Posts Tagged ‘Catholic’
In December 2011, after new austerity measures were adopted in the country, 130,000 Italians signed an online petition urging the government to strip the Church of its tax exemption. The move could net Italy revenues of 500 million to 2 billion euros annually, municipal government associations said. The figure is 6 billion euros a year according to UAAR, the Italian Humanist Association. The extra income from previously exempt properties in Rome alone, including hotels, restaurants and sports centers, could reach 25.5 million euros a year, La Repubblica daily newspaper reported.
Marco Catalano, a 35 year old shopkeeper in Rome, who goes to church twice a month, told the New York Times:
It was time that they paid, too, with all the exemptions they’ve had throughout the years. They own the most beautiful buildings in downtown Rome, on Italian soil, and rent them out at market prices. They don’t give them for free or at low prices for charity.
Update: July 20, 2012 America’s “Nones”—the nonreligious—are at an all time high, now comprising nearly one in five Americans (19 percent), according to a new study by the Pew Center for the People and the Press. The 19 percent count is based on aggregated surveys of 19,377 people conducted by the Pew Research Center throughout 2011 and reported by USA Today. Nones are the second largest “denomination” in the nation following Catholics, up from joint third with Baptists.
Nones were already the fastest growing segment of the US population, according to the definitive American Religious Identification Survey, whose 2008 study showed adult Nones up to 15 percent from 6 percent in 1990. ARIS, released in 2009, actually estimated Nones at 20 percent. A 2009 Pew Forum on switching religious opinions found more than 10 percent of American adults became Nones after growing up within a religious group.
Most minority religions, however tiny in numbers, are treated with respect, inclusion and sometimes deference. It’s time public officials and the American public wake up to the changing demographics and stop treating atheists and agnostics as outsiders. With nonbelievers at about 20 percent of the population, there is no longer any excuse for leaving us out of the equation. Public officials cannot continue to assume all Americans believe in a deity, or continue to offend 20 percent of the population by imposing prayer at governmental meetings or government hosted events. These surveys now show that “In God We Trust”‘ is a provenly inaccurate motto. Nonbelievers should not be treated as political pariahs.Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF.
FFRF, the Freedom From Religion Foundation—the nation’s largest association of freethinkers, atheists and agnostics—based in Madison, Wisconsin, aims to keep religion and government separate. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational charity.
A study, coauthored by Notre Dame social scientists, Darren W Davis and Donald B Pope-Davis, focusing on African American Catholics, challenges common assumptions about one of the Black community’s less popular Christian churches. Commissioned by the National Black Catholic Congress and the University of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life and Office of the President, it tested whether anecdotal accounts that Black Catholics were becoming increasingly disengaged from their religion were true. It is historic in that it is the largest sample of African American Catholics ever surveyed on their faith. Although the focus of the survey is on African American Catholics, a comparison is made with white Catholics, yielding notable findings about them too. Among the findings of the survey are:
- On almost every measure of religious engagement, African American Catholics are considered stronger in their faith than white Catholics:
- 78 percent of Black Catholics report that their parish meets their spiritual needs compared to only 69 percent of white Catholics.
- 76 percent of African American Catholics say their parish meets their emotional needs, compared to 60 percent of white Catholics.
- 48 percent of African Americans attend church at least once per week, compared to only 30 percent of white Catholics.
- A major difference in the religious engagement between African American Catholics and white Catholics is the importance each group attaches to social networks in the parish.
- 29 percent of African Americans considered it was important that friends attended their church, while only eight percent of white Catholics considered it important.
African American’s increased appreciation of religious social interactions and tendency to attend all Black parishes contributes to their satisfaction. Davis commented:
This finding also shows up among African American Catholics who attend predominantly black parishes. A greater sense of community that comes from worshipping with others who share cultural heritage heightens religious engagement. Whatever forces are working against white Catholics’ religious identity and engagement were set in motion decades ago and those forces do not appear to be working against African American Catholics. Thus, it is quite possible that understanding African American Catholicity may inform us about the religious challenges of white Catholics. Too often we approach questions of religiosity in a vacuum. Comparable studies of religiosity are critical.
