WI: the Catholic Church completely modernises?

[NapoleonCorinII]

I just don't see this happening. I don't know much about Pius himself but I do know that John Paul II was immensely Conservative. Perhaps John Paul I?

I agree with the above, Many, if not most, Catholics would see it as becoming to much like the Protestants. I myself, although a bit more liberal than the Church usually, would be against such major reforms as you say. Ultimately, if you've, are going to write a TL on this, I expect a more conservative church, possibly led by John Paul, and another more liberal church, although a majority would be part of the conservative church until very recently.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

Buddhist-Catholic ecumenism: ASB. Interfaith stuff is one thing, but ecumenism by its very meaning can only take place among Christians. I'm sure Buddhists are perfectly nice people, but they're not Christian. There might be some cooperation on issues of common concern (like abortion, for example).

In its purest form, Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion. It'd be entirely possible to be Catholic and follow the philosophical tenets of Buddhism.

Birth control: ASB. It's against capital-T Tradition. Even our Eastern brothers, even those out of communion, see it at worst as a tolerated evil. Changing this would mean the Church had turned Protestant.

Even though the majority of Western Catholics ignore what the Church says on it anyway?

QUOTE="Francisco Cojuanco, post: 14683225, member: 5276"]...you may as well stop calling it the Catholic Church (and IMO ASB.)[/QUOTE]

I dunno. The Church and its teachings have changed so hugely over the centuries (from the place of the Pope to how Popes are elected) that I really don't think anything's set in stone. As an example: when Papal election changed from the people and clergy of Rome to the cardinals, it was considered tantamount to Heresy by many, but now it's part of tradition.

 

[Simeon]

In its purest form, Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion. It'd be entirely possible to be Catholic and follow the philosophical tenets of Buddhism.

HERESY!

Many will shout that.

 

[Cryptic]

I don't think this really was a thing except in some parishes in the United States, most in the Pacific Northwest (led by a bishop who it later was found out was into some pretty skeevy stuff, presaging the Spotlight revelations), and some communities in the Low Countries. What was more common (and deplorable) was to make Confession less accessible to the laity.

I think you are right. In the end, general confessions were rare nationally. Rather, the main effort, as you indicated, was just to de-emphasize confessions of any format. One way to do this was to simply make them less available.

In its purest form, Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion. It'd be entirely possible to be Catholic and follow the philosophical tenets of Buddhism.

Though I do agree with you that one can be fully Catholic and also be a practicing Buddhist in some cases ( a generation ago there was a Japanese Catholic priest who was also an acknowledged Zen instructor), I don't think the Buddha would have described the "pure" form of his teachings as simply a philosophy.

Rather, he seems to give both the theistic and possible non theistic interpretations of his teachings equal value. In the practical sense, many Buddhist schools today have a theistic component. Thus, the ability to be a "Catholico-Buddhist" might largely depend on the Buddhist school in question.

 

[Prester John]

I was writing out a full response to each comment which I stupidly deleted, so I will add something of an abridged version.

First of all, I am a very Traditional Catholic, but I just thought this scenario and its possible implications interesting. One comment that keeps recurring is, "if the Church did this, then it would cease to be the Church". Well, I personally agree, but not all Catholics feel the same. If the Church had fully modernised in the mid-twentieth century (that is to say, if a Modernist became Pontiff and implemented that agenda), I personally think that most Catholics would have accepted it (as they accepted the Second Council).

The division between the theological and social issues is an artificial one. Latin, vestments, private confessions, married priests... these are issues of discipline which can be instituted or dispensed with at the whim of the Pope. A change to any of these would not being about a schism. Contraception, women priests, the Real Presence, divorce, open communion with the Protestant denominations... these are issues of dogma which could indeed break the Church in two (one only needs to examine the furor caused by the last Synod on the Family an communion for the divorced and remarried). Personally, I believe that any altering of these dogmas would be cause for declaring the Holy See in error, if not schism. However, at the crux of the argument here is whether Catholics in the 1960s would have agreed. I have no doubt that some would have if all these things were changed, and the Lefebvre's movement would have been far larger and more powerful (and perhaps joined by any number of other cardinals and bishops). But I don't think that the majority of Catholics would have openly disputed the changes if they came from the Vatican and were supported by the Pope and the bishops. Did the majority of Anglicans? Or Methodists? Or Lutherans? In my mind, a Catholic Church which modernised would be split in two (eventually formally) between a large, liberal, ageing (in the West) church based in the Vatican, and a smaller, traditional, more vital Church based in Econe or Madrid.

