| Author | |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: May 06 2005 at 9:08am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Forgive me if there is already a thread like this, but I didn't find it.
As I've shared before, I am a cradle Catholic who left the church in college and became a Protestant for 20+ years. Then I went through a crisis of faith five years ago and reevaluated everything I ever thought I knew about Christianity. In the process, I found Catholic theologians to be among the most helpful in sorting out my questions and then wound up at a Catholic university for a graduate degree in theology.
I am still sorting things out (love the journey). But I'd love to hear some of your stories of how Catholicism made sense to you or how you found it to become more meaningful after it not having been your faith previously or when it was just a Sunday duty.
Also, just a little curious question. Most of the Catholics I know in person (and in my family) lean toward the left politically while being deeply devoted to Catholicism. They represent, to me, traditional Catholicism, the kind I grew up with. Theologically they are varied (some more conservative than others). Sometimes when I read of Catholic converts (especially in homeschool circles) from Protestantism, they tend to remain politically right and archly conservative (similar to Protestant conservatives/evangelicals but with a Catholic twist  ). This is when I hear people then talk about conservative versus liberal Catholicism. Am I off the mark?
How do you understand your Catholic sisters and brothers who are not of your political leanings? Is Catholicism big enough, in your opinion, to hold all these various ways of understanding the faith?
That ought to be enough for now. Thanks in advance. 
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: May 06 2005 at 3:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
I am still sorting things out (love the journey). But I'd love to hear some of your stories of how Catholicism made sense to you ...
Also, just a little curious question. Most of the Catholics I know in person (and in my family) lean toward the left politically while being deeply devoted to Catholicism. They represent, to me, traditional Catholicism, the kind I grew up with. |
|
|
Dear Julie,
My journey was from unbelief to a Protestant faith to the Catholic Church. A somewhat shortened version of it appears here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0205dr.asp
I only have a minute on the computer right now, but I'd love to discuss your questions more. They are right up my alley.
As far as the political question goes -- I consider myself first and foremost a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium. My orthodox Catholicism doesn't fit neatly or perfectly into either of the American political parties. In some areas (abortion, and related issues) I am considered by my Democratic friends to be "conservative." In other areas I am considered by my Republican friends to be too "liberal."
I personally dislike the labels "liberal" and "conservative" to describe where a Catholic stands re. his faith. I think it's much more accurate to describe oneself as either "orthodox" (adhering to/obedient to the teachings of the Magisterium) or heterodox/dissenting. In my opinion, the terms liberal and conservative have too many political connotations to mean much when one is describing one's Catholicism.
Must go for now, but feel free to reply or email me privately any time!
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: May 06 2005 at 3:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Karen E. wrote:
As far as the political question goes -- I consider myself first and foremost a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium. My orthodox Catholicism doesn't fit neatly or perfectly into either of the American political parties. In some areas (abortion, and related issues) I am considered by my Democratic friends to be "conservative." In other areas I am considered by my Republican friends to be too "liberal."
I personally dislike the labels "liberal" and "conservative" to describe where a Catholic stands re. his faith. I think it's much more accurate to describe oneself as either "orthodox" (adhering to/obedient to the teachings of the Magisterium) or heterodox/dissenting. In my opinion, the terms liberal and conservative have too many political connotations to mean much when one is describing one's Catholicism.
Must go for now, but feel free to reply or email me privately any time!
|
|
|
Karen's quote above reminds me so much of what all the talking heads were syaing as they scratched their heads after John Paul the Great died. He defied a political label. And, I think, really faithful Catholics do as well. Karen nailed this one.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
julia s.
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: May 06 2005 at 5:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julie,
I'm going to skirt the political question and maybe make cohesive why the Catholic church is my final home for my faith. I've told you a little about my journey back to the faith before, but I didn't explain why Catholicism made more sense then anything else.
I remember asking my dad when I was about 16 why he was Catholic and he told me that he had looked into all the other religions and the Catholic faith just "made sense." My dad wasn't always known for long speaches at that time and it had never occured to me that he ever considered anything, but the Catholic faith. I think when I came back to the church it was probably for this same reason.
I'd been to Protestant churches and they always seemed like they had a lot of very nice people in them (and much less stressed out then the Catholics that I knew), but I never felt the presence of God there. I learned of the theories and beliefs and a wonderful respect for the liturgy that the Catholic faith never delved into, but the lack of a Eucharist and a lack of the respect for Jesus's mother (whom Jesus loved so dearly) and an obsession over the apocalypse really turned me off. Also, soo often (and I hope I'm not offending anyone here) people put themselves in place of God. They determined what was a sin -- and it was relative to their personal bibilical interpretation. They determined who was saved as if they knew the hearts of everyone they met and the heart of God himself.
