A contagion of catholics

[annwfyn]

I just found this article on the rise of Catholicism in the UK.

I post it up here mostly for the gloriously insane nature of some of the comments. My personal favourite was this one:

For more than a thousand years Catholicism was the dominant religion in the UK - until that is Anglicanism sprang out of Henry VIII's codpiece amidst an orgy of desecration, theft and murder.
The passing nature of Anglicanism with its obsessions with homosexuality, women "priests" and moral relativism is at the core of its decline.
Christians want a church that stands for eternal truths. The growth in European immigration and the flood of conversions from Anglicanism will ensure that Catholicism once again becomes the Established Church in the British Isles.
..........And none too soon!

A couple of other comments said much the same thing in slightly less insane language.

Now, it occured to me that on a personal level there's a ring of truth in that. Well, not about the bit where Anglicanism is obssessed with homosexuality, but the idea that there is something special about a church which holds that there are 'eternal truths'. I've always had this odd fondness for churches and religions that don't change, mostly because I've always vaguely felt that if someone out there has discovered a fundemental spiritual truth about our world and that which created it, then surely that truth should have some consistency to it throughout the years. I accept that parts of any given doctrine do need to change - after all, a lot of organised religion is the product of man rather than the divine - but I tend to be slightly nervous of those faiths which determinedly adapt to society in its entirety every time society does another one of its generational shifts in 'how we should all live our life'.

However, I have odd and possibly nonsensical views on these things, and may be wrong.

Opinions?

Comments

[headinclouds.livejournal.com]

I suspect I have equally odd and nonsensical views on such things, but I've always thought much the same way - that any religion that is so easily swayed by the current social climate should be viewed with suspicion.

And on something of an odd tangent, having seen you mention it elsewhere a little while back - you're a Quaker?

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

My major problem, I think, is that I regard the 'fundamental spiritual truths' of most such faiths to be fundamentally wrong.

I feel it's a really quite arrogant to presume that you absolutely know 'the truth', and very, very wrong to tell people that your opinion is absolute truth when it doesn't even fit the facts.

Whereas to admit that you don't know the truth, and have the courage to change your beliefs as you learn more; that, I have a lot of respect for.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

So the merit to unchanging doctrine is that it makes its claims of divine origin more credible?

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

*nods*

A rather lapsed one. I was quite active in my teens - I used to go to Quaker weekends away and all sorts. I just drifted when I went to university which is a shame. I've sort of planned to start going back to meetings regularly, but then never get round to it.

It turns out my primary religion these days is that of laziness.

[sea-cucumber.livejournal.com]

That comment is bonkers, but funny as I can sort of see their point in one way. On the other hand, I am naughty and heretical, and actually disagree with it in other ways.

For me, a Christian church should be firstly above all else traditional in the way that it is faithful to the teachings of Jesus. That is why there are supposed to be churches in the first place - to teach people about Jesus.

Jesus's own teachings contain the 'eternal truths' of which you speak (to a Christian anyway, I am aware that not all would agree). It's just how to apply those truths to a time so far removed fom Jesus's that is subject to debate.

Now after 2000 years, it is rather difficult to interpret what it is that Jesus actually taught. After years of using their version of the true mening of Christianity to get one up on the other churches, they are all a bit wonky now. Some cling to ideas that mean they become poisonously hateful to some people. Others in their efforts to be accessible go too far and lose sight of what it is they are supposed to be doing.

I firmly believe that if Jesus came back to see how we are all getting on then He would be rather frustrated with all the bickering and politics that goes on (just look at the Anglican gathering in Tanzania going on at the moment - a prime example).

The Anglicans are right in that they encourage ALL people to participate and bring their gifts to the church. We can all learn from each other, it doesn't matter who we are as long as we try to follow Christ's example. As St. Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians...
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Meanwhile the Catholic church understands the importance of tradition and don't compromise their moral ideas with the social trends of the time (sometimes their morals go wonky, but they are better than they were). The Eastern Orthodox church recognises more than any other the importance of the Holy Spirit in teaching us about God. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have to be admired for their enthusiasm.

