Punditry

A reader sent me a link to an article about the tragic death of Jody Dobrowski who was allegedly killed because he was homosexual. In it Matthew Paris starts by making some valid points

…The newspaper commentaries would write themselves. We owe it to Jody’s memory, we would declare, to root out all prejudice against homosexuals. If that prejudice could only be exterminated, murders like this would never happen again, and Jody would not have died in vain. All stirring stuff. And true in at least one sense.

But he did die in vain and he wouldn’t have been killed by homophobia. He would have been killed by one or more psychopaths, and if they hadn’t latched on to homophobia they would have latched on to another hatred, and killed a black, or a Jew or a French tourist. Homophobia would not have been the reason; it would have been the excuse.

Every age produces its small, sick crop of brutes. Every culture reaps among its harvests the tares of human failure. Every body of human beings has its leg ulcers.

And they need excuses, these pathetic riff-raff. Every blood-lust needs to rationalise. Even the least human among us is human enough to seek reasons for our brutality. There will always be young men whose heads and lives are so comprehensively messed up that they are crazed by the urge to wound, destroy and kill. It is they — and not Jody — who are the outcasts.

and then lapses into incoherence.

Pope Benedict XVI does not tend a flock of psychopaths who need to hate and will anyway hate. His flock are normal, balanced people — more than a billion — who begin each day with no desire to wound, who do not hunger for someone to despise, but who seek from his Church guidance as to what kind of life and what manner of men to approve or disapprove.

When he teaches them to hate, there will be more haters in the world. The hatred will be new, a net increase in both haters and hated. Pope Benedict XVI therefore has the power to enlarge the circle of darkness, to widen the skirts of human misery.

He has recently pronounced that candidates for holy orders, even when celibate and resolved to remain so, should be disqualified if by inclination they are gay. By this pronouncement he does more than lay down criteria for a job: he points to millions of his fellow men, people whom there would be no other reason to shun, and calls them offensive to God.

To what kind of philosophical shambles can our Government have been reduced, when it promotes laws to criminalise me if I encourage hatred of such a Pope, yet looks away when such a Pope encourages hatred of me? For whoever killed Jody I can feel the forgiveness that comes with pity. For men like Ratzinger I can feel none.

Of course the fact is the the Holy Father has made no such pronouncement and the document much talked about is not even out (though it is reported it will be released tomorrow). Then to further say that the Pope calls those suffering with same-sex attraction "offensive to God" is to prove that you have read nothing that the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote while head of the CDF. So it is now okay to have a hatred of the Holy Father and to have more sympathy for murderers than a man who has poured himself out in service to the Church. Just another example of Papalphobia – an irrational hatred of the Holy Father not based on anything the Holy Father has actually said but misleading and erroneously amplified press reports. Even if the document actually does bar those with homosexual inclinations from attending the seminary is the author also upset about the monarchy ban applicable only to Catholics? It is always nice to be lectured about hate by someone displaying their hate for all to se.

Call to (Fr)action is having a conference and of course it contains the usual suspects (read dissidents) and strange titles for focus sessions and presentations. The conference starts on November 3rd so that must be the Feast of All Dissidents.

Jumping Without A Chute imagines an suitable itinerary, though the real one though parody-free is pretty funny.

Now I thought I had read the majority of pro-women’s ordination arguments, but I guess I missed this one. "Personal to Political: How Women’s Ordination Impacts the Global Community" to be given by Joy Barnes. We also get to learn that "Mary of Nazareth, Jewish peasant woman of faith, has been released from her role as a submissive handmaiden and restored to her place as a powerful, prophetic woman." So since when did submission to God to become something that you must be released from? “I am the powerful prophetic women of the Lord” just doesn’t parse that well. We are the tallest when we kneel and the most powerful when we humbly submit to God’s will.

I will never understand the progressives love of the use prophetic. After all the prophets were the ones that denounced sin and kept calling Israel back to faithfully following the Covenant. They attacked liturgical abuses like offering lambs that were sick or had other defects. John the Baptist went in over his head when he denounced Herod’s invalid marriage. Repentance was a big thing with prophets and Elijah was not the most ecumenical figure. They did not go around telling the Church to change. For example demanding the opening the priesthood to all the tribes of Israel. They were the faithful who were calling dissident kings and Levitical priests to repent and to follow God’s law. In short the prophets were the opposite of progressive dissidents who demand instead that God’s law to changed and not followed.

