind: 're-arranging' 'deckchairs' and 'Titanic'. Other Comments by mjwemdee
26. Comment #176143 by Ansu on May 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Why bother "reforming" the church? Just start your own, or quit altogether.
I will like to add something to this conversation.
Being myself from one of those countries with 98% (yes, 98) percent of the population being catholic,in a country that has being catholic from its very foundation ( although our "founding father"- just one- might have been a bit of an atheist),i can gladly say that for some Latins, catholicism is more than just a religion. It is who we are. Something similar happens with the jews, who may stop believing but the rites and such are part of their history and culture and wont quit on them just because of the religious overtones.
I considered myself catholic for 15 years, even thought i never had to take a religion course until i had to do my communion , and never after that. I was able to live under the freedom of believing what ever i wanted and going to church to read videogames magazines ( my mom actualy bribed into going in exchange for the magazine once)
There are no religion wars in Latin America, theres no hate ( as far as know) to jews or Muslims.The church spends most of his time screwing around with politics and most of our religion discussion was about how the church was helping this or that candidate and screwing around with this or that process .
They did screw all of us long time ago, in the time of the conquest. But unlike the pilgrims, Spanish did mix with the locals and the Africans and produced a mis-mash of races and cultures. Under the shadow , African and Indian religions grew until, they mixed up with catholicism, and our pagan and Christian believes are now mostly indistinguishable. The bible was seen as a dark and confusing book mostly to be translated by the church, which lead to none reading that bloody thing, which was good .
Catholics (at least the ones around here) are not like not methodists, nor pentecostals. They dont see their religion as a way to get to god, they see it as a part of themselves, and as a thing to do after they get old and got nothing better to do.
And that is thanks to the reforms. Religion doesnt get into science classes ,i dont get stoned when i say i am an atheist ,and the religion tolerance is so big that it makes me sick ( we got scientology here too... and its not the stupidest thing around... and people look bad at me when i speak badly of them) Thats because the Catholics "protected" the country from their more radicals offspring's. Here the catholic church is the lesser of all evils ( in what to concerns to the other like Christian churches floating around here hoping the church will fall) and the more reforms, the less evil it will be.
Maybe most of these liberal catholics will realize how silly their belief are if confronted, but the fun thing is that, they never are. No terrorism, no religious persecution, no kids dying because their parents didn't go to a doctor because they were praying , no death for refusing blood transfers, evolution told by priests, Just politics and the church screwing around with it. Scandals are because of the church, never the religion. Theres never a real reason to think religion is bad, Just the damn church.
I myself never had anything against religion until I meet the Jehova Witness. They managed to convince me they were more Christians that us, but it didnt yield the results they expected:
So "this" is real christianism? I said, well, then i am an atheist. I am not their only convert to atheism, by the way. Most of the atheists I know -two or three-( 98% remember?) is either because of them or because of the pentecostals. People angry with the catholic just dont go to church.
It was because of them that I understand for the first time in my life, how evil could religion be.
Most people are unhappy with the church resolutions ,and long for a reform. They seriously believe there could be a catholicism that could include gays, aloud euthanasia and birth control, and only those "damn priest" are avoiding it from happening. They dont want to abandon catholicism. is their culture, is who they are. They only hope their religion becomes what they want to become.
And yes, i believe they have done horrible things, specially here. And i dream of the day they are gone as well. But i rather have a confused catholic trying to apologize for the killing of Indians by blaming the church that a Adventist telling me how bad is the church is and mean- while calling to bring death to the non believers and bring forth the apocalypse by declaring war to Colombia.
All religions may be bad, but if so, its obvious that some are worse than others. Reforms is what makes the difference ( or just being founded in Asia... what was in Mesopotamia water that made people go nuts?)
Other Comments by Ansu
27. Comment #176160 by windweaver on May 6, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Here's what the Catholic Church has been up to in my neck of the woods (Queensland, Australia) lately.
Exorcisms In Big Demand
February 17, 2008 12:00am
THE Catholic Church has revealed how growing interest in satanism and the occult has led to a rise in exorcisms across Queensland.
