What would make the Catholic Church more popular

Sertus

I've been thinking about this issue for a while, and I'm interested in other peoples views :

In your view, what would make the Catholic Church more popular ?

Note : This is a multiple choice poll.

I don't normally frequent the this forum, so apologies in advance to the mods if this thread is not appropriate here, you may move it to a more appropriate forum.

The Radiator

Some humour and less taking itself so seriously

endacl

The rose-tinted glasses of hindsight? 'Ah, remember the good aul days, when there used to be a catholic church? Sure they weren't all that bad...'

Would need a good distance, hindsight-wise though...

juan.kerr

Not preaching, by which I mean telling us what to do or think.

Allow priests to marry. At least then they would have a better idea about life.

123 LC

gospel choirs.

Manach

Catholicism is not here to win popularity contests but to spread the word/work of God. Still as one of posters said, humour is essential to this message with some of the Great Saints such as St. Francis being alive to the joy of God.

sbsquarepants

Replacement of any Priest, Bishop or Cardinals that does not practice what the Church teaches

Can't help but think that many of the changes in your poll, whilst i think they would definitely make the church more popular, would kind of render it un-catholic. At the end of the day it's a church, not a night club - popularity shouldn't be it's goal!

homer911

I dont like the idea of popularity. The Catholic Church is not trying to win a popularity contest. Its [supposed to be] following it's interpretation of God's teachings and expects its adherents to follow them too.

A popular church would be one that bends with the wind and changes with fashion, but God's word never changes

(2 cents from a non-Roman Catholic)

(The [supposed to be] reflects the recent troubles the Church's leaders have got themselves into)

That doesnt mean I don't agree with a number of the suggestions above..

juan.kerr

Manach wrote: »

Catholicism is not here to win popularity contests but to spread the word/work of God.

No, but it has to understand that the catholic church no longer has moral authority and is no longer to be feared or revered.

Manach

juan.kerr wrote: »

No, but it has to understand that the catholic church no longer has moral authority and is no longer to be feared or revered.

Non-sense. By adding the And you are seeking to portrait a one side populist message that ignores the centuries of excellent work that the Church has done and ignore as well the past and current failings of the State(both domestic and otherwise).

Benny_Cake

Mod note: I'll allow this for now, but as anywhere else the charter applies. Disputes about theism/atheism or Catholicism/Protestantism should be taken to the appropriate megathreads.

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

juan.kerr wrote: »

No, but it has to understand that the catholic church no longer has moral authority and is no longer to be feared or revered.

Manach wrote: »

Non-sense. By adding the And you are seeking to portrait a one side populist message that ignores the centuries of excellent work that the Church has done and ignore as well the past and current failings of the State(both domestic and otherwise).

I doubt it ever intended to be feared, but without doubt, throughout history quite a few Priests / Bishops / Cardinals / Popes used and abused their positions of authority for their own personal gratification.

Zombrex

The biggest problem the CC has is that it is seen as covering up crimes, that it is seen to be more interested in saving the church from embarrassment and more interested in deflecting blame for its own short comings.

Everything from silently moving criminal priests around without alerting the police to blaming secularism, homosexuality and even the children themselves for sexual abuse.

It has been the hypocrisy of claiming to be an authority on a higher moral standard yet not holding itself to that same standard is what gets most people.

So if they can stop doing that that would certainly help them.

juan.kerr

Manach wrote: »

Non-sense. By adding the And you are seeking to portrait a one side populist message that ignores the centuries of excellent work that the Church has done and ignore as well the past and current failings of the State(both domestic and otherwise).

No one would claim the state is blameless but if that's the best defense the church has then I pity it.

im invisible

Sell off all valuables in the Vatican Museum and give the money to third world Catholic charities

yes OP, that would be a start...

juan.kerr

im invisible wrote: »

yes OP, that would be a start...

what, all of the above poll options?