While there is generally high satisfaction with various aspects of Mass and church service, such as preaching, music, readings and prayers, Catholics’—both white and black Americans—level of satisfaction with these aspects of Mass are noticeably lower than Protestants. Pope-Davis noted:
This finding is interesting because we often hear anecdotal complaints about the Catholic Mass as quiescent, but most Catholics do not share this view. But, relative to the components of Protestant church service, Catholics are not as satisfied.
Despite their high level of religious engagement, African American Catholics are not completely satisfied with the scope of racial inclusiveness in the Church:
- About one in four African American Catholics perceive racism in their parish:
- 32 percent say they are uncomfortable because they are the only person of color in their parish
- 26 percent say that fellow parishioners avoid them because of their race,
- 24 percent say that fellow parishioners reluctantly shake their hands
- 25 percent say they have experienced racial insensitivity toward African Americans from their priest.
- African American Catholics see room for growth in the racial positions of the Catholic Church:
- 37 percent are satisfied with the targeting of black vocations
- 38 percent are satisfied with the Church’s emphasis on black saints
- 40 percent are satisfied with promoting black bishops
- 40 percent are satisfied with the Church’s support for issues like affirmative action
- 44 percent are satisfied with the Church’s position on problems in Africa
- 45 percent are satisfied with the promotion of racial integration in the Church.
- But 23 percent of African Americans consider the Catholic Church racist against African Americans.
Davis points out:
Asking questions about abstract racism in the Church breaks down somewhat when asked about specific elements of the Church. This is not that unusual in survey research. But, it is clear that while there are still challenges for many African American Catholics in their parishes, the views of the institutional Church are more jaundiced or jaded.
The survey also uncovered notable national demographic trends that are evident within religious denominations that have great consequences for the future church:
- 53 percent of African American Catholics and 53 percent of African American Protestants are at least 45 years old, compared to 63 percent of white Catholics and 62 percent of white Protestants
- 33 percent of African American Catholics and 35 percent of African American Protestants are married, compared to 21 percent of white Catholics and 14 percent of white Protestants.
- A larger percentage of African American Catholics have college degrees than African American Protestants, but a larger percentage of Catholics are college educated.
The US’s estimated three million Black Catholics are highly educated and deeply engaged in the church. They value the social and communal aspects of religious worship and some are concerned about the status of racism within the church—some are discontent about racial inclusiveness in the church. Nearly one in four respondents felt that the Catholic Church is racist against African Americans. More than 31 percent say they are uncomfortable because they are the only person of color in their parish, and about a quarter say that fellow parishioners avoid them because of their race, that fellow parishioners reluctantly shake their hands and that they have experienced racial insensitivity from their priest.
The research team hopes that the information gathered in the survey will help the Catholic church respond more efficiently to the needs of parishioners. Pope-Davis observed:
The forces that shape white Catholicity are different from the forces that shape African American Catholicity.
For most of the dark ages, so called because of the absence of learning brought about by the victory of Christianity, people lived in misery largely because of their poverty, not because they had ideas beyond their station. Peasants knew their place in the social system, and even in the nineteenth century, the wife of the Bishop of Armagh was going to make sure the little scallywags at Sunday school knew it:
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.All things bright and beautiful, Mrs C F Alexander
Most people were effectively slaves throughout the time of the Feudal system. They had a notional freedom, but in practice were tied to their lord and master and the bit of his land he allotted to the peasant to pay him for his otherwise corvée service to the manor. As Mrs Alexander wrote, God had “ordered their estate”, and few villeins entertained any idea of getting on in the world.
