Who knew I'd be writing so much about religion?

Kristof's latest column raises in more specific terms the issues I addressed about Pope Bendict XVI and the direction of the Vatican, and how they relate to Latin America. He writes, "Some conservatives say the problem is that the church went touchy-feely and permissive after Vatican II, and they note that the evangelical sects gaining ground are more morally demanding, not less. But the more common view here is that the church has squandered its authority with positions that strike parishioners as backward, not uplifting, on divorce, birth control and the role of women." The key term for me in there is not uplifting. The Church should indeed be a refuge--a place to escape the material and political, a place to ponder and to find meaning. If it cannot even offer an uplifting spiritual experience, then what's its purpose? So many young people in Latin America seek and find that refuge at their neighborhood Parish; the Vatican needs to respond to their cares and concerns, or they'll start looking for it elsewhere.

As for the firsy half of that quote, I never gave much creedance to the argument that Vatican II weakened the Church; I think without the necessry reforms that came out of that council, the Catholic Church may not even exist in the United States today--certainly not in any shape similar to how we know it.