Finally, the loss of Saints, true spiritual guides. was too much for me too. And the distortion of angels as if they were pets and not the dignified creatures that they are.
There was nothing unifiying. Nothing consistent. It seemed like every Christian was wanting to be the leader when followers were needed. Again this was just my understanding of the churches I witnessed.
Now, not all Catholic churches are equal. Returning to the Catholic faith wasn't a simple ok -- lets be Catholic now. I found many dry churches who need spiritual renewing in a bad way. But when I found the right match for my faith and the wonderful priests here at the church I cried the first time my soul sat in that church and I knew I was home. It makes sense to the body and soul. You feel it.
I know I'm not the spiritual power house that others are on this board, but I hope it helps a little. Maybe Chari or Willa or some of the other wonderful women could help you out some more.
__________________
julia
married to love of her life
with ds12 ds8 ds3 and ds1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: May 06 2005 at 9:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Julie,
Many blessings on your journey. I always love your honest way of thinking through things.
As you know, I'm a convert.... I grew up in a politically liberal but Evangelical Protestant family. Maybe that makes me unique!!  My parents still generally vote Democrat and are devout Christians; one of my brothers is a pastor in Canada. .... my very own "separated brethren"!
I married a politically conservative Catholic and we both grew in our religious faith together, reading lots of Protestant and Catholic authors and discussing them -- which resulted in his cradle Catholicism becoming revitalized and in me becoming confirmed as a Catholic in 1990.
To answer your question, what made Catholicism meaningful to me initially was that it made sense of Scriptures I had puzzled over since my young days as a Bible-believing Christian.... like John 6 and 1 Corinthians about the Eucharist, and the seeming immense significance of the apostles in teaching and passing on the faith as well as laying on hands and binding and loosing sins. Lots of things like that. I think the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was the BIG thing for me, and led to me accepting all the rest. I had never heard the doctrine of the Real Presence until I discussed it with DH, and yet, once it was presented, it was something that I realized I had missed and longed for all my life without knowing it.
Since making that intellectual and spiritual journey and actually deciding to enter the Church, which was a leap of faith, so many treasures have enriched my life -- history, beauty, deep significance in daily life and small acts and sufferings. The spiritual literature, the lives of the saints... Partly I suppose one's faith tends to grow richer as one matures, but also I think that Catholicism has a heritage, a treasure-house of wisdom and beauty, that incorporated the best and truest things of my Protestantism and also added new abundances which I am still discovering!! I don't feel that I abandoned the Christianity I learned from my earliest days, but rather, fulfilled it and got to put aside the provisional, inadequate parts.
I tried a couple of times to answer your other questions about "conservative" and "liberal" Catholics when I started this post this morning, but couldn't manage to make much sense! So I'm awfully glad Karen E posted her explanation.
Truth of course is not a political construct -- so in that way Catholicism is not Conservative or Liberal -- it's both, and neither. St Augustine writes (talking to God) "Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you!" GK Chesterton wrote that the Church founded by Christ is always older and more enduring than the oldest heresy and yet newer and more vigorous than the newest religious fad. The eternal Logos, the maker of Creation, became a little brand-new embryo in the womb of a human, and lived in a particular time and place. God can work eternally through the particulars of each individual life, even the most obscure. This is perfectly wonderful to me: like a fairytale come true. God promised us a Church against which "the gates of hell shall not prevail". We still have our perils and difficulties to face, different from age to age, but basically, the happy ending is already there, and there are so many blessings and great adventures on the way, and everything even the humblest of us do can make a great difference. It's a responsibility, yes, but also a great privilege, and there are so many graces to help us, and fellow-travellers who can intercede for us, a "cloud of witnesses" -- both those living now, and those who have gone before us.
Sorry this got so long; would love to hear your thoughts on what you are sorting through!
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: May 06 2005 at 10:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
julia s. wrote:
| It seemed like every Christian was wanting to be the leader when followers were needed. |
|
|
I really liked this quote. I wrote about this recently in my personal blog. It seems to me that many of the churches I've been in the past have trasnlated "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" into "The first shall be leaders"! I have been disturbed by the emphasis on creating these mini cities led by pastors, honestly.
