[Buddha-l] Liberal versus Strict?

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

"Margaret Gouin" <Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, November 4, 2007 10:29 am, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>> Nowadays the only growing church is the pentecostal movement. I
>> believe that the heavy demands also make islam attracktive for some
>> westerners.
>>
>I have wondered too about the attraction of 'strict' religion. I have been
>speculating on whether this is because you always know where you are with
>a strict religion. There's a book of rules. You obey them, you get
>rewarded. You disobey them, you get punished. There are a set of
>people--rabbis, imams, pastors, whatever--who tell you exactly what is
>what. And so you are relieved from the dreadful uncertainty of day-to-day
>life. You don't have to think about what is the ethical thing to do in any
>given situation, because your book and your leader tell you exactly what
>to do in all situations like that. You don't have to think about your
>responsibility because you don't have any responsibility except to obey
>the rules and the diktats of your spiritual leader. And so on.
>
>In a liberal religion, you have to make your own decisions and choices,
>and in the course of doing so you take on the responsibility for your own
>'religious' (spiritual) destiny. That is scary.

Margaret,

I don't know if you've heard of moral theology, but for any who have studied it notions of just following the rules for a sense of security seem rather distant.  Also, when reading and studying the writings of the mystics there are next to none I know of who fail to write of a point beyond which the rules are transcended.  Your thoughts here have more merit when speaking about certain personality types.  Here is an anecdote I heard from a Fr. Ladislas Orsey, a moral theologian who was at Vatican II.  Soon after the Council Paul VI relaxed the fasting rules for the reception of Communion.  Orsey was riding in a taxi with a few American theologians and they were discussing this development.  The gist of the conversation was that the Americans were very concerned to follow the rules exactly.  Orsey told them that was one way of approaching the matter, but that the average Italian had a different view.  To illustrate his point he asked the driver if he had heard of the new rules for fasting.  The driver said yes, he had.  According to these rules one could take no sustanence or drink other than water one hour before receiving Communion.  So, Orsey asked, "If you were to have a little wine less than one hour before Communion, would that be permissible?"  The driver looked at him and the others incredulously and remarked that one might waste a perfectly good opportunity to enjoy fine wine with friends.  Orsey's point was made.  This isn't uncommon, and it seems to me to provide examples contrary to your claims.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro