A conservative Pope ahead of his time

Alan Andersen sees John Paul II was A conservative Pope ahead of his time because he stuck to the doctrines.

The liberals believe the church must reform its absolutist approach to such issues. The Catholic writer Tom Scott labels the Thou Shalt Not concept as "simplistic", arguing that Australian Catholics are abandoning the church because the late Pope and Cardinal George Pell "cannot provide any guarantee that their simple steps will result in salvation, or even just a meaningful life".

Yet can the church survive if it abandons such rules? Are doctrinal principles, such as the sanctity of human life or the 10 negotiable guidelines, subject to repeal or even wholesale revision when out of step with the latest trends? Scott argues that many ex-Catholics left the church in search of a "more authentic 'truth"'.

I think the writer forgets that the New Testament had Jesus replacing the whole of the Mosaic Law by the two commandments of love. These were positive commandments: something to be done not forbidden.

The doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church are derived from a particular theory of humanity. The doctrines do not exist in isolation. As scientific knowledge advances, so will the doctrines be examined in that light. For example, the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution means that the Church now considers the first eleven (11) chapters to be myth not historical truth. Those chapters are not discarded but kept as part of the ecomony of salvation.

I think the writer is ignorant of the doctrinal developments within the Catholic Church. The Marian doctrines emerged in the Middle Ages and were not wholly accepted by the Church until the late nineteenth century. Priestly celibracy was introduced in the Middle Ages as well. If anyone is looking to the Catholic Church to be rigid in everything, they should look elsewhere.

The core truths of the Church do not change but the responses to those truths change over time. Doctrines on homosexuality, abortion, women priests are not core truths but a response to those truths. The Nicene Creed is that statement of core truths.

Even on homosexuality, the Church's doctrine has shifted in response to advances in scientific knowledge. In the middle of the last century, homosexuality was seen as a disease to be treated and the Church responded by outright condemnation. As evidence mounted that homosexuality is not a choice for some, the Church responded by admonishing homosexuals to accept themselves and to be accepted by the community while living a chaste life as expected of all unmarried people.

None of this is an endorsement of the church's rulings on social issues, some of which I find distasteful. Most social liberals don't care about the survival of the church; they care about undermining what they see as regressive social mores.

Fair enough. But liberal Catholics should not delude themselves that their church will survive as a liberal institution; as Catholic Lite. The church's appeal lies in its uncompromising values system.

Any good capitalist would find the Church's social teaching more than "...distatseful" - they are revolutionary if anyone cares to read them.

The Church is uncompromising in its adherence to the core truths of Christianity. The values that the Church promotes are a historical response to those core truths.

If the Apostles were to return today, they would recognise the message of the Church but they would find some of the doctrines strange at first until they understand how those doctrines are derived from the core truths.