"Earth Spirit and You: A Spirituality for the 21st Century" Yeah you knew that one was coming. "Why Do Men Need the Goddess? Gender and the Creation of Goddesses in Western Religion" and "The Most Holy Eucharist: Source and summit of our faith" – well I was kidding about the last one. After all concluding the year of the Eucharist and the recent synod you wouldn’t want to have a conference that mentioned the Eucharist you know. But there is a report on a synod – that is how they tried to deliver petitions at the synod for of course women priests.

Praying with Teresa of Avila, a Woman for Today
Gloria Ulterino and Judith Boyd lead this prayer service. Like us, Teresa lived in a time of oppression and resistance to change. Called by Christ from her tomb of fear, she stood tall.

That would be the same St. Teresa of Avila who helped to reform the Carmelites who had mostly lapsed and fallen into wordy ways. She called the Carmelites not to some new fad, but back to the beginnings of the first Carmelite rule. The Discalced Carmelites went shoeless not habit-less. Sure we all live in a time of oppression and resistance to change. We are all oppressed by our own sins and our resistant to change. We would much rather that the world come into conformity with our sins than for us to repent of them. Though I take comfort for myself and others that St. Teresa was not exactly a model nun and for a long period of time did not even pray. She was luke-warm but later burned with the love of Christ especially in his humanity. May the same happen for all of us including the members of CTA.

All Saints pray for us.

It was bad enough when the mother of Katelyn Sills was banned from the campus of Loretto High School and now Katelyn Sills has been expelled. I guess she will have to change the name of her blog to Stand Up and Speak Out and Be Expelled. So let me see if I get this straight. In a city named Sacramento if your mother provides proof that a drama teacher is an abortion-escort and the Bishop takes charge and subsequently fires the teacher that the response of the school is first to ban the mother from campus and then expel the student. I guess that since this school is named Loretto that they didn’t jump the shark but flew over it instead. I wonder if Bishop Weigand is allowed on campus?

I totally agree with Funky Dung when he asks:

I wonder, though, if the irony might be lost on some of them. I wonder how many people are filled with glee as a result of this, ignorant of the hypocrisy of saying that a teacher shouldn’t be fired from a Catholic school for her manifest participation in grave sin, but a student should be expelled for publicly supporting her mother’s exposure of that teacher’s deeds. Then again, maybe nobody will think or say such things.

The president is Sr. Helen Timothy, htimothy@loretto.net, and the principal is Sr. Barbara Nelson, bnelson@loretto.net.

Mark Shea titles this column Pelvically-Obsessed Jesuits Obsess over Pelvic Obsessions.

Why is it the issue of celibacy is never the lone issue? It seems always to be a package deal. Like advocating both for married and women priests or pairing it with some other subject. As if paring a discipline with a dogmatic teaching goes down better. Yes we are having a two-for-one sale today -act now.

The Synod, a meeting of more than 250 Bishops to debate and propose Church policies, came to an end on Saturday. Though it acknowledged the shortage of priests, it failed to approve priestly marriage and did not even discuss the possibility of ordaining women. Further, it reaffirmed its decision to deny communion to divorcees. It did, however, give local Bishops the authority to deny or allow Catholic politicians who disagree with certain Catholic teachings-read John Kerry-communion.

Yes the whole purpose of the synod was to deny John Kerry communion, after all he is the only Catholic politician in the whole world to vote contrary to the faith.

The threat facing the church is a very real one. According to the Vatican, the ratio of priests to Catholics in America is 1 to 1,200. This speaks to a very real failure by the Church to tend to the spiritual needs of the faithful, as well as provide the Sacraments of their faith.

Ignore the fact about the amount of vocations in Africa, India and some places in America where answers to the priesthood are blossoming. It is all about celibacy you know. They must not tell candidates about that in Africa, India or those in Bishop Bruskewitz diocese. Besides all those vocations before 1960 were just flukes.

"Some men are called to celibacy, some to the priesthood, but to be a priest today you need both vocations," Professor Chester Gillis, the chair of Georgetown’s Theology Department, said. "I see many students on campus who would make good priests but who also want to get married."

Since Peter has the power to bind and loose there is no such thing as this dual vocation garbage. Within the Western Church if God gives a priestly vocation to a man he also gives the graces to live a celibate life for his calling. What Peter binds is ratified in Heaven. Besides is celibacy really a vocation? Fr. Hardon defined vocation as "A call from God to a distinctive state of life, in which the person can reach holiness" Vocations are to the married, single, and religious life and celibacy has part of the single and religious life but is it a vocation of its own?

