This article is pretty much what I’ve come to expect from the mainstream media these days. Nicholas Kristof travels to Brazil to report on the problems with the Catholic church there. He points out that conservative evangelical churches are growing and converting Catholics to their ranks. His solution? The Catholic church needs to become more liberal. At the risk of breaking my rule against sarcasm, I quote my daughter: “yeah, that’ll work.”
I lived in Brazil for four years, returning to the U.S. almost two years ago. I still travel and do business there. Brazil has about 130 million Catholics — the most of any country in the world. There are about 30 million Protestants, most of them evangelicals, and about 800,000 Mormons and a few million “others.”
The Protestant churches are growing the fastest, but we’re growing pretty well there as well. The fastest-growing churches have one thing in common: they are conservative in terms of moral values. They tell their members to abstain from premarital sex, to avoid gambling, prostitution, pornography, alcohol and drugs. Members are told to get their lives together, work hard, and stop blaming everybody else for their problems. One of the most popular evangelical bumper stickers is: “Yes, I own my car, but I worked hard for it, so don’t be jealous.” They speak out against homosexuality as a sin but say their members should love homosexuals individually (“hate the sin, not the sinner”). They don’t have condom hand-out sessions, for example, because they tell people not to have sex before they are married. And this is what church-going Brazilians, for the most part, like to hear. If they are going to go to a church, they want to go to one that teaches good old-fashioned morality. (It’s worth pointing out that many of the evangelical churches are corrupt in terms of how they handle tithing money, but that’s a sidetrack I won’t get into right now).
Of course, the Catholic church preaches good old-fashioned morality as well — sometimes. But of course Catholics are the people in Brazil who are least likely to be following the preaching of the Pope. The vast majority of Catholics go to Mass a few times a year. Just about every Catholic I’ve met (and I’ve met and talked to literally hundreds) is critical of their church, but primarily because Catholics are not strict enough and don’t practice what they preach. Many of them would like priests to be able to marry and they all agree that preaching against birth control is a waste of time. But nobody I have talked to says the church should be encouraging pre-marital sex by, for example, handing out condoms. It’s pretty clear that they believe that’s not what churches are for. In addition, they are scandalized by the thought that the church should support homosexual rights or any other of the New York Times’ favorite liberal causes. Most Catholics I’ve talked to say Catholics should become more like the evangelicals and the Mormons, which makes sense because those are the churches that are growing.
The same issues will inevitably come up within our Church over the coming years. Members will say we need to change with the times and “modernize.” (Example: “how can you be against SSM in this day and age?”) We see it in the bloggernacle all the time. But to the Mormon liberals’ credit, at least in the ‘nacle, they try to back up their arguments with doctrinal points. I happen not to agree with their points, but most Mormon liberals’ arguments are intelligent and well thought-out. The same can’t be said for New York liberals who don’t know much about religion. Their argument is: “conservative religions are growing, and you want to grow, so become more liberal.”
About the silliness of Kristoff’s position I have nothing to offer that has not already been said.
But I do think that this post can be read to mistake orthodoxy for conservatism. There are probably many facets of the church or the membership that can and should change over time. Some of these will be “liberal” changes and others will be “conservative” changes. When so-called “liberals” say things like: “we need to care more about the poor and the current set of practices need thoughtful, inspired revision” I hope Latter-day Saints take those issues seriously (generally I believe they do). When so-called “conservatives” push personal responsibility, that is also a call that should be taken seriously. But these calls should never be judged by the associated philosophy. If they are worthy it is because they are in line with the revealed word of the Lord and his servants.
I suspect Geoff B. did not intend the inference I am drawing here, and I would concede that the post could be read in other ways. But this problem of associating our own set of beliefs with the gospel–rather than winnowing our own beliefs by a gospel standard–is a serious problem in the church and one that I find draws comments out of me.
JCP, point well taken. Right after I finished this post, I wondered about the whole issue of “liberal” vs. “conservative” in the church context. Such labels are always problematic. Here is what I meant by them: for the purpose of this post, “liberal” means believing that society and churches need to adopt society’s evolving standards in favor of SSM, handing out condoms, homosexual rights, etc. “Conservative” means being opposed to such new measures and believing that churches should support traditional values such as actively opposing and preaching against SSM, premarital sex and homosexual rights. Please note that in my opinion true Christians should adopt a policy of “loving the sinner but hating the sin,” as I mention in the article.