I also really appreciate the way each of you emphasize the beauty you've found in Catholicism. I read Thomas Dubay's book _The Evidential Power of Beauty_ several years ago and remember his comment that anyone who gives the Catholic church a fair look will not fail to see its beauty. I've always remembered it and can see that that has been true for so many of you.
Karen, I liked your distinction about orthodox and heterodox. Do you think anyone converts to Catholicism as a heterodox? The person embraces Catholicism but is dissenting in some of the dogmas or doctrines? (I know there is a difference between the importance of these.) Is that an acceptable way to be Catholic, then?
I appreciate all of your replies and hope to respond more tomorrow. I am being called in to streudel presently. I will be out of town from Sunday to Tuesday at the Chicago U2 concert (my dose of spirituality) so I will read any new posts during those days on Wednesday.
Thanks again. I will share more about my own journey when I have some more time. I do enjoy reading each person's thoughts. They are beautiful.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 9:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
julia s. wrote:
| I know I'm not the spiritual power house that others are on this board, but I hope it helps a little. |
|
|
I had to start with agreeing with this sentiment. I hesitate to get involved because I know that although my personal faith is so strong, I tend to be very insecure and inarticulate in expressing it. But I would like to briefly share my conversion story because there is a piece to it that I think is relavent. I grew up Lutheran and my parents were somewhat socially active in church. What I mean by this is that they went to church, and I was expected to attend Sunday school, youth groups and camps, etc. My parents did not practice any deep personal faith. Church was primarily a social opportunity to visit over coffee and rolls while the kids were in Sunday school. As I grew up I began to seperate Church and God. Church was a social situation and God was more and more easy to imagine as not real. By the time I was in college I didn't even believe that God existed. My dh grew up Catholic, but after his parents' divorce he just stopped religion. His mother gave him the freedom to make that decision since she was disenchanted with the Catholic church herself after her divorce. When I met him he believed in God, but had no faith in organized religion. He believed it to be a bunch of Pharisees who made up rules for their own benefit. My best friend from high school is an Evangelical Christian. All through our friendship she had quietly and patiently tried to evangelize me. I attended church events with her, I did bible studies with her, and we talked honestly about faith throughout this time. The truth was that I wanted to believe. I had a difficult childhood and my emotions into adulthood were in a mixed up state. I saw how peaceful the people in my friend's church were and really wanted that, but I wasn't going to pretend to believe in order to get it. If there really wasn't a God I wasn't going to just play act to make myself feel better. I would be tough and get through this life in a state of reality instead of leaning on an imaginary crutch. Well, ultimately the messed up nature of my life weighed on me too heavily and the patient teaching and love of my best friend overcame me. I prayed with my friend and asked God to come into my life. It wasn't like an immediate lightning bolt, but the truth is that I believe God was patiently waiting along with my friend for me and when I finally asked him to come into my life he slowly began to fill me with the faith I needed. But I needed to take that leap and ask him. The desire came first, then the act of faith and then finally the belief.
After this change happened in my life, I began to feel a real need to belong to a church community. My dh and I began church shopping. I wanted to go to an evangelical church since that is where I had been witness to so much love and peace previously. My dh wanted to go to a Catholic Church. We attended many churches of both denominations. We eventually settled in at a small nearby Catholic parish. The previous fall my husband and I had attended a Catholic marriage renewal retreat. We had not been Catholic at the time, but that particular program was the one my dh found and we decided to attend. It was at that retreat that I began to soften on Catholicism. Before that I had some strong prejudice about Catholics. I had viewed them as stern and hypocritical people. On this retreat I met a priest and several couples who were filled with that peace and joy I had seen at my friend's churches previously. The priest during the homily on the weekend explained why we make a small cross on our forehead, on our lips and on our heart before the gospel is read. I thought it was beautiful, and the faith and thought behind it along with the example of faith I saw in some of the Catholics on this retreat began to soften me. The next fall when I saw a notice for the RCIA class at this small parish I decided to sign up. My dh was stunned! My dh went through the class with me and we were both confirmed into the Catholic Church together the next Easter Vigil. My dh always tells people that I brought him back to faith and he brought me into God's church. 