The reception which the Second Vatican Council received was largely positive among Baby Boomers. It was a genuinely inspiring moment for them, and has continued to be an inspiration today (not one I agree with, but when people in their seventies are still committed to a reform which began the 1960s, you know that it must have actually appealed). If the theologians change dogma, there will be a large number of people who whole-heartedly support them. I have read contemporary journal articles from the time, and support for a mass reform was immense. Perhaps this perspective is because I am Australian, a country whose hierarchy and laity were almost unmatched in their passion for the reform, but from what I have seen the reaction was fairly uniform across the Western world.

 

[Don Corleone]

I was writing out a full response to each comment which I stupidly deleted, so I will add something of an abridged version.

First of all, I am a very Traditional Catholic, but I just thought this scenario and its possible implications interesting. One comment that keeps recurring is, "if the Church did this, then it would cease to be the Church". Well, I personally agree, but not all Catholics feel the same. If the Church had fully modernised in the mid-twentieth century (that is to say, if a Modernist became Pontiff and implemented that agenda), I personally think that most Catholics would have accepted it (as they accepted the Second Council).

The division between the theological and social issues is an artificial one. Latin, vestments, private confessions, married priests... these are issues of discipline which can be instituted or dispensed with at the whim of the Pope. A change to any of these would not being about a schism. Contraception, women priests, the Real Presence, divorce, open communion with the Protestant denominations... these are issues of dogma which could indeed break the Church in two (one only needs to examine the furor caused by the last Synod on the Family an communion for the divorced and remarried). Personally, I believe that any altering of these dogmas would be cause for declaring the Holy See in error, if not schism. However, at the crux of the argument here is whether Catholics in the 1960s would have agreed. I have no doubt that some would have if all these things were changed, and the Lefebvre's movement would have been far larger and more powerful (and perhaps joined by any number of other cardinals and bishops). But I don't think that the majority of Catholics would have openly disputed the changes if they came from the Vatican and were supported by the Pope and the bishops. Did the majority of Anglicans? Or Methodists? Or Lutherans? In my mind, a Catholic Church which modernised would be split in two (eventually formally) between a large, liberal, ageing (in the West) church based in the Vatican, and a smaller, traditional, more vital Church based in Econe or Madrid.

The reception which the Second Vatican Council received was largely positive among Baby Boomers. It was a genuinely inspiring moment for them, and has continued to be an inspiration today (not one I agree with, but when people in their seventies are still committed to a reform which began the 1960s, you know that it must have actually appealed). If the theologians change dogma, there will be a large number of people who whole-heartedly support them. I have read contemporary journal articles from the time, and support for a mass reform was immense. Perhaps this perspective is because I am Australian, a country whose hierarchy and laity were almost unmatched in their passion for the reform, but from what I have seen the reaction was fairly uniform across the Western world.

Very impressive. You usually don't find people who understand the difference between discipline and dogma.

The vestments are definitely not important. If I showed up some Sunday (or Saturday afternoon) and the priest was wearing a polo shirt and jeans, it would look weird, but the Gospel and the Eucharist would be the same. Married priests are rare in the West but we already have them. I doubt that would run anyone off; the bigger issue would be the logistics of supporting the priest's family.

Remarriage after divorce could be the biggest sticking point because it would essentially be telling millions of married couples their union was no longer permanent. That's a point modernizers seem to forget. We may see more widespread abuse of the annulment process. The US bishops already have a reputation for granting inappropriate annulments.

Contraception is unlikely to change. Medical technology is always improving, and eventually will be able to identify whether a woman is currently ovulating with a high enough degree of accuracy that it will be equal to or better than the pill. The market goes beyond the small percentage of Catholics who follow the Church's teachings. It would also include couples actively trying to conceive, women whose health profile contraindicates the pill, and even people who want to minimize their environmental impact.

Turning the Eucharist into an ordinary wafer would be the most damaging. Wouldn't cause outrage but it would make a lot of currently active Catholics indifferent. Might as well subscribe to a random podcast at that point.

 

[Prester John]

Snip.

Vestments: well, that Mass would be illicit, but so long as the form and the matter are correct, then it would still be valid. Most Catholics in the West know "that priest" who either vests incorrectly or dispenses with it entirely (usually at private masses). I do think it would be an interesting contrast in the case of this WI though; Magisterial priests in turtlenecks and slacks vs traditionalists in Tridentine vestments.

Divorce and remarriage: could the Church try and frame it in an ecumenical sort of way, by highlighting the practices of the Orthodox and Protestant churches?

Contraception: on the contrary, I think that this is one of the easier PODs from the time of the Council. The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control actually recommended that birth control be permitted; it was only the strenuous objections of Cardinal Ottaviani (head of the Commission) and Paul VI's own conscience that allowed Humanae Vitae to come about. With a different Pope, or a different Commission, the Holy See could have given permission for birth control. And once birth control is permitted, the Church understanding on marriage and sexuality will begin to shift completely. Even having this as a single POD would have enormous ramifications. Though most Catholics don't follow Church teaching concerning birth control, it has had a tremendous impact on other areas of theology and society.