Besides today’s more secular, sexual culture, Gillis credits the lack of prestige associated with the priesthood to generational changes and the recent sexual abuse scandals. He also said that the celibacy requirement arose in the 12th century with the Monastic movement, not in the original church, he noted. Even Christ’s apostles were married.

Now if you are going to argue that married priest are the prudent thing to do why is it they always have to present lies in defense of it. This idea that the celibacy requirement just arose in the 12th century is a very Protestant way to look at things.

We tend toward rejecting traditions that are held merely for traditions’ sake. Is there a real, scriptural and theological reason for having only celibate, male priests? The Church should follow the example of Christ and forgive divorcees, allowing them to rejoin the Catholic community. Further, we believe that it is possible to be both Liberal and Catholic. The Church should stop threatening Catholic politicians who are faithful but also believe in the separation of Church and state.

This paragraph is really ironic. First it talks about scriptural and theological reasons and then says that Christ forgave divorcees allowing them to rejoin the Community? I must have missed that story or parable. He challenged the Samaritan women and then said "You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’" His call to all of us sinners is to not only acknowledge our sins but to repent of them. He did not tell the women caught in adultery "come and rejoin the communion", but "go and sin no more." This whole idea of people who are "faithful but also believe in the separation of Church and state." is a mockery of the martyrs especially those like Thomas More. Faith without works is dead unless I guess you are a politician.

Today, the Church is being strangled by its devotion to unnecessary, human doctrines. Busy persecuting homosexuals within and without, covering up its past sins of child molestation and contributing to its own shortage of priests, the church has failed to remember its primary mission: to advance the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, beginning with love thy neighbor as thyself. If it does not remember soon, it will lose more than just priests.

Love of neighbor includes rebuking them when they are committing grave sings. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish sinners. Calling a sin a sin is not persecution but proclaiming the truth. The unnecessary human doctrine is what as Mark Shea mockingly says the idea that "Homosexuality is the Source and Summit of All that is Noble, Good and Beautiful."

Maureen Dowd writes:

I thought the struggle for egalitarianism was a cinch, so I could leave it to my earnest sisters in black turtlenecks and Birkenstocks. I figured there was plenty of time for me to get serious later, that America would always be full of passionate and full-throated debate about the big stuff – social issues, sexual equality, civil rights. Little did I realize that the feminist revolution would have the unexpected consequence of intensifying the confusion between the sexes, leaving women in a tangle of dependence and independence as they entered the 21st century.

Well people can debate as to whether this was really an unexpected consequence. She later asks: "So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax?"

The Anchoress nails the reply.

Hey, I think she’s catching on!

Yes, Maureen, the feminist movement, which seemed to be all about “celebrating women” and “slamming (or feminizing) men” was in actuality all about devaluing traditional femininity, completely ignoring the peculiar genius of the feminine, and over-valuing male standards to such a degree that some women have recently begun to declare they needed “wives” to help them run their lives sensibly. It was a giant hoax that compelled you and many of your sisters to believe that sex could be casual and abortions could be, too (I don’t know anyone that served except caddish men and abortionists and psychiatrists) – that children didn’t really need their mothers, and hell, women didn’t really need children, either.

We must learn again and again the human capacity for pottage. The ability to accept something much less than truth and then find ourselves shocked that we are still hungry later. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger previously wrote in Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the world.

Above all, the fact that human beings are persons needs to be underscored: “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God”.10 Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological and ontological complementarity, giving rise to a harmonious relationship of “uni-duality”, which only sin and “the structures of sin” inscribed in culture render potentially conflictual. The biblical vision of the human person suggests that problems related to sexual difference, whether on the public or private level, should be addressed by a relational approach and not by competition or retaliation.

Furthermore, the importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman, needs to be noted. “Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions”.11 It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather “is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love”.12 This capacity to love – reflection and image of God who is Love – is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed.

The human dimension of sexuality is inseparable from the theological dimension. The human creature, in its unity of soul and body, is characterized therefore, from the very beginning, by the relationship with the other-beyond-the-self. This relationship is presented as still good and yet, at the same time, changed. It is good from its original goodness, declared by God from the first moment of creation. It has been changed however by the disharmony between God and humanity introduced by sin. This alteration does not correspond to the initial plan of God for man and woman, nor to the truth of the relationship between the sexes. It follows then that the relationship is good, but wounded and in need of healing.

