3 ms·

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 societ

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.
      - sigmoid10 7mo ago
        So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording because you somehow felt personally attacked? Given your reasoning I suspect you work(ed) for the church in some capacity or are at least deeply involved. But it'll be quite obvious to anyone reading this that it is not exactly an objective opinion.
        lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
        This is just a sad comment. Please stick to the merit and substance instead of reaching for bizarre speculation about my motives. And no, I do not work or have ever worked for the Church. I am an observer with an above average knowledge of what is occurring in the Church. The idea that I am necessarily less objective for that reason, and less than an ignorant outsider, is ridiculous and fallacious. And for your information, my motive is correctness. I get annoyed by confidently expressed, ignorant claims posing as knowledge, especially when it is unfair to the accused party. > So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording No. I disagree with your reasoning, which I took the time to explain in detail and which you seem to have completely ignored.
- stbede 7mo ago
  > The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain I think right now it’s the exact opposite.
  - sigmoid10 7mo ago
    Have you seen the current pope? He's a big step back from the last one. And the reason for this is the cardinals who wanted back, because they were never fully on board anyway. Then again what would you expect from a group where average age is significantly older than even US congress.
    - stbede 7mo ago
      The current pope is a little more traditional, but it’s hard not to be more traditional than Francis. However, the cardinals as a whole are more or less on board with the previous pope’s agenda, American bishops a little less so, and many American priests much less so. Outside of America, you may be right (the brewing rebellion in Germany being an extreme counter example).

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.
    - sigmoid10 7mo ago
      So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording because you somehow felt personally attacked? Given your reasoning I suspect you work(ed) for the church in some capacity or are at least deeply involved. But it'll be quite obvious to anyone reading this that it is not exactly an objective opinion.
      - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
        This is just a sad comment. Please stick to the merit and substance instead of reaching for bizarre speculation about my motives. And no, I do not work or have ever worked for the Church. I am an observer with an above average knowledge of what is occurring in the Church. The idea that I am necessarily less objective for that reason, and less than an ignorant outsider, is ridiculous and fallacious. And for your information, my motive is correctness. I get annoyed by confidently expressed, ignorant claims posing as knowledge, especially when it is unfair to the accused party. > So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording No. I disagree with your reasoning, which I took the time to explain in detail and which you seem to have completely ignored.
stbede 7mo ago
> The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain I think right now it’s the exact opposite.
- sigmoid10 7mo ago
  Have you seen the current pope? He's a big step back from the last one. And the reason for this is the cardinals who wanted back, because they were never fully on board anyway. Then again what would you expect from a group where average age is significantly older than even US congress.
  - stbede 7mo ago
    The current pope is a little more traditional, but it’s hard not to be more traditional than Francis. However, the cardinals as a whole are more or less on board with the previous pope’s agenda, American bishops a little less so, and many American priests much less so. Outside of America, you may be right (the brewing rebellion in Germany being an extreme counter example).