Does society have definitional anarchy?
Although this article could be included in many different sections, it is primarily about a topic dear to my heart: Catholicism. Basically, I wish to discuss the nature of what "being a Catholic" means, juxtaposed by how many Americans (and Canadians) choose to define it themselves.
Now, I should precaution my readers in that I am a firm believer in objective definitions that have as little emotional attachments as possible. I do not like the words "fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, progressive, cult" or other such terms when they are terms of either derision or approval. Another complaint, along similar lines, is the belief that a word's meaning is subjective. I can interprete the word to mean whatever I want. This frustrates many things. For example, I am endlessly frustrated when I use the word "Trinity" in discussion with Mormons, because we mean two vastly different things when we use it. Of course, my meaning is the right one...it is the changing of the word's meanings that cause a lot of confusion and misunderstanding, especially when discussing matter of antiquity (like the Bible, Patristic Fathers, Reformers, etc).
This brings me back to what it means to be a Catholic. Catholicism is understood foremost by the Sacraments, whether you agree with them or not. These Sacraments are administered by the clergy (duh). Therefore, the Church is best understood by what it teaches, and the head of the Church is the See of Peter. Readers, please understand that I am not condoning every single action that the Bishop of Peter has done, either with the present Pontiff or past ones. And not everything done by the Pontiff's I will defend. Yet, I seriously ask myself, if they refuse Rome's teaching, how can they, in good conscious, consider themselves Catholic's?
Particularly in certain beliefs that are considered fundamental. Catholics do not follow Church teaching on such a fundamental issues as abortion, which carries the burden of excommunication. It is a very serious offense. Ever since reading Philip Jenkins The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, I have expanded my view of the Church as a global, or "universal" institution that is bigger than national, or even cultural, forces and pressures. This is where I think the strength of the Church is too.
It should not surprise me though, when Western Christians start dictating to others about how to believe. We have done so for centuries. The West and Rome decided to dictate to the East about what to believe, especially in such nonesensical things as the date of Easter. We (as in the "West") import our values onto other cultures, whether politically or economically. And we think we are doing those primitive savages a favour too. If Jenkins assesment is correct, (and the recent controversy in the Anglican Commune seems to offer significant support to his thesis), than I can only predict that it's gonna bit Catholic Americans in the ass. If the Church should ever become democratic (God save us if it does), I highly doubt that the Church would change in any substantial way, much to the chargin of liberals everywhere.