I think it's worse than that, Blackcatter. My contention is that the state religion of the U.S. is television evangelism. When I teach lay people in my Catholic parish, I often find that many of the people got their understanding of religion from television, and they seek the same rigidity and literalism and judgmentalism that is preached on TV. Mother Angelica and her Eternal Word Television Network is just another variety of television evangelism - it has a Catholic label but it often attacks Catholic priests and bishops for the sin of "liberalism." When pagans and atheists find fault with Christianity, most often it seems that their understanding of Christianity comes from television evangelism.

You ask whether the Catholic Church will change when John Paul II dies - I hope so, but remember that he's selected all the electors. Maryanne mentioned Call to Action as a Catholic movement that gives her hope, but I think it's far too strident and doctrinaire in its liberalism to achieve any widespread credibility. There's a lot of good and a lot of good people in Call to Action, but I don't think it's a major force. Opus Dei is probably the best-known Traditionalist movement within the Catholic Church - John Paul II has given it a modicum of official recognition, but I think it's still considered a fringe organization by the mainstream of Catholicism.

Blackcatter says:

What I've never understood about Catholics is why do they support punishment in this life for sins? Isn't damnation good enough, or are they all afraid that what they believe may not be accurate?

I think that Catholic theology of sin and forgiveness is pretty solid and well-developed - if it is understood properly. I think most of us would agree that all of our actions - good and bad - have consequences. Those who believe in some sort of spirituality, believe that actions have both natural and spiritual (supernatural) consequences. If we believe in a God who is both loving and just, then sorrow for sin and forgiveness of sin seem to follow logically. If we do something wrong, there is a need for acknowlegement of wrongdoing and reconciliation, for forgiveness by the person who was wronged, and for atonement by the wrongdoer. It's a process of healing, for setting right what was wrong - and for growth. I think most of the mainstream Christian churches have similar thinking, but the Catholic Church formalizes this in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which was once called Confession or Penance - but unless there is a true change of heart and an intention to do better, the sacrament is just shallow externalism. The problem with Catholic thinking on sin and forgiveness is that it's easy to miss the nuances, and to fall into juridicalism and externalism. I suppose that's a problem with all of religious belief - some get the point and see is as a matter of the heart, and some see only the externals and don't understand the thinking behind it.

Homosexuality is a thorny question for Christians, as is sexuality in general. I don't think the churches have come up with a satisfactory theology of sexuality that fits modern life. Some of the churches have tried to take shortcuts by ordaining homosexuals and blessing homosexual unions - but they haven't yet developed a theology of sexuality that reconciles Christian tradition and thinking with the ordination and marriage of homosexuals. It's going to take another generation or two for that thinking to develop - and sexuality and homosexuality will remain a thorny issue for Christians until that thinking is developed and tested over a long period of time.

I have a friend - let's call him George - I've known for over thirty years, and I know he's an extraordinarily good guy. He was married for some twenty years, and (in many ways) he was a good husband to his wife and a good father to his children. When he got divorced some ten years ago, his wife and children found out that he has liaisons with hundreds of male lovers while he was married. Now he's settled down with a lover, and I'd guess their relationship is monogamous. I think that sooner or later, the "mainstream" churches will accept and bless monogamous homosexual unions,. and the Catholics will follow a half-century later and somehow come up with a way of saying that we've always believed in married lesbian priests. The fundamentalists will take much longer to feel at easy with homosexuality, unless somebody like Billy Graham finds a way to speed things up by coming out of the closet without losing his followers. I don't think the churches will ever find a way to approve the homosexual relationships my friend George had while he was a husband and father - and I don't think they should.

Blackcatter asked about damnation, and I didn't answer that one. I suppose I believe in a hell, but I don't speculate much about the details. I think moderate and liberal Christians generally think that hell is reserved for undeniably awful people - and that most people don't really have to worry about damnation. The fundamentalists seem to think you can get to hell for not believing the right thing - but I don't think mainstream Catholics and Protestants think that way.

-Joe Offer-