On Wednesday evening, tens of thousands of people stood waiting patiently in the rain in Saint Peter’s square, hoping to catch a glimpse of white smoke billowing forth from a special chimney on top of the Sistine Chapel. When the smoke signal did finally come, it was to announce the election of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the new Pope Francis.
Some commentators are heralding the election of the first Latin American pope as a sign that the Catholic Church is now preparing to modernise with the times. Latin America is home to about 480 million Catholics (some 40 per cent of the world’s Catholic population) and Bergoglio’s election could be a sign that this is where the church sees its future. Pope Francis also has an image as a humble man, who eschewed his chauffeured limo as archbishop in order to take the bus to work, and broke with tradition upon his election as pope by asking the crowds to pray for him instead of offering to bless them.
On the other hand, Pope Francis is also believed to come from the more social conservative wing of the Catholic Church, and is a firm believer in traditional Catholic doctrine when it comes to issues like abortion or gay marriage. The church is therefore unlikely to welcome married clergy, women priests or a lifting of the ban on divorce anytime soon.
Is this important? Do religions need to modernise their beliefs and practices to remain relevant to people today? There are indications that religious belief seems to be declining in many parts of the world; a poll of 50,000 people published last year by WIN-Gallup International suggests there has been a “notable decline across the globe in self-description of being religious”. Is this decline because of a failure to adapt to the profound social changes of the last several decades, or are there other causes?
What do YOU think? Should religions modernise their beliefs and practices in order to remain relevant? Or would that represent a betrayal of fundamental values? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.
40 comments Post a commentcomment
What would “modernising” their beliefs actually mean? sounds like a lot of guff.
To “modernise” means to accept that times and mentalities change. To “modernise” means to adapt oneself.
I don’t know how you modernize a belief, in that you either believe in something, or you don’t. That said, it is possible to hold several belief systems in your head at one time.
no
why do you say this???
Should we care? Should religion be all over the news? No
the catholic church has to modernize itself..otherwise it will not survive….priests should be allowed to marry and have children, it should have women priests too, accept divorce,accept contraception, be more tolerant towards homosexuals and accept a form of union for them without having to accept the word marriage which they consider sacred for a hetero couple.
It’s not so much about religions having to modernise, it’s more about whether we, as society, need to act to prevent them from becoming anacronisms. We have made so much social progress in the past 30 years (most through the EU) and yet we allowed Churches to be exempt from the Equalities legislations. That means that whilst society matures and attitudes change, they are left in a time warp and cannot go on the same journey as the rest of us have. It’s time for the EU to look again and to require that the Churches now respect Equalities laws. We can give them some time to make the changes, but they should no longer be exempt – because they are holding back society and they are providing a justification for some people to remain bigots.
Even if they don’t modify their beliefs, which is admittedly hard to do about dogmatic ideologies without compelling evidence to the contrary, the Church could shift focus and rhetoric away from controversial topics and towards more broadly-held values. As any practiced politician knows, you can’t make positive changes if you don’t hold any power. In Europe especially, the Church will modify its advocacy and public image to retain relevance, while keeping their opinions on more controversial topics for those who seek them specifically.
try modernising EU first into listening to people and not whipping people
First of all, that is for every religion to decide separately. Secondly, the roman catholic church is not in need of modernization because that implies that prior to modernity, the church was in lock step with its own teachings.
In the middle ages, the papacy took a religion which teaches you to turn the other cheek and developed the theory of Holy War from it. After they slaughtered Jews and Muslims, they soon turned to Christians and sacked Constantinople in 1204, for which they did not apologize until 9 years ago. Incidentally, that insured the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the all but annihilation of Christianity in the Eastern Mediterranean. They absolved people of sins if they worked on churches. They made priests give up marriage so that the church, not their children (whom they always had but could not legitimately declare as heirs) would inherit the priests’ property. The instilled religious strife among christians in order to gain more power. They backed a fascist with a Muslim mercenary Army backing him to wage a war against a Catholic country which democratically chose a government a little to left of their tastes (Spain). They quietly supported a genocidal maniac who wanted to institute Norse paganism as the official religion of northern Europe because they thought he would be the lesser of the two evils (the other evil being atheist communism) and they helped most of their most senior members get away so as to hide their complicity. And last but not least, they engaged in decades of hiding sexual predators who were raping some of their youngest congregants.
I am very much a christian and I have nothing against Roman Catholics. What I truly hope is to see a reset button pressed on their church. Believe me when I say, “modernity” is not their problem. They need to rebuild their church from the ground up.
