I like Catholics and there are some awesome church leader, I just don't understand the huge disconnect between the lay Catholic and the leadership/institution.
For instance, you aren't Catholic according to this Cardinal,
"It's impossible to consider oneself a Catholic if that person in one way or another recognizes same-sex marriage as a right," said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna.
Just a critique, "the rank and file who sit in the pews" I think is a misnomer, its the Catholics not in the pew.
12 comments:
Unfortunately the Catholic Church is not a democracy - it's leaderships and doctrine are not determined by the rank and file. Another issue I see, I am assuming that pole was conducted on American Catholics. Since the Catholic Church is worldwide rather than solely based in the United States, I wonder whether the same percentages who support gay marriage exist if you expand the pole. Although the opinions of American Catholics are important, if the Church is take into account the opinions of its rank and file, I assume it must do so across the entire spectrum.
I'm not sure what the Catholic Church is. In the long run, everything is a democracy. As Myk has said many times, and I'm sure he could provide a quote or two from a famous Church writer, one of the nice things about the Catholic Church is that it has such a huge umbrella encompassing many beliefs. Unfortunately, the papacy and leadership does seem to be (in my humble opinion) far afield at present from the teachings of the one called Jesus.
Oh, and I love the perception of Pete's comment that "'the rank and file who sit in the pews' I think is a misnomer".
A few points. One, Pete, is that your chart is last year's chart. As we well know, views about gays and lesbians and same sex marriage are changing fairly rapidly.
But more to the point -- and I'm speaking to Ted as well here -- who says that some cardinal gets to define who is a Catholic? Why does he get any more say than anybody else?
The irony here is that it's the same sort of thinking that concludes that marriage was defined in outer space somewhere and that any fooling with this definition will result in the unraveling of the universe that is also behind the idea that being a Catholic is a fixed unchangeable thing. As my son, Tom, points out (having read Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years), Catholicism has changed so dramatically over time that it has become virtually unrecognizable from one age to another.
So, we need to shed the idea that Catholicism has some fixed place in the cosmic order and focus more on the "development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience." I'm suggesting that, based on my human experience, Catholicm has shifted to support same-sex marriage, despite what a few self-appointed church leaders might say.
While I agree with Myk (although for all its changes and development, the Catholic Church - and I don't necessarily mean the Catholic faith here - has always seemed a bit top heavy), I still wonder about the support of same-sex marriage outside the United States within the Church. I have always been under the impression (and I think it's based on something I read once, but who knows), that Catholics in the United States were more liberal than those abroad, and Protestants were always more liberal abroad than they were in the United States. I'm curious to know if 50+% of Catholics in the United States support same-sex marriage, whether it a far different percentage world wide. My guess would be yes, but I don't know.
You are correct and the conservatism of the 'third world' areas of the church, namely Africa and South America has been given as the reason for the conservative leadership. Despite the appearance of "not a democracy", the leadership understands the areas of growth for the Church and is very careful not to antagonize those "rank and file" who actually do sit in the pews.
Argentina, 92% Catholic (though only 20% practicing) passed gay-marriage with 70% of the population approval. Their Constitution requires the government to economically support Catholicism. Argentina Catholic Church was against the measure. Spain (80% Catholic) passed with 66% of the population support. Even against John Paul and Benedict's opposition. Portugal (Catholic) passed it even though Benedict said that the law was "insidious and dangerous"
Other Catholic countries with Civil Unions/partnership rights, Ireland, Brazil, France, Germany etc.
American Catholics shouldn't pat themselves on the back for being progressive.
Myk, my polls are a year old but my point wasn't contingent on the rate of changing opinions of gay marriage but two separate points, one, the fact that Catholic's are unhappy with the leadership compared to other religions (a good thing to be critical but representative of a disconnect) and two, those who do not attend Church are more progressive. As the second poll indicates, could the continuous slide from 75% US attendance in 1955 to 45% in 2003 in the US maybe the reason for the changing gay support. People loosely defining themselves as Catholic (not practicing in attendance, Practicing Catholics, France 12% Italy less than half Spain 30%) is changing the opinion and not that the Church is actually fundamentally changing for the better or is changing as a result of the older hardcore (regular attending) Catholic generation are becoming the minority.
