According to a recent article in Political Gateway, one of the fundamental tenets of Roman Catholicism is looking like it might be crumbling round the edges as far as the ‘faithful’ in the pews are concerned.
One of the dogmas of Catholicism that separates it from Protestantism is to do with intermediaries. The issue centres on who is allowed to intervene on your behalf with God. Protestants only officially had one - Jesus - but Catholics always had many. There was Mary, of course, and a host of saints (with new ones being created all the time). And then there was the priest who had the power to absolve you from sin at confession.
However, it seems that even in a traditional Catholic country like Italy, up to 40 per cent of Catholics are questioning the necessity of the priest to act as an intermediary between them and the divine. 30 percent of Italian Catholics don’t think it’s necessary to have priests in the confession process while another 10 percent said they thought the priest’s presence “impedes direct dialogue with the Lord.”
In the face of the absence of penitential Catholics in the confessional, the Vatican is organising training courses for priests in the hope that a better service might reverse the trend. Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, leader the tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, is developing training that includes some role-playing of real-life examples involving non-traditional and traditional couples seeking absolution. While I understand this pragmatic approach to solving the problem, it doesn’t address the underlying issue, and in my view, is unlikely to succeed.
Personally, I am encouraged by this trend away from the confessional. To me it represents a movement away from institutionalized authority, and a courage to determine one’s own relationship with any divine. Despite increasing secularization in society, there are still substantial numbers not wanting to go the whole way and officially abandon faith. They still want religious institutions to hang around. For many, it is almost as if they know that god is dead, but they cannot bring themselves to leave the temple. The move away from the confessional in Italy seems to be possible evidence that large numbers of people are re-negotiating their relationship with their faith. Instead of being dominated by it, more of them are saying, “I still want a bit of church, but on my terms. It has less power over me and my thinking.”
It may take a very long time before the edifice collapses, but there are occasional signs that it isn’t weathering too well.
Good blog. Agree with what you say. Love the title.
Crumble, Crumble, all I can think of here is apple crumble.
Who had the apple? oh yes, it was Eve. A woman’s fault again with harbouring sin, never first a man. Why couldn’t he have had the Apple first? See what Yalom is doing for me. THINKING oh thinkingman, from your chum thoughtfulwoman.
Seriously, I liked the last paragraph especially.
Wishful thinking, I fear. It will take millions of years for the stupidity to be evolved out of species, don’t you think]?
But kudos for looking for the silver lining.
Nice post. I agree that this is a very good sign. It probably will take some more generations to break free from the grasp of organized religion, but there are many signs that each generation is gaining a bit more freedom than its predecessors.
It is interesting to see the Roman Catholic church, as usual, sticking to its errors in the interest of keeping the tradition.
Any other institution would get rid of the practice. But, no, the RC church prefers to fix it. No wonder Christianity is so archaic.
I am not sure, though, that the rejection of the confession practice means that the RC church is crumbling. At least in Latin America, most Roman Catholics are nominal Christians. They rarely go to church and confession, well, that’s for old ladies.
So really people couldn’t care less about the rules and regulations. They just want a place to be baptized , married, and buried.
If it weren’t because its devotees care so little about living out the faith, the RC church would’ve died a long time ago. It is possible, though, that the number of TRUE catholics is decreasing, in which case, yeah, perhaps the RC church is in trouble.
To me it represents a movement away from institutionalized authority, and a courage to determine one’s own relationship with any divine. . . . Instead of being dominated by it, more of them are saying, “I still want a bit of church, but on my terms. It has less power over me and my thinking.”
But that’s the funny thing about God. Not being His equal, we really aren’t entitled to have Him (or His Church) on our terms. Compartmentalised faith really isn’t faith at all. After all, we are dealing with issues concerning what is the very essence and purpose of life.
Any rejection of, or reticence toward, the sacrament of reconciliation is simply depriving the oneself of the benefits of the sacrament. It is not that you cannot confess your sins to God without a priest. And it is not that the priest is an intermediary, any more than individual Christians are intermediaries when they offer prayers on behalf of others.
To see the institution of the Church as some bad thing imposed upon Catholics makes no sense. The Church is the keeper of that which has been passed down by Jesus and His Apostles. Through it’s leadership it makes decisions on how to apply that in any given milieu.
Lorena says the Catholic Church is sticking to its errors, but doesn’t define what those errors are. If they stick to anything in the interest of keeping the tradition, then they are simply doing that they are supposed to be doing. That is the Church’s job: keeping the tradition.
“impedes direct dialogue with the Lord.”
Um, how can you “impede dialogue” with a non-existent entity?
There isn’t any dialogue to start with…
I’m afraid I can’t muster any enthusiasm whatsoever for these supposed changes. They are just people shuffling around to find a more comfortable position in an uncomfortable room that they would be better leaving altogether.
Then again, I suppose it has its comical side.
Or it could be seen as comical that someone assumes there’s no dialogue just because they aren’t a part of the conversation.
I find nothing more comical (or illogical) than the assumption that entities don’t exist, just because we do not perceive them Or put more accurately, because some do not perceive them.
And having never been in the room, how do you know how comfortable it is or not, and how can you tell them they would be better leaving it?
But it just goes to show how irrational atheism is.