PARIS (Reuters) – One of France’s most popular men, a 93-year-old Roman Catholic priest who champions the cause of the homeless, speaks out for married and female priests in a new book where he confesses having broken his vow of chastity.

Abbe Pierre, who has topped French popularity lists for so long that he withdrew his name last year to make way for others, also says in his book "My God … Why?" that he could imagine that Jesus Christ had been married to Mary Magdalene.

His liberal views flew in the face of the conclusions of a synod of over 250 bishops at the Vatican that closed last week with a ringing reaffirmation of the celibate male priesthood.

Abbe Pierre noted that his celibacy vow did not extinguish sexual desire and confessed: "I’ve succumbed to this on rare occasions but I never had a longer relationship because I did not let sexual desire take root."

Breaking his vow was being untrue to himself, he added.

The book’s publication made national headlines in France and elicited a mixed reaction from Catholic commentators.

"It’s unfortunate the media stress two or three issues in a book that is a profound testimony of faith," said Marie-Caroline de Marliave, spokeswoman for the French Bishops’ Conference. "His faith is very real but this does it a disservice."

"Personalities like Abbe Pierre and Mother Teresa give the Church credibility," argued Rev. Alain de la Morandais, a frequent commentator on French television.

"So what if he had some weaknesses of the flesh? Maybe that’s partly what made him so compassionate."

A MARRIED JESUS?

Abbe Pierre said he knew good priests who lived with common-law wives. "I’m convinced the Church needs married priests and celibate priests who can devote themselves totally to prayer and to others."

Neither Pope John Paul nor Pope Benedict "has ever put forward a single decisive theological argument showing that ordaining women priests would be against the faith," he wrote.

This doctrine was "more sociological than theological," he said. "It is very probable, and I’d say desirable, that the Church evolves on this point in coming decades."

He approved of civil unions for homosexuals but balked at supporting adoption rights for gays. He said Pope Benedict would surprise Catholics by eventually allowing older married men to become priests and remarried divorced people to receive communion.

That Jesus may have married Mary Magdalene — an ancient theory revived by the popular novel "The Da Vinci Code" — was possible but unproven, he said. "I don’t think it makes any difference for the fundamentals of the Christian faith." [Source]

Their idea of an ancient theory does not jive with mine. I would at least consider an ancient theory to be at least a thousand years old, not something that came about within the last one hundred years. This whole idea of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene is just so silly. Like when exactly did he have time to pull that one off. Sometime between casting out seven Demons and being crucified? Do not cling to me is not exactly the simple banter between husband and wife. Why not "Honey, do not cling to me" or whatever the Jewish equivalents of terms of endearment were. And how many women married to God when they found out they had been resurrected call them Rabboni? Would she had been the first women to have been widowed for three days and then not become a widow? What would she think of the Ascension? That it was a one way business trip? Would any wife be happy when asking when you will be home to get the reply "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." I mean come on even if you are married to the second person of the Blessed Trinity would you accept that one? And what about anniversaries or birthdays? What do you give a man who created everything? And what about housing? "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head." – might not have been the best living arrangements. Though having nothing at the start of a marriage might be something that many of us remember.

TSO notices this story from a front page article in today’s Columbus Dispatch by Joe Hallet: (No free access to article)

Brennan would seem an unlikely advocate for the poor. A church-going Catholic, his spacious office is a shrine to power; there are photos of him with presidents and governors, a personal blessing from the late Pope John Paul II and plaques recognizing his efforts.

A Church going Catholic being an advocate for the poor – who’d have thunked it. Reminds me of the story Michael Dubruiel caught last week.

A visit from Our Lady
Statue of Virgin Mary: Local parish is host to 33-foot idol for 2 weeks

They have since revised the story to remove the idol reference.

In a story about the Mayor of Jacksonville and Cecil Field.

"It is clear to me, and I think it’s clear to our City Council, that this community does not want a master jet base," Peyton said.

He later added: "We’re going to lay out steps to halt any effort to return Cecil Field to a master jet base."

In doing so, he brought to an end an almost unbelievable turn of events led by the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission that would have resurrected Cecil Field as a naval base.

The base had held that role for decades before it was decided in 1993 to end Cecil’s role as a jet base and transfer its jets to Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, Va. In 1999, Cecil Field was reborn as a business park.

The BRAC panel decided to offer the jet base and its 11,000 jobs to Jacksonville if the communities surrounding Oceana couldn’t develop and fund a plan to push back development that had badly encroached on the Virginia base by March. Jacksonville and Florida also had requirements to meet.

