Why the Church Doesn't Get with the Times? Melinda Selmys Originally published in Issue II of Vulgata,  November, 2001.

I am going to admit, as an orthodox Catholic with slight tendencies towards conservatism (I rather prefer Latin Mass, kneeling to receive the Eucharist, etc.), I generally find this question a little amusing. After all, I find that I am prone to ask why the Church has been so eager to get with the times. But I do understand that it is a perfectly serious objection that is raised by many, both within the Church, and especially those on the outside.

I will try to address the underlying idea, and to explain why it is that the Church will not, not now and not ever, "get with the times" in the sense that these modernist revisers would have it.

Let's begin by looking at the fundamental assumptions that must underlie an appeal for a modernization of Catholic doctrine. Really, there are only two possible motivations for such an appeal: either those making it must  believe that being popular is more important than conforming to true moral standards, or those making it must believe that modern morality is superior to that taught by the Church.

It is relatively easy to see why people, upon seeing a drop in Mass attendance, a crisis in the Priesthood, and an increasing public distaste for Catholicism would think that some changes were going to be necessary in order to bring people back to the Church. It is also fairly easy to see why they would think that "updating" the Church's moral teachings was one of the best things to do -- after all, homosexuals, feminists, New Agers and the like make up a fairly significant portion of the population. If our moral teachings are repugnant to them, then our moral teachings must be driving away a  significant number of people who might otherwise be perfectly willing to be Catholics.

Now let's take a serious look at this idea. First of all, I think we need to remember, that while a significant percentage of the population are homosexual, feminist, etc, an equally significant percentage of the population is opposed to the moral ideals of these groups. It is also important to  remember that the Church has found its niche amongst people who generally believe in traditional morality -- all of its converts, and the majority of its serious practitioners are there because it is the only place where they  are not constantly bombarded with moral standards that they believe to be bankrupt and immoral. So what would happen if the Church "brought itself up to speed" with the prevailing culture? Most of its devoted followers would probably join the St. Pius the Tenth Society. Those who stayed would tend to  be those who really didn't have particularly strong religious convictions anyways, and the majority of them would quickly start drifting off into New Age seminars, or into secular life and would stop being involved in the Church at all. Don't believe me? Take a look at the United church -- it's a text-book case of what happens to a church that tries to become popular by compromising the tenets of Christian morality, and it's losing members faster than the homosexuals and feminists can join

Secondly, I think we have to seriously wonder what the point of having a Church is if popularity is more important than the teachings of Christ. The Church condemns divorce, homosexuality, contraception and the like because God condemns them, and Jesus condemns them, and the Apostles condemned them, and all of Christian Tradition has constantly and unceasingly condemned them. Now if it were to start simply preaching the popular morality of today, what would its purpose be? To make people feel good about themselves? If people want that there are plenty of New Age gurus around who will pass you a peace pipe and help you release your inner god -- the Church is unlikely to do well as a sudden new-comer on the happy-clappy pseudo-spirituality scene, considering all that dark past with the Inquisitions and such. To garner bigger collections and make our Church richer? To what end -- I don't know about you, but the idea of the Church as Big Business really doesn't appeal to me much. To amass bigger congregations? For what? If you aren't willing to challenge their ideas, to push them to imitate Christ, then what's the point of having them in the first place? There's no point in getting a bunch of people who believe in vague goodness and generally being nice to people and then telling them what they already believe in. You have to tell them that vague goodness isn't enough -- that you need concrete goodness, and that concrete goodness includes sacrifice and standing up against the culture of death, and bearing your cross. And we can't do that if we, as a Church, bend to ever wind of popular  morality.

In short, the only thing that gives the Church purpose -- the only thing that will ever give it purpose -- is the belief that Jesus Christ was and is and will always be the only begotten Son of God, and that, as such, His teachings (even the hard ones) are worth passing on and preserving from  generation to generation. This purpose cannot be realized by a Church that is unwilling to stick its neck out, unwilling to challenge the ugliest and most pervasive sins of the culture surrounding it. It can only be realized by a  Church that is absolutely convinced of the truth of Christ's teachings, and absolutely dedicated to teaching that truth.