Geoff B: I figured that is what you meant. I was venting a bit. Regarding your broader point about Kristoff I’m in complete agreement. If my only goal was to attract members to the church (or any church) I am quite certain I would push conservative policies like the one you’re suggesting.
The only possible way in which Kristoff could be right is if there is this truly untapped liberal constituency out there just dying to go to a church that caters to their views. Actually I suspect this is what he believes. But I find the evidence for that position VERY wanting.
Having served a mission in Brazil, I noticed that same thing. One time after a failed discussion I lamented to my companion that people just aren’t willing to make any sacrifices. Then he pointed out to me that all the Pentecostal churches that are gaining so many members actually require more sacrifice than we do (at least, superficially speaking).
However, there is “liberal” in another sense. And that is in church ceremony. The Catholic church has updated itself in that sense. There’s a whole new branch of the Catholic church in Brazil (I forget what it’s called) but it has done away with the traditional communion and now has a raucous singing and dancing worship service. Padre Marcello, I believe, popularized this new faction. And this new hip Catholic church is gaining ground like crazy. The traditional Catholics are very upset about it.
Eric (no. 4): I think you are talking about the charismatic movement in Brazilian Catholicism.
I understand that there is a rich history of independence from Rome in Brazilian Catholicism: apparently it was simply impossible for Rome to monitor the Priests away from the metropolitan centers. This is part of the explanation behind the interesting syncretic mix of catholicism and West African religion that I often encountered there as a missionary. I remember having to ask a Catholic friend: “I know who Mary is. But who is Iemanja?” Iemanja, I learned, is the West African Orixa (roughly spirit or diety) who roughly corresponds to Mary–she is the other Brazilian national mother figure.
Anyway, I think the independence of some parts of Brazilian Catholicism means that the church is no where near as unitary as people seem to think: in a medium sized city of the Sertao where I spent several months, the catholic church threw some rousing parties at which it held the exclusive license to sell alcohol. An interesting way to fund the local arm of a conservative church from my point of view as a missionary.
Another point is the distinction between liberal in social terms and liberal (or even radical) on economic issues. The Catholic church in many Latin American countries has a long-standing reputation for siding with military dictatorships and against poor peoples’ political movements. Reversing these stands and moving toward a pro-poor and working-class stance might well help the Catholic church. After all, these people are most of the Catholics in Latin America…
I think you’re all assuming that people join Protestant churches because they’re somehow converted to the doctrine. I don’t think that’s the case. I think they are flocking to Protestant churches throughout Latin America because the structure of most of those churches is more fulfilling and gives the “convert” a greater sense of control over his or her life.
As far as Mormon growth in Brazil, like the growth in much of Latin America it is more smoke than fire. The population projection in Brazil based on a sample of one million people showed only 199K people self-identifying as Mormon. This is consistent with census results from Chile and Mexico that showed similar rates of self-identification.
Instead of discussing what the Catholic church should and shouldn’t do, it might be more productive to see what lessons from charismatic Catholicism and Protestantism could be effectively employed by the LDS institution in Latin America. One possible idea greater local control over non-critical elements of worship. Another would be a greater concern on the part of local leadership for social justice issues.
This is not a new idea. I don’t have the link right now, but a BYU professor in the 1970s wrote a series of articles published in BYU Studies saying much the same thing.
Capt Jack, you make some interesting points that deserve consideration.
1)Mostly agree with your first paragraph, although it should be very clear that people go to church, especially in Brazil, because they feel a sense of community with other people who feel a need to worship. Most people are seeking a refuge from an increasingly secular and permissive society and are seeking like-minded people. They need a weekly or twice-a-week dose of the spirit to help them avoid all of the temptations around them that make them feel bad and do bad things. Evangelicals and Mormons do a much better of job of helping people feel the spirit and helping them feel a sense of community.
2)You are correct that a large percentage of people in Brazil, like elsewhere, get baptized and drift away. In my experience, only about 10-20 percent of people who get baptized are active two or three years later. Some of them come back later in life, but almost all of them self-identify as Mormons. But it is true that of perhaps 800,000 LDS in Brazil, only about 200,000-300,000 are active. The figures are probably similar in other countries.