Manach

Whilst there have been major wrong done to the most innocent by some in the Church and abetted by those in authority, that there is a willful blindness to pass without comment similar actions/inactions that effected the marginised by the State shows how sterile attacks on it are.

juan.kerr

Manach wrote: »

Whilst there have been major wrong done to the most innocent by some in the Church and abetted by those in authority, that there is a willful blindness to pass without comment similar actions/inactions that effected the marginised by the State shows how sterile attacks on it are.

I assuming you are responding to my post. You don't see anything wrong with the church, that's your perogative, but surely you must realise that in a couple of generations (if even that) the catholic church will have significantly diminished in Ireland to the point of complete irrelevance. I don't have a interest either way, but I would have thought someone like you would not want that to happen.

Aiel

As has been said its not here to win popularity contests.
Some suggestions to make it more appealing is to transmit the message of the church more effectively.Some priests dont do a good job transmitting the message of the church in their sermons.I do feel most priests should go to Elocution lessons and really learn how to speak properly in public.People's attention spans these days are not long at all.I remember a great priest where i grew up who use to have a concise sermon never lasting more then 10 mins yet what he said in those few mins was pure gold and some of those sermons have stuck with me to this day.
What might make it easier to understand aswell would be to drop terms like "Bear Witness to" and just say it in simple English to just live your faith.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Whilst there have been major wrong done to the most innocent by some in the Church and abetted by those in authority, that there is a willful blindness to pass without comment similar actions/inactions that effected the marginised by the State shows how sterile attacks on it are.

That is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.

Firstly even if it was true it speaks nothing to the crimes inside the church. The idea that those criticising the church are hypocrites doesn't in anyway lessen the actual harm done to the victims. It just comes across again as blame deflection.

Secondly, it isn't even true. People are outraged when abuses come to light in the public institution. These cases though don't drag on so long because frankly the State doesn't mess them up when they come to light as badly as the church does. The outrage directed towards the church would have been greatly lessened if the church had handled things in a proper fashion.

Its like if two people are arrested on a Sat night for being drunk. Both are lead away to the van, one is quiet and looks ashamed, while the other is kicking and screaming and trying to head butt the police officers. At the end of the night that guy complains that he had 15 police officers hold him down all night and was then charged with 6 counts of disorder where as the other guy got off with a warning, and this shows how the police are biased towards him. Er, no, the reason all that happened is because of the fuss he made after he was arrested.

Same with the church, most of the damage of the reputation of the church, and why people go on and on about the church far more so than other institutions where sexual abuse also happens, is because of how the church handled things after it all came to light. It takes a particular type of double think to spin that as bias against the church

totus tuus

Matthew 10:22

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

totus tuus wrote: »

Matthew 10:22

Is that some sort attempt at a get out clause that excuses any type of behavior in the Church ?
Because I would wager in the current age, the total hypocrisy of some Priests Bishops and Cardinals in the Church, and the Church's failure to deal with this hypocrisy, rather than its doctrine, is by far the main source of its unpopularity.

Surely you preach the Gospel best of all by example. Quite a few fat Bishops in fancy robes and palaces could do with practicing what they preach.

Here's a quote for you :

Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene Three

Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

totus tuus

Sertus wrote: »

Is that some sort attempt at a get out clause that excuses any type ofbehavior in the Church ?
Because I would wager in the current age, the total hypocrisy of some Priests Bishops and Cardinals in the Church, and the Churches failure to deal with this hypocrisy, is the main source of its unpopularity.

No, I don't condone what some of the clergy did! Peter denied Christ, Judas betrayed Him, It just shows that the Church and every other institution in the world is made up of saints and sinners.Thankfully the MAJORITY of the clergy are good hard-working people. Nevertheless Jesus said that the world would hate us because of Him and his teachings, because we will not bend to that which is worldly! THE CHURCH herself is spotless as she is the Bride Of Christ!

However, much of your Poll is about changing the tenet's of the faith - that my friend will never happen, even if it makes the Church unpopular.

