Squeers, Continued:

Post 2: You attempt a perfunctory near-heretical rewriting of history, through shear oblique manipulation. Are the poor not likely to be sick of spirit? Would tending to their physical needs not coincidentally lift their spirit? And, if you promise them the earth, is this not "giving them a pep talk"? So, who needs spiritual uplifting more - the poor and downtrodden, or the comfortable self-righteous? I see no conflict there.

".. Jesus was uncompromising in that devotion to love and justice meant rebellion was axiomatic;" Yes, Jesus strove for justice for all; and further you say He agitated for reform and stirred His followers to rebellion to achieve it. So, where is this contrary to our current understanding? Did He not do this out of love and compassion?

"Jesus might have died for our sins, but that didn't mean we could complacently nurse our souls and sit on our hands thereafter." And just where do you get that idea from? Complacently nurse our souls? Did you get nothing from Otokonoko's post? Please!

Post 3: "I implied the institutional Church, in league with the government, is "exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms". So, the church has the government in its pocket? And so, by coercion the church exercises some influence over society as a whole? That's a new one to me.
"I implied that Christian norms "are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society"." I find them totally relevant, and perfectly adequate, thanks all the same. It is not the fault of the church if portions of society choose not to exercise responsible restraint.

Conclusion: To take a leaf out of your own book - "It's easy to be critical, but damned hard to be self-critical."

Saltpetre:

"...From there I feel you only descended further into unwarranted and purposeful deprecation and demeaning of matters which are obviously much more important to some of us than they are to you".

This statement, like everything else you've said in your two heated posts is hyperbolic and undeserved, and only tells me you haven't considered anything I've said. From my first post I've made thoughtful contributions to this thread which are not disrespectful at all, but merely critical.
If you have any valid argument to offer in response to anything I've said, I'd be glad to consider it.

But now I'm going to watch my sons play soccer.

Saltpetre,

Is it not obvious to you that we in the West hold hegemonic sway in the current world order - and that Christian institutions are standing on the podium alongside all the other institutions who validate our triumph?

Can you not discern that much of what "Christianity" reinforces is in direct opposition to Christ's lessons? How do you rationalise the Church's tacit support for the West's indulgence in greed and excess with Christ's example?

How can an institution like the Christian church remain faithful to Christ's example while depending on the patronage of those who act antithetically to his ideals?

Poirot, I think you're having a lend of me, but I'll respond anyway.

".. we in the West hold hegemonic sway in the current world order - and ... Christian institutions are standing on the podium alongside all the other institutions who validate our triumph."

If you say so. Standing on a podium with others is not a sin, and as for "triumph", the Church is humble and does not believe in such thoughts or displays. As for others on your "podium", I expect they would mostly also be clear thinking, moral, ethical, honest, responsible and compassionate groups.

".. much of what "Christianity" reinforces is in direct opposition to Christ's lessons? How do you rationalise the Church's tacit support for the West's indulgence in greed and excess with Christ's example?"

The Christian Church does not "reinforce" examples contrary to His teachings.

Could you perhaps mean that Christians should live apart, without possessions, in pure communion with the Lord? Christianity is a "living" Church, and followers have to blend in, conducting a reverent, virtuous and inconspicuous existence. Nonetheless, the Church continues to rail against injustice and inhumanity wherever it may be found.

Tacit support? So the Church does not rail against our Western Capitalist Consumerist society? The Church may show the way, but the choice to follow is in the hands of the individual.

"How can an institution like the Christian church remain faithful to Christ's example while depending on the patronage of those who act antithetically to his ideals?"

Those who act antithetically to His ideals? That would be a broad church indeed. If some such choose to support the Church, good on them, all contributions gratefully received, in the name of the Lord.

In general response: I would expect any responsible western government to exercise similar morality, ethics and integrity to that expounded by the Church - but then these are after all the foundation of universal truth in any event, and virtually as seeded into our being as the air we breathe, so one should not really expect less.

Thanks everyone for your comments on my lengthy post(s). And I'm sorry they were so long - I tried to revise them down, but brevity is not one of my strengths.

As you point out, AJ, it is quite condescending in some ways. While they acknowledge that people who disagree with them aren't necessarily destined for a grisly eternity in hell, the College of Cardinals stick to their guns with the notion that Catholicism is the 'best' and 'purest' path to salvation. As a Catholic, I can't put myself in the place of the non-Catholics to whom it offers an olive branch. I can imagine, though, that some could be offensive - in effect, it says that 'these poor people don't know any better, so we'll let them come to heaven with us anyway'. In a human sense, Vatican II was a conference of old men back in the 1960s - men who had experienced their religious formation in a time when devout Catholics (i.e. the types of Catholics who would end up becoming priests) genuinely believed they were better than everyone else. In that light, despite the somewhat condescending tone, I think some of their findings were remarkably progressive.

The shake-up brought about by that council was not, as pelican points out, universally accepted. There was, and continues to be, disagreement. While it signified the 'waking up' of the Church to the 20th Century, I think it fragmented Catholicism quite a bit. It took away a lot of what made Catholics different and a lot of what gave them confidence that we were right and others were wrong. While I see this as a good thing, I can imagine others don't.

Otokonoko

Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate posts. I imagine the upper echelon of the Catholic church doubtless feel dismay at the apparent fragmentation within their ranks. Thus far, their response has been disappointing at the very least. I am thinking of priests like Peter Kennedy and others who have been expelled.

All religions change over time, admittedly at a very slow pace compared to other human endeavours.

I would posit that Buddhism has managed to adapt as we understand more about this wondrous universe and have found the serious scientific studies of meditation techniques by Buddhist monks very interesting.

The Dalai Lama was once asked why he had not participated in the tests, he replied that he was not as good at mediation as those who were involved in the study. Can you imagine such humility from George Pell?