3)I don’t agree with your last point. There are some issues where we need to be conscious of local differences. For example, services are done in Portuguese, and visiting Church leaders are always very respectful and praiseworthy of Brazil as a country and its people. Brazil is an extremely nationalistic country, and we need to be sensitive about that. I’m not sure how you define “non-critical” elements of worship, but going to church in Brazil is exactly like going to church in Salt Lake City, except that wards and branches are smaller, the members are less experienced, there are fewer high priests and fewer families born in the church. But sacrament, priesthood, relief society, gospel doctrine, institute, seminary, temple worship, etc is exactly the same, as it should be. As for “social justice issues,” I assume by that you mean involvement in anti-poverty campaigns, in which the Church actively participates already and has received national attention in Brazil. If you mean becoming a church defined as being “against the rich” and joining liberation theology groups, which were very popular in the 1970s, I couldn’t disagree more. These groups are nothing less than leftist fronts that are using religion to achieve greater power. These groups are against personal freedom and at the end of the day are mostly atheistic. It would be siding ourselves with modern-day Gadiantons.
Capt Jack (no. 7): I don’t know what data you are relying on for Brazil, but if it is the census conducted by the government, I would be wary. I understand that atleast in some areas, the methods used were less than ideal, i.e., census takers who were good catholics somehow knew that everyone else in the area were also good catholics without having to ask.
The census data for Brazil showed far fewer Catholics than the Catholic Church claims, so it wasn’t biased in favor of Catholics. In fact, it showed a huge growth in Evangelical and “Spiritist” religions. Additionally, the figures they came up with for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists correlated pretty well with stats those organizations put out. Blaming a shoddy census or population projection isn’t going to help the LDS church solve what are potentially fatal problems in its membership in Latin America.
Just to clarify, I’m not talking activity but rather self-identification rates being in the 20% range. Activity rates are lower still.
Geoff: I realize the Church in Brazil is exactly like it is in Salt Lake. Why is that? Couldn’t the Church define basic doctrines that are inmutable and leave the rest–length of worship services for example, to the local leadership to decide? Or do you really think that it’s critical to members’ salvation that they meet for 3 straight hours each Sunday, to pick one example? If you see nothing wrong with that, well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Capt Jack, your self-identification rates are not accurate in my experience.
To answer your second question, I don’t know if meeting three straight hours each Sunday in Brazil is critical to a members’ salvation, but I do believe there are people such as President Faust (who went on a mission to Brazil and still speaks pretty good Portuguese) who do receive this revelation and do know what is important to members’ salvation in Brazil. So, given that I don’t receive personal revelation on such issues and the First Presidency does, I’m willing to believe they are making the right decisions.
In my experience, the structure of the Church in Brazil is perfect. It’s the members who aren’t, just like anyplace else.
Geoff:
The upcoming issue of Dialogue is going to have several articles dealing with Latin America and the Church. I know at least one is dedicated to analyzing census data from Chile and Mexico, data that is very similar to that of the population projection in Brazil. Maybe you ought to look at that and see if David Knowlton, the author, says anything about the Brazilian projection.
I can tell you that from my experience from throughout Latin America, everywhere except Brazil, the 20% self-identification rates in Chile and Mexico are spot-on, with activity rates somewhere between 7 and 13%.
As far as movements like the piqueteros in Argentina and the MST in Brazil being like modern-day Gadiantons, while I disagree with many of their political aims and think their economic theories are pretty lame, I don’t think they organize murder to get gain.
I do think a better case could be made that the military regimes in Argentina, Brazil, and the rest of the Southern Cone did do exactly that. And the Church, through then-authorities like Robert Wells, supported them. Wells is on record as saying those murdered by the Pinochet regime deserved it and that only dictatorships could effectively govern in Latin America, as the voters chose ‘stupid’ governments.
Capt Jack, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the self-identification rates. I spent a lot of time talking to four or five mission presidents and other Church authorities in Brazil. I would put self-identification rates at 70-80 percent, so we are not even in the same ballpark, while activity rates are probably 20-30 percent in Brazil, so we are closer there.