One priest, who asked not to be named for fear of "reprisals", said he was carrying out at least one exorcism a fortnight.
More requests for exorcisms came from the Gold Coast than anywhere else.
An exorcism involves holy water, sacrament and Bible reading and can go on for many hours, the priest said. Linda Blair made the subject famous in the 1973 film, The Exorcist.
"Being possessed by a demon is terrifying in one's mental and emotional life," he said. "Some of these manifestations are extremely powerful, causing people to be plagued by disturbances. They hear voices and see hideous creatures in their sleep.
"There has been a recruitment of pagan practices, and it's sheer poison.
"The Gold Coast is not good at all. I do far more exorcisms there than Brisbane."
The Catholic Church has vowed to "fight the devil head-on" by training hundreds of priests as exorcists. Bishop Brian Finnigan, acting head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane, said it was important for the church to carry out exorcisms.
"People need to be freed of that burden," he said.
Father Gabriele Amorth, 82, the Pope's Exorcist-in-Chief, announced the initiative recently amid church concerns about an increase in people dabbling in the occult. Under plans being considered, each bishop would have a group of priests in his diocese who were specially trained in exorcism.
Father Amorth said: "Too many bishops are not taking this seriously and are not delegating their priests in the fight against the devil. You have to hunt high and low for a proper, trained exorcist."
Queensland Catholic priests can carry out exorcisms only if they have been authorised by an archbishop.
The priest source, who is based in Brisbane, is the only one permitted to do exorcisms in the state. He said he had travelled to Rockhampton, Cairns, Townsville and Toowoomba to save people.
"We are not very plentiful and certainly need more of us to cope with the big occult following that is emerging today," he said.
"It's frightening what can happen when you invite entities into your life which are not meant to be part of God's world."
He said one woman he had met had been plagued by demonic manifestations since taking part in a playground witch game as a child.
Other Comments by windweaver
28. Comment #176170 by Damien White on May 6, 2008 at 6:53 pm
windweaver, it's not just the catholics, and it's not just Queensland. I know someone who was a regular member of the Salvation Army Church here in Adelaide who got asked to stay behind after a service, then found that they were going to attempt an exorcism upon him. He got out and complained to the Captain (the head of the congregation) who privately denounced the practice, yet no censure was ever placed on the cabal of members who had attempted the rite.Other Comments by Damien White
29. Comment #176221 by jonjermey on May 7, 2008 at 12:24 am
Some interesting comments, but aren't they rather wasted on the article? 'Liberal Catholics might decline. Or not.' No mention of homosexuality, abortion, or the ageing priesthood (there's a reason why all these exorcists are in their 80s) and even then wishful thinking couldn't squeeze a positive conclusion out of it.Other Comments by jonjermey
30. Comment #176250 by BNCbright on May 7, 2008 at 2:36 am
Cartomancer - there are a few of us, although many people aren't all that vocal about it - at least not as vocal as the Supers, who have quite a following at the chapel. When were you last there?
Other Comments by BNCbright
31. Comment #176263 by Duff on May 7, 2008 at 3:25 am
I am really, really, really impressed that the popester was deeply shamed by the pedophilia mess in the US! I am, really, I am. Two words "deep shame" and he thinks that is enough and he can put the whole subject to rest and get on with the task of whipping the church into shape and taking it back into a more 9th century outlook.Typical religious weaselistics.
Other Comments by Duff
32. Comment #176303 by CambrianExplosion on May 7, 2008 at 6:43 am
Ansu, thanks for the detailed response. I hear what you're saying. Since you know how many modern Jews are secular, don't you think you would have the power to become a secular Catholic, much in the same way? That's all I'm talking about - if the church doesn't match your beliefs, find something that does. That may include a lot of what you already experience. In my eye, the only thing really holding Catholics together is the view that the Pope is *the one* with the authority. Remove that from the picture, and you can copy the Catholics in every way except the ways you want and be satisfied.And congratulations on rising above in such extreme religiosity. I don't know how atheistic I would be had I been pressured into religion as a child - my parents openly let me decide for myself, despite my mother being a fairly frothy Lutheran.
