Link to article
In the conservative blog "PJ Media," the author, Stephen Kruiser lambasts the mainstream media (MSM) for unfairly critiquing the election of a new pope. He accuses the MSM of trying to mold the church in its own liberal, Starbucks sipping, view of the world. The church, in his view, is an immutable institution "because the Church isn't whimsical or a slave to the social quirks of a given era." The media has accused the Church of being backwards on issues such as women's rights, including, but not limited to, abortion. They have also been seen as being averse to homosexuals and gay marriage. Kruiser sees no reason for the Church to yield to the pressure being put on it by the MSM as he sees it.
Kruiser is right in the sense that it seems implausible that the Church would change its stance on an issue it has held for 2000 years. But it's not just the media that's questioned the Roman Catholic Church. Church attendance across Europe and the United States has fallen steadily over the past 15 years. Gay marriage is garnering greater acceptance as well as contraception. Many religious values are giving way to secular ones. This is not just a trend in the media, but the developed world's society as well. So, given this phenomenon, why shouldn't the media ask these questions about the Church? The Church seems to be fighting a losing battle on polemic social issues, and the only way I see the Church surviving in the long term future is to ask itself this question: Can the Church continue to be relevant in a growing secular society when it embraces ideas that more and more people are rapidly rejecting?
I should not discount the changes on some limited levels that the Catholic Church, or at least some individual people at high positions, have undergone. Pope Francis does respect homosexuals as people, however, he does not go as far as to fully accept the concept of gay marriage. The Catholic Church is usually the last hold out to what society in general has accepted, whether it's the growing faith in science, prevalence of contraception, or anything.
Declining attendance, in my view, cannot be remedied. Science has provided us with irrevocable truths about the world that for thousands of years of human history have remained a mystery, explained by different supernatural myths. With science having taken off over the last couple hundred years or so, the need for the church has expectedly gone down. Humans have only known the structure of DNA, the essential building blocks of all living things, for about 60 years. Science does not know everything, but it has explained much more in a relatively short period of time than religion ever has. The best chance for church survival is to radically change its stance on virtually every social issue and hope it still attracts followers.
The MSM is not at fault for bringing up thoughtful questions. In fact, I think the only way for the Church to survive is to ask them amongst themselves. The Church has adapted before, however. Prior to the Copernican model of the solar system came to be broadly accepted, the Church excommunicated and condemned as heretics the proponents of such a model. They have since de-excommunicated Galileo and others who went against Church doctrine. The Church is in conflict with secular society, ignoring the conflict would be a sort of dereliction of duty by the media.
I would link the PJ media blog somewhere in here so that it's more easily accessible. Also photos would be helpful. I do agree that it's very unlikely for the Catholic Church and the Vatican to suddenly switch sides. I think it'll take decades of small steps forward before we see any real change. And these cardinals do average from 60 to 80 years old so they're still coming from decades where these stances on these issues were held to a higher degree. It'll be interesting to see where the cardinals stand in 20 or 30 years. Pope Francis, though against gay marriage, is vocal about respect towards gays which is a small step. Compared to Cardinal Scola who was a supposed frontrunner yet blamed women for homosexuality. I would definitely expand more on your argument towards the Church in how it can battle the losing trend of attendance because it's definitely a significant point as people don't always feel connected to the church. Your blog ends on a really good point, because the church has changed positions, slowly, but surely. Perhaps expand more on what you think the church would have to do, and how much time this would take, before they support more current social issues? Do you think there would ever be a female pope? Would gay marriage ever be supported? Also, maybe just rope more of Pope Francis' views in here somewhere. Your blog brings up a lot of interesting and essential points that we do need to reflect upon. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteYou did well here at expressing your views about the political relevancy of the Catholic Church in modern society, but there is much that needs to be expanded upon or clarified here. First, as one of your fellow group members notes, you definitely need to link to this blog post that you are discussing, so a reader can see for themselves the raw material of what you critique. Second, given the content of our class, you should definitely go further into why this blogger believes the mainstream media is biased against the Church, whether he/she provides concrete evidence for this view, what the political value of making such a claim might be, etc. Instead you just accept that argument about the media coverage, and if you do think his/her contention is a valid one, you would want to present some support for why it is accurate. That would also probably involve the inclusion of more links.
ReplyDelete