5 ms·

I was raised Catholic and even though the last time I've been to a church could have been in 2019, I don't remember any priest who wouldn't just gloss over the

I was raised Catholic and even though the last time I've been to a church could have been in 2019, I don't remember any priest who wouldn't just gloss over the religious content for the day (copied from an online source), itching to share his politics and the most recent ragebait he's got from Facebook at the end.

aubanel 7mo ago
That's a bit harsh! I go to mass every Sunday (in France) and rarely have political stuff. When there, it's most often about abortion or euthanasia (of course in a pro-life (or anti-choice) direction, "you shall not kill") But dull, empty homilies are (alas) very frequent.
- stratocumulus0 7mo ago
  Catholicism is different in every country, I would imagine that a church in a secular place such as France would contain itself a bit, because there's no societal expectation that anyone should follow its religion, and therefore the priests have to put in effort into making people stay. In Poland, where I grew up, the Church still holds a lot of power and prestige, and priests consider themselves to have authority over people's lives. Leaving the church is seen as more of a childish rebellion, and I would often hear mocking remarks about non-believers in homilies.
  - sigmoid10 7mo ago
    It also varies inside countries. Some priests are simply more demure than others. The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain, but many low level employees that still talk to commoners do realize that these views are going to put off more people than they attract in developed countries. So in the long term they will only be left with a bunch of crazy radicalists and a silent majority that wants absolutely nothing to do with them.
    - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - sigmoid10 7mo ago
        Perhaps you could share your alternative characterisation of the church to clarify what you mean?
        lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
        I would say that the burden of proof is yours first. But since you asked... > The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain Where are these "radical conservative" bishops? They're anything but "radical". If anything, they tend toward a soft middle that is very slow to act. Indeed, that's one of the gripes "radtrad" types tend to have. They would prefer more bishops were made in their own image. Instead, we see bishops aggressively curtailing more traditional expressions of the faith, while permitting plenty of liturgical abuse of, shall we say, a decidedly "untraditional" stripe. > So in the long term they will only be left with a bunch of crazy radicalists and a silent majority that wants absolutely nothing to do with them. You can't be serious. If anything characterizes the post-Vatican II Church, it has been the greater influence of "progressive" and "modernist" elements, some of them quite radical. Only in relatively recent times are we seeing a growing, younger crop returning to traditional forms. You can expect that the Church will look more traditional within a generation or two. Your claim reminds me of those who clamored to make the Church more "relevant". They claimed that if the Church didn't do so, it would lose the youth and imperil the future of the Church. Instead, what we saw was the reverse. As the Church became more "relevant" - which is to say, more concerned with the temporal and the temporary, conforming to the times instead of shaping men and the times - it became less appealing to the youth. It should be obvious in retrospect. What people desire from the Church is the eternal and the transcendent, not more of the same that you can get elsewhere and in bulk. So, all that "relevance" produces is a large exit of the youth from the Church. Attend a "progressive" parish and you'll see plenty of empty pews with a few aging boomers. Go to a more traditional parish, and you see the pews brimming with families. These are not isolated cases. These are broad trends. If you do see a swing toward the traditional, it is not because "crazy radicalist conservative" bishops are concentrating those elements, but because of a process of natural selection. "Relevance", it turns out, is dysgenic. And as the traditional element increases and becomes more visible, so does the visibility of its substance, which is what attracts converts and reverts.
- aarroyoc 7mo ago
  The last time I attended a mass (Spain) it was about some people in the village that were not helping the church enough (with an activity they had to do but also I think there was some money involved) but it was a bit cryptic, so only the ones that were directed the message to could fully understand it.
  - SanjayMehta 7mo ago
    There's always money involved.
- Tyumyu 7mo ago
  [dead]
- ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
  I mean what exactly do you expect them to talk about week after week in what amounts logistically to a book club that only reads one book? Doubly-so since people are now apparently criticizing Christian pastors for quoting Christ.
  - watwut 7mo ago
    Catholics have more then just one book. They have whole libraries of theology and tradition way larger then just a bible. And large lists of saints to refer to. Evangelical would be closer to one book thing, altrought it would still ve a stretch.
mountainb 7mo ago
I have heard phoned in homilies from some priests but this is not accurate in the United States based on my travels and weekly local attendance. Sorry that you had a bad experience.
- seba_dos1 7mo ago
  I can assure you that their experience wasn't in any way exceptional. It may be different in the US as Catholicism is in the minority in there (~20%), while GP's experience is from a place absolutely dominated by it (>90%).
cafard 7mo ago
This is in the US? I have rarely heard political homilies.
- mcv 7mo ago
  Religion has been far more politicised in the US than elsewhere. And not exactly in a direction that makes sense to me (a European protestant).
  - stbede 7mo ago
    European Protestantism and American Protestantism differ in substantial ways. Crudely, European Protestantism went the way of Hegelian dialectics and evolving beyond the Christianity of the Bible. American (conservative) Protestantism largely reacted against that. I think both groups are largely held together by politics today though their politics differ in the expected ways.

