The Gallup poll I cited below is puzzling. Why should Church regularly-Church-going Catholics be laxer in their attitudes to morality than regularly-Church-going Protestants?
The Church regards Tradition as the source of revelation. Tradition is That Which is Handed Over, tradere, and includes Scripture. Scripture is part of the life of the Church, and is to be understood as the Church understands it. I think even Protestants would see the logic of this view of Tradition, although they would place greater emphasis than Catholics do on Scripture as the norm of faith.
When moral questions arise, a Catholic should consult revelation, as interpreted by the magisterium. But what is the magisterium? Some regard it as the pope and the bishops who are in union with him. Others would include theologians. Before Vatican II, there were few disagreements about moral question in the Church, usually on rare cases.
In practice Catholics did not consult Pope, bishops, or theologians, but the prelist in their parish or what they read in Catholic publications. Again, before Vatican II there were few disagreements about morality. Anyone in the clergy would give basically the same answer to a question about morality. There were minor differences, and Catholics were taught you could follow any reputable opinion if there were differences. These usually concerned disciplinary questions, such as the requirements of fasting.
But after Vatican II total chaos ensued. The Catholic Theologian Society issued a book that could not bring itself to condemn any sexual practice including adultery and swinging. André Guindon, who taught in a seminary and wrote a book extensively used in catholic seminaries, claimed that the main problem with pedophilia was the fuss the parents made (all discussed at length in my book).
Especially in the area of sexuality, a Catholic during the past 40 years could find a priest who would countenance or even advocate any imaginable (and many unimaginable) sexual practice. With this multitude of voices, Catholic, being human beings who are therefore adverse to curbs on appetite, chose to follow the voices promoting laxity, with the results that the poll shows.
Protestants, more accustomed to consulting Scripture directly, did not undergo this revolution. Although liberal Protestant theologians attempted to undermine the moral teachings of Scripture, they had to deal with the unchanging words on the page, which still carry divine authority for many Protestants.
Your question might be valid if it were asked 30 years ago, but today there is far less give and take. Bishops are no longer chosen on how good they are as leaders if they don’t fit into the mold that, first, John Paul II and, now, Benedict XVI are looking for. Vatican II is a distant memory in almost every diocese in the United States. The bishops may be insisting on behaviors that fit their standards of morality, but if you want to look at problems in sexuality, all you have to do is look at the decisions of the bishops to let priests continue to rape children by moving them to a new congregation rather than turn them over to the authorities for punishment.
In general, Protestants don’t bother to actually read the Bible, either, except to find support for the doctrines they teach, many of which have only the most tenuous biblical support.
Maybe it’s just that lax Catholics attend church more regularly than lax Protestants.
Although as a former RCIA/ Adult Ed and current 6th grade Religious Ed teacher, I do appreciate your concerns about 40 years of vapid catechesis.
I would suggest that lax Protestants are C &E Christians making Christian’s comment true. I would also suggest that outside of orthodox evangelicalism and fundementalism, Protestants began the moral slide a very long time ago and took great advantage of the so called ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ and the palpable Catholic need to ‘fit in’ to make us over in their image.
Most of them do not read scripture and when they do, they interpret it according to the magisterium of private judgement and current thinking.
Do not forget the bedrock of Protestantism, ‘the right of PRIVATE judgement’. It is this ‘right’ that they have used to bring Catholics to their own level of thinking. Horrific catechesis, which continues today, has allowed Catholics to ignore the difference between the Catholic and Protestant perspective on conscience; the Church says that while the individual conscience is supreme it MUST be ‘well formed’. There in lies the difference, our conscience is to be well formed by Scripture, Tradition and assent to the Magisterium of the Church.
What I see today, is that priests and women, in particular, over the age of 50, baby boomers if you will, have been catechized by the 60s and therefore they buy into the entitlement of individual conscience. The hope that I see is the new crop of priests and religious, who have and are returning to the basics and to a faith rooted in Christ, not in the culture of the day.
Where they preach (and by their nature, teach), the pews are filled, the RCIA classes are filled, Bible Study is available and Catholics have a good idea of what Catholic Social Teaching and informed conscience is all about.
Like our protestant brethren, we will out number them soon.
“the new crop of priests and religious, who have and are returning to the basics and to a faith rooted in Christ”
This is true of my parish as well as the seminarians and new priests & nuns of my diocese (Charleston, SC).
I’m hopeful.
Protestants, more accustomed to consulting Scripture directly, did not undergo this revolution.
That statement speaks volumes, Leon. It speaks to the fact that, for far too long, too many Catholics relied on other people (such as priests or the hierarchy) to do their moral thinking for them. Of course, evangelical Protestants have the same problem when it comes to their pastors (especially those with huge, media-oriented ministries).
But the bureaucratic, hierarchical, centralized nature of Catholic ecclesiology — combined with Church leaders acting as if they were borderline totalitarians (see the Americanist controversy) — exacerbates (indeed, encourages) the all-too-human tendency to let others do the thinking for you. Once a lot of the taboos vanished, people had no guidance. Besides, a lot of people rebelled against the artificial constraints, confusing them with legitimate once and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I am convinced that Vatican II did to the Catholic Church what glasnost and perestroika did to the Soviet Union. It exposed the facades, made the internal fissures even larger and hastened the institution’s deterioration from within.
The fundamental problem is that people have substituted church leaders for the Holy Spirit, which is available to all believers (through Confirmation in the Catholic Church) and which has the responsibility to guide, correct, encourage and serve as the believer’s “companion” and advocate. But what church really teaches this, anymore?