Catholics
dirt track date -- Saturday, July 06, 2002 -- 02:29:01 PMSo why the hell haven't you left the church yet? I have church-shopped off and on for decades, and have never found anything comparable. I disagree with most of the church's teachings, but then so do most other Catholics I know. In what other religion can you cheerfully ignore the official line but still be welcome? I guess that's why I haven't left.
What about you?
This thread is tagged: faith, religion(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
My kids attend a Catholic school and they are learning things that also contradict Church teachings. They got a pretty unbiased and straighforward presentation on sexuality and contraception, for example.
And although "officially" the Church does not recognize divorce, the school is actually set up to handle parents who live in separate households. They mail copies of everything to the N/C parent, unlike the public schools, who will only mail to the address used when registering the student.
Is my experience unusual, or do most Catholics consider the Pope and the church heirarchy largely irrelevant?
When I was still a practicing Catholic, everyone I knew in the church pretty much ignored the whole Pope thing.
I have had huge arguments with my boyfriend about this. He's never gone to church and he gets all upset about believers. "How can they obey what some celibate guy in Rome says!" I explain they don't. "Then how can they be Catholic?" Because they are. Rinse, repeat.
I rather like the Pope, actually, mostly because he's so critical of just about everything in modern society, and that's my kind of guy. But overall, Jen, I think you're onto something. Other denominations have a much more clublike atmosphere, in my secondhand observation. They're gatherings of likeminded people, and there's more changing and splitting off, because people want the rules and charters of the club to reflect their personal, chosen beliefs.
Catholicism is much more a contentious, brawling extended family where some parties may carry on a lifelong feud with others, but that doesn't necessarily ever translate into a wish to move on from the group into which they were born.
>"How can they obey what some celibate guy in Rome says!" I explain they don't. "Then how can they be Catholic?" Because they are. Rinse, repeat.
Egg-zackly. Except my heathen husband substitutes "some guy in a dress" for "some celibate guy."
You ARE Catholic even if you break all the rules. What other religion allows this kind of flexibility?
And how do you know my true identity Brigit? I'm wearing this tube top and these damned uncomfortable tight shorts and you blew my cover!
You ARE Catholic even if you break all the rules. What other religion allows this kind of flexibility?
Well, some religions don't offer up a lot of rules to begin with, so with them, it's not really an apples to apples comparison. And really, as a Methodist (former Methodist?) I could break rules right and left, and still call myself a Methodist.
But about Catholics breaking rules, maybe a rule-breaking Catholic is still a Catholic, but there must be some perceived consequence to not following the church's teachings?
Eek, dtd, saw it elsewhere, it just slipped out. Cute outfit, though!
Susanne, I do feel there are consequences. When I feel I'm committing a sin, I take it seriously. If anything, it's easier for me to decide I don't support teachings that don't apply to me directly, such as the refusal to ordain women, or the belief that homosexuality is aberrant behavior. I feel I can be more objective. If it applies to me, my own interest comes in and I question my conscience's tendency to take the easy way out.
But the consequences that I sense involve the health or lack thereof of my relationship with God, not my identity as a Catholic. I may not be a GOOD Catholic at a given moment, but I'm still just as much a Catholic. I loved what mgleason, God rest her, said on TT- something along the lines that she'd been in the Big House too long to adapt to life outside.
The Catholic clergy is just a bunch of guys who think they know what God intended. Their understanding of God is limited by their experience. If a teaching is congruent with what Jesus taught, then I take it seriously. If it is based on what Paul said or what some Pope said, I take it with a big grain of salt.
For example: Jesus taught "whatever you do to the least of your brothers you do unto me." To me, that means that if somebody is excluded from the faith community because they are gay or because they are a hooker or because they knock over liquor stores they are excluding Christ.
On the other hand, Paul wrote that women should keep silent in the church, which has been interpreted by the Church as women should not be priests. I don't know the New Testament as well as I should, but I can't see that Jesus worried about that at all.
Their understanding of God is limited by their experience.
Exactly. As is everyone's. I am comfortable with there being a clergy, I am comfortable with there being roles and a hierarchy and a certain ponderousness to the whole operation. This is a big, old, creaky machine, and that's fine. But they're human, and like all humans they can be wrong.