Now if you could combine all of them, then you would have a really good church :) :) Now as there is no such church, I have to stick with the Anglicans because they are the only ones who can put up with me :D Hmmm. I could write a veritable essay about this, but I am supposed to be working :) :)

[xambrius.livejournal.com]

This is sort of "pet issue" for me (I hesitate to call it a peeve though I confess that dealing with it often peeves me rather much). In my experience, people in general go about the search for "eternal verities" precisely backward. I'm not faulting them for the conclusions they reach. I'm faulting them for their methodology.

In science, we don't start with a conclusion and then cherry pick our data so that it supports our conclusion. We start with all relevant data and then draw what conclusions we can (if any). We don't assume fact and deny/ignore counterexample, we experience multitudinous examples and accept fact.

However, it seems to me that most people do not apply the same standard to religion. It seems to me that most people assume "eternal verities" and then follow whatever particular religion preaches/teaches those values. It seems to me that most people are already committed to a particular lifestyle and/or a set of values, and they practice whatever particular religion accepts/condones that lifestyle and/or those values.

That's precisely backward. That isn't searching for "eternal verities." That's arbitrarily deciding "eternal verities" and then searching for external validation of your decision.

--
Tim Harris
The Seeker
Time Lord

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Whereas to admit that you don't know the truth, and have the courage to change your beliefs as you learn more; that, I have a lot of respect for.

But the whole point of most religions is that they do claim to have a truth. In Christianity's case, they claim to have a big book that was dictated by God.

Surely there is something a little alarming about an institution that says every so often 'erm - yeah - that thing we said God said? We lied. We're now updating it'.

And surely The Will Of God (tm) shouldn't change every single generation when a new group of people decide that actually patriotism/chastity/the divine right of kings is not longer cool, and has to be replaced with tolerance/sexual freedom/democracy, which, in turn, I am sure will be completely thrown out of the window and replaced with something in the next 100 years.

[headinclouds.livejournal.com]

I did guess that you were somewhat lapsed, m'dear. :p

I was just suprised (and slightly ashamed of myself) for having known you so long and not known that. I am a Bad Friend. ;)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Erm...in some ways, yes.

Basically, if you are claiming that you've got a divine truth, how come you keep saying every 50 years that actually, you might have misinterpreted that divine truth, and what god actually meant to say was something entirely different?

It may just be me being peculiar, however.

[sea-cucumber.livejournal.com]

oops that was long and probably a bit frothy... sorry! :) I just saw a religious debate and leapt upon it overenthusiastically!

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

The Will of God doesn't change. Our understanding of it changes.

I have a lot of respect for a religion that goes, 'We think this is the Will of God, but we are merely humans trying to do our best, so we won't presume that we're infallible. And if we find out that we're wrong, we'll have the courage to admit it, and keep on looking for what's right'.

A religion that goes, 'We know the Will of God and we are never wrong', however, just sets my teeth on edge. (Especially given that their big book has been translated through several languages, some of which didn't have vowels so they can't be sure of what the words are, and they ignore the bits they don't like anyway, but that's a side issue)

At school I had an awful lot more respect for the ones who would listen to new arguments and new facts and change accordingly, than the ones who said 'I know this therefore I am right and your facts are wrong'.

It's exactly the same thing. Except that sending people into the world believing that God hates homosexuals is a much greater wrong than sending people into the world believing that English is a romance language.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Please insert the word 'teachers' into my last comment such that it actually makes sense :)

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

'erm - yeah - that thing we said God said? We lied. We're now updating it'.

because that's never happened before...

(paraphrased)
Pharisee: Hey, Jesus, let's trip you up in some dogma. If you're the son of the God, which of his commandments was the most important, huh? *evil cackle to audience*, sotto-voce whisper: This should get everyone to see he's an upstart heretic, bwahahaha!

Jesus: Dude, all that fire and brimstone's a bit outdated! Just, y'know, love God and love your neighbour, and it'll all come out in the wash...

Pharisee: Darn hippie. OK, smartarse, so who's your neighbour, huh?

Revisionism really isn't that new an idea... ;)

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Then you'll like atheism. As a belief, it really hasn't changed at all, you know, ever...

