I meant to make this post shortly after JP bit the big one, but kept slacking. Perhaps now, the new pope will serve to underscore my point.
I saw alot of villification of JP. My understanding is that he’s presided over one of the most significant liberalizations of the church of its entire existence. No, it’s not passing out condoms with the wafers, but the mass isn’t being held in latin either. [edit:
Look at the institution. Villification of homos, inequality across sexes, aversion to birth control, these are all part of what Catholicism stands for. If you want to blame the pope for that, go right ahead. I’ll call you short sighted. You’ll miss the fact that the next pope is going to be largely the same in all those wonderful traits as this one. In fact, perusing my subscriptions, it sounds like he’s worse.
The Catholic Church no longer appeals to the wealthy, by and large. The citizens of our economic superpowers have generally consigned Catholicism to the dustbin of history. The citizens of many developing nations have not. The more regressive the pope, the less he’ll be listened to in the superpower nations, but the same likely will not hold true for South and Central America.
I forsee a continuation of a decline in the Catholic Church. I think it has the option of quietly, gradually fading, or noisily alienating the world, with a consequently abrupt decline. I hope it opts for the former, but I suppose time will tell.
Villification of homos, inequality across sexes, aversion to birth control, these are all part of what Catholicism stands for.
I’m far from expert on Catholicism, but I keep hearing the refrain that all the things you just listed are really not the core of the religion but merely optional tidbits that have been imposed by the leadership.
Actually Vatican II and the true changes in the doctorine took place under John the XXIII (he was followed by JP1 who lived 33 days, then came JP2). That caused the change in the language of Mass, the lack of fish being a requirement on Friday and a number of other advances.
Thanks for the correction. Clearly they need to work on the history of Catholicism taught in the Catholic schools, ‘cuz I knew I was sort of winging that one. Have there been any real reforms under jp2?
A half assed apology to Jews, but really that was Spain’s cardinals getting together and apologizing for driving Jews out under King Ferdinand and Isabella. You’re right about Galileo, but still no “oops we’re sorry” to Kepler, Copernicus or Erasmus.
He fought liberation theology, with its mix of religion and demands for equity, which will be the only way Latin America will keeps its followers.
Hooray for the fiery doom of religion! What struck me was the half hour television coverage of closed french doors. I guess the drapery was pretty, but thirty fucking minutes?
Hey, it’s either that or cover all the legislation that’s removing individual debtors’ protection or stripping the judicial branch of its authority. Which is more important?
Curtains, hands down.
The liberalization of the church took place during Vatican II. When Pope John Paul I came aorund, he was pretty liberal too, until he happend to die 33 days later. There are suspicious stories about that.
JPII on the otherhand came formt eh conservative end of the church,a nd over the years dismantled much of Vatican II, either directly, or simply cooling off its advances.
The new Pope will do everything to erase Vatican II. Ratzinger is like the Pat Buchanan of the Catholic church. Woohoo!
I forsee a continuation of a decline in the Catholic Church.
…to which I’d add: in North America and much of Western Europe. Asia — China, in particular — and Africa are the new frontiers of hardcore ultra-conservative Catholic proselytery (pronounced like “pro-zealotry”, ha!) and it ain’t pretty.
I agree with‘s comments about how JP2 railed mightily against the liberation theology movement in Central & South America. Evangelical Protestant sects are flooding into those regions and winning converts while the Catholics there are being snubbed if not downright warred upon by Rome.
Here in Canada, Catholicism has something of an enshrined status since the Constitution (indeed, the tenets of Confederation) guarantee the rights of Catholics (read: Quebec) to practice their religion and maintain their own schools. In today’s polyglot multicultural Canadian society, such a proviso seems at best quaintly archaic and at worst grossly preferential.
In Québec City and Montréal, Catholicism is still predominantly the faith of “pur-laîne” white French-Canadians. Their ties to the Papacy are closer than that of their Catholic brethren in traditionally Protestant Toronto, where Catholicism survives in mainly immigrant, mainly Asian communities whose traditions cleave closer to Manila and Singapore than to Rome. Still, Catholicism is in decline here too — the French-Canadians of the old Church are dying off while evangelicals are capturing the immigrant demographic at an astounding rate.
As a whole, Canada tends towards moderation (big surprise there!) and tolerance in matters religious, aside from an alarmingly ultra-conservative rump of Christian Evangelicals in Western Canada.
That is an important qualifier to add. I was thinking of the influence, organizational capacity and financial well being of the institution. The Holy Roman Empire is a far cry from the modern Catholic Church. But the bottom of the heap is a comparatively easily led constituency, unless properly mass opiated. =)