One thing non-Catholics tend not to know is that it's very rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra. My DH, a rather embattled Lutheran in this heavily Catholic area, was astonished when I told him that no Pope has made an "infallible" statement since, IIRC, the 19th century. He thought every word out of the guy's mouth was supposed to be infallible.
I can't see that Jesus worried about that at all.
I've long been comfortable with my belief that Jesus chose male apostles simply because the times permitted an itinerant rabbi to live and travel in close quarters only with men. Had He lived in a different time, who's to say He'd have done things the same way? For that matter, I think that's why He was incarnated as male in the first place. A woman would not have had the freedom.
Well, we were taught that Jesus had any number of female disciples including Mary Magdalene, loyal followers who came to hear him preach and who were his friends, but that he chose men as his twelve apostles because he specifically intended to commission only men to the priesthood. I've always felt that was silly, that both he and his female disciples knew there were cultural limits as to how closely they could follow.
Re Mary Magdalene, we were taught in high school theology that the figure we think of by that name is a conflation of several Bible stories that were unlikely to have been about the same woman- the woman cured of demons, the woman who washed Jesus' feet and dried them with her hair, even the Mary whose sister was Martha. But we were told the whore thing was part of the myth, and doesn't appear in the scriptures. I don't know what the official Catholic teaching was in the old days, but this was what was presented to me in Catholic school in the 80's.
I never had the benefit of attending Catholic schools, so there is a lot I don't know about Catholicism. When I said disciple, I really meant apostle.
When I was going to RCIA class, the instructors insisted that MM was a prostitute. It was very important to them that the students understand that.
Brigit, I didn't go to Catholic school, but that's what I've always understood--that the Mary Magdalene figure is a composite of several women mentioned in the Gospels, which never say explicitly that these are the same woman.
Re the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, I don't know where you can find the actual text, but it and other non-Biblical gospels are discussed in The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Much interesting stuff in that book.
That's right, it was the Gnostics. Here's a bit from the Nag Hammadi Library, although I bet it's available on the web (edit: yep, here's a translation):
When the blessed one had said this, he greeted them all, saying, "Peace be with you. Receive my peace to yourselves. Beware that no one lead you astray, saying 'Lo here!' or 'Lo there!' For the Son of Man is within you. Follow after him! Those who seek him will find him. Go then and preach the gospel of the kingdom. Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed for you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it." When he had said this, he departed. But they [the disciples] were grieved. They wept greatly, saying "How shall we go to the gentiles and preach the gospel of the kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare him, how will they spare us?" Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, "Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for his grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather let us praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us into men." When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the [Savior].
Then Peter asks Mary to tell them things she learned from a private dialogue with the Lord. Unfortunately the text here is incomplete. After she finishes explaining,
When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, "Say what you (wish to) say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas." Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: "Did he really speak to a woman without our knowledge (and) not openly? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"
Then Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said." When [...] and they began to go forth [to] proclaim and to preach.
I don't know too much about how the canon developed, how it was decided what would be included. Anyone want to recommend a good book?
LC I can't answer your last question, but from a woman who spent 12 years in a plaid skirt, I can definitively say "Once a Catholic, Always a Catholic."
The respect and awe for mystery I learned in the Catholic church while learning my ABCs and times tables is something I'll always treasure and rely upon. I've attended (and am attending) church in several non-Catholic Christian churches and I've always felt vaguely that something was missing. That something, to me, is mystery.
Besides, all that stuff about the Pope, celibicy (sp?), not ordaining women, priests not able to be married--that's all garbage added in the last 800-1000 years. Not really bedrock, just quite ingrained.
What worries me about Catholocism is the lack of any visionary leaders in the wings waiting to take Pope JPII's place. JPII was great in his time and was probably instrumental in destroying the Iron Curtain. However, once that deed was done, a more visionary, 21st-Century-Seeing Pope was needed. We probably won't get that guy for another 30-40 years.
Rain, great post. Mystery is the irreducible wonder of Catholicism to me as well.
Garry Wills' new book looks interesting.
That does look interesting.