Keylem

Manach

Zombrex wrote: »

It takes a particular type of double think to spin that as bias against the church

Speaking of double think, the same could be said for the willful blindness using your own dubious analogy of the drunk of the party who has and yet errs continuously and nothing is done beyond a raised eyebrow from the chattering class. That the State has due to its own institutional inertia and culture of not disturbing the ship of state has illegally incarcerated the mental impaired, deduced monies from OAPs in Nursing homes for decades, and willfully lied to the UN about its State juvenile care facilities is seemly un-noteworthy to that mindset. That type of willful blindness almost welcomes the wrongs of the Church as a means of continuous casting blame for societal ills on it, the same type of mindset of during days gone past, which always sought to blame others for the ills of the country. That type of willful blindness that spins any positive note for the Church into a distorted populist caricature that then impugns the decency of the majority of the clergy who provided solid support to us in time past.
Thanks so much for displaying that type of thing.

BTW juan.kerr, that Marxist fortune telling of historical determinism, never actually took into account the actions of individuals which might explain where it ended up.

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

The state has and will have many questions to answer, but that in no way lessens the culpability of the incompetent management, vanity, and above the law attitude of many Irish Bishops, and several Vatican Cardinals. Many of these are still in the positions of power in the Church. These incompetent hypocrites turn round and preach humility and humbleness to worlds Catholics while dressed in all their finery and jewels. That's a bigger scandal than any pedophile priest, which presumably can happen in any institution, its how it was dealt with and managed that appalls people most of all. The hierarchy needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom. Catholic doctrine, which most of their flock in Ireland seem to have a very poor understanding of, is the least of their problems.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

That the State has due to its own institutional inertia and culture of not disturbing the ship of state has illegally incarcerated the mental impaired, deduced monies from OAPs in Nursing homes for decades, and willfully lied to the UN about its State juvenile care facilities is seemly un-noteworthy to that mindset.

You obviously missed the point in of the analogy, so let me say it again. All of the problems and criminal activity in other institutions get air time, they get discussed, people are outraged.

But you hear less about it in the long run because the institutions themselves don't handling the accusations nearly as bad as the Catholic Church do.

It is not that people simply ignore these other cases, it is that when a case arises in the Catholic church, unlike other institutions, the church goes out of its way to pour petrol on the situation, so it turns into a bonfire.

And then they turn around and say everyone is being far more unfair to us than they would be to anyone else, like the drunk who has been head butting the police all night turning around and asking why the police aren't saying anything to the drunk who is quietly sitting in his police cell.

philologos

Being honest it's going to be bloody difficult if not nigh on impossible to make it more popular given the context of the past decades findings in particular.

As for the poll most of the stuff in that list is essentially implying that Christianity should be about how man views the world rather than how God sees the world. I mean, editing the Bible, are you serious? If anything churches should be paying more attention to it not less.

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

philologos wrote: »

I mean, editing the Bible, are you serious? If anything churches should be paying more attention to it not less.

Serious ? It's been a hobby for many spin off religions over the years.
Like the Jehovahs, Mormons, and Muhammadans, Mr Luther and pals got the scissors out and removed entire books that contradicted his new cult/brand along with inserting a few new words here or there where it suited to make them more popular. Of course, that was when slavery, smiting and chauvinism were still in fashion, or the scissors would have been out there too.

dkin

Why do you want it to be popular? The CC should be about faith not about how many people it has on the books. If you genuinely believe in the message of some small evangelical church what does it matter how many people turn up?

