I know I said I'd refrain from posting on this thread, but Seldes raised a few points i'd like to address with the rest of the community, as it were...
I suppose I would be considered ultra-religious because I attend church every Sunday, and on holy days, and do the whole "fast and give something up for Lent", pray daily, and so on. Of course, I was a child in the pre-Vatican II church, and those things were all expected of everyone.
The thing about ANY religious council is the most that it can do is to loosen the rules, and clarify the way tradition -- in this case, the Apostolic Tradition -- will be practiced.
But it's entirely up to the community-at-large to decide the extent to which these guidelines will be followed.
So the practical expectations for Catholics and/or Christians in the US were effectively 'liberalized' on account of the same relaxation of cultural mores that were happening, writ large, during the 60s -- the laissez-faire open-mindedness that allowed, say, the concepts of 'Free Love', or the Hippie mentality, or the peace movement to develop.
But the reforms of Vatican II were never really adopted or internalized in Philippine culture until generations later, so it was more or less expected of Filipinos who are Seldes' age to keep up the same kind of observance of ritual that she still practices today -- but without the heartfelt sincerity that she feels.
That's because religious ceremonies often involve as much of a
social function as a spiritual one, for better or worse. For example, attending Masses is/was percieved as being integral to the growth of the secular community, as much as it is deemed an 'appropriate' way to excersise one's faith, as a Christian. And being sin-free "enough" to
be seen recieving the Eucharist is understood as important, not only for the sake of being in communion with Christ, but as a "stamp of approval" of one's good moral standing, within the parish community.
And it's really this conflation of social values with spirituality -- too often taken for granted, even in contemporary Filipino culture -- that puts me off engaging with organized religion, even if I can't escape its reach altogether.
EDIT: I understand that it's damn near impossible to seperate the practice of faith from one's ethics and moral standards (in everyday life), because living in a decent, humane way would (nautrally) be a pre-requisite for achieving any kind of inner, spiritual peace. But I hate the idea that adherence to specified religious practices should be a measure of one's percieved worth, as a Christian AND as a citizen. Am I making sense? :?
(For those who've never had to deal with Vatican II, it was a re-examination and revision of the Roman Catholic Church's rules, practices, and interprtetations of the Bible back in the middle 1960s. Its main goal was to make the church more accessible to the average Catholic. It succeeded in some ways, not so well in others. Before that, the church rules on a lot of things were much stricter than they are now, believe it or not.)
This also brings up a second point -- is there a need for a Third Vatican Council, to address the specific concerns of the "post-9/11 global marketplace"?
We have a (relatively) new Pope in place, and he's presiding over a Church that's meant to be a moral and ethical compass for its flock, at a time when ALL kinds of religious fundamentalisms are more pervasive than ever.
Moreover, it needs to adapt to a world where different varieties of Islam are becoming an increasingly influential force, not only religiously, but also socially, and in terms of the economic power of its followers -- some of whom do not adhere to the concepts of democracy and/or pluralism, enshrined in Vatican II.
I'm definitely NOT suggesting that the Church revert to its stricter (more intolerant?) pre-Vatican II positions. But it needs to find a way to make its commitment to a more dynamic and vibrant Christianity viable in a time when it faces more militant opposition to its core beliefs.
