CE9

[maarts]

Just one other notion- my belief in the Catholic faith has been strengthened in my youth because of one pastor, a wonderfully nice man, bit of a bon-vivant but agreeable.
Like politics, so often the face behind the dogma/gospel/program is vital to the believer. Had throughout the course of my life I'd been able to meet more of such wonderful priests, i might still have my faith.
The Pope is the face of the Church and a friendly one in that. Outside of the staunch conservative policies he endorsed, he was Il Papa.

[ScottsyII]

The last thing the catholic church needs is a too heavy handed traditionalist... it needs to build on the momentum John Paul II built...

I also think it needs a pope who is willing to look within the church for change... a 3rd Vatican council for example wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion... I doubt a conservative pope would call such a thing though...

Then again, John XXIII who called the second vatican council was considered a "stop gap" pope... someone who was supposed to sorta keep the seat warm whilst a longer term pope was waited upon...

However, he decided to be one of the most revolutionary popes of the 20th century.

[chrisfan]

rockkid said:

Well thank god that’s not as frequent here.
Yes it does happen but most groups/businesses include further contact permission boxes on their forms & I must say are fairly good at honoring when the NO is checked off.

I have to say I have never understood the major aversion to junk mail that so many people have. It's never been that difficult for me to just throw stuff out. I enjoy throwing out junk mail far more than I enjoy organizing bills that I have to pay. Besides, if I never got targetted junk mail, then I wouldn't get invitations to dinners with Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove ... and I have to say that Rove invite has not been thrown out yet because I'm tempted ... very very tempted.

[ScottsyII]

And yeah, the biggest thing John Paul II brought was warmth and compassion... although he did lean on the conservative side... but his warmth and character usually blurred that a bit, and made the church also look more compassionate...

I wouldn't mind the door being blown open a little wider and seeing the Catholic CHurch take it's next step towards being a much more culturally relevant institution... because while it's earned itself a warmer more caring outer face... it's still also thought of as a relic in alot of ways...

[maarts]

But here's the trouble- how much change can the Catholic Church bring to their politics and not alienate their traditional, strongly conservative base?
What draws a lot of people to the Church next to the endorsement of the Faith is the strong traditional, secular way the Church has been built. As unwelcome as it is to women, gays and many other groups, it's the one foundation of life that has withstood the development of the world and man throughout the ages and is a haven for people who feel alone in this hectic, ever changing world.
So what would be the best for the Church- evolve with the majority of the people and work towards a more acceptable face of it (read- women priests and accepting homosexuality as a form of cohabitation) to create a larger 'fanbase' or remain like a rock of Gibraltar in these times and remain faithful to the people who always have believed in these age-old foundations of belief?

[ScottsyII]

I guess these are decisions that are beyond my ability to answer in alot of ways...

I just believe a balance between the traditional ways and more modern ideas can be accepted in the Catholic Church. Certainly, there are allowances in the scriptures, because Christ himself never sat down and said "men can only be priests" or something like that... it's been a pure construct of humanity in the formation of the church...

There is a whole strain of progressive thought within the catholic church that also values the traditonal elements... take for example, the Basic Ecclesial Movement, which aims to bring the Church back to the "grass roots" level of people meeting in homes, in streets and sharing faith that way... this is something I hope is followed up on and continued.

It's these more radical aspects of the Church's actions that I would wish to be pushed forward. These aspects in my opinion, have even been accepted by older more conservative Catholics, as I observed when I helped in the formation of a Basic Ecclesial Community in my own neighbourhood area... it can work.

Homosexuality is always going to be one of those big contentious issues in the Church... on the one hand you have Christ's call to love all and accept all as they are and on the other you have those who stand by the old testament values of "homosexuality is a sin" vehemently... I don't know if that one is ever going to be resolved, to be honest...

With the catholic Church you can never ask for expect great leaps... just little short steps at a time. Maybe allowing male priests to marry would be a nice small step... then perhaps once this is accepted, women priests?! We could be talking many, many popes down the line before anything like either of those two things could occurr though...

[maarts]

Is the possible ordainment of women priests such a big issue? I know it is within the Anglican church, but worldwide?

I thought celibacy, homosexuality and the preservation of all life (abortion, euthanasia) were the main issues the Church was struggling with.

[chrisfan]

Please forgive my step out onto the "controversial" aspect of this discussion ...