AK333

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

In my humble opinion, the church needs to modernise and move with the times - It changes its 'rules' when it suits it, ie now non-marrying priests whereas prior to 1200 they married. I cannot relate to a 70 year old man, preaching at me (not to me) and he cannot relate to me. There is nothing wrong with a church updating its thinking, thats what you do in a modern world. I'm not saying there should be a free for all and dropping of all morals, etc, but in all honesty how can it be wrong to give women in the third world, with numerous hungry babies, contrapception. My God is more compassionate than that.

robman60

Replacement of all Bishops proven guilty of incompetence in management of child abuse

Firstly, allowing clergy members to marry and allowing women clergy members. Most people wouldn't find this as a contentious issue anyway, I think. Especially when the main reason the marriage ban for priests was introduced was to prevent church land being inherited by a priest's children in the 11th century IIRC.

Less likely to happen, but also something that would help, would be allowing contraceptives. I know in an ideal world (or not ideal :P) people wouldn't want sex without the possibility of pro-creation, but in a practical sense, it's necessary. Also, sensible sex education and teaching of "double Dutch" (always using two contraceptive methods) would probably reduce abortion numbers, which is a far more worrying and contentious thing than contraception.

It baffles me to see people saying the church should advocate abortion on demand for Catholics. The right to life is, and always will be, a core teaching of Christianity. If you want a pro-abortion institution, then I don't know why you'd be looking to the church!



If there's anyone who's opposed to married clergy/women clergy, can I ask why? I really don't see any reason for opposition to it, but I'd be interested to hear the other side of the argument.

Aquarius34

juan.kerr wrote: »

what, all of the above poll options?

If all them were passed, the CC will still get nowhere... which leads to the next point.... oh nevermind....

georgieporgy

Ah the poor old Catholic Church. Foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews.
"If you are the Son of God why don't you come down off the cross and we will believe in you" seems an apt quote.

For those who do not desire to follow Christ, there are plenty of other creeds to cater to their fancies while they wait for the great equaliser (ie, death)

georgieporgy

AK333 wrote: »

In my humble opinion, the church needs to modernise and move with the times - It changes its 'rules' when it suits it, ie now non-marrying priests whereas prior to 1200 they married. I cannot relate to a 70 year old man, preaching at me (not to me) and he cannot relate to me. There is nothing wrong with a church updating its thinking, thats what you do in a modern world. I'm not saying there should be a free for all and dropping of all morals, etc, but in all honesty how can it be wrong to give women in the third world, with numerous hungry babies, contrapception. My God is more compassionate than that.

Poor people who live in exploited parts of the world would prefer if we gave them food for their hungry children rather than suggest their own generosity and openess to life is the cause of their suffering. If you ask them they reply "please keep your colonial notions for your own people and let us manage our own resources".

philologos

Sertus wrote: »

Serious ? It's been a hobby for many spin off religions over the years.
Like the Jehovahs, Mormons, and Muhammadans, Mr Luther and pals got the scissors out and removed entire books that contradicted his new cult/brand along with inserting a few new words here or there where it suited to make them more popular. Of course, that was when slavery, smiting and chauvinism were still in fashion, or the scissors would have been out there too.

The Apocrypha isn't contained in the Protestant Canon because it wasn't widely used or regarded as Scripture by the Jewish people in the first century.

The modern Biblical text is the same as was used in the first century by Jews and Christians.

Compromising the Bible wouldn't make any church more popular it would make large swathes of people leave if it happened in mine.

Irish Musician

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

Loose the rings and the robes,the fancy titles( your grace,your holiness etc) have a full and open televised enquiry into the the abuses and remove anyone,including the pope,from office,if it is discovered they were negligent.

Stop making impossible demands on people who want to marry in mixed marriages. Allow femail priests, allow clergy to marry, stay out of politics,make their account books public,be accountable. Apart from that they are grand. Oh yea....... Sell pope on a rope soap.

Blue Magic

Replacement of any Priest, Bishop or Cardinals that does not practice what the Church teaches

Two things that would make the Catholic Church more popular:

1) Reason - Let priests marry;
- Let females be priests;
- Allow contraception and birth control.