Some however, did, and especially after the millennium year (1000 AD) when the parousia did not happen and Christ failed to appear as the bishops had been promising for centuries. Thereafter, some people objected to their propaganda (Catholic lies—the original meaning of the word), many of them in the south of France, in Languedoc. They were Cathars and Vaudois, and preached spontaneously against Catholicism as being a Satanic plot. The Church organized a crusade against them, massacring and scattering them, then set up the Inquisition to pursue the scattered remains throughout Europe, calling them witches, and projecting on to them the accusation of being Satanic that the witches had originally pinned on the Catholic clergy. As the Church won, it is witches who are now remembered as Satanic.
The Cathars and Waldenses were the first Protestants and the first capitalists, for many had to travel around earning what living they could as craftsmen and tinkers. Their preaching against Catholicism inspired people like Wycliffe and Tyndall, and the Lollards. They also motivated the peasantry to think strange thoughts, thoughts that God had not ordered everyone’s place, and that human beings need not be tied to the land. In England in 1381, the peasants revolted. A Lollard preacher, John Ball, taught quite a different message from that which the serfs held habitually and unquestioningly until then:
When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then a gentleman? From the beginning all men were created equal by nature, and servitude had been introduced by the unjust and evil oppression of men, against the will of God, who, if it had pleased Him to create serfs, surely in the beginning of the world would have appointed who should be a serf and who a lord.
These dissenting Christians were reading the bible for themselves, and Ball plainly meant that God had not made any such prescription in Genesis, so the presumed order of society had been arranged by the nobility and the clergy hand in hand for their own benefit, and contrary to God’s intention.
Primeval Human Groups
Adam and Eve in the bible had willingly chosen to disobey God, but the notion of God had sociologically come from the interpretation of their societies that early humans, just awakening into consciousness, found themselves living in. These small human groups were essentially classless. Leaders were treated with somewhat greater respect than ordinary members of the group, because they had to take decisions on the group’s behalf, but otherwise they barely differed from the others, living, sharing and caring equally with them.
A child was born into the group, and knew nothing else. When they were ill or hungry, it was the group that looked after them. The purpose of the leader was to keep them united when they were attacked by a predator or a rival group, so every member looked to others for defense and security too. And that was just how they saw it as they died. The group always provided for them and protected them from birth until death. It was, to them, as much part of Nature as the rising of the sun. It seemed eternal because it was in existence when they were born, it still was when they were dying, and so it had always been. The group was led by one member, the most competent of them to do it, and particularly good leaders were remembered, and became identified with the group first as a totem, then an ancestor or a father. In time the benefits of the tribe transferred to a mythical founding leader, who thereby became a god.
So the imagined benefits of the supernatural god or God were inherited from the benefits of the primitive tribe. God is a supernaturalized society, but the society he represents was the egalitarian society of early human beings, a society that made everyone feel secure and safe, and was ever present.
Freedom in Paradise
We can see now, that there was no way that this early simple society could have sustained a division into “haves” and “have nots”. Had it done so, the “have nots” would have upped and left—there could have been nothing in it for them, and the “haves” would have had to become “have nots” to survive. They would have had to do their own delving and spinning. This is the stage when the original hypothetical social contract that founded the original group could have been abandoned, had the social contract been violated.
Were the people in this early human group free? They were and they were not! They benefitted from the help offered by others in the group, and they in turn had to help the others. So they were not free to do as they liked. They had a social duty to perform in return for the social benefits they received. But all of them could rely on the others, for any rogue or antisocial member would have been disciplined by the rest, perhaps even being killed in extreme cases, as chimpanzees do, but also being driven out where they were likely to die unless a nearby group took them in. Members of the groups felt secure, and could participate in evicting a poor or old leader who was no longer effective, thereby participating in a rough and ready democracy—but they were obligated to the group by duty.
Here is the natural source of the ideas of positive and negative freedom. Negative freedom meant that none of the group members felt enslaved or confined. None could be made to do more than their fair share for the group, and could withdraw from the group if they felt some caucus in it was asking too much of them. But they were able to make their own contribution to the group, just the same as the others did, and also could help in replacing an ineffective leader. So, they had positive freedom. True freedom is the right balance of the two of them, and that is what the primitive human group had.