Well said. It applies to all religions that has so much ‘mumbo jumbo’ added to ‘modernise’ and ‘adapt’. Im a sunni muslim and I also seen additions to my religions based on sunnah which isnt from the Qur’an. I just follow those that makes sense. Judaism has their fair share of it too. Its just like facebook. Mark Zuckerberg wants to connect people and it ended up with games, news portals, advertisements and etc. There is just no limit to human desires.
We should first debate what the definition for “modernised religions” is and after that we may have a further discussion. They may become more open-minded or they may become even more harmful. Whatever the case the ultimate goal should be for the religions to go extinct, as if they were a spieces. :p
Religion should just do us all a favor and disappear! Blind faith in invisible, immeasurable “forces? should end! It should be replaced by the use of reason and critical thought, concepts which religion has suppressed for centuries for fear it would show people the truth and threaten the influence it had. So no, religion should not and can not modernize itself, it is based on bronze-age myths, how the heck are you going to modernize bronze-age myths??? It should just release the grip it still has over so many humans and let us be free!
It seems like wrong winning over good or is just a circle when it go round bad become good andgood become bad,where by some still manage to use whatever work for them to survive with those that really trust God not religion nor world government suffer at the hands of those that are using what they have to deceive them and stay on top.changes is part of life but what is good and bad change ?
i believe religions are philosophical schemes in order to provide to the people relief from the worries and anxieties but religions represent a cosmic world which is not relevant to the human nature and thinking so i think if religions were simpler in their presense and procedures would be much more appreciated from the people because they would share truly the holly mystery and truth of some god
Religion is old and has nothing to do with real life as it is.
Try to really learn and live religion before just speak about it… it is a way of life that you choose freely. It is a path, not a book!
Religions shouldn’t modernise, they have to update their messages or the ”PR” to the current world”s expectations. They are what they are and people should understand them as they will be forever.
The current implications of globalization, the so much talking about economic crisis and the accentuation on money issues, may hardly hide the real importance of religion.
The way people act after comeback to pray, is different and more stable than then when they are listening to this continuous ”buzzying heads” information.
“Should religions modernise to stay relevant?”
Now how can a ‘religion’ modernize itself?
Shouldn’t we ask ourselves if WE are able to adapt our religious beliefs to the realities of today’s world instead?
Religion is old and has nothing to do with real life as it is.
Modernise or become irrelevant…. Everything evolves or goes the way of the Dodo…. And that goes for all religions in Europe, including those of the immigrants…. Islam and so on….. We need cosmopolitan, free thinking Europeans, not brainwashed manipulated sheep….
It’s a tough subject, full of paradoxes…let’s not forget that the very person of Jesus was condemned because of the ‘modernisation’ he was bringing about, and he was condemned by the religious authorities of that time!
we might need to separate religion from the Church in a debate like this…I’ve got religious friends that do not have a problem with gay people and gay marriages and they don’t feel they’re betraying anything
They should disappear. Either they retain their old believes, which are outdated and incompatible with the modern world, or they reform and they distort the so called “divine message”. We should stop giving these guys any form of attention. They speak about love, peace and helping the poor, yet they receive money from the state, while they are dressed in gold and get away with crimes. If organized religion would disappear today, peace and freedom would return to a lot of regions on Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv4mSDD4Wd8
Says it all
True, Christos.
I was going to say islam nver did..then again. radical christianity is no better than its islamic counterpart either.
The sheep goes for all (politics :) too, not just in (the) religious mind ..
Now this is one thing but then, to submerge ourselves in it ..
as i say in my bk, have you ever wondered how those of religious faith cannot
have an open minded conversation? They can’t, because for them to
question their faith ? is already a sin.
It is unfortunate.
jude, true, but, separation of church and state.
As to the concept itself it’s a lifestyle choice. how can you be born gay ..but then, change, as if it were, go the other way, revert bk :) to the old?
Yea, so .. A lifestyle choice, totally. This I wld get (and be ok (from where civil unions :) with) were it to remain that ..since not, they can’t reproduce. With themselves.
The strife for ‘equal rights’ has got nothing to do with equality.
Or religion.
Perry sounds like cherry-picking then ..
Bogdan, pardon me, Sir, it is not quite that simple.
Or right.;) First of all, bronze-age ..we had paganism. Which..is actually closer to the people therefore real.
Science and religion are at odds with each other science and
spirituality … are not. That is why I say spirituality is what religion
attempts to explain but cannot and what science does a whole lot
better at. Essentially, human force fields, energy transfers, paranormal
phenomena … Atlantis ? that?s mysticism, in other words, the
marriage ;)of science and spirituality and it is what each religion has
attempted to keep the masses from, and what I in turn am attempting
to use every religion to approach.
