Even most Catholics ignore the more extreme doctrines of the church.

The hierachy of the church is living in a fantasy world and has lost its grip on reality and relevance.

I was a firm believer until a priest started telling me that I had to accept the whole package or nothing.

The world will be a better place after the passing of the Vatican into history.

George,
It seems our ‘Shadow Minister’ certainly supports the view 'the Catholic Church is anachronistic’ but I guess, as with mine, this presents perhaps just another opinion. No doubt, as a symbol, the Pope holds a great deal of sway, and I do hold some respect for the intellectual strength of the current one.

This symbol of ‘authority’ however is more related to ceremony, charisma and splendor. The official line (or Church teaching), however, is more revealing. For instance, with regards to sexual matters etc., current teaching relates back to Augustine where all sexual activity, even in marriage, was tainted and even sinful if not done for reproductive ends. The central reason for celibacy during this period was ritual purity: the priest, performing sacred rites, was not to be tainted by a sexuality that was suspect – Vatican II affirms this but also adding, the priest needs an “undivided heart” - it is an anachronism nevertheless, along with the official line given on birth-control. Women, in very real aspects, are second-class citizens in the church – again, quite anachronistic (at least in the West), even if once readily accepted in a bygone and patriarchal era.

As we are not divided on principle but only on the detail it matters not one iota that I do not label myself a ‘Catholic’, or for that matter perhaps even ‘Christian’ – which certainly doesn’t mean I deny the ‘true’ spirit or content of Christianity. There is a tremendous amount of good done through and by the Catholic Church, but, as with the ‘fat chain-smoking doctor’ it is more an issue of credibility rather than hypocrisy. It is hardly credible that the humility and understanding often preached is done so from such a lofty and official position.
cont’d..

..cont’d
I believe Nietzsche’s nihilism reveals the urgency of this highest and broadest human task: to make sense of our existence as a whole - a big, if not impossible ask of any institution. The sociologist of religion, Peter Berger writes, "Man, biologically denied the ordering mechanisms with which other animals are endowed, is compelled to impose his own order on experience. Man’s sociality presupposes the collective character of this ordering of reality."

As with many, I do not see human religiosity as an absurd reaction to our existence or a sign of infantile irrationality, as some might claim. Instead, the religious response is intrinsic to human existence in the world. The question does arise, however: Can we know whether any of these religious responses are true? The litmus test is always on the ‘fruit’.

It’s hard not to see the relationship between mystery and science, Einstein noted this when he mused, “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science". I can relate the metaphysical and the mystical to a type of mystery but not magic, I can understand there is strangeness beyond the wildest imagining, but not spells or witchery, or arbitrary miracles. The power of religion depends, in the last resort, upon the credibility of the banners it puts in the hands of [men and women] as they stand before death, or more accurately, as they walk, inevitably, toward it – at its very core, Christianity does offer this ‘power’.

relda,
Again, I agree. I suppose I got carried away with your remark about the “network of beliefs” since it touches upon the borderland between the philosophies of science and religion, where I feel more at home than with morals and ethics, thus neglecting the focus of your previous post.

Of course, sexual ethics, and the view of the role of the two sexes as complementary rather than mutually interchangeable - the standard things you list - are the weak points in the Catholic teaching. This I have acknowledged by saying that the young people did not ‘celebrate‘ this teaching (the, indeed anachronistic, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae) but the symbol of their faith - and, I believe, also of their cofidence that one can build the future without repudiating the past. You also speak of the Pope as a symbol, and I think it was his ‘charisma‘ that made him attractive to those young people, rather than ‘ceremony and splendour‘ that appeal more to older people more aware of the two millennia old tradition.

I agree that we differ just in our opinions, often influenced by our personal experiences. Many people develop an aversion towards mathematics, the Church or religion in general because of an incompetent teacher or priest they were exposed to. This seems to be the case of ‘our Shadow Minister’ (and unfortunately of many others).

I also have to admit that my loyalty to the Catholic Church, in spite of all of my reservations regarding Humanae Vitae, was conditioned by an opposite experience in a Communist country were in face of an ubiquitous anti-Church propaganda it was much ‘easier‘ to be a priest or a nun respected by not only the Catholics.

The Lutheran Bishopess of Hannover is a clever defender of the Christian position in talks on German TV, but since the ‘yin part’ of my Christianity was formed by my grandmother and many nuns, my Christianity feels somehow more comfortable with them complementing rather than replacing the role of the priests. But, as metioned, this is just my opinion conditioned by my personal experience. (ctd)

(ctd) Also I think that the mystery that Einstein speaks about, that can be experienced by almost everybody - just by silently observing the nature, listening to classical music, liturgy or pondering the (mathematical) ingenuity of the way the universe is working (was created) - is at best a very mild version of the mystical experience that V.V. Raman analyses in the article I mentioned (c.f. also William James’ ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’). It is an experience that can be had, if at ll, only after a very very long ‘training’. V.V. Raman:

“In transcendental mysticism, the mystic becomes aware of an aspect of reality that had no ordinarily recognized shape or form, and of which he or she never had any inkling before. It is as though a person who has been blind all their lifsuddenly has their eyes open … (he) would be as intrigued and confused by the abstract entities to which scientists assign objective reality as scientists often are with the religious symbols that religious practitioners take quite seriously. The one important difference is that the icons of science constitute exopotent reality (truths that can be used to manipulate the world), whereas the religious ones are essentially endopotent (that is, they contribute primarily to the inner dimension of life).“

I do not think Einstein had this in mind.

George, Thanks for highlighting V V Raman. I’ve found him to be of some interest. In an interview Raman relates, as a grad student, he had the opportunity to meet Bertrand Russell in Paris. Raman suggested a ‘Bertrand Russell society’ be formed in order to propagate his (Russell’s) ideas on rationality and compassion etc. Raman was a little puzzled at Russell’s reply, “my friend, I don’t think you’ve really understood anything of what I’ve been saying, for as soon as you associate a name with a message, people start worshipping that name and forget what the message is all about.” Raman saw a significant truth in this, saying one of the great advantages of Hinduism is that there isn’t a single person who established it, consequently, at the conceptual level the ideas, metaphysics and meaning of religious life does not focus on a particular founder.

I do seriously question, however, the validity of the Hindu caste system where even Mahatma Gandhi technically became an outcaste when travelling to England – I think here, any ‘advantage’ gained is lost. Raman also notes, the teachings of the founders of the great religions are generally forgotten in favour of actions, often reprehensible to the founder’s intent, performed by followers that are highly incongruent with any of the founder’s teachings. I’d suggest also, organisations often form under this 'force', developing a separate ethos, often on the basis of absolutist principles and become politically driven. – i.e. based on self-interest, however, this is all perhaps just inherently a part of the human condition. There needs a continual arbiter to refute this constant condition (I find the Koine Greek, Paraclete, comes to mind).
cont’d…