OMG!!!

I should preface this post by saying that I have a very limited connection to religion. I am intrigued by folks who have a strong sense of faith. Not as intrigued as my dad, who watches the Christian channel when the nuns are on praying the rosary because their commitment is both admirable and bizarre, but intrigued nonetheless. I can discuss Christianity with a fair amount of knowledge and comfort but it's much more theoretical to me than a part of who I am. I see it kind of as a really great book or movie where you're invested in the characters but you're not sure why they do what they do and you have concerns about the parts that the author left out. The University that I work at has a very strong Christian student population. VERY strong. Loud, too. And it's that part of religion that I really struggle with. The part that says, "How can you not believe what I believe?!". And it goes both ways. I have also seen the other side where folks who believe strongly in not having faith question those who are of faith with a determined dogmatism that seems counter intuitive to their arguments. All in all, religion, and those who believe in it, are a fascinating bunch.

So when I came across two articles about religion this past week, I found myself really thinking about what they meant. The first was in the New York Times and talked about the reemergence of the "indulgence" in the Catholic tradition. Being someone who has...ahem...been indulgent at various times in life, I wanted to learn more about the Catholic perspective. Although the definitions weren't the same, I learned more about this bygone tradition. Apparently, indulgences are a kind of a super-absolution. They were taken out of the mainstream Catholic tradition along with the Latin masses and meatless Friday's during the Vatican II changeover. (which I really only know about because it caused my Catholic grandpa a fair amount of concern. "How come one Friday I can't eat meat and now I can? That's just not right?!) The article goes on to explain that by combining confession with some good acts, one can earn a "plenary indulgence" and that the reason they are being brought back is because "there is still sin in the world". Here's where my questioning side comes in. Why isn't confession enough? If I understand it correctly, indulgences shorten the time in purgatory or skip it altogether. But if purgatory is everlasting, how does five years off help? Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of making good on ones wrongs. And adding a community service requirement seems like a great idea too. But why now? Is it because the church needs some good press? I'm not sure. But I learned a lot from this article, and like any good article, left me with more questions than answers.

About two hours later, still at work, I came across this article. It seems that John Paul II agreed to allow married priests IF they were coming to the priesthood after being ordained in another faith. So a Lutheran pastor gets married, decides being Catholic is more his style and now can be a priest, even though he's married. WTF! How does this stay true to the original tenet that priests have to be single/celibate? At a time when the church is at an all time low, both in terms of public perception as well as young men entering the fold, wouldn't it make sense to allow this to ALL men of faith? Or women, for that matter? What was once non-negotiable, now is negotiable! Exceptions, rather than the rule. But why?

I don't mean this to be at all disrespectful of the Catholic traditions. As I said, I'm more curious about the dichotomy than suggesting that there are right vs. wrong issues. I believe religion and spirituality to be some of the most private and personal issues in a persons life. As I said earlier, I am incredibly curious about why people believe what they do and how they came to those beliefs. Having many many many Catholic friends and growing up with a maternally Catholic family, I have a better understanding of the Catholic stuff than I do a lot of the other religions. Maybe because there is a format that is tangible and the traditions are clear. But these two articles would say those formats and traditions are malleable. As a non-Catholic, I don't have an investment in either argument. But it would seem that the shift in the structure of the faith would inherently change it.

Just something that's been rolling around in my head...