Overdoing negative freedom breaks down the cohesiveness of the group. People may be able to do a lot of things they could not do while they felt more obligated to the group, but they also feel that the help of others was waning, leading to their growing anxiety and insecurity.
For long periods in the dark and middle ages, though their lords could be oppressive, people could not imagine what freedom was. Equally, though poor, and liable to have hard times in bad seasons through cold, drought or flood, the normal working year was short, and people had a lot of free time waiting for crops to grow, and saints days for merriment. They also had the same strong feeling of community that the primitive group had. In short, the anxiety they felt was real, through poverty and providence, but was not generally social. Social anguish has grown steadily in the twentieth century along with the collapse of caring society into greed and exploitation.
People are feeling the absence of the kindness that close groups always had as a compensation for the random hardships of living—positive freedom. Instead they want more negative freedom—with its attendant failing cohesion of society.
Christianity had certain advantages over most religions of the Roman empire before it. One was its missionary activity—its proselytizing. Pagan religions generally did not proselytize. Members thought to be valuable as members would be approached or recommended, but on an exclusive basis. They had to be morally acceptable, but Christianity was glad to accept those whom the Pagan religions rejected. Novice Pagans were taught by a hierophant what was expected of them and what they were required to know and do as full members. Christian catechumens were similarly instructed, for several years, by a presbyter. With full membership, the mystoi had secret objects revealed to them, and similarly, catechumens had the local Church’s creed revealed to them. The Churches had no united creed until after the Nicene Council, and it was an unpopular move among some bishops to remove its secrecy before catechumens had been instructed correctly.
Not all Pagans followed a religion. Also popular, especially among intellectuals, were the philosophies that offered a world outlook like Stoicism, Epicureanism and Neoplatonism, each of which offered codes of morals and methods of pursuing virtue. Even so, some philosophies had religions associated with them like the Pythagoreans whose religion, Orphism, was to purify the mind, but which also had expiatory rites like the eastern mysteries. So some Pagans sought membership of religions by living lives acceptable to their gods, while others, like the noble emperor, Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic, sought virtue by living a life of philosophical morality.
Christians had a different approach to morality. Its members did not have to be virtuous to become Christians, but instead had to stop being a sinner, and thereby enter communion with God. By rejecting sin—crimes against the will of God—Christianity aimed to make morality central by vigorously preaching sinlessness, with the open threat that sinfulness means the withdrawal of the Holy Communion, and the permanent loss of the afterlife reward of perpetual bliss with God.
Christians’ motives for virtue, despite their modern obsession with free will, was not a fair choice, as it was for Pagans, it was coercion. The Christian God of love was a mask for the wrath and jealousy of a more basic, cruel and primitive Old Testament God. The misery of this life was to be compensated—for the compliant Christian—by an eternal life of bliss, but only when the convert had succeeded in pleasing God. Christ had explained how strict the rules were. The least sin could mean the loss of the eternally blissful life. It was much easier to miss out on the reward than it was to receive it.
Not only that, though. Although the Revelation of John is clear that consignment to the fires of hell constituted a rapid final and permanent death for the sinner, the idea of a never ending torture without death in perpetual flames was a more effective way of ensuring compliance and obedience among the considerable riff-raff that comprised much of early Christianity. The enormity of the consequences of even minor sins was driven into the poor people and slaves who had become Christians in the hope of life offering them something more than constant suffering in their tortured lives. It proved to be a powerful incentive to conform with the rules of the Church, long before anything certain was known about psychology.
