I liked that article, your not afraid to call it like it is. The Catholics see their power and trust slipping away, and their looking for ways to stop the bleeding. Their willing to do what it takes, even if it means condemning other paths or resorting back to fear tactics. But, the attitudes are different now, they have less respect, and no longer see them as holier then thou people. ~Kurt~

Yes Catholicism is going through a very difficult time and the Pope is trying hard to right the ship, and the main message here will go along the lines of surrender, give up, try something radically different, don't fight for first principals, the heretics must have been on the right track, and frankly it's just too hard.

Did I miss something?

Steve

Consequences of a weak Church in Rome and the predictions of a muslim cleric:

"His(Pope Benedict) views have not silenced Muslim clerics. Yunis al-Astal, in a fiery sermon delivered on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV, claims that Islam will conquer Rome just as the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople. He predicted that Rome will become an advance post for Islamic conquests. He says these conquests would spread through Europe whereupon Islam will turn to the two Americas. He said Eastern Europe might be the most difficult to conquer. "

-Paul Weyrich

We simply have no clue, the state won't save us

Steve

Dear Deepak

Your article is strong, informed, and sensitively and beautifully-written.

I agree with your views and conclusions.

love, h

I'm not Catholic, but I saw some basic spiritual inspiration in his speech. He admitted error with regard to the priest scandal. Error, being the same as ignorance according to the Buddha, and is correctable. From there one goes directly to forgiveness, not just a basic Christian belief but spiritual as well.

The thing that people forget is that Christianity and the Catholic Church came about when people were much more primitive than they are today. And I think the Catholic Church is making progress, maybe not as fast as some would like but positive progress nevertheless.

B

When Ghandi says, "be the change you want to see in the world" that does not mean change the 'beings'. It means change yourself and have "faith" that your change will move with others in the proper direction. It is not your job to "move" others, simply move yourself in the proper channels so that you may inspire others to do the same.

Religion is an intensely intrinsic personnel thing, that when properly effectively internalized creates a beautiful community of individuals coming together.

When you separate the personnel from the public, and live a purely public religious life where you shout and display your religious vigor, that is what the Ego wants, and you get the superficial religious experience. This only serves to create division, conflict and unhappiness, or more appropriately imbalance.

Live the religion, be in the moment and live the message. Be at peace with the inherent internal hypocritical struggle we all face, knowing full well that we all have room to improve and we will always have an ideal to strive for.

Religion never had a soul other than that of its human constituents. It is 'religion's' job to reveal that soul and then step aside, redundant.
The soul of humankind....the Spirit, is as the wind and blows where it will, knows of no sectarian distinction. It can and does,of necessity, blow among the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the Devil!

I was touched by the way you give the pope the credit of wanting the spiritual best for his followers and not only clinging to his institution. I don't know the pope and don't know his inner world at all, but yes, it is a possibility. Thank you for showing me my judgement.

I believe it's true that the inner guidance in everyone who is on a sincere spiritual path has become much too clear for institutions like the church to keep their old role. Ideally, a church would now be a meeting place for people with the same spiritual language and codes, but guided by inner knowingness and not by a pope. The pope can only remain a leader if he becomes a servant of his people. Their needs have changed, so he must change.

I will say both yes and no....religion has two aspect...first is self discovery...or discovering the Source of existence...and that is a private affair to the extent love is a private affair...

Second aspect is sharing....when a girl and boy fall in love after sometime they want to get married...they do not want to keep it hidden...they want others to share their joy...and here Religion becomes a public affair to the extent we can consider marriage as a public affair

I will say both yes and no....religion has two aspect...first is self discovery...or discovering the Source of existence...and that is a private affair to the extent love is a private affair...

Second aspect is sharing....when a girl and boy fall in love after sometime they want to get married...they do not want to keep it hidden...they want others to share their joy...and here Religion becomes a public affair to the extent we can consider marriage as a public affair

I will say both yes and no....religion has two aspect...first is self discovery...or discovering the Source of existence...and that is a private affair to the extent love is a private affair...

Second aspect is sharing....when a girl and boy fall in love after sometime they want to get married...they do not want to keep it hidden...they want others to share their joy...and here Religion becomes a public affair to the extent we can consider marriage as a public affair

Disagree.

"Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted . . ."

Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement can make out a strong case fora theocratic way of life.

Dara

Dara

That's interesting. I had not thought of it that way. A theocratic way of life, I don't think, would be in everyone's best interest.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Deepak you write, "Can any of us be our own spiritual teachers? There's something arrogant and deluded in complete autonomy, as if we can rely on our own egos to defeat the shortcomings of the ego. After all, we don't ask surgeons to operate on themselves. Without guidance from a wisdom tradition -- and whatever else it may be, the Church does embody such a tradition -- the individual seeker runs a huge risk of being distracted and misled, not by the powers of darkness but by an ego-personality that will do anything not to let go of its cherished habits, beliefs, and conditioning."

The risk of being distracted and misled, not by the powers of darkness but by an egp-personality that will do anything not to let go of its cherished habits, belief, and conditioning is a risk whether you go off on on your own or stay as part of a tradition for all of your life.

The problem with traditions is that they become the all important focus, imo, and the Catholic Church is a great exampe of a religious tradition that is decaying simply because of it's refusal to grow and change in the most basic of ways.

I think religions or religious traditions are for the individual who wants to belong to something, with others, who share the same perspectives and where they can get a ready made road map for their spiritual journey. I think if you are an individual who takes your spirituality upon yourself and you do not want or need a particular road map to follow but would rather try out different perspectives that is absolutely a-okay.

Speaking of Teachers, there are many who have not mastered their own ego/personality.

Ultimately, whether you spend years with a teacher or involved in a particular tradition, or not, it is the student who learns to take up the sword on his/her own ego/personality, anyway.

Religion, itself, has no soul. It is the participants of a religion who bring soul to the fold. The problem, is that, in the example of the Catholic Church, it's leaders have been strong in principles, dogmas, beliefs, but, imo, lacking in soul development, because, to me, if you are developing a strong soul you are moving, changing, evolving, into the present moment, you are not stuck in the past, hanging on to outdated emotional, intellectual, or spiritual information.

I think there will always be religions and there is a need and desire for them.

Interesting thing, in my city, with the Catholic Church, there was a priest who was very with-it, very open, changing, bold in wonderful ways that helped all people, really, a priest who brought light, newness, life, activity to his particular church and community. He had to leave the Catholc Church because he was ignoring outdated dogmas. Many people left with him and started another small gathering. Unfortunately, this has been the story with the Catholic Church they would rather lose that much life and soul than change outdated dead dogmas.:(((((

have a grand day, ruth

Dear Dr. Chopra,

The Papal edict in the late 80's condemming meditation is evidence of a blatant disregard for individual rights and a definite attack upon the individual's right to pursue his own spiritual path.

From its beginnings the Roman Church has done its best to hide the true teachings of Jesus which have been preserved by the Gnostic Church. Rome wants to discredit the Gnostic Church and to deny to followers of Catholicism access to the original wisdom conveyed by Christ and His followers.

Jesus taught about the Creator's Divine Blueprint and the Order of Design incorporated within the Laws of the Great Architect. He knew about the laws of geometry and harmony incorporated within all of creation. He acknowledged the existence of the dual polarities in everything created. Therefore, He honored the position of women in partnership with men as disciples and fellow ministers of the faith.

From its beginnings, the Roman Empire has tried to malign the image of women in Christianity and has endeavored to depict them as inferior to their male counterparts. As one example, Emperor Tertullian in the second century said horrible things about women and removed reference to them as respected teachers from the early Christian Gospels.

There has been a concentrated effort to control the mentality of church members from the earliest inceptions of the Roman Church. It appears that the Church is now seeing its control slipping away and it is desperate to prevent this from happening.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Ah Bonnie, I wonder if it would be in anybody's interest.

I think the problem is as Ruth mentions, the Church has just been left behind and shows no intention of trying to catch up.

