Conference Aftermath III: Mormons and Catholics

It was probably bad 'timing' for the Pope's death to happen during General Conference weekend, since Utah is the one place where the news from Italy would have stiff competition for headline space.  The media treatment of Pope John Paul II has been almost entirely positive (perhaps surprisingly), demonstrating the axiom that (Hitler excluded), people will tend to emphasize only positive things after someone dies--even from people who rarely mentioned positive things when they were alive... 

The relationship between Mormons and Catholics is a complicated one--hopefully, we've passed the point where Catholics are all part of the 'great and abominable Church' in Mormon eyes.  President Hinckley's tribute to the Pope should put that notion to rest, if it hasn't already... 

In reality, the Catholic Church is probably the closest to the LDS Church in many aspects.  Those churches are really the only two that have a claim to direct authority from Jesus Christ.  (Most Protestant churches don't bother even pretending...)  Both churches have fairly established hierarchies and internal organizations--with all the advantages and disadvantages that brings.

Over the last few years, it is the sexual abuse scandals that have largely defined the Catholic Church--meaning that is the first thing that comes to mind for non-Catholics when the Church is mentioned.  While on a far lesser scale, sexual abuse scandals have also hit the LDS Church, with similar complaints of local leaders trying to ignore or cover up the problem.  Many people have argued that Pope John Paul (and President Hinckley, too) are 'responsible' for the abuses committed by church leaders by (a) creating the system that causes the abuse, and/or (b) failing to prevent the abuse from happening.  Is this fair?

Neither man 'created' the system they serve(d) in, of course--the church organizations had both been in place for years and years before those two individuals attained the top leadership position of the faith.  I don't believe either system could be considered to have 'caused' the problem, either--only that the perpetrators have found a place to exist within the system.  I'm not at all clear what the detractors of either faith expected either man to be able to do, to stop any and all abuse from happening...

On the Catholic side, having priests be able to marry might be a partial solution--but LDS bishops, of course, have always been able to marry--and yet, abuse can still occur...  Neither Pres. Hinckley nor whomever becomes the new pope will be able to eliminate such abuse, because neither man has the power to do so.  Once free agency has been given to man, there really isn't any way for anyone to stop them from using it for harm.

Which leads into the next point...the people who demand an end to the abuse are essentially asking--and blaming--the wrong person.  They should be looking toward the real leader of the LDS and Catholic Churches--that is, Jesus Christ himself.  Presumably, the Lord has the power to either (a) dynamically reveal all current and potential abusers among priests and bishops to the pope and/or the prophet, or perhaps (b) simply stretch forth His hand and prevent the abuse from happening directly.  He does not, of course, which demonstrates that free agency must and will be respected from on high, no matter what.  It's the Lord's system we live in, and if He has decreed that we'll be agents unto ourselves, for good and bad, then that's the way it is--and no amount of effort from the part of Church leaders is going to eliminate it.

In an interesting way, the state of the Catholic Church today can be paralleled to what the LDS Church may become in the future--or, alternately, what it already has become on a smaller scale in areas of Utah and Idaho.  Catholicism is not just a religion in many parts of the world--it is also the predominant culture of many communities (and countries, even).  Catholic principles and customs have become so common among people in certain areas that they are taken for granted, and much of the spiritual aspect is lost.  These 'secular Catholics' are involved with the cultural aspects of Catholicism, including Church attendance (or at least on Easter and Christmas), but pay the spiritual and eternal concepts of the Church little mind--enough that being Catholic probably doesn't register as a 'religion' in their minds at all...

(Two of my friends in high school were Catholic--one fairly devout and the other as 'secular' as they come.  The two of them argued more about religion between themselves than either of them did with any of the Mormons.  Not too different than the discussions between conservative and liberal Mormons in the Bloggernacle today...)

While on a smaller scale, you can see the same thing in the LDS areas of Utah and Idaho today.  Many Saints are enveloped in the cultural aspects of LDS life in Utah, and have often lost sight of the true spirit behind the Church.  While it's harder to be a 'secular Mormon' due to a more pronounced spiritual emphasis behind most Church functions (and the inherent difficulty in being a member), you can see the trend starting.  The larger the Church population, the larger the divide between the devout members who really 'get it', and those on the other end who exist within the Church culture without attaining nor desiring spiritual growth.

While, of course, the LDS Church would love to have as many members as the Catholics do, having that many Church members will inevitably bring many of the same difficulties.  I've always been amazed at how many Catholics openly disregard--and often actively oppose--the teachings of the pope...yet still consider themselves 'active' Catholics.  When the scope of membership includes that many people, it's perhaps unavoidable.  You can see today the slow but steady rise of 'active' Mormons who openly view the teachings of the LDS Church with disdain--something you'd probably never see in Brigham Young's time.  I think that's more to do with the increased size of the Church, than a specific change in attitudes from one century to the next.  Today, you can find a large group of 'core' members, who are as faithful and steadfast as the early LDS pioneers...but also a larger number of 'fringe' members who were (a) born in a fifth-generation LDS family and never caught the spirit, or (b) joined the Church because they wanted to fit in to the popular culture here in Utah, without any particular interest in spiritual things.  (Utah is the one place where you're more likely to gain friends than lose friends by converting.  And, for better or worse, that is an unmistakable factor in some people choosing to be baptized...)

Will the LDS Church become tomorrow what the Catholic Church is today?  Only time will tell...but I think it's obvious that the two Churches share a lot in common, and the parallels between the two will be interesting to monitor...