W E H Lecky summarized the difference in approaches of Pagans and Christians:
The eye of the Pagan philosopher was ever fixed upon virtue, the eye of the Christian teacher upon sin. The first sought to amend men by extolling the beauty of holiness, the second by awakening the sentiment of remorse.A History of European Morals
The Christian negative approach has been and still is, as Christians like to boast, sometimes succesful in bringing those who are thoroughly depraved and apparently impossible to reform to such a state of guilt and remorse in the face of the fear of Judgement that they have broken down and promised to abandon their objectionable behavior. The trouble is that the cure is based on promises that are so far from being verifiable as to be opportunistic lies. The Christian seeks to avoid sin in the hope of an eternal reward by living a life of lies.
Moreover, to control the whole of the membership of the Church, the clergy had to maintain that sinfulness was the norm for all human beings by Original Sin—so that the utmost self sacrifice for others could not absolve even the best human being from the need for clerical intervention via the application of the magical sacraments which soon became as essential as or even more essential than sinlessness or repentance for the sinner to qualify for the ultimate reward.
Humanity whose nature and basic instincts are to be concerned for the welfare of other human beings—and even animals—was denounced by Christians as perpetually depraved and sinful unless immunized by the magic and mumbo jumbo of the mass.
“When despots fall, religion plays key role in rebuilding societies: expert“
Rashid Omar, Research Scholar of Islamic Studies and Peacebuilding at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, is an imam at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa. Omar’s research and teaching focus on religion, violence and peacebuilding, especially the Islamic ethics of war and peace and interreligious dialogue. The headline describes him as an “expert”. So when he was thus recently publicized in PhysOrg.com, a “leading web based science, research and technology news service”, saying “religion can play a key role in rebuilding societies after despots fall and violent, oppressive governments are toppled, as happened in Egypt and Tunisia”, is it justifiable for it to be treated as if it were some sort of research?
Surely there is nothing scientific about it, and someone at PhysOrg.com is spreading a message rather different from the website’s objectives. It is not science speaking but his own irrational commitment to religion. Is PhysOrg.com aiming for a Templeton grant?
We read there, in a piece by Shannon Chapla, that Omar thinks religion and religious people, so often considered part of the problem, can instead play key roles in rebuilding society:
In the midst of the worst kind of barbarism, people of different faith traditions found solace and healing in their own faiths and in interreligious solidarity. Now the scene in Tahrir Square is being duplicated all across North Africa and the Middle East. Recently in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, Rev Daniel Farrugia, a senior Roman Catholic priest at St. Francis Catholic Church, refused to be evacuated, choosing instead to stay and serve with “our sisters”, nearly 100 nuns working in hospitals and health centers treating the sick and injured.
Are we meant to think that all the other nurses and doctors had left their posts, and the lives of thousands depended on these dedicated Christians? Most of the staff in an Arab hospital, one can reasonably guess, would have been Moslems. Did the Moslems all abandon their patients, leaving only Catholic nuns to care for people who were ill or wounded? People whose vocation is to care for the sick, whether Christians, Moslems, Atheists, or any other category of human being, can be expected to feel the calling of their vocation at such times. It is that, not the calling of God or Allah, that should motivate them to do their jobs.
In just the same way, people instinctively help others simply because we are human, and have that instinct as a human. We are a communal animal, and have evolved characteristics that strengthen the value of the community to us. We live socially to have the help of others, and the security that a group around us offers. In turn we help them. Naturally altruistic people do not like spongers and free loaders getting help and doing nothing to help others. In the distant past, anyone sufficiently so inclined to be noticed would have been thrown out of the tribe and told to look after themselves. Generally they would not have managed on their own, and died. Meanwhile the tribe became more altrusitic by expelling its free loaders.
That is the reason human beings have certain morals, and the core of them are actions that support sociality between us. And Lo! what do we find the Christian God incarnate teaching?
Do unto others as you would be done by.
Yet Omar thinks it is religion that makes people kind:
In my own country of South Africa, black Christians, Muslims and many people of faith struggling against apartheid played a central role in transforming their society from racial oppression and dehumanization towards hope and justice. In the midst of the “Tunisami” now sweeping away despotic rulers across North Africa and the Middle East, ordinary people can collect the threads of peace and justice that are at the heart of both Islam and Christianity to transform their bleak worlds of indignity and dehumanization into freedom, democracy and justice.