2) Accountability - Sack all bishops who oversaw paedophilia (stop dancing around the issue in your extravagant jewellery and robes);
- Stop gathering assets, jewels and artifacts in your extravagant houses and then preach about simplicity of life and greed in society (sick of hearing clergy b***sh*ting about greed of Celtic Tiger);

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ah the poor old Catholic Church. Foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews.
"If you are the Son of God why don't you come down off the cross and we will believe in you" seems an apt quote.

For those who do not desire to follow Christ, there are plenty of other creeds to cater to their fancies while they wait for the great equaliser (ie, death)

Many of the Christians on this forum believe, trust and follow Jesus in their daily lives without being members of the Roman Catholic Church.

juan.kerr

Manach wrote: »

BTW juan.kerr, that Marxist fortune telling of historical determinism, never actually took into account the actions of individuals which might explain where it ended up.

Marxist? Hilarious. Try realist. You and the few like you will be all that remain. I don't really understand why you even see the need for the church - why not commune directly with God and cut out the cancerous middle man?

philologos

juan.kerr wrote: »

Marxist? Hilarious. Try realist. You and the few like you will be all that remain. I don't really understand why you even see the need for the church - why not commune directly with God and cut out the cancerous middle man?

It depends on how you define church. I don't make the implicit "the church" => RCC relation that a lot of Irish people make in their minds, because the church isn't that, it is the Christian church in all its forms.

In a New Testament context it means the fellowship of believers meeting together. The church in that sense is God's presence on earth, the point of meeting together is that we might honour God, build one another up spiritually, to grow up to understand God's word and to hear it clearly proclaimed, and then to motivate ourselves and others to live according to God's word and to share it with everyone around us. That's the most important thing possible. We should be concerned about others, we should be concerned about spreading the good news about Jesus and in living and speaking for Him.

The church couldn't be any less important in that respect.

tommy2bad

Sell off all valuables in the Vatican Museum and give the money to third world Catholic charities

philologos makes a good point, theirs an attitude that religion is a spectator sport. 'Them' and us obedient observers. The church is the clergy and the laity just get on with day to day living.
I'm not sure popular is exactly what the op has in mind. Well regarded might be closer. Most of the things on that list are available in other denominations and they aren't exactly running a waiting list for places.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

philologos makes a good point, theirs an attitude that religion is a spectator sport. 'Them' and us obedient observers. The church is the clergy and the laity just get on with day to day living.
I'm not sure popular is exactly what the op has in mind. Well regarded might be closer. Most of the things on that list are available in other denominations and they aren't exactly running a waiting list for places.

There will always be varying roles in a church. It needs pastors who preach from Scripture, and laypeople, but the pastors aren't anything better than laypeople in my view, they are simply people with gifts to bring God's word out in preaching. A church needs leadership, but not domineering leadership, but self-sacrificial leadership, those who are willing to lay down their all for the Christians there. We all can serve each other but we do it in different ways I think.

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

philologos wrote: »

The Apocrypha isn't contained in the Protestant Canon because it wasn't widely used or regarded as Scripture by the Jewish people in the first century.

The modern Biblical text is the same as was used in the first century by Jews and Christians.

Compromising the Bible wouldn't make any church more popular it would make large swathes of people leave if it happened in mine.

There you go then, its been done before then so.

The actual reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that more modern people subsequently chose to reject in the 1500's.

So, Just find a few reasons to chuck out a few books to suit the current era, and add a few words here and there. You could start by removing the bits about accepting slavery and smiting women and children and dashing their heads against rocks.

Why would you use a Jewish Canon for the Old Testament anyway, one that was proposed by Anti Christinan Jews after Christianity was founded ? Any Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. The very same Post Christian Jewish council whose OT you follow, rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels.

The actual edition of the Bible that Jesus and apostles used in everyday life was the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament.

The 'Apocrypha' books as you call them, were included in the Septuagint, which the apostles used to evangelise the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. They suited the times, but they suit no longer, just as they didn't suit in 1500 either.

The 'Apocrypha' as you call them, teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well.

The exact same could be done today, its been done before.