aubanel 7mo ago

That's a bit harsh! I go to mass every Sunday (in France) and rarely have political stuff. When there, it's most often about abortion or euthanasia (of course in a pro-life (or anti-choice) direction, "you shall not kill") But dull, empty homilies are (alas) very frequent.

stratocumulus0 7mo ago
Catholicism is different in every country, I would imagine that a church in a secular place such as France would contain itself a bit, because there's no societal expectation that anyone should follow its religion, and therefore the priests have to put in effort into making people stay. In Poland, where I grew up, the Church still holds a lot of power and prestige, and priests consider themselves to have authority over people's lives. Leaving the church is seen as more of a childish rebellion, and I would often hear mocking remarks about non-believers in homilies.
- sigmoid10 7mo ago
  It also varies inside countries. Some priests are simply more demure than others. The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain, but many low level employees that still talk to commoners do realize that these views are going to put off more people than they attract in developed countries. So in the long term they will only be left with a bunch of crazy radicalists and a silent majority that wants absolutely nothing to do with them.
  - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - sigmoid10 7mo ago
      Perhaps you could share your alternative characterisation of the church to clarify what you mean?
      - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
        I would say that the burden of proof is yours first. But since you asked... > The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain Where are these "radical conservative" bishops? They're anything but "radical". If anything, they tend toward a soft middle that is very slow to act. Indeed, that's one of the gripes "radtrad" types tend to have. They would prefer more bishops were made in their own image. Instead, we see bishops aggressively curtailing more traditional expressions of the faith, while permitting plenty of liturgical abuse of, shall we say, a decidedly "untraditional" stripe. > So in the long term they will only be left with a bunch of crazy radicalists and a silent majority that wants absolutely nothing to do with them. You can't be serious. If anything characterizes the post-Vatican II Church, it has been the greater influence of "progressive" and "modernist" elements, some of them quite radical. Only in relatively recent times are we seeing a growing, younger crop returning to traditional forms. You can expect that the Church will look more traditional within a generation or two. Your claim reminds me of those who clamored to make the Church more "relevant". They claimed that if the Church didn't do so, it would lose the youth and imperil the future of the Church. Instead, what we saw was the reverse. As the Church became more "relevant" - which is to say, more concerned with the temporal and the temporary, conforming to the times instead of shaping men and the times - it became less appealing to the youth. It should be obvious in retrospect. What people desire from the Church is the eternal and the transcendent, not more of the same that you can get elsewhere and in bulk. So, all that "relevance" produces is a large exit of the youth from the Church. Attend a "progressive" parish and you'll see plenty of empty pews with a few aging boomers. Go to a more traditional parish, and you see the pews brimming with families. These are not isolated cases. These are broad trends. If you do see a swing toward the traditional, it is not because "crazy radicalist conservative" bishops are concentrating those elements, but because of a process of natural selection. "Relevance", it turns out, is dysgenic. And as the traditional element increases and becomes more visible, so does the visibility of its substance, which is what attracts converts and reverts.
aarroyoc 7mo ago
The last time I attended a mass (Spain) it was about some people in the village that were not helping the church enough (with an activity they had to do but also I think there was some money involved) but it was a bit cryptic, so only the ones that were directed the message to could fully understand it.
- SanjayMehta 7mo ago
  There's always money involved.
Tyumyu 7mo ago
[dead]
ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
I mean what exactly do you expect them to talk about week after week in what amounts logistically to a book club that only reads one book? Doubly-so since people are now apparently criticizing Christian pastors for quoting Christ.
- watwut 7mo ago
  Catholics have more then just one book. They have whole libraries of theology and tradition way larger then just a bible. And large lists of saints to refer to. Evangelical would be closer to one book thing, altrought it would still ve a stretch.

mountainb 7mo ago

I have heard phoned in homilies from some priests but this is not accurate in the United States based on my travels and weekly local attendance. Sorry that you had a bad experience.

seba_dos1 7mo ago
I can assure you that their experience wasn't in any way exceptional. It may be different in the US as Catholicism is in the minority in there (~20%), while GP's experience is from a place absolutely dominated by it (>90%).

cafard 7mo ago

This is in the US? I have rarely heard political homilies.

mcv 7mo ago
Religion has been far more politicised in the US than elsewhere. And not exactly in a direction that makes sense to me (a European protestant).
- stbede 7mo ago
  European Protestantism and American Protestantism differ in substantial ways. Crudely, European Protestantism went the way of Hegelian dialectics and evolving beyond the Christianity of the Bible. American (conservative) Protestantism largely reacted against that. I think both groups are largely held together by politics today though their politics differ in the expected ways.