It is utterly bogus and unscientific to claim religion is responsible for people acting naturally. Being robbed and oppressed by tyrants is not why we live in a society. We do not volunteer to be someone else’s slave. We expect respect and service from others in society, and we expect to do the same in return. None of us should expect to be exploited for some rich family or class, yet we tolerate it up to a point. It becomes intolerable when we feel we are getting less from society than we put in, when society is manifestly unfair and unjust.
More often than not, it is religion that makes people act unnaturally, makes people hate and want to kill each other. The reason for that is also explained by the evolution of humanity as a social animal. We lived in small tribes of about 150 for a very long time, and it was during those myriads of years that we learnt to love people in our social group. But we also learnt to hate people in other tribes who were alien from us, had a different culture, ate different food, had different manners, and probably spoke a different dialect or even different language. Mainly, tribes remained apart, but when they came together competing for the same herds or patch of woodland, they would fight. Religions are modern tribes, tribes resurrected when they had died out in society otherwise, and people in different religious groups tend to hate the others. In today’s massive urban sprawls, we are better off without religions, which base hatred on false beliefs about God.
Yet Omar, as an imam in Cape Town, before and after the transition to democracy, says he is trying to build “a bridge between my faith commitment and my participation in protest against racism and apartheid”. Why should he need to build any such commitment, when it is natural for us to live together and love one another providing that we recognize the purpose of human society?
Those who wish to divide society on spurious grounds need to be taught a little science, and a little evolutionary morality to make them realise that we cannot live together harmoniously in deeply divided societies, and nor can we live in deeply unfair societies. These are the objectives that should unite us, not superstitions. This is what our commitment should be, and it is at the core of most of the imperial religions because it is at the core of our being.
A news item somewhere informs us that John Dominic Crossan, once a Catholic priest, and now a long time member of the Jesus Seminar, has written an explanation of the Pater Noster or the Lord’s Prayer—“Our Father…” Apparently it is a prayer about the father of a household and the need to distribute the household’s food fairly. He may be a bit right!
Christians have always tried to maintain that Jesus was a member of an ordinary family, one of the motivations, no doubt, for the invention of the Birth Narratives, stories that no one in the main gospels ever refers to or seemingly knows anything about. And for the very good reason that few scholars doubt that they were later inventions tacked on to two of the gospels when they were compiled.
I cannot imagine why the prayer should not refer to God, as most Christians believe, but in the context not of people who lived in family groups, but of people who lived in religious communities, namely, the Essenes. They had a special meal, like the Eucharist, and most likely its source—the scenes where Jesus broke bread, and fed the four and five thousand—called the Messianic Meal, and it seems that the head of the table would recite the prayer on that occasion.
Jesus was an Essene beyond reasonable doubt. That Christians persistently deny it shows they are unreasonable. The Essenes were a Jewish church and, like Jews, and many others, called God their Father. To them, God was the Father of the human race, so all men were sons of God, but they were sons in a hierarchy of sons, the head of each level in the hierarchy being a father to his own sons.
Familiar? The later gentile church retained the system. Bishops, monks and priests are called father by others, monks are led by a father, an abbot, a Patriarch is a Head Father, an archbishop, and a Pope is a Father (Latin Papa, Greek, Pappas). In Aramaean, “abba” means father, and “ab” or “av” does in Hebrew. So, Barabbas means Son of the Father in Aramaean, and Barabbas was Jesus, indeed modern gospels admit that Barabbas was called Jesus!
The Essene hierarchies were not based on material status, on wealth, but on service to others. “The last is first and the first last” being an expression of rewarding service as opposed to status. God’s sons, the human race, were to be valued for their service to others, not on the basis of wealth, so the Essenes, like the apostles in Acts, held all their goods in common. They were communists. That is one big reason why American Christians cannot face up to the truth about Christ.