AS Jos says :) religious texts are interpretations, god(s) a (are) symbol(s)
and religions approaches, as I said. The problem is that people take it too literally.
AHmet ;) care to believe? :p
All religions talk about paganism ? when they should be
opposed to it. So, in actual fact, the Vatican is the biggest guardian of this ? while embracing religion.
Which is artificial.
Epitome of hypocrisy.
Serving the cultures, right. It’s the biggest hoax, religions just
have been played against each other. You know what global warming is, in actual fact? Worshipping Mother Earth.
Paganism.
You look at Rome they had their gods. They weren’t pagan. Or
were they?
They were religious only ? not like today. No, plus whereas
civil unions is tradition and abortion being a moral, not political,
issue ?
This turned out to be a demanding thread.:p Yet, enjoyable. :)
modernize beliefs is a wrong choice of words. You can believe in the same thing, but choose to modernize your practises and how you think about the role of women, people who are gay and stuff….
I’ve always held the view that the separation between religion and state should be absolute. I do not want any legislation based on other people’s superstitions or on the favorite books supposedly ‘written’ at the command of their favorite ‘imaginary friend’.
My parents made me go to bible class and sunday school, so I am not totally uninformed what religion is about. And in that sense, ‘modernizing’ religion effectively means ‘cutting half the text from the socalled holy books’. After all, there is a particular book that would require the faithful to ‘stone disobedient children’, there is another one calling on the faithful to ‘kill all unbelievers wherever they can be found’.
I’ve seen the last two charges of mine being referred to as ‘hate speech’ in other forums. I don’t believe it is so, in fact, the two examples I mentioned are facts. Easily verifiable if you read the books in question.
But I do look forward to the day when I shall hear of church acceptance of homosexuality, which would also be the day that they will refer to the ‘nine commandments’.
I however am perfectly content when religion is totally shut out of politics.
I think that ‘GOD’S MESSAGE’ is always relevant and can’t be changed because it is truth. However the methodology on how the message is delivered, then yes, it must be modernized and appealing according to the times. It is the way that the message is delivered and communicated that at times fails and not the message itself. Believers and not believers, both shall stop pointing fingers at others and instead search within the self and ask, what I can do better for myself and others.
if religion included debating and trying to understand what the mind of god( a perfect being) is actually like, then this would be a religion worth following. why dont all religions do this. try to understand the mind of god, where his compassion and mercy come from, and how is it that he is able to forgive anyone who repents of their sins and allow them into heaven. psychology would be a great help in uderstanding why people who are born good become bad. like it says in the bible, man is made in the image of god. if this is true then that means we can understand the mind of god by studying the mind of man and all his flaws. i believe god is very much like a psychologist, and through psychology i have come to understand why he is so compassionate, understanding, merciful and willing to forgive people of their sins. in fact i can longer judge a person based on what they do, i still think its okay to send them to jail, but i now judge them on why they did it. why does someone who is born good become evil?… this is a question that all religions should strive to understand. so no it doesnt go against the fundamental values.
Religion is about believing, not about rationalising. The latter is called science.
I think religion should not be brought here. All the public sphere should be secular.
Providing they do not break the law I support whatever any group of people within the confines of their community, religion or sports club. However, I am increasingly disturbed by some religions attempts to manipulate the political process.
If a religion’s understanding is that gay marriage is wrong – then I accept that they should not be forced to perform gay marriages. However, here in the UK, there is a strong attack on proposed laws on gay marriage – often using false arguments – that marriage is only for procreation of children – when all the churches happily marry older couples, who are beyond child producing ages.
However, the churches should not be allowed to prevent people, or laws, that prevent others doing what they consider is right – for example quite a few of the smaller religious groups in the UK want to hold gay marriage ceremonies and does my daughter, who is a humanist wedding celebrant.
My worry is that in some ways religion is moving backwards, influenced by fundamentalist America in Christianity and the Middle East for Islam. Women and girls are particularly restricted by these groups.
I do not understand, for example, why the British government allows an educational charity, funded by creationists, four schools in the north east of England. Although they are forced to teach the theory of evolution in Biology the schools governors and most of the staff believe that the Universe and the Earth was created on October 23rd, six thousand years ago.
As membership of religious groups is falling they are advised to reform – though the more fundamentalist seem to be growing at a time of decline in the mainstream. Just goes to prove people are weird.
Fundamental values today would have been heresy when the values were created. If they aren’t adapting they have all of the historians fooled.
Religion hasn’t “modernised” since the bronze age, i doubt it can now.
The only way to modernize it is to admit “hey we can stop this god business and get on with our lives.