I'm glad that both of you (Scottsy and Maarts) have stated some of the aspects of the conservatism within the Catholic church that you wree speaking of -- that question was coming from me, and you answered it already. I"m struck by the comments you made about the church's stand on homosexuality. Obviously, that's a debate that this board has seen more than it's share of. But i'm stuck by the way that you (Scottsy) contrast loving everyone vs homosexuality being a sin. Isn't it possible for the church to love sinners? IMO, one of the greatest examples the Pope ever gave the world of his following Christ's example was his forgiving the man who shot him. There's no question in my mind that attempting to murder the Pope IS a sin. But the pope still loved him. Isn't loving sinners (all of us) the greatest example of following Christ that there is? Why does it have to be one or the other?

[maarts]

Isn't it possible for the church to love sinners?

Jesus forgave his Apostles for betraying him, the people of the world for their sins...I remember the story of how he coaxed Zacheus down the tree (a sinner and a taxman, if I remember correctly)...you know, Chrisfan, it's that aspect of Faith that has appealed to me the most.
If Jesus can, we all can.

[ScottsyII]

I hear ya Chrisfan... I understand exactly what you mean, and I completely agree with you.

However, when that very simple notion was written into a book by a catholic priest here in Adelaide, the priest was embroiled in all sorts of controversy...

therein lays the hypocrisy of it all... forgive all sins, yet we don't forgive those or we hold that particular sin against him / her... it happens when you get fundamentals reading the bible and the catechism of the Catholic Church line for line...

Certainly not my perspective on the whole thing...

[RocDoc]

Perhaps there's an answer there as to why Islam is so popular among convicts and the like...the 'unforgiveables'?

[MrGordon]

Obviously, any said faith can be used to mold beliefs in their web of thought. If one takes faith too seriously, they may very easily believe such ludicrous things that women are inferior to men and that they ought to obey them, or that they should do everything they can to stop abortion, or they have to do anything to regain God's mercy.

I personally do not have much use for (organized) faith being that it is self deceiving, naturally. I'd rather weight out my options and my beliefs. (im not saying everyone who has faith would take it so seriously, and not be able to think for themselves either, but to say people don't wouldn't be right either)

It may work for a lot of people because they apparantly cannot live thier lives purely intellectual, fine. But don't tell me God's word is reason enough that a caring, society contributing gay can't marry their partner and have equal rights. Don't tell me God said i shouldnt smoke pot or whatever. Nobody can tell me thats right.

i don't deny that my girlfriend's grandmother used prayer to beat cancer, or that my nutbag grandmother has used faith to take her away from suicide and madness (hard,hard, life). I just think faith plays too strong a role in the political world that affects us all. God is no base for a moral. We are way farther than that.

i hope that can clear up my feelings somewhat...

[Rit]

aye, Mr Gordon, but you're focused too much on the political dimension of faith (what's "faith" anyway?)

reduced to its bare form, it's just an aspect of life that people can't seem to get away from at some point or other in their lives... moreover, society can't seem to once and for all "transcend" it either, not through progress, and not through legislation either.

it's a mix of imagination, a sense of wonder at life, and a baffling response to the inbetweens... Nature is not a simple mother, but a complex old whore. Society will never ever be able to legislate a civilization based solely on pure reason..

the way i look at it is that the universe just does not work like that.. as soon as you try, a deep yawning chasm will open up in front of your eyes and swallow up whole any semblance of permanence, and you're left scratching your head as to why...

the old thinkers had it best... no need for a purely scientific rational explanation, but also no need to descend into superstition or nonsense.... Merely believe that there is a ghost in the machine, so to speak, and leave it at that..... i think that kind of thinking turns out most beautifully in the end.

the modern thinkers also put it nicely.. Doubt is a fundamental characteristic of healthy thought. Leave room for that in even your most tempting tendencies to explain away life by pure rationale, and you'll be fine.

[chrisfan]

MrGordon said:

I just think faith plays too strong a role in the political world that affects us all. God is no base for a moral. We are way farther than that.

i hope that can clear up my feelings somewhat...

Huh? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying that you acknowledge that prayer has the power to heal, and to transform lives ... but that man is more powerful than that yet, and therefore, God is not a good basis for morals? That man gets the job done better? God can heal and transform lives when man can't, but man still does the better job?

[MrGordon]

I think you miss the point entirely Chris. If faith heals, it doesnt mean God is real. I am looking at faith as a purely psychological capacity. Just because we have the ability to ponder purpose and meaning, it doesn't mean its there. Nobody can answer the unknowable. No popes, no prophets, no Bibles....but it is the power of people to create themselves a purpose, give themselves a reason to fight death, face fear etc or whatever. It is also the power of man to create large groups, make laws, oppress others, 'push forward or backward from a purely inward psychological/emotional capacity. Using God to legitimize war and conquest doesnt seem so right to me. find your own faith....at least don't justify your morals using a bible...

"everybody's praying, don't prey on me"