So what of the second idea -- the claim that modern popular morality is somehow better than that of the Church? I'll try not to say too much about the presumption required to believe that we, in the 21st century, having thrown out the moral beliefs that have guided society for ten thousand years, have somehow managed to produce an utterly superior moral code. I will, however, point out that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we are living in a more morally advanced society than those that preceded us. We really need look no further than our ever-rising crime rates -- especially the rising rate of crime in schools -- the increases in suicide and drug use, and the spread of STDs to epidemic proportions to realize that our new improved moral teachings aren't working. We may be able to point to a decrease in social sins, such as wide-spread slavery or discrimination against people of different race or culture, but we have to recognize that this really only reflects a change of emphasis. Social sins were much easier to orchestrate when people felt a  general sense of loyalty, patriotism and dedication towards their countries  and communities. Personal sins, however, are going to be less prevalent in a civilization that encourages loyalty and dedication. Today, we have very little social cohesion -- people are encouraged to function as atoms, divided individuals with no particularly pressing responsibilities outside of their own convenience. Naturally such people are not going to be particularly  interested in persecuting other groups -- persecuting people is hard work, and requires sacrifice, even if that sacrifice is misguided -- but they are going to be very interested in removing other people if they become a serious threat to their own comfort and convenience. Thus you have a society that is perfectly willing to live and let live when it comes to the Indian community across town, but who are absolutely obsessed with the idea that it is their "right"  to be able to kill their unborn children by the millions.

Also, in the past, the sins, both personal and social, which happened  could not be directly traced to the moral teachings that underlied the society of Christendom. Nowhere in Christianity does anything appear which should have led to the Inquisitions, to the wars, to the persecutions. In fact, Christian morality expressly forbids all of these things. The sins that happened were the results of abuses of the moral teachings of the Church -- they did not flow naturally from those teachings. Today, on the other hand, the atrocities that we commit are the natural consequence of our moral teachings. If we teach our children that morals are really just values, and that mine are as good as  yours, and it doesn't really matter, then how can we be surprised or upset  when they create "value" systems that put their needs and desires at the centre and ignore everyone else? If morality is not binding, then there is nothing wrong with doing what is immoral -- especially if you can justify it to  yourself. This is not an abuse of relativism, it is the natural consequence of it. If we teach our children than unwanted people, or those with insufficient "quality of life" do not have valuable lives, then we cannot be surprised when they murder their unborn children, when they support the "euthanasia" of handicapped people, when they want to legalize the killing of the elderly. This is not an abuse of the "Pro-Choice" morality, it is exactly what it fights for.

In short, our "superior" modern morality is a morality of self-centred- ness, lack of self-control, and the deification of personal comfort. It can clearly be seen, based on the evidence surrounding us, that it is far from superior the values that we have rejected -- after all, the old values only failed because they were not really practiced, the new values have failed because they try to justify actions that lead to social decay and personal tragedy.

In a culture where free sex has led to a generation of children  infected with STDs, psychologically scarred by abortion and emotionally  damaged by divorce, it only makes sense for the Church to remain absolutely  adamant about its sexual teachings. In a culture where feminism has led to the wide-spread destruction of the unborn, and the enslavement of women to menial office and factory jobs, in place of meaningful domestic work such as the raising of children, it makes sense that the Church is not willing to bend to a feminist agenda. In a culture where family has been degraded from the central, most valued, revered and protected unit of society to a sort of temporary social arrangement between a group of individuals, it makes sense that the Church constantly promotes the family. And She must continue to do these things, because if She does not, She will have neither the favour of those who have remained faithful to Her in spite of her unpopular teachings, nor the favour of God, who rewards obedience to His teachings, nor the favour or the culture which She would bend over backwards to please -- a culture  which is only interested in participating in the destruction of Christianity, and which would abandon the Church utterly the moment it felt there was nothing more to be changed and destroyed.