Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:14AM, mokantx wrote:

Then too, I have to wonder just how many bishops might tend to agree with Robinson in private, even while maintaining the position of the church in public?

That is an extremely important point.  It helps to explain how some forms of behavior seem to be on such firm foundations, only to crumble into pieces leaving many people dumbfounded at the spectacle of it all.

mo,

I'd say sexual morality is only the tip of the iceberg in the ongoing diaspora from organized religion, and here again is my take on that iceberg.

When Lord Acton famously said that power corrupts, he specifically included ecclesiastical power. And Paul Tillich had it that faith embraces itself and the doubts about itself. But do ecclesiastics really believe what they preach? I have doubts about that, because the higher one climbs up any denominational ladder, the less freedom one has to voice any twinges of doubt because one now serves the organization rather than the inner sense of calling which attracted one to that line of work in the first place. So an uncompromising willingness to disown, renounce or suppress the original and intuitive process that preceded one's own formal declaration of faith actually becomes a virtue in its own right, while simultaneously denying others their turn at that same well of inspiration.

Not surprisingly, such career-track believers tend to lose both their sense of humor and the human touch. Having denied themselves the right to give in to their own human frailty, they become sellouts to corporate duty and adopt instead that all too familiar veneer of professional aplomb. It's bad taste to ask such a professional what he really believes, a point of etiquette that even the secular media rarely breach. As part of their professional job description, they can't allow themselves to take a joke about how they arrived at their own convictions, yet at the same time they don't see how or why that suppression and renunciation of doubt is in itself a major red flag to unbelievers-- which, ironically and emphatically, it is.

To whose benefit, then, might any of us seek to deny to anyone else the very same freedom of inquiry, thought and choice that brought us to where we ourselves now stand? And if someone claims to have that right, why isn't it eminently reasonable to look askance at his motives and ask if his so-called beliefs are really his own beliefs at all? Do I really owe it out of compassion or simple human decency to my fellow to believe what he believes so he can have an easier time believing it? Or am I really using him as a scapegoat for my own doubts by trying to deprive him of his freedom and opportunity to examine within himself those existential dark corners of the mind wherein I found my own ground of being?

It seems to me that by definition, any believer worth his salt should be completely at home with this line of questioning. It also strikes me that when we abandon the frailty and vulnerability of the seeker and opt instead for the vicarious, secondhand assurance of the dogmatist, we abdicate and surrender that part of ourselves which made us capable of having a genuine, heartfelt religious experience in the first place. Clearly there are advantages and rewards that result from adapting to one's milieu as did the Nazis and the Stalinists, one of which is to be regarded and trusted by one's peers as sane. But at what price?

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:54AM, cherubino wrote:

mo,

I'd say sexual morality is only the tip of the iceberg in the ongoing diaspora from organized religion, and here again is my take on that iceberg.

When Lord Acton famously said that power corrupts, he specifically included ecclesiastical power. And Paul Tillich had it that faith embraces itself and the doubts about itself. But do ecclesiastics really believe what they preach? I have doubts about that, because the higher one climbs up any denominational ladder, the less freedom one has to voice any twinges of doubt because one now serves the organization rather than the inner sense of calling which attracted one to that line of work in the first place. So an uncompromising willingness to disown, renounce or suppress the original and intuitive process that preceded one's own formal declaration of faith actually becomes a virtue in its own right, while simultaneously denying others their turn at that same well of inspiration.

[snip]

It seems to me that by definition, any believer worth his salt should be completely at home with this line of questioning. It also strikes me that when we abandon the frailty and vulnerability of the seeker and opt instead for the vicarious, secondhand assurance of the dogmatist, we abdicate and surrender that part of ourselves which made us capable of having a genuine, heartfelt religious experience in the first place. Clearly there are advantages and rewards that result from adapting to one's milieu as did the Nazis and the Stalinists, one of which is to be regarded and trusted by one's peers as sane. But at what price?

Cher

I think you're right.  I'm probably just reiterating something embedded in what you've already said, but I think it important to bring it up in the context of your post.

It seems to me that the church's right wing these days, is living in a rather convoluted logic.  When I attack the bishops, the now almost reflexive response is that I don't get "church," and that the church is so much more than the bishops.  But somehow, within that "church", only the bishops have power, have voices, etc.  That logic, of course, is met with "but this isn't about power."

The logic continues when one dares challenge something held by "the church."  ABC and several other positions on human sexuality are great examples of this.  Exactly what does "held by the church" really mean, when the vast majority of living Catholics reject all or parts of one of those teachings?  The message becomes pretty obvious: living Catholics don't really count for much.  And suddenly we're back to that question of power.  But if folks persist and continue to challenge, then of course the catch 22 card is played:  the church has "primacy of conscience," but the catch is that if you can't conform your conscience to that held by "the church," then you're really no longer catholic... 

This pattern of logic appears over and over, and ultimately has frustrated millions of good, honest people, more and more of whom are leaving the church.   The falsity of this logic has been laid bare by the bishops handling of the scandal.  If there is nothing else to be learned from the scandal, it is that "church" is ALL about power.  If the maintenance of power, in the form of status quo, requires hypocrisy, if it requires illegal and or immoral acts, if it requires a logic that says a man must be protected at all costs because he is the organizational successor to Christ, and therefore must be treated as Christ, then that application of power is justified in the name of "the church."

The popes since John XXIII have been on a mission of "protecting" this old mindset, through their appointments as cardinals.  They've been incredibly successful in their efforts to drive "dissenters," including most of the liberal voices, from the church.  But the end result has likely not been what they might have envisioned, because as those voices have been silenced or left, the church has shrunk.   And it will continue to shrink, leaving a church that continues to be divided within itself.  The solution to this is implicit in what you've said, above.

Namely, a serious discussion needs to be held on the nature of church, and within that, the voice of the laity.  The most basic question of all comes down to precisely what must one believe to remain a Catholic?  Sure, there are the various creeds out there, but I would submit that those too are quite archaic, and carry little value.   What precisely does the church mean when it speaks of an Assumption, an Ascension, or a virgin birth?  Can one remain a Catholic if their interpretation of those events might be less than literal, but perhaps still open to the concept that there is some kind of truth that is contained within those events, seeing the terms as metaphors?  For whatever good intent may have been behind the updated Chatecism of a few years ago, I don't think that has answered these kinds of questions. 

To state all of this a little differently, I think church leadership is growing quite out of synch from the laity.  While there has likely always been some cracks, Humanae Vitae drove a massive wedge into that crack.  Leadership actions and inactions ever since, have served to widen the crack into somethign looking more and more like a chasm.  Guys like Robinson are rare these days, and that's a pity, because whether folks agree with him or not, he DOES raise questions that are on the minds of many, and he treats those questions with respect, not disdain.