More seriously - it's a fun argument, but the results of said unchangingness kinda suck. Any faith whose unchanging beliefs lead them to fake evidence that condoms don't protect against AIDS, making them complicit in hundreds of thousands of deaths, is a faith that could do with being a little more agile.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

You say wise things.

It must be said, I've got odd and mixed up views on religion, which get complicated because I think I've got some odd ancestor worship type urges which I've channelled through Christianity.

(bear with me, I know that sounds insane)

One of the things I used to love about the church that I went to when I was a kid was that it had been in my village for a thousand years. I loved feeling like I was part of this continuity that stretched back all that time, sitting in the same pews, connecting to their faith, to what they were, to what they believed. I really liked that sense of being part of a people, being part of this one continuous identity, which is daft, but kind of sits in my brain.

[twisted-times.livejournal.com]

There are no such things as "Eternal Truths."

Anyone who holds specific instances or sets of Ethics up as some sort of "universal standard" will shoot themselves in the foot with it, as soon an exception to the rules pop up. Ethics are, by deinition, supposed to be universal and without exception and once ounce of diproof will shatter a million tonnes of proof and ironclad agument.

Now, Ethos, on the other hand is local and situation/culture specific by definition and is much more likelyto survive the rigours of time and experience.

[sea-cucumber.livejournal.com]

*nods*
I understand that.

When I am in a flouncy over the top Church of England service and say the Creed, I think of the people who argued for months making it in the first place back in 325AD and how for centuries it has remained unchanged. :)

When I got to a Catholic service in Latin (I am naughty and go to them occasionally for the reason I am about to describe), I get even more of that sense of something eternal and unchanging. It is like stepping back in history, the idea that people have been saying these same words for that long is a powerful reminder that for some reason, these ideas have endured for a reason.

Continuity is important, the Catholic Church understands this with the whole apostolic succession idea - everyone in the church has been baptised/confirmed/ordained by people who have an unbroken line of tradition and passing on of the Holy Spirit to St. Peter who was effectively the first Pope :) Poncier parts of the Church of England also claim this 'lineage' but Catholics disagree. I would say that from experience (and this is where I get a bit weird) it's definitely there. You can feel it, there is something very ancient, not quite primal but close, something that resonates in a hidden part deep within yourself.

The carrying on of that extra, incorporeal, indescribable essence, and the community that preserves it, I think is very important.

Religion and truths.

[mangochutney04.livejournal.com]

I'm not too keen on thinking about religion. It scares me a bit. I used to be really religious then became an atheist aged 16. Nowadays I believe strongly in fate and life destiny and I belive in lurrve to everyone etc but I don't really see any one omnipotent being in control.

I know it isn't what this debate is really about but
I do generally really like to believe in a moral truth though. Which is odd since in philosophy tutorials at Uni my tutor gave me credit for having a strong cultural subjectivist opinion. Bit of a u-turn!

I don't know why but, since I've got older, I really do believe that when it comes to moral issues there is 'a right' and 'a wrong' thing to do and while making allowances for society and human nature etc personally I don't think I can stop myself from believing in that.

But I'd still describe myself fundamentally atheist.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

That's the very reason I loved the Catholic services at my secondary school; I loved the ceremony, the tradition, the age of it.

I almost went and got myself confirmed before remembering that I think the actual religion in Catholicism is a load of rubbish :)

[sea-cucumber.livejournal.com]

*laughs*
I have been tempted many times myself :) :) When I went to Rome it nearly converted me right there and then :) But I couldn't be a Roman Catholic knowing I have issues with some of the things they teach, even though I love the continuity of it all :)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

And I believe that's why Judaism says that Jesus wasn't the Messiah (well, one of the reasons) because the Messiah would not have turned up and immediately thrown out all the laws of Torah.

And it's why several jews I know say that the phrase 'judeo-christian' is nonsensical because the two are completely separate ideas.

It also, it must be said, leads on to my other long and confused thought process which says 'so, jesus?' and gets confused about whether I should really hunt down a nice synagogue at some point (except I can't coz I'm quite seriously involved with a non-jew, which mostly makes me unconvertable).