Those who were against transforming Cecil Field were buoyed by Peyton’s announcement.

"We’re extremely excited about this," said Westside resident Katja Palmer, secretary of the Better Westside Project, which mobilized about 2,000 residents against the jet base proposal. "If I weren’t in a suit, I would be doing somersaults."

"I’m elated at the decision," said Earl Hindman of Middleburg. "I’m glad the mayor listened to the people. This could have been the best thing he did for his re-election campaign. Don’t tell me you can’t fight City Hall."

But some were less pleased with the decision. [Source]

And one of those people would be me. Now it is far from certain that the BRAC commission would have made the decision in March of next year to move the base here, but whiny residents really annoys me. The reason for the complaints was euphemistically said "lower their quality of life" when what they meant was jet noise. Without our military then their quality of life would really be lowered. When I used to be stationed at NAS Whidbey Island the sign outside the gate said that Jet Noise was the Sound of Freedom. The only question should be whether it is a prudentially a good move to move the base from Oceana down to Cecil Field and whether this would best satisfy the needs of the Navy. Now considering that I use to sleep in a rack that was right underneath and between two catapults on an aircraft carrier, I don’t have much sympathy when it comes to complaints about jet noise. The old support the troops, but not in my backyard. Patriotism as long as there is zero inconvenience to it.

When I use to live in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area there was already major problems at Oceana considering the amount of residential area in the approach path to the base, but about six years back they decided to close down Cecil and move the F/A-18 squadrons up to Oceana. I was fairly skeptical that they would move the base anyway, because if they did it was really boneheaded planning. Though of course the BRAC commission could still make the decision, but it is less likely considering that they were playing Virginia Beach and Jacksonville against each other to receive the best deal. Though maybe this is the first time in history a politician has turned away a major base with all the money it would mean to the local area. So while I disagree with him on the basis for the decision it is kind of amazing.

But several retired Navy officers and at least one congressman said Peyton’s capitulation to a minority from the Westside who didn’t want the base in their neighborhood sends a negative message to the Navy.

"Now, it is important that the Florida congressional delegation come together to work hard to reassure the Navy that they are a welcome part of Jacksonville," said U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., whose district includes Cecil Field.

Retired Navy Capt. John Leenhouts, who testified as an expert on Cecil Field for Jacksonville in Florida’s Base Realignment and Closure hearing in July, said Peyton’s move could hurt the city’s chance to get a nuclear-powered carrier. It could also hamper the Naval Air Depot’s chance to get more work at the end of the decade because the majority of planes it works on now will be retired, he said.

"This sends a strong message to the Navy that Jacksonville is not a strong advocate of the military," said Leenhouts, a former Navy pilot who flew a record 1,645 carrier landings. "It’s a sad day for the Navy and a sad day for Jacksonville."

In a news conference Thursday, Peyton admitted it would have been easier to convince the Navy to move a nuclear carrier to Jacksonville if Oceana Naval Station’s master jet base was moved to Cecil Field. This year, the Navy said it wants to mothball the Jacksonville-based USS John F. Kennedy, and Florida politicians have been lobbying to bring a nuclear carrier in as the JFK’s replacement.

"We’ll do all we can … to find a way and build a case to attract a nuclear carrier," Peyton said. [Source]

Just as long as nobody is annoyed by it.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Bishop Michael Sheridan has apologized for remarks by his assistant that Roman Catholics shouldn’t attend Protestant worship services because they could "confuse" some Catholics.

Sheridan’s executive assistant, Peter Howard, also told The Gazette of Colorado Springs this week that Catholic participation in Protestant services denigrates the Catholic faith. He made similar comments in an Oct. 7 article in the diocesan newspaper.

In a letter regarding Howard’s comments to The Gazette, Sheridan said Howard is free to express his views but said he doesn’t agree with them.

"
Nevertheless, I am deeply sorry for any hurt or insult that has been experienced, and I humbly ask that all men and women of good will accept my apology," wrote Sheridan, who last year suggested that those who vote for Catholic politicians who contradict church positions should refrain from taking Communion.

Some of the diocese’s 130,000 Catholics attend both Protestant and Catholic services. New Life Church, a large church led by National Association of Evangelical president Ted Haggard, is believed to attract thousands of Catholics every weekend. Howard’s column in the diocesan newspaper, entitled "Why Not Attend New Life?" was meant to address that.