Eucharist: this would of course be the straw that breaks the camels back for a lot of people. Back in the Sixties, and today, the idea of the Real Presence is still the thing which keeps a lot of people tied to the Church. Disavowing it would cause an immediate disruption for some people, but the fuller effects would take decades to be fully felt.

It would be fascinating, in this scenario, if Thomas Merton had lived. His experimentation with Eastern philosophies and religions could provide a sort of meeting point for Catholicism and other religions. Imagine if he had become a sort of voice for the radical church; highly focused on contemplation, inter-faith cooperation, and social justice.

 

[Evil Crusader]

[well-written paragraphs]

I think you are overestimating what kind of control the hierarchy can actually exert, especially when split over issues, and the overall disposition of clergy back then; look at the heated discussions during VC2 and how much of its spirit feels unfulfilled today to many. I think you know, but the early documents were far more conservative, too: for example, compare the very early draft 'De Fontibus Revelationis' (which did come close to the two-thirds majority needed!) and the eventually-pushed 'Dei Verbum'. They are quite different in approach, and to get there, it took a full three years of work, negotiation, and further rework through another two documents before we got there. A thousand times more powerful push would have brought the failure of the Council altogether; I'd rather see the liberal Church breaking out, at this point, to oppose the perceived conservative stranglehold.
The main problem with changing dogma is that it is very hard to do so without becoming 'Protestant Church Mark II' and impossible to do so while still being the 'Catholic Church' - an entity claiming unbroken succession not only of apostolic succession, but also of dogmatic decisions. Wiggle room for 'further explanation' or 'better understanding' of older dogmas is fairly limited, before the whole building comes down crashing.
Of course, you can say that many wouldn't have cared and this is true in the short term and for most of the laity; but while this kind of Church could hold out a generation of three, it would eventually have to become more traditionalist, hardcore, or just be subsumed into other religions. It's already happening OTL, too; if you go to Church solely because all the older generations did so and vaguely believe He was a good man, you'll eventually find it is a loss of time and while it might take the place of your standard yoga course, even that will only last so far before you decide you don't really need it (why Buddhism is still comparatively small in the Western world is because it's mostly adopted as a vogue rather than a profound belief).

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

It's already happening OTL, too...

Not really for the reasons you put forward, though. I don't think that the Catholic Church is losing significance because of it's getting 'too liberal', I think that it's simply that following the various scandals, most people feel that the Church as an institution no longer has a moral authority. I know quite a few older people who'd have been brought up Catholic and still believe in God, but revelations like the Magdalene Laundries, like the abuse cover-ups, mean that they're happy to question and/or ignore the Church's moral teachings because - as they see it - the Church now has zero authority to teach on morality. In fact, a lot of people I know say that they'd probably go back to the Church if it was more open about its failings and if it moved with the times.

And, as one of my co-workers observed to me once, if it decided to pay less attention to morality and souls in general and paid more attention to actual concrete help. Basically, if more clergy were like Father Peter McVerry.

Note that I'm not bashing the Church here, I'm just recounting opinions that I've heard that would seem to suggest a counter to the idea that being liberal is causing a decline.

Also: I'd point out that while there's the claim that being liberal is causing religions to decline and that only being hardcore will attract worshippers, it's noteworthy that a lot of young people of various Christian denominations still quite adamantly believe but are lobbying within their churches for change. See, for instance, how a lot of young Mormons want gay marriage, etc.*

* Of course, maybe that's a bad example - one guy I knew said that he wanted gay marriage within the LDS Church but believed in the teaching of no sex before marriage, and that obviously this would apply to gay LDS believers who'd be able to marry. So liberal in one sense but remaining hardcore in another.

 

[Evil Crusader]

My point was more that today people are falling towards the 'cafeteria style' religiosity - which is not limited to Christianity, but I've applied here to the slow outgrowth of Buddhism too and is taking hold in Western youngsters giving up on Islam. When it becomes something you do out of vague ideas/cultural tradition or because it seems fancy to you, it's unlikely to take strong roots in the mid-term.

This intersects on Moral Authority and OP's question because it's a slippery-slope sort of things - if you start questioning something on non-theological grounds (it's good and even important if people can make a theological breakthrough!), the road is open for divergence until there is no shred of moral stance. This does not seem huge, either, but leads to the problem of true religiosity - only a fraction of people can be really taken by the strong desire of willingly submitting to God, following the example of Buddha, or taking up Christ's cross. The others mostly follow those beautiful, iconic examples (and the Catholic Church certainly has had plenty of disgusting examples). However, there must be some practical common ground other than dogmas - otherwise it's not religiosity, but simple cult of personality or very vague ideas of theism like Unitarianism.