For me, the journey into the Catholic Church was first an experience of personal witness of Christ working through people. After that there were many intellectual questions to work through. The truth was that at the time I actually joined the Church I did not have them all worked through (actually I still don't have them ALL worked through - still working on that sainthood thing ). But during my RCIA class I came to terms with the one that was of critical importance and behind which all the other issues became less important. I came to believe during my RCIA period in the authority of the Church. I believed that what the Church taught was true. I didn't have to completely understand everything the Church taught, but I had to believe that this was where God's teaching authority rested and trust that the teaching was true. It was very much like when I became a Christian. I didn't get everything, but I reached a point where I had enough to take the leap. The rest followed. Since I have become Catholic the riches of this faith continue to astound me! Within the Catholic faith the answer to everything rests. Not that I don't struggle and fight to find them sometimes, but they are always there waiting for me once I get there. I think that this is part of the beauty of the Catholic faith - it's completeness. I cannot join my voice strongly enough with what Willa wrote here.
Willa wrote:
| Since making that intellectual and spiritual journey and actually deciding to enter the Church, which was a leap of faith, so many treasures have enriched my life -- history, beauty, deep significance in daily life and small acts and sufferings. The spiritual literature, the lives of the saints... Partly I suppose one's faith tends to grow richer as one matures, but also I think that Catholicism has a heritage, a treasure-house of wisdom and beauty, that incorporated the best and truest things of my Protestantism and also added new abundances which I am still discovering!! I don't feel that I abandoned the Christianity I learned from my earliest days, but rather, fulfilled it and got to put aside the provisional, inadequate parts. |
|
|
About the politics I have some thoughts, but they are probably incomplete and I agree with everyone else that Karen E summed it up pretty well. I will add some personal reflections that may or may not be valid. The impression that I get from people in my Catholic circle is that there is no political party in this country who really satisfies a faithful Catholic's voting requirements. The reason most regular mass-attending Catholics are tending to vote Republican right now is probably abortion. I'm a Catholic Answers kind of Catholic, so I do believe that there is a heirarchy of issues that a faithful Catholic needs to take into consideration when voting and abortion is near the top of that heirarchy. This doesn't mean that I don't take seriously the other social justice issues and I do what I can personally to care for the poor and worker's rights. I also try to carefully look at candidates and choose those who meet the most of the Catholic Church's teachings, but when a choice has to be made I choose according to a hierarchy of teaching. In my understanding of the situation there are a variety of ways that the social justice issues represented by the Democartic party can be met. Abortion is just wrong. Ideally there would be a candidate who meets all of the Catholic Church's teachings. Unfortunately that is not typically the case. I know that my mom (who converted to Catholicism when she was a teenager, left and then converted again after I did) is very left-leaning in her beliefs. She herself is quite poor and came from a poor background. She has relied on the government to care for her many times and is right now faced with many difficult decisions as a result of cutting of public funds for medical care and housing. Yet when it comes down to it she will vote for a Republican right now because she believes with all her heart in the priority of the abortion and other bio-ethic issues. (she's gritting her teeth the whole time, but she does it. ) Anyway, that is just my personal take on it. I've certainly been influenced by the culture during the time I've been a Catholic and I admit there might be a bigger history that I don't fully understand.
P.S. Julie, there may be some similarities between your situation and my dh's. I'm certain that he'd be happy to share with you some the story of why he decided to come back to the Church if you'd like. Let me know if you're interested and I'll get you in touch with him.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 10:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| Is Catholicism big enough, in your opinion, to hold all these various ways of understanding the faith? |
|
|
Remember, just my uneducated (probably wrong  ) opinion.
Yes and no. My husband and I have been amazed at the broad range of expressions of faithful Catholicism. There are faithful who attend masses with what might be considered very "conservative" expressions of faith (Latin mass, receiving on the tongue, covering their head, etc.) and there are faithful who attend masses with a much more relaxed feel (contemporary music, casual dress, etc.). To the best of my knowledge these are all within the realm of acceptable expressions of the Catholic faith. However there are also parishes that flagrantly ignore church teaching. They ignore requirements for a valid mass and ignore the sacredness of the Eucharist. There are people who don't believe in the infallable teaching and wisdom of the Catholic church and still claim Catholicism. To me being Catholic is not about what church is put down on a form. It is where your heart is. If a person doesn't believe the core teachings of the faith then in their heart they are not Catholic no matter what they call themselves. They are lying when they go up and receive Jesus in the Eucharist and say "amen" to believing everything the Church teaches as true. (Remember, I distinguish understanding and belief. There were many things I didn't completely understand when I became Catholic, but I believed them completely to be true) There IS a large range of acceptable ways of expressing the Catholic faith, but there are certain principle beliefs that make a person a faithful Catholic. The Catholic Church can't change these things and it's up to the person to decide whether to embrace them or not.