How are you all feeling about your parishes? We had a parish where we felt very much at home and became close friends with one of the priests. I also had my daughter in the school that was connected to the parish. Then about a year and a half ago, I became very unhappy with the school and at about the same time, our friend died and since he was one of the best things about the place, we switched to the parish connected to the new school. But it doesn't feel right. The music is not as good (in my opinion), the ambience is wrong. They've recently remodeled and this probably sounds so shallow but I just hate it. They've removed all of the statues of Mary and Saints and replaced them with weird modern art bronze Jesus depictions, changed the front of the church to hide the tabernacle and now it looks like the front of the Small World ride at Disneyland (to me) taken out the old saltillo tiles, etc. Plus the priest does nothing for me. So I'm thinking of shopping around. Maybe going back to the old homey church and see how it is there without our friend. I like that the children see their school friends at our current parish, but I'd like something, I don't know, more.
What do you like or not like about your churches?
Oh, good question, Julia. I don't think you're shallow (or maybe I'm just as shallow as you are!) The church where I spent my middle years- was confirmed and graduated from grammar school- recently remodeled with great fanfare and the vestibule now looks like the atrium of a Ramada Inn. It has a spectacular view of the New York skyline, so I suppose they couldn't resist, but I much preferred our old stone steps.
I grew up in a town of 75,000 people and eight Catholic churches plus a monastery; now we live in a comparatively rural area and the churches and Masses are fewer and farther between. Our town's church is lovely. It's small, turn of the century, stone. Most parishes out here have either flimsy, cut-rate buildings or multimillion-dollar modern-art extravaganzas, neither of which works for me. I was permanently spoiled by the gorgeous parish of my early childhood, wedding and kids' baptisms*, but the light and colors and acoustics and even the smell of a church matter to me.
I like our pastor, too, though he's overworked, but I suspect that's the wave of the future. What I do not like, and this is completely shallow and personal: it's so small, and every Mass is standing room only. I liked being able to choose whether I wanted a packed, bustling Mass or a quiet, sparsely attended one.
Our parish here is the oldest in town, but also the poorest. Since this city grew up in the ugly 70's, the wealthy have moved west and built their churches. We didn't like the attitude at the closer church when we arrived, and didn't want to go to the Catholic Student Center (we had just graduated and didn't care to be on the student calendar anymore), so we found St. Pat's. It is a friendly and very diverse community, but aging. There are few young families, despite the presence of a very popular interparish school. The pastor is a deeply spiritual and virtuous man who cannot give an exciting sermon to save his life. We feel at home here, and, hopefully, our pastor will retire in time. Meanwhile, the music ministry is improving and there are plans (and a $2 million pledge) to build a new church, which may attract new parishioners. I confess to some Church envy, at the newest parish across town they built a $7 million church with rosewood and marble floors. But I feel that the "basilica" there is way more than our community needs, and the money would have been better spent on our new high school.
Brigit, my mother grew up in Passaic! Her family were members of a parish called Holy Rosary. Do you know it? Also a beautiful old church.
Marsie, I do! IIRC it was mostly a Polish parish at one time. It's lovely. So many beautiful churches in that town. My mom was born in St. Mary's Hospital in Passaic, and my grandfather was born and grew up in the town; when I was small (in the 1970's) we still went to a number of things there, swimming at the YWCA, dancing school, gymnastics at the YMCA with the Passaic Turners.
(g) There are a lot of those out there, aren't there. Our pastor is not a bad speaker, but we have a visiting priest who handles a couple of Masses a week who's really dynamic and fabulous.
I like our parish, except for getting giggles when the Petitions of the Faithful include prayers for vacationers and those traveling to their summer homes. Right after an end to terrorism and before the poor and in need, usually. It is not a terribly diverse community. But it is big and energetic and the architecture and music are lovely. A couple of priests are good speakers and one is terrible, so we check the calendar to see who's celebrating.
birdie, I don't think you're shallow at all, and maybe the old homey parish would still be a better fit, even without your friend. I can't handle the church near my parents at all - very huggy, holding hands high in the air across the aisle during the Our Father, lots of overmiked synthpop contemporary music. The ritual just feels off to me, almost like I've stumbled into a Protestant megachurch by mistake. But it's always packed so people must love it.
