In fact, the Catholic Church shrewdly plots with regard to its rapidly changing membership mix. Evidence suggests it is seemingly interested in growing member ranks rather than building member diversity, not in ethnic terms but rather as respects the various diverse member economic segments. In fact, deciding to abandon progressives while embracing and growing the low income member ranks, albeit in ethnic neutral fashion. Why then this seemingly radical change from embracing “all” (ethic and economic) segments to only “some” (ethnic only) in an organization notorious for being change averse?
While the global Catholic Church increasingly recruits in third world nations, and those numbers swell, it abandons many in its progressive thinking middle and upper income class segments. Specifically in Europe and the United States. In fact, European membership, in quite counter-intuitive fashion, has been in serious decline for several decades. Interestingly, the growing religion is Islam, exploding with the influx of Middle Eastern immigrants over the last two decades. Consider France for example, a perceived bastion of Catholicism, has 5 to 6 million Muslims. It is estimated that within 25 years at current birth rates, that France will have a Muslim majority.
Unlike France, the equivalent U.S. decline in the traditional progressive demographic group is being offset with an even greater bulge of new members, as noted earlier, from massive Latin American immigration.
The resultant aggregate Catholic Church global member expansion therefore masks the accelerating erosion of that traditional middle/upper income progressive base, caused by the Church’s reactive abandonment from its very own fate accompli conclusion - that the progressives are already lost. Why? Because the church refuses to change.
John Paul II, viewed “aesthetically” as a model, almost mannequin like Pope, will never be known as the “Pope of Diversity”, but instead better remembered as the “Pope of Growth”. One need only look to his unflinching (church) conservatism and global travels to see why. His travels earning him the title of “Pilgrim Pope”. In the face of radical social change, he sought to maintain the conservative status quo, causing an ever widening gap between the church and the progressives. Too, he was the most traveled pope in history, yet with a disproportionate emphasis on third world nations. In retrospect, an agenda beyond being seen and adored. One with specific and key member growth purpose and intentions. Akin to a politician campaigning in a state before a primary. The purpose – woo voters. In his case, woo members. Certainly he traveled to developed nations but in retrospect one can argue those were (progressives) “erosion control” visits; not to stem it but rather to slow it. Not unlike one of the 2 purposes behind Benedict’s current visit to the U.S.
Why this apparent “abandon and grow elsewhere” strategy?
The answer is easy if looking upon the Catholic Church as a business and viewing it’s behaviors in corporate terms. The sea change in societal culture and value systems post World War II, led by the renaissance change in thinking baby boom generation progressives, did not go unnoticed by the Vatican hierarchy “Board”. Constituents began to do the unthinkable and necessary - challenge church doctrine and tolerance in such areas as abortion, priest marriage/homosexuality/pedophilia, women priests, and even papal infallibility to name but a “very few”.
Analyst Proxy “Change” Note:
In one of these key “change” areas, for example, priest sexual abuse, the Progressives demand strict (and real) accountability and real universal, not one off justice to fix the problem in its “entirety”. To date however, the problem has only had some money and lots of rhetorical lip service thrown at it by the Vatican, seemingly hoping the issue will at some point just fade away. The Progressives understandably are not satisfied and rightly demand real action – a complete “house cleaning” of the priesthood top to bottom, with actions not words.
Here is an excerpt from the April 19, 2008 New York Times on the Pope’s visit and sex abuse topic, outlining and reaffirming some disturbing Vatican views and reactions this week:
“The Vatican has been reluctant to focus attention on the scandal until this trip. But in what appears to be a carefully scripted effort…..he understands the lingering bitterness over the church’s handling of the issue…“It has overshadowed the trip,” said the Rev. Joseph M. McShane, the president of Fordham University..None of us expected it…Many victims say they have been heartened by the pope’s attention to the issue, but are waiting warily for him to match his words with actions. They want the church to do more to prevent priests from abusing children, and in particular, to hold bishops accountable for keeping abusive priests in the ministry.”
Clearly, the proof of this rhetoric remains to be seen, as the victims noted. That is,when the “actions (finally) match the words”. Clearly in the victims’ minds, they don’t yet. Then further in the same New York Times article is this very disturbing commentary which tells the reader that there is little hope for change and/or real solution to the crisis and problem, and it will remain “words, not action”.
At the luncheon, where he sat on a stage and fielded a few questions, Cardinal William J. Levada, a top Vatican official said he did not foresee punishing bishops who failed to remove priests suspected of molesting young people.
“I personally do not accept that there is a broad base of bishops who are guilty of aiding and abetting pedophiles…”.
“I am aware of bishops who have admitted to making mistakes, but those seem to be mistakes grounded in taking counsel that didn’t turn out to be good advice,” he said, explaining that he was referring to reports from psychologists and therapists.”.
In this Analyst’s opinion, Cardinal Levada should promptly be removed from office. His statement wrongly suggests an interpretive attitude of “general or selective permissiveness” which in and of itself has plagued the church not only during the decades, if not centuries of the abuse but even so since the scandal broke 5 or 6 or so years ago. Rather as he should be promoting, a new attitude which vehemently dictates “we (the Vatican) will aggressively root out and prosecute every priest and every bishop either directly or remotely ever connected, no matter how many degrees of “awareness separation” from any victim - period. NONE will escape removal and punishment.”
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