I was educated in a Catholic school run by Irish Christian brothers. Where quality of academics and their devotion to us was concerned, I have nothing but praise for them and genuine affection even now. However, when a few of us classmates got together a few months ago, while cherishing their memories we also agreed that we had to re-learn a lot on life fom what they had imparted to us - narrow mindedness. Just one instance, the Readers Digest was banned. Why? Because each issue had one article on the human body, I'm John's Liver kind of thing!

Just recently, after the present Pope took over, and reportedly at his insistance, the Church clarified that it had forgiven Gallileo his heresy that the world was round and for which they killed him. "Forgiven?" Thats the strange part, it would have been foolish to apologise because then that would have gone against the dogma of infallibility of the Pope!

Its this kind of thinking and attitude which must needs change.

dara

Hi Dara, that would be a good question ;)

I have direct contact with an R C religious order. Mention the Pope and they smile! It's not much like you cover,ie ground floor, with the brethren I can assure you. They are mostly at sixes and sevens, but thay still see the joke, luckily for me!

Dara

Many of my Catholic friends say the same things you and Ruth are saying. As an 'outsider', so to speak, I'm trying to look at all the positive things the church has done which are many.

The church got the way it is over centuries, it's not going to change overnight. But some individual parishes are changing which eventually will work it's way to to top ever so slowly.

Bonnie

Dara

An example of what I am trying to convey is that recently my husband had to have surgery. We chose a Catholic hospital since it was state of the art, not only in procedures but research as well, belieing the official stance of the church.
It was built entirely through the generosity of Catholics(well they do try to make a profit which is not a bad thing). The truly caring attitude of the care givers made the experience much better than it could have been otherwise.

So, whether anyone agrees with it or not, I think many Catholics who do not wish to give up on their faith are at the "Don't ask, don't tell" stage and the hierarchy of the church has just not caught up. But then, who am I to say.

I agree the Gallileo situation is so hypocritical.

B

#15 Hi Bonnie, Dara..... the Galileo thingee...first, I like the word fore-given. It suggests to me that Galileo was Fore-given, but don't tell the Pope he got it right ;)

Second: That particular confrontation, Science v. Spirituality, still rages, even, here at IB,at a time. Should we foregive Prof. Dawkins? Well, of course, my argument leads me there.

So, it's much more subtle now we know so much more. (Ask Avtar)
Among that subtlety I have the feeling that the Pope is clueless but, nevertheless right to resist, in the Grand Scheme of Human Awakening...or some such word. ;)

"To the extent that religion becomes a groupthink, it loses its soul."

That is the correct formulation of the statement.

The Pope needs a few meditation retreats with the Stoner Guru, me thinks.

Bonnie, I have similar experiences. Of all the nursing homes avilable, my wife chose a catholic hospital, set up by some sisters, when she had both our kids. The only reason was because of the caring and the friendly atmosphere. In my mind I have compartmentalised lay people as opposed to the clergy.

As fot the profit issue, I wish these institutions make huge profits in order to set up more such places.

Dara

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

I hear what you are saying, Bonnie, about giving the Catholic Church time and being patient, but I just do not buy it. The Catholic Churh has had with the uncovering of it's sexual problems, as an example, with priests, years and years, to contemplate, to discuss, to change, to oversee itself in terms of beliefs,and dogmas, and, really, it chooses not to make but the tinest movement. I mean, the apology from this Pope is really so far after the fact of the years of coverup that it is almost pathetic in it's attempt to take serious responsibility for an issue that devastated so many for so long.

To me, the fact that so many people pay homage to a leader or leaders of a religion or government or anything for that matter that practices this kind of stubborn ignorance, enforces it-even, is wrong. It is wrong to enable great ignorance whether it is emotional, mental, or spiritual, especially, when it involves masses of people being influenced and lead in any movement. There is, imo, nothing to be gained by it.

So, for me to see this Pope get the homage and attention that he does is to me not at all helpful to anyone, really.

REally, I think there will always be a Catholic religion, no matter what, as in the case of my relatives, they wouldn't know how to connect with their spirituality, with their vision of a god without that organization, their vision of god is one that goes hand in hand with their acting out their mass, communion, baptisms, so, no matter what their Church leaders or authorities do they will overlook it for the bigger picture for their peace of mind.

But, to me, for the most part the Catholic Church is a body where the spirit and soul have left, long ago. Where it's leaders are clueless and self-involved in the process of pasting glue on documents to keep them from tearing apart, documents that have years and years of outdated principles and dogmas that have as much meaning as talking gibberish does on the lives and souls of their followers..

I guess I am a very harsh critic but somehow I feel this Church and really other's too need many more harsh critics than those who are easy apologists for them and their oudated way.

have a wonderful day, ruth

Dear Ruth,

I agree totally with your views. There has been already more than enough time for the Roman Church to change its policies. The worst part of its failure to exact standards amongst its own leaders is the irreparable harm that has been done to countless innocent followers of the faith. The Church has shown itself to be more concerned with protecting its priests than it has been in guarding the safety of its flock. This attitude speaks volumes about the agenda of the church.

It is not only the modern day parishioners who have been misled by the church; the information disseminated over the centuries by this religious body has been misleading and has been an incomplete representation of the real message of Jesus. It has been responsible for "keeping people in the dark" for much too long.

I would like to enter a few quotes from the book, "Mary Magdalene, Bride in Exile" by Margaret Starbird:

"In the Wisdom of Solomon, a text written in the first century in Alexandria - Wisdom (Sophia) is characterized as the "spouse of the Lord", the mirror of God's energy and emanation of God's glory, a concept similar to the Jewish articulation of the SHEKINAH, the feminine manifestation or presence of the glory of God."

"Later Hebrew tradition styles the SHEKINAH as the feminine counterpart of Yahweh, an aspect of himself with feminine attributes of beauty, compassion, gentleness, and kindness. She is his bride with whom he unites in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem."

"The Restoration of the Bride, or the Feminine Principle in the visual paradigm of Christianity would heal the schism between spirit and matter that currently prevails; at the same time healing the wounded psyche of both male and female."

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Hi Ruth

I am not really trying to defend the Catholic Church so much as to point out and embrace the positive things they have done and still do. Sure I think they deserve plenty of criticism,as all religions do, but not total condemnation. With the right kind of criticism, it might sink in finally, the disservice they are doing to individual Catholics. But again, I'm not Catholic, so am speaking from an outside view.

Have a good evening and Sunday.

B

Of course there won't always be a Roman Catholic religion, Ruthie. It's got built in obsolecence. Will the real Jesus please stand up? :) Sorry Old Chap, but you came Third ;)

How does the Catholic faith define soul anyway? In all Christian religious bodies, I daresay all profess that the purpose of the faith is to save the soul from eternal damnation, but so far none have yet ever truly defined soul to my fullest unerstanding. What is the soul that would cause Christ to go so far as to die so that he can have each and every soul on the face of the earth anyway instead of giving even the devil one tiny little bitty soul?

If one thinks about it, the poker game fought between Jesus Christ and the devil becomes a joke after awhile. And all the followers are only the chips. Is this anyway to run a religious body?

I can't speak for Pope Benedict to fully understand his meaning that a private religion is a way to lose one's soul for I agree that a true Christian is a groupie. One testifies to one's own belief before a body of people, and in each and every fishbowl which is a congregation of Christians, the fish intermingle openly. However, if one finds one's self to be a whale, I suspect it might demand more privacy than the guppies of the world who can swim in the same amount of space as the whale without even being noticed.

So much for saving souls when all are only fish anyway!

Hi Deepak,

Without adherents (emphasis on plurality) there can be no religion, only spirituality.

Then again, if everyone were to decide their own spirituality, based on available information systems and proffered wisdom, individual spirituality would be limited and therefore trends would be visible. These trends in themselves would appear similar to religion, only without the hierarchy and leaders of modern religion (supposably). I can't say whether this would be a good or bad situation. I can only say that this would resemble a sort of spiritual anarchy. I would say that anarchy is not an endpoint in human affairs, so it is reasonable to assume that other religions (or belief systems) would form to replace the old dead religions. Or the other outcome would be for people to congregate under the banner of another extant religion.

So instead of saying individualization of spirituality would remove the soul from religion, I would say it merely signifies a migration from one religion to another. The soul of religion would only be destroyed if humanity's need (perceived or real) for religion were sublimated.