I have been thinking about this, because we will probably need a new parish when we move, and we will probably consider ritual, quality of homilies, music, and architecture in that order.
I got the Garry Wills book and will start it this week.
Brigit,
Yes, my grandmother was Polish. My last visit to the church was two years ago for her funeral. The old polish priest there had a high voice that reminded me of the bishop from "The Princess Bride" and sent me into a wave of giggles. But the congregation did recite the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be in Polish before her casket was wheeled out, and it was very reassuring--the language her parents had spoken to her in her earliest moments spoken at the very last. My grandmother had Alzheimer's and lived away with my mother for 7 years prior to her death. When we took her "home" for burial and at her wake, the members of her old rosary group arrived and began the rosary midway through. We had not arranged for this, having not known whether any of them survived. But they seemed to know that Agnes would have wanted that, and that, too, was very reassuring.
We use our hands a great deal in Church--raising them up "and also with you", etc. We tend to hug those we know well, which are many in such a small church. I prefer this, though I do not like too much techno in the music liturgy.
Marsie, that's what's interesting. The church near my parents is packed with people who find their style just right, and yet my tastes are completely different, even though we are using the same liturgy, same order of service, and half of the same music. The aesthetic issues are a surprisingly large part of the experience, at least for me.
It is interesting, Laura. You can be in an uber-Church which is unbelievably cold or in an ancient monastary that radiates charm. Someone must prefer the uber-church, else where would the money come from?
One of my favorite experiences was going to mass on campus in college. I attended a small Catholic college in PA and most of us were Catholic, so we attended daily mass as well as the Saturday vigil. We rarely wore anything nicer than jeans or sweats, and the pews creaked loudly. It was, and is, a simple and beautiful place to go to mass, a place where one truly felt participatory in the liturgy.
We used to camp every summer with other families down the Jersey shore, and Mass was held by the lakeside at the campground every Saturday night. I loved sitting in the sand with the other kids and listening to the service as dusk approached and fireflies winked.
My favorite liturgy at my parish is Monday night novena. I've been going intermittently since we moved here six years ago; there's a core group who are always there, and others who seem to come and go as I do. It's a very small, quiet, serious and peaceful service.
I finished the Garry Wills book last night - it is-well written and interesting, but the title is misleading. It begins with a mini-memoir of growing up Catholic and going to seminary and leaving seminary and writing on Catholic issues for the National Review and elsewhere. Then the bulk of the book is devoted to the evolution of the papacy, including some murky succession issues (four simultaneous popes, including one who had been deposed and come back and then sold the papacy to his godfather) and an examination of various tactics used to assert the primacy of the papacy. The last section is an examination of what Wills believes, structured around the Apostle's Creed, and is the only part that lives up to the title.
Interesting factoid: according to Wills, there is little evidence that Juan Diego, who the Pope is canonizing today in Mexico City, ever existed at all.
Garry Wills was on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC this morning, LC, and the first caller was hilarious, she was thoroughly convinced that he was George Will, you know, the conservative columnist who likes baseball. She kept getting interrupted by Leonard and she just barrelled ahead, saying she reads his column all the time, etcetera.
I would like to read his book, though. Garry Wills' book on Why I Am A Catholics, not George Will's book on Why America's National Sport is Baseball and Its Place in the Cosmos or whatever its called.
DH and I were musing last night about the fallout on the Church in the days since all the pedophilia cases have come to light. I live in a diocese where no priest has been charged. We had the same bishop for 20+ years. He recently retired and our new bishop has been extremely firm that there are no second chances for those who abuse children in any way. But what will be the future of the church? We have so many things we are trying to accomplish here--a high school and a new parish school, a new church. Will the money dry up? Sometimes I wonder, given the distrust that seems to be developing nationally.
Another thing bothers me too, and believe me when I say that I am not trying to blame the victim here. It's about the people who knew. I mean, no one gets paid off without someone else hearing about it. Parents, aunts, uncles, whatever. How can they accept payment for a child who has been injured and not insist that the authorities be alerted? If I was the parent of one of these kids, I couldn't sleep if I thought a sicko was still out there to target other children.