Immutable vs. In Motion

I have been wanting to respond to a blog post that my dear friend, Phillip del Ricci, posted some weeks ago, so I will use this, my own blog to do so. In Shattered Vows and Celibacy, Mr. del Ricci makes reference to an "immutable" church (unchallengable; unquestionable).

The truth is, immutability is not one of the "marks," or characteristics the Church claims. Rather, the creed lists the following four characteristics: "one" - it cannot be divided; "holy" - God's Spirit resides with and stimulates the Church; "catholic" - (with a small "c") meaning universal, i.e. for the whole world; and "apostolic" - it has a mission.

The Church might seem immutable, but that is because it has a such a long life (two millennia now) that it moves and changes very slowly. You might compare it to the great tortoises Charles Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. Or compare the lifespan of the Church to that of a human being, translating a typical 80-year human lifespan to the 2000-year span (so far) of the Church. Thus every year in a human life becomes 25 years in the life of the Church. It's like the reverse of dog-years. You know, for every year a dog ages it equals 7 years in human time. So a 10-year old dog is like a 70-year old person. Except every year of the Church equals 1/25 of a human year.

Are you following me? Think of it this way: You meet a friend you haven't seen for 5 years, and you say, "You haven't changed a bit!" In reality they have changed (if they are still alive), but you can't really tell any difference. Now for the Church a human life of 5 years becomes 125 years. No one lives that long, but if you visited the Church only once every 125 years, you would not notice much change.

But let's say you meet a friend for the first time in 20 years. The change would be obvious. In church years, that would be 500 years. If you visited the Church 500 years later, differences would be obvious, too.

My point is, the Church does change but change appears to happen very slowly since it takes more than a human lifetime for substantial change to take place. An example that proves this point is the papacy of John Paul II that lasted over 26 years. It was unusually long, and for anyone under about 30 years old, he was the only pope they knew until last April.

Yet to dispell any notion that the Church is immutable, unchallengable or even unchangable, here is a new book - Catholicism in Motion by James D. Davidson. This book limits its study to the Church in America, but its premise is that American culture has shaped what the Church looks like in this country and the Church's presence has shaped modern American culture through the years as well.

The author is a sociologist, so the book is not theological and therefore is not colored in any way by the Vatican. Davidson merely analyzes the data he has collected. He begins Chapter One by distinguishing two opposing philosophies about the Church in society. Here is briefly what he describes:

Functionalism sees the Church as an important social institution. . . (that) answers questions about the meaning and purpose of life. . . In other words, religion contributes to the well-being of society and its individual members. It is highly functional.

Conflict theorists, on the other hand, picture society as being in a constant state of disorder. The main reason. . . is that. . . there are different classes of people who are pitted against one another in a stuggle to maximize their own self-interests. . .

Conflict theory. . . proposes that religion is inconsequential in comparison to the economy and government. . . From this point of view, religion is a divisive and oppressive force in society. Its effects are more negative than positive.

He ends that section of the chapter by asking:

Which of these theories comes closest to your way of thinking about religion's role in society?

Let me know.

Catholicism In Motion reviewed by Lafayette Journal and Courier