The lack of leadership/institutional change maybe the reason of the diminish relevance of "institutional Catholicism,(Mass/Priests)" in the younger generation. In the 2 thousand years Christianity has changed immensely but I doubt in those 2 millenniums did the institutions ever face the attendance rates in the last 50 years. Catholicism will change with the population, will the Mass/leaders/structure change with it or only be relevant to the ever dwindling hardcore minority?
Pete, I pretty much agree with everything you say: There is a disconnect between church leadership and the unwashed Catholic masses. I also basically agree that as the frequency of church attendance increases so does slavish adherence to Church doctrine. But that doesn't stop me from wondering if support for same sex marriage has perhaps increased among more regular church-goers over the past year. Its increasing among every other group.
And, yes, anecdotally, I have noticed that the number of reasonable people at church seem to be dwindling while the percentage of fascists is on the rise.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Yeah, I agree, I believe that it has increased among regular church goers. As the issue gets more exposure and people are educated about the issue. Also, Catholic attendance decrease rate does not come near the swing in opinion of the gay marriage issue. I was venting a little in that the Catholic Church has a community platform that could be a great place for spiritual discussion/interpretation (like a post-university style) instead it has single guys who live together lecturing us about life experiences. Give me just once in a while, a woman's take, a person with kids, an open debate, more Jesuits :) etc. I read your lent letters and Peter's letters and get far more out of it then any Priest's sermon. Gathering as a community for an hour only to spend 95% of the time doing the same thing as the Sunday the year before seems like a squander opportunity. Granted, a lot of people find comfort in routine and quiet reflection.
On why support for same sex marriage is gaining momentum: To Know Us Is to Let Us Love.
From the article:
I also brought up something else [with my 76 year old Republican father] — for the first time.
“Do you support gay marriage?” I asked him.
“I don’t know,” he said, explaining that it still seemed strange. He added: “But not if you know the person.”
“Meaning me?” I said.
“No,” he said. “I mean Tom [author's significant other]. He’s a good person. If you and he got married? I guess that would be O.K. Yeah, that would be fine.”
Hear! Hear! Mass always reminded me of Dancing School. In middle school you spend Friday night at a party pulling off every dance move you know and learning some new ones from Joe Cool across the floor. Then on Saturday night you go to Dancing School and spend 2 hours learning "Step, step, rock, rock."
Similarly, as you pass through the narthex, suddenly everything is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
We've had Folk Masses in the past. Why not have a 'Controversy Mass' or 'Philosophical Inquiry Mass'?
I'm not really disagreeing with Jim or Pete, because I agree with the deeper point. There's no question that church leaders ignore Christianity's rich heritage and replace it with a lot of conventional humdrum, or just nonsense. Do we ever learn, for example, of how Thomas Aquinas struggled mightily with reconciling his belief in the conservation of matter and energy with the notion of a created universe. In the end, Aquinas concedes that it is theoretically possible that the universe has always existed. Aquinas goes on to say that this possibility doesn't rule out the notion that the universe's existence may still be dependent on God.
But, having said this, I don't believe that liturgy should be replaced by a classroom. Liturgy, ritual and ceremonies have a different purpose than to instruct -- at least directly. Liturgical language is more like poetry than like a text.
Here's what Johan Huizinga, the Dutch historian, had to say in his groundbreaking Homo Ludens:
Let us consider for a moment the following argument. The child plays in complete—we can well say, in sacred—earnest. But it plays and knows that it plays. The sportsman, too, plays with all the fervour of a man enraptured, but he still knows that he is playing. The actor on the stage is wholly absorbed in his playing, but is all the time conscious of "the play." The same holds true of the violinist, though he may soar to realms beyond the world. The play-character, therefore may attach to the sublimest forms of action. Can we now extend the line to ritual and say that the priest performing the rites of sacrifice is only playing? At first sight it seems preposterous, for if you grant it for one religion you must grant it for all. Hence our ideas of ritual, magic, liturgy, sacrament, mystery would all fall within the play concept.
I've mentioned this in prior Lenten letters. But I know why I go to church, not so much to learn, but to play. And I'm as serious about it as I am a game of ultimate frisbee.
Post a Comment