Other Comments by CambrianExplosion
33. Comment #176360 by ttheobald on May 7, 2008 at 7:52 am
Okay, let's pause a moment on the whole pedophilia thing and take a step back. Do you all seriously believe this is confined to just boys, and do you seriously believe that this is confined to just the Catholic church? Granted, this organization is certainly the oldest, and as such habits such as these are going to be more firmly entrenched.
But this is about power, child-sex is just the most grotesque abuse of it. I'm quite certain that for centuries, the Church looked the other way while its priests would commit these crimes. After all, they view themselves as shepherds - and in addition to fleecing their flock, on occasion a lamb must be taken.
When a group of people vests power in an individual, they open the door for an abuse of trust - and in the case of priests/preachers, that power is one of the most absolute they can imagine. The preacher is, quite literally, the mouthpiece of their god. That this should attract sleazebags or corrupt otherwise well-meaning individuals should come as no surprise. The nexus of the public issue does find itself in Catholicism, of course, and it's likely more common there - the sexual repression of the priesthood has to find an outlet somewhere, and combining that with their congregation's granted power and the sense of entitlement as the shepherd results in a "perfect storm" of abuse.
What's the solution here? There isn't one in our lifetimes. Unless the Church actually *does* something instead of simply "expressing shame" at the events, the only solution to this is to put an end to the church. The only way to do that is with continued ridicule, and reminding Catholics that although Benedict was ashamed, he never actually did a damn thing to fix the problem. Since we're never going to get a law passed to boot them (although a law to tax them might help), I really see continued ridicule the only option.
T
Other Comments by ttheobald
34. Comment #176448 by liberalartist on May 7, 2008 at 11:14 am
I work at a Jesuit college and see firsthand the reverence that is shown to priests and how they view themselves in a superior way. The catholic church says that its followers must confess to a priest, rather than directly to god. This puts the priest between god and follower, so the priest is "closer" to god, therefore the priest is a superior authority figure. This gives them power over their followers and power corrupts, everywhere. That corruption takes the form of politics, child rape, greed, etc....
Why do you think they are supposed to be called "father"?
Other Comments by liberalartist
35. Comment #176461 by konquererz on May 7, 2008 at 11:42 am
This is a good thing. They even mentioned that the younger generation is just doing what ever they want any way. If this trend continues, the old fundamentalist power of the catholic church will simply fade away or be ignored. Reform the church? Screw that, do what ever the hell you want, it will ultimately remove power from the church that refuses to give into reality. In the end, this helps the church step away from itself. It will no longer be worthy of reforming from the inside, people will just leave. Other Comments by konquererz
36. Comment #177515 by ianmac66 on May 9, 2008 at 8:11 am
My wife, a Catholic by birth, told me of her fear of the preist during her schooldays. He had absolute power over family life.My wife had the good fortune to see later in life that there was nothing to fear and is no longer a practising Catholic.Her brother on the other hand, is a devout Catholic and passes on this fear to his family. If they miss going to mass for any reason,he wants to know why. And they are adults with teenage children of their own. This to me is indoctrination, which has been the aim of the Catholic church since its early days. It is comforting to know that Rome is losing its power over people because of falling attendances, plus a serious shortage of preists,with very few men wanting to become preists.The church only exists because of faith and belief. Faith, to accept without question. Belief, to accept without knowledge. Fortunately,more people are now asking questions. One day the church may implode, what with all the sex scandels and corruption.Other Comments by ianmac66
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Seneca the Younger
"With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns."
Richard Dawkins
"To enslave a man, then dope him to make him content! Do you call THAT a solace? . . . The honest fact is that the greatest hindrance to the progress of the Negro is that same dope that was shot into him during slavery. . . . The slogan of the Negro devotee is: Take the world but give me Jesus, and the white man strikes an eager bargain with him. . . . Another fact — there are far too many Negro preachers. Religion is the most fruitful medium for exploiting this already exploited group. As I said, the majority of the sharpers, who among the whites would go into other fields, go, in this case, to the ministry."
Joel Augustus Rogers
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delos B. McKown
"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #175835 by Cartomancer on May 6, 2008 at 6:20 am
Other Comments by Cartomancer