I stumbled onto some peculiar survey data of American Roman Catholic priests:
A somewhat larger percentage of participants (57 percent) believe that the sacraments of the Church are necessary for salvation, and relatively few (17 percent) agree that "all great religions are equally good and true."
Yes, 17% of respondents is a minority. But for me the key is that these are not men who are exhibiting some level of ecumenicalism, accepting that salvation might take place outside of the sacraments of the church. They believe that all other religions are as good and true as their own religion. A religion which they devote their lives to as clergy!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In my post below I mooted the issue of conflating race & religion. There were many interesting comments, and Ruchira Paul has offered her own response. I would like to elucidate a few points here and frame the issues in their proper context (or at least the context in which I meant to explore…
Ed Brayton and Jason Rosenhouse have long posts up about the recent dispute between PZ Myers and Ken Miller, the Roman Catholc cell biologist who has been one of the most prominent popular expositors of evolutionary biology in these United States. You can read my 10 questions for Ken Miller to get…
Via Massimo Pigliucci, I just read Gary Gutting's defense of his Catholic faith. Here's the opening:
An old friend and mentor of mine, Ernan McMullin, was a philosopher of science widely respected in his discipline. He was also a Catholic priest. I don’t know how many times fellow philosophers…
I've received a few emails from friends about this piece in Edge titled Why the Gods are Not Winning. The reason is that I've made it clear that in many ways I think religiosity as we understand it naturally arises out of the intersection of our societies and our cognition, that atheism is not the…
This actually does not surprise me at all.
It might be more enlightening to study the attitudes of seminarians about to enter the priesthood.
Perhaps it's simply a matter of desperation on the part of the CC - with so few people wanting to take orders, they'll take anyone they can get who isn't likely to expose them to legal liability.
That percentage is surprising. There may be some work going on in "great religions" which isn't defined. A Catholic thinking that this applied to the Orthodox Church for example and maybe a handful of other forms of Christianity would be a lot more likely than one who thought that Catholicism was equivalent to some form of polytheism. I suspect that for the vast majority of that 17% every other religion they are considering is Abrahamic.
I'm reminded of Lewis Black's line:
Doesn't seem at all odd to me. But then I'm a Mahayana Buddhist and believe that there are many paths up the same mountain.
I'm actually surprised it is that low. I wonder if this reflects an influx of more conservative priests from overseas?
Clark,
Your comments brings up a good point. I don't think any valid results can be obtained by questioning "Catholic Priests", as there are 2 main types of Catholicism in the US. The older, Irish dominated Catholicism, which has become more ecumenical, and the Hispanic, African Catholicism that is not.
It used be the case up to 30 years ago or so, that priests from Ireland - and to a lesser extent Italy - would supply parishes in many parts of the US. Increasingly they are being supplied from Latin America or Africa. This trend is even happening in Ireland...
"Equally good" I can understand even if it's rather strongly counter to the entirely of Catholic doctrine. "Equally true" on the other hand is just incoherent. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didnt, either Mohammed is the messenger of God or he isn't, either dead warriors wake up in Valhalla or they don't, etc. In fact it's not even possible to say all religions are all equally true by virtue of all being false - at least some religions (Buddhism for one) are entirely compatible with atheism and would thus be more true than the theistic religions if in fact there were no God.
So? Does Buddhism make assertions that, if wrong, render the faith "as wrong" as a theistic religion that's mistaken about the existence of deities?
(The answer is "yes".)
Well, zen (including classical zen) is noncommittal about non-observable phenomena, on the whole. It certainly alludes to them at times, but its entire spirit is radiantly opposed to investing them with faith, or with anything.
eg
Sato-Kaiseki was very much disturbed by the implications of Copernicus' heliocentric theory, which, of course, was inconsistent with the old Buddhist cosmology in which Mount Sumeru occupies the center of the universe. He reasoned that if the Buddhist view of the cosmos were proved false, the triple world and the twenty-five forms of existence would be reduced to nonsense, resulting in the negation of Buddhism itself. Immediately he set about writing a book in defense of the Mount Sumeru position, sparing himself no effort as a champion of Buddhism.
When he had finished the work, he took it at once to Master Ekido (1805-79, Soto) and presented it to him triumphantly. After leafing through only the first few pages, however, the master thrust the book back and, shaking his head, said, "How stupid! Don't you realize that the basic aim of Buddhism is to shatter the triple world and the twenty-five forms of existence? Why stick to such utterly worthless things and treasure Mount Sumeru? Blockhead!"
Dumbfounded, Kaiseki shoved the book under his arm and went quickly home.
Am I the only one who finds the opening piece self-contradictory?