"
Such ‘active participation’ in a Protestant liturgical service, therefore, acts contrary to our faith which professes fundamentally different beliefs in critical ecclesiological and theological areas," Howard wrote.

The Rev. Karl Useldinger, diocesan chancellor and judicial vicar, said the Catholic church allows its adherents to participate in other Christian services as long as they don’t take part in another church’s sacraments and continue to attend Catholic Mass.

Michael Ciletti, deacon for St. Francis of Assisi Parish, said Howard was "dead wrong" in his column.

"
I think to have a column like that sends the wrong kind of message," he said. "I think it’s an insult."

Not an insult, but a statement of fact. While it is true canonically Catholic can attend Protestant services as long as they don’t participate in Communion, it is a matter of prudence of doing so and making sure that it does not pose a problem to their Catholic faith. Of course with their services also on Sunday they would have to make sure they also attend Mass. This might be necessary for those in a mixed marriage, but not really recommend for others. Mix one part poor catechesis and one part lively entertainment style Protestant worship services and you get an ex-Catholic. A recipe that has worked well for denominations that are often made up of a large part of ex-Catholics.

The About page for New Life Church shows a guitarist sitting down surrounded by guitar effects so I guess it means that they have "sound doctrine."

CHICAGO (ABP)—The decline membership in of mainline churches over the last century had more to do with sex than theology, research by a trio of sociologists suggests.

The popular notion that conservative churches are growing because mainline churches are too liberal is being challenged by new research that offers a simpler cause for much of the mainline decline—the use of birth control.

Differences in fertility rates account for 70 percent of the decline of mainline Protestant church membership from 1900 to 1975 and the simultaneous rise in conservative church membership, the sociologists said.

“For most of the 20th century, conservative women had more children than mainline women did,” three sociologists—Michael Hout of the University of California-Berkley, Andrew Greeley of the University of Arizona, and Melissa Wilde of Indiana University—wrote in Christian Century.

“It took most of the 20th century for conservative women to adopt family-planning practices that have become dominant in American society,” the writers said. “Or to put the matter differently, the so-called decline of the mainline may ultimately be attributable to its earlier approval of contraception.”

While mainline churches could claim 60 percent of the total Protestant congregants in 1900, their share fell to 40 percent in 1960. Many religious observers and some sociologists attributed the drop—and simultaneous growth of conservative churches—to the lethargy of liberalism and the appeal of biblical certainty.

But simple demographics can account for almost three fourths of the mainline decline, the trio of sociologists said. [Source]

Well any study that has Fr. Andrew Greeley on it I would take with a grain of salt or more likely a salt block. Especially since this seems like a apologia for the decline of mainline Protestantism. There has been mention of the Roe Effect with regards to declining numbers of young voters who predominantly vote Democrat. The case also has been previously made by others that this was a predominant factor in the rise of Christianity over Paganism.

What I would be interested to know is statistically speaking how many people stay with the church of their parents? Maybe being a convert I see this role as minimal. With so much church shopping do the majority only seek denominations somewhat inline with their parents? To attribute three fourths of the decline to just this factor seems to say that three fourths of people just automatically follow the church of their parents. Obviously there is some sociological factor in church membership, but three fourths seems a bit extreme.

I also wonder if mainline Protestant Churches once again denounced abortion and contraception if they would then grow, or if by embracing these position if they also instead grow more conservative and return to traditional Christianity.

Update: The Waffling Anglican also posted on this.

I think you can make a pretty good case that it was the general acceptance of contraception by the mainline churchgoer that began the slide of what Philip Turner calls the “practical theology” of the church. Prior to that, revisionist thinking was largely limited to the seminaries and universities. Contraception opened the laity to the theology of expedience and acculturation; separation of belief from behavior led to the wide acceptance of Gnostic philosophies, where “those in the know” are viewed as leaders and “those who do” are marginalized.

The more I think about the article’s statement "The decline membership in of mainline churches over the last century had more to do with sex than theology" the more ridiculous the assertion is. Especially since the next sentence attributes the decline to birth control. The idea that contraception has nothing to do with theology is quite mistaken. The original acceptance of contraception was first an attack and subsequent watering down of contraception which was seen as immoral by all Christian Churches prior to the Anglican Church giving it a firm shove down the slippery slope at the 1930 Lambeth Conference.

The Catholic Church often reminds me the saying Athanasius Contra Mundum – Athanasius Against the World. St. Athanasius spoke out even when the majority of Catholics were teaching error and the Church now speaks out when the majority of Christian churches now teach error.