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

philologos wrote: »

It depends on how you define church. I don't make the implicit "the church" => RCC relation that a lot of Irish people make in their minds, because the church isn't that, it is the Christian church in all its forms.

In a New Testament context it means the fellowship of believers meeting together. The church in that sense is God's presence on earth, the point of meeting together is that we might honour God, build one another up spiritually, to grow up to understand God's word and to hear it clearly proclaimed, and then to motivate ourselves and others to live according to God's word and to share it with everyone around us. That's the most important thing possible. We should be concerned about others, we should be concerned about spreading the good news about Jesus and in living and speaking for Him.

The church couldn't be any less important in that respect.

There you go then. By exactly the same logic Jehovah’s and Mormons are equally "The Church."

tommy2bad

Sell off all valuables in the Vatican Museum and give the money to third world Catholic charities

So, Just find a few reasons to chuck out a few books to suit the current era, and add a few words here and there. You could start by removing the bits about accepting slavery and smiting women and children and dashing their heads against rocks.

A bit Stalinist don't you think? Isn't how the gospel evolved from those passages important?
I don't think suiting the era is the point of the bible in the first place but thats a straw man. I doubt preaching Deepak Chopra would help the RCC at this stage.
More to the point is the assumption (which I fell for too) by the op that the RCC is unpopular. World wide I don't think thats true.

philologos

Sertus wrote: »

There you go then. By exactly the same logic Jehovah’s and Mormons are equally "The Church."

The church is the fellowship of all Christian believers. Those who believe and trust in Jesus Christ as God who was begotten in human form who lived, taught, and ultimately was crucified in our place for our sin and was resurrected on the third day so that we might be born again in His name.

That's entirely valid. In the first century it was just Christianity. I think that's the model we're going to have to look towards into for the rest of the 21st century if Christianity is going to have any impact going forward in the world. The Roman Catholic Church as an institution didn't exist until the fourth century.

There's an argument as to whether or not Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, which you should probably have on another thread if you wish to.

Sertus

Church doctrine to be democratically decided by all Catholics

tommy2bad wrote: »

A bit Stalinist don't you think? Isn't how the gospel evolved from those passages important?

Sure it was done before in the 1500's with the bible, and that still proves popular to this day, and many Protestant churches also permit divorce, abortion, sex outside marriage, gay marriage, women clergy. Pick and choose your own Christianity = much more popular. The ACP for example know this well.

Rezident

Replacement of any Priest, Bishop or Cardinals that does not practice what the Church teaches

The RC church needs to get back to its roots i.e. helping believers in the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the teachings of the RC church, which are man-made, such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, not letting priests get married, transubstantiation, pergatory etc. etc.

Definitely let priests get married again, for starters, this should be blindingly obvious. Matthew 8:14 refers to Peter's mother-in-law so the first Pope was married but years later, the RC church banned priests from getting married so it wouldn't have to financially support their wives after they died. Forcing all priests to be (or try to be) celibate is unnatural and how has it worked out for them? The RC church has lost its way somewhat.

Aquarius34

philologos wrote: »

It depends on how you define church. I don't make the implicit "the church" => RCC relation that a lot of Irish people make in their minds, because the church isn't that, it is the Christian church in all its forms.

In a New Testament context it means the fellowship of believers meeting together. The church in that sense is God's presence on earth, the point of meeting together is that we might honour God, build one another up spiritually, to grow up to understand God's word and to hear it clearly proclaimed, and then to motivate ourselves and others to live according to God's word and to share it with everyone around us. That's the most important thing possible. We should be concerned about others, we should be concerned about spreading the good news about Jesus and in living and speaking for Him.

The church couldn't be any less important in that respect.

No the church, is a building. A building made of brick and mortor.


How about honour each other, rather than honour God?

philologos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No the church, is a building. A building made of brick and mortor.


How about honour each other, rather than honour God?

Not Biblically. The word for church ecclesia refers to people, not to a building.