I really do like judaism for exactly the same reason I like catholicism - the continuity of it all. I just get confused on whether or not I believe in Jesus, which is a fairly fundemental divider between both religions.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

Thinking, and pondering, such things is no bad thing.

Personally, I walked away from the church at 16, from being a candle-carrying acolyte (uh, the catholics would have called me an altargirl - I was HIGH C of E!) because of a bishop's sermon that said that we should Believe because of three things: our own faith (wobbly, at times, being 16 and therfore Questioning Things), the Bible (ack! ack! Secondary source at best! *twitches*), and the example of the faith of others (recurses with point 1...) - it wasn't actually that I stopped necessarally *believing*, just like that - rather that I didn't feel I could in all conscience stand at the front of a church, possibly letting other people be complacant in their own belief because of the example of the faith of others (including me), unless I was *sure* I believed.

It's a bit of a twisted logic, but it made sense to me.

I may still be not sure what I believe...but at least even if my own path is a bit wobbly, I know nobody else is blithely following me along it.

Uh, that was a bit of a tangent. Where was I?

Oh, OT, throwing out thereof.

Erm, I appear to be frothing incoherantly about tangential bits and pieces that annoy me, without making much sense, so I'll just snip that and stop here! ;)

[anonymous-james.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that that comment is saying that Catholicism is all for homophobia, sexism and other dodgy morals. I could be reading it wrong, of course.

But that's was I'm still sticking with my belief that organised religion is rubbish. But it's an opinion, and that's all it is.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

"Surely there is something a little alarming about an institution that says every so often 'erm - yeah - that thing we said God said? We lied. We're now updating it'."

Somewhat disheartening in a faith surely. However It is not necessarily a weakness in other institutions. Say, Science, for instance.
e.g.
'Recent facts have proved our prior theorem incorrect. In light of this new data we are re-evaluating our model of how things work to the following....'

I'd say that openness to the facts and eradication of erroneous thinking would in fact persuade me that the institution of science is perhaps more likely to be right as it won't uphold beliefes in the face of facts.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

I'd like to say that this is the first time I've seen an argument making out that 'refusing to admit when you are wrong' is a virtue.
Unfortunately I can't. I've heard it said all too often.

[satyrica.livejournal.com]

Yeah- intellectually I have always tended to have more respect for fundamentalist Christianity (because it believes what the Bible, as our only source for the 'Will of God,' teaches even when it's extremely unpleasant*) than liberal Christianity, which only believes selected bits of the Bible, ditching anything too controversial when it becomes unfashionable. (I'm caricaturing, of course.) To get away from Bible-based arguments you have to wheel in suggestions of other revelations of the divine nature (Our Experience of Creation, Personal Communion) which tend to get so fuzzy & phenomenological they're impossible to critique.

Of course the fundamentalists justify the Old/New Testament Revisionism by arguing that Jesus fulfilled the OT law as Messiah and that the salvation/purity that the Jews had been taught to aim for with works could now only be attained through faith. And of course it could be that I just never got completely deprogrammed from my four years as an evangelical. :-)


*Although obviously there's still plenty of room for arguments over interpretation c.f.: the charismatics v. conservative evangelicals re: gifts of the spirit

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

You see, I've never been able to deal with evangelicals/fundementalists, and I'm not sure why. I suspect that's just a response to my being English - give me large churches, incense, chanting, and a great deal of pomposity and stuffiness and I'm fine. People throwing themselves around and speaking in tongues, however, just seem rather...

I got dragged along to a very very mad protestant church of some kind of America once by an American friend, when I was working out there. He told me en route "this place is great! I've seen my seventy year old grandmother racing down the aisle and speaking in tongues. It's incredible. Really holy"

I had to restrain myself from saying "you do know I'm English?"

I suspect this is all my own hang ups from a fairly conservative middle class English upbringing. No one has ever had a visitation from the holy spirit while wearing tweed.

[satyrica.livejournal.com]

People throwing themselves around and speaking in tongues, however, just seem rather...

them's the charismatics: I was a conservative evangelical and we didn't have any truck with that kinda nonsense ;-)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

That makes me feel much much better.

I never felt moved by Kirk (my US friend)'s tales of his grandmother speaking in tongues. I just worried that she might need medical help.