Well, the reform Jews basically reject the Law, although even they have evolved by becoming MORE adherent to Law, not less. There’s just no future for a religion in aping secularism, although Jews have a better chance of getting away with it because we’re a people as well as a religion.
But as for disputes among Jews about how the Law applies and what it means, sure, but that’s not trying to make God conform to secular values, that’s trying to figure out what God wants.
So, if people leave Catholicism it’s because Catholicism is too liberal, but if people leave the JWs it’s because being a JW is too hard.
People leave for a variety of reasons. Yes, people leave religions because there’s nothing to those religions, and people also leave because the life just stops appealing to them. It all depends on what they need from religion.
One thing that NO person needs from a religion is for it to become more like the secular world. There’s already a place for that. It’s called the secular world. Everyone wants religion to be different from secularism in some way, aside from the God thing. A good Catholic holds moral values that are different from the at large society. If he or she does not, then what does it mean to be a Catholic?
So, if 95% of the society is Catholic, then no one is?
I feel like I’m watching “The Incredibles Take on Rome.”
ETA: Maybe I should have gone with Incredibles 2: Pontiffic Boogaloo
That’s different. I’m referring to religious people living in secular societies, not religious people living in a society that already enforces their values.
Meaningful change in the Catholic Church happens at a snails pace. This is a change.
And, if the RCC stops spending their money on lobbying against gay marriage legislative measures, because the message the Pope is sending is “that money is better spent on the poor” that is meaningful change. That is a step towards decoupling the church from secular U.S. politics - and can create a meaningful change regarding poverty.
The RCC spent a lot of money trying to stop the Minnesota gay marriage initiative - without success and with some priests coming out then saying what Pope Francis is saying now.
I’m shocked.
This is pretty simple. Should Catholics hold religious positions that are at odds with the majority of the country and its current laws or shouldn’t they? Referring to US catholics here.
So, everyone should become Presbyterian?
They should hold the positions that they believe to be right regardless of what the law says. What, you think that if the law agrees with their views, they need to change their views just so they can continue to rebel against the law?
People keep repeating this, but it’s actually not true. The church has responded with terrific speed over the past fifteen hundred years when it is sufficiently motivated. It’s hard to change peoples’ minds, sure, but it makes no sense to use the institutional incapacity of the church to justify further incapacity.
With the exception of Vatican II though, I can’t think of examples when they’ve done so recently - as I said upthread - in order to change the direction of Catholics requires power they haven’t really held since the reformation.
The Catholics require the power the Catholics used to have to change the Catholics? That doesn’t make sense to me.
I am really torn about this, as a former Catholic, and as somebody who lives in a Catholic country where the church has tremendous influence.
On the one hand, we all know it’s just a change of message, their views haven’t changed one iota.
On the other hand, his message of “leave the gays alone!!!” is already slowly permeating around here. Unfortunately I don’t think the higher ups in the church are too happy about this.
Anecdote: Our Cardinal is highly unpopular, but highly influential. He’s a bit obsessed with the disgusting gays. He has an opinion on practically anything, and wants to make sure everybody hears it. But the filthy gays seem to be his only priority. Well, and abortion when the subject comes up.
A few months ago he publicly criticized that the US appointed an openly gay ambassador to the DR, threatened with protests and called him a faggot and queer on TV (maricón and pájaro in Spanish are stronger insults). As lucks has it (sarcasm), a huge scandal of child abuse has come out these days, with several priests, and even the Vatican ambassador involved in it. Said ambassador fled the country (sweet irony!). The peasants are pissed. And the cardinal who wouldn’t shut the fuck up about anything hasn’t been seen in public for quite a while and has “no comments” about what’s going on*.
So yeah, I wish the pope could call these assholes and tell them to keep their opinion about the gays to themselves. What are the chances?
*Unfortunately for him, the priests involved abused girls and boys. So he’s probably still trying to figure out how to blame it on them repulsive gays.
I think he’s genuine, but even if you believe that he is doing it for financial reasons, isn’t it a good thing regardless of motivation if the RC spends less money and effort on fighting abortion and gay marriage?
Another thing to consider is that this gives ammunition to the more liberal catholic priests out there. If their superiors or congregations ask them why they aren’t condemning these things loudly, they can point to following Francis’ example.
Francis is having to walk back some of his comments, denouncing abortion as the product of “a throw-away culture.”
But as many have mentioned, that’s not “walking back” because he never said it had stopped being wrong. Part of the problem with Papal pronouncements is that observers and commentators keep going "OMG the Pope said (gays/abortion/designated hitter) OK Oh N0es!!!11!!" when he merely makes a statement that he’s not going to be all nasty and obnoxious about it and that he’s got *other *items in his agenda, feeling it has to go without saying that the Church is still against it.
Yeah really… any priest who’s got his head so high up his arse ought’a get sent back, not to seminary, but to first Communion catechesis.
I don’t know. The church can certainly bind and loose. It does not need to change the minds of Catholics worldwide simultaneously by decree. Does Francis want to relax misplaced ecclesiastical discipline or just change the church’s messaging and PR? I have no idea, and I suppose it’s too soon to tell. If I were a Republican trying to figure out how to change my messaging without changing an iota of ideology, I’d be watching Francis very carefully right now.