A lot of people were wrong about their support of military regimes in the 1970s and early 1980s. I’m happy to say I was not one of them. I have consistently and loudly supported democracy in Latin America and opposed dictatorships of the right and left (and, by the way, I am opposed to dictatorships worldwide, just as our current president is, but I’m guessing based on your apparent knowledge of leftist movements in Latin American that you probably don’t count him among your heroes — interesting how the left has abandoned its principles). I am not familiar with your claims of Robert Wells’ views, so I can’t comment on them, but it’s worth pointing out that Allende was surrounded by thugs and some of the people whom Pinochet killed were murderers and thieves who did deserve it if the country was ever to get back on its feet. But I would agree that Pinochet went too far and deserves most of the opprobrium he has gotten. It would be nice to see the left criticize Castro, Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez at least as much as they criticize Pinochet, but I’m not holding my breath that it will ever happen. But getting back to comments about politics by GAs, if a GA did make such a comment, it was probably not a good idea to talk about politics.
As for leftist groups in Latin America, in all humility I know a great deal about them and their aims. I lived in Nicaragua during the 1980s and actually attended some of the international leftist meetings in which leftists throughout the region plotted and schemed to seize power. And, yes, representatives from the MST and other leftist “farmers” groups regularly participate in these meetings, which still take place in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Central America. And they are all about secret combinations, murder to get gain and taking control of governments. All in the name of the “people,” of course.
I will note that there are some groups that are not allied with what is rightly called the Banana Left in Latin America. There are individual groups that have smaller aims, and they should not be grouped with the Banana Left. But the most powerful groups are indeed part of the international leftist movement in Latin America, which is definitely a Gadianton-like organization. And, to return to the original point, “liberation theology” is of course one of their primary means to fool the world that they are really about peace and love and understanding. These people wouldn’t know a true theological principle if it hit them right between the eyes. It’s funny how the Book of Mormon is coming back to life in Latin America.
Geoff:
We’ll just have to agree to disagree about the self-identification rates. I’ll post the link to the Brazilian data at a later date if anyone is interested, as well as the Chilean and Mexican numbers.
Let’s not throw all liberation theologists into the same bag–yes, some are in it for political power. Many more are in it because they sincerely believe, in their heart of hearts, that serving the poor means more than preaching that they should hold on in hopes of a better world after this life. They believe that meeting the poor’s material needs now is a Christ-like goal. While their methods are sometimes overzealous, I can’t fault their motives. The Catalan priests I knew in the slums of BA weren’t looking for political power, and to this day I’ve yet to come across anyone else who has lost themselves in the service of others to the degree these guys did.
Capt Jack,
I think we have arrived at agreement. But let me use this opportunity as an excuse to expound a bit on how we, meaning the more-wealthy North, can best help those in the less-wealthy South. The first point is that what poorer people in Latin America and Africa need most of all is a stable society, not just the transfer of wealth. What you need to give them is A)freedom to choose their own governments and religion B)property rights C)political stability D)jobs through private sector investment E)selected aid programs that help develop A-D (such as interest-free loans for small businesses). And of course you need to give them the gospel so the people in the regions on their own start pushing A-E on their governments.
Except in the case of famines or massacres or tsunamis, giving the poor grants of money is simply counter-productive. It encourages them to sit around waiting for people to give them money rather than encouraging them to help themselves.
How can we in the North effect A-C? There’s not much we can do except encourage our government to push southern governments to promote A-C. And I am heartily in favor of such efforts. We can help D) by starting companies and investing in Latin America, which is something I have done on a very small scale. And we can encourage politicians to promote E (aid), but aid that really helps people become independent. (The perpetual education fund is a great example of aid that truly helps people become independent).
But the single most important thing you can do in Latin America and Africa is exactly what the Church is doing, which is work one person at a time to help change hearts so that people will work hard, take care of their families, participate in the political process and start building societies that promote A-C. Part of that effort involves welfare programs for the very poor. The Church does that in Brazil quite effectively. Having been in a bishopric in Latin America, I can tell you exactly how it works. The Church has some events involving general welfare. But for members, nobody is getting free checks. People are given temporary help but have to perform services in exchange for the help. And they are encouraged to find help from their neighbors and friends first before coming to the Church. And that is exactly how it should be.
There is definitely room for programs working with the extremely poor and sick and infirm, and I admire all groups that do so. The Church does a lot of work in this area in Latin America and Africa. But as the old saying goes, if you give a man to fish you feed him for a day and if you teach him how to fish you feed him for life. We should be doing the latter much more than the former.