Educating Catholics a mistake?

[pieces o nine]

When I was preparing to lapse right off the register  -- --  the premise of this topic occupied a great deal of my thoughts.

I found that I could no longer accept everything as "Gospel" and felt that everyone would be a good deal better off if they gave up referring to any and all readings as [intoned solemnly] The Word of the LORD. Perhaps even set aside some of the more egregiously violence-inducing / double-standard-glorifying passages altogether with a frank acknowledgment that they truly do not apply to any time or culture other than the Bronze Age nomads who created them.

On the other hand, I realized I was advocating the same type of "correction" which I suspect has been sporadically wreaked upon Holy Writ (and history and mythos, regardless of culture or doctrine) whenever a belief system falls behind the prevailing culture's increase in knowledge, consciousness -- or even bigotry. Altering the texts alters historical records of attitudes and deeds, and is a form of censorship I look down on. Yet here I was, contemplating much same redaction, for (I realized) much the same reasons.

There were traditions and rituals I enjoyed very much, and I do miss them. But I do not miss concealing anger when someone employs either Scripture or the Magisterium to browbeat others into submission, nor do I miss feeling uncomfortable when passages describing behaviour now understood as barbaric or even illegal are read out with blithe disregard and no comment.

I would rather have an angry cleric--or angry ex-boyfriend--scathingly attack me for a "host" of terrible traits (including "intellectualism"!) as a result of my inquisitiveness and education, than sit silently and meekly in a pew accepting whatever I was told to accept by someone who scrupulously avoids any engagement of mind, body, spirit, or heart.

[stellinacadente]

There is other side to the problem it self (of falling attendence) and it's related to a relative wealth and security of the average European citizen. My sister was pointing out the other day that strife is possibly the best way to propagate religious sentiments, that is, when there is little security of what can happen the next day, the thought of a higher power/plane can bring some solace.

uhmmm somehow what you state above is kinda sounding like you need to be a weak/poor/ignorant person to believe...

I do not mean offense to your faith and I admire the Catholics I know that still hold on to it...

but you have to admit that not only science is mining St Peter square but just the knowledge itself of how this religion came about...

the dogmas of Christianity are obsolete and, now more and more the word is spreading, that it wasn't Christ at all to dictate them.

IMO if the church wants to keep their attendance and/or wants to increase it, it must change its approach and make spiritual thoughts a way to reach meaning, rather than a kind of last resort hope.

I agree 100%... but how are they going to do it if they are running a whole Country??? Wait... this is a 1000 years old problem...

how about all the scandals of priests molesting kids at Sunday school?

and this is just recent history...

IMHO the Catholic church is at last crumbling... and thank to the Gods for that!

but that doesn't take anything away from the faith in Christ per se...

the only thing is ...will a good catholic take the responsibility of his own actions and,most of all, spirituality upon himself ?

UHHMMMMM

My apologies... this might be a little 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

uhmmm somehow what you state above is kinda sounding like you need to be a weak/poor/ignorant person to believe...

Actually wealth, knowledge, even power are not guarantee, let me explain: one of the biggest differences from the 1st world to the 3rd is the efficiency and competency of the justice system, that is, that you can go to the street at night knowing that the probability of getting mugged, raped or killed is relatively low because the ones doing such things are frequently caught and removed from the streets. In the 3d world that's not the case, and while you learn how to negotiate your daily life there is still a chance that something bad may happen to you. At that point -when there is no comfort in the law of the land, and your safety is in play- a higher power has a big appeal.

Certainly, those who are poor and/or ignorant tend to be weaker and in consequence their sense of safety is even worse, which IMO explains why there are more garage churches in ghettos than in more affluent neighborhoods.

Note, that those feelings not only apply to Catholics but to all Christians, Muslims, Hindus and even Buddhists regardless of their denomination.

I do not mean offense to your faith and I admire the Catholics I know that still hold on to it...
[snip]
the dogmas of Christianity are obsolete and, now more and more the word is spreading, that it wasn't Christ at all to dictate them.

Heh, I'm agnostic, I used to be Catholic but now only in name in front of certain family members not to upset them () and I agree that some of their dogmas are obsolete and dangerous (the position against contraception is particularly destructive the 3rd world IMO). But as much as I dislike the position of the Catholic church I'm even more critical of the evangelical movement (which in my experience tends to be more manipulative, fundamentalist and frequently takes direct advantage of their followers), but then again the principles apply to all mayor religions as long as the "dogma trumps reason" motto remains.

[Griffin NoName]

IMO if the church wants to keep their attendance and/or wants to increase it, it must change its approach and make spiritual thoughts a way to reach meaning, rather than a kind of last resort hope.

I don't see how it can change its approach when the nature of the approach is that of a closed system.

To become an open system would entail ditching itself. IMHO.

All religions teach us to find meaning, within the confines of their system, and regard this as a spiritual quest, don't they? Judaism certainly does - which I feel qualified to say.

Some people, we know, manage to achieve this genuinely within the system, and I applaud them, but I would suggest they are so few in number that it's not significantly helpful to humanity.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

In my understanding Buddhism isn't a closed system, and while it does have a set of guidelines, I've never heard any kind of demonization of whatever is outside the system that is so common in the Abrahamic religions. It is indeed a spiritual (or personal depending on your interpretation) quest but not one that preaches exclusion (perhaps seclusion).

Again, it's more related to dogma than anything else, and it is a shame that the dogma isn't limited to love thy neighbor as you love thy self. 

[pieces o nine]

Again, it's more related to dogma than anything else, and it is a shame that the dogma isn't limited to love thy neighbor as you love thy self. 

That's the problem, right there.   

Sometimes fanatically relligious people appear to be so full of self-loathing that they see everyone else as deserving of ill-treatment as a matter of course.

[Griffin NoName]

Fair point. I'll downgrade to "most" religions, or even "most Abrahamic religions".

To be picky, not sure how helpful seclusion is to the masses.

Shinto is interesting as it is not strictly a religion.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To be picky, not sure how helpful seclusion is to the masses.

Actually almost all religions (and some philosophies) advocate seclusion in one form or another, although I find the teaching about knowing thyself, self-control and individual journey clearer in eastern religions, while the Abrahamic hold closer to the where there are two or more concept.

Certainly not everyone can be a Bodhisattva, but if one sees religion as a set of guidelines it may mean that at some point when the individual is ready for a more committed approach (s)he can choose that path.