juliecinci wrote:
| Karen, I liked your distinction about orthodox and heterodox. Do you think anyone converts to Catholicism as a heterodox? The person embraces Catholicism but is dissenting in some of the dogmas or doctrines? (I know there is a difference between the importance of these.) Is that an acceptable way to be Catholic, then? |
|
|
Someone brighter than me PLEEAASE correct me if I'm wrong and help me out with my own questions. My immediate response internally to that question was, NOOOOO!!! But then I started to think it through. I know of people who converted to Catholicism because their spouse asked them too. They don't believe what the church teaches at all. They are Catholic in name only, but God allowed them to be received into the church. There are kids who are confirmed who don't believe what the church teaches, but are just going through the motions and God allows them to be received into the church. I'm really unsure what the theological explanation for that is and that's probably not what you're getting at at all.
The other piece of that is that there are infallible teachings and there are teachings that are still being worked out. I think those teachings that are "the best we can figure out right now" kind of teachings can have dissenting opinions and still be faithful to the Church. The teachings that have been definitively discerned, you cannot dissent from and still be faithful to the Church.
I'm giving this an immature shot and I'd love to hear some good answers from those of you brighter than me.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 11:41am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks Richelle for such a detailed recounting of your faith journey. I find it interesting that you came to evangelical faith in a similar way that I did. I, too, had a disappointing transition to college with parents who abandoned faith and each other. I intially was a part of est (a pop psychology movement in CA) when I went off to college but ironically returned to the Catholic church for services right when I got to school. If I had met vibrant Catholic undergrads there, I probably would not have gone evangelical the next year. But the Catholic mass felt like it was about my individual weekly need for worship and not about community, Bible, morals and ethics, and of course that all important mission to win people to Christ.
My family (extended) is Irish Catholic. They are much more oriented toward Catholicism through the lens of social justice and are dissenting with regards to the role of women in the church, for instance. Through my time at Xavier, I've discovered ways through some of my former theological wrangles (over biblical inerrancy, who is Jesus?, salvation for whom? and so on). But my growing convictions lead me in a strange polarity of exploration.
I find Catholicism to be attractive in some ways (partly due to my familiarity with it - the comfort of the mass, the depth of commitment to social justice, partly because I find it to have room for a diversity of views). I love that the theological dialog is on-going across centuries! Otoh, I do not agree with the role of women as defined by the Church (this one I am firm on since I used to see women similar to how Catholics viewed them as an evangelical... I've spent a lot of time studying this topic in particular), I'm not convinced of the idea of "God's vicar on earth" (sorry if this steps on anyone's toes - I can respect the position, but I don't accept it currently) and I find the medieval nature of much of Catholic culture to be out of step with our time. There are some deeper theological issues I am leaving out but don't want to turn this into a thread of apologetics for issues of faith.
I feel at a strange crossroads.
It may be that I am simply unable at this time to make any kind of clear commitment since I am still gathering details. My theological studies are engrossing and I've become much more adept as articulating what I do understand/believe than I used to be. My favorite professors are Catholics, but I think they'd be "heterodox"/dissenting from the way you all are describing things here. Same with my aunts. Or it may be that their interpretations of the dogmas are very different than what I read here. I like Richard McBrien very much, for instance. But I know that he may not be very popular with orthodox Catholics.
Bottom line is that I love the Catholic homeschoolers that I know! There's a generosity in your approach to life and faith that is so attractive to me. I miss having a place to call home spiritually. And that is really why I am bombarding this forum with posts. I love reading your views and enjoy hearing how faith is meaningful to you.
So thanks for sharing.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Taffy
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 05 2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1567
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 12:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julie,
I can relate to a lot of our concerns regarding catholicism (in fact I share several). Regarding women's roles... I thought you might find this website interesting
Here's the address...
Feminists for Life of America
And from the site...
"If you believe in the strength of women and the potential of every human life,
If you refuse to choose between women and children,
If you believe no woman should be forced to choose between persuing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child,
If you reject violence and exploitation,
Join us in challenging the status quo,
Because women deserve better choices."
__________________
Susan
Mom to 5 on earth and 1 in heaven
Susan's Soliloquy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 2:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julie,
I'm enjoying the conversation and am grateful the questions were asked. I don't know the answers to your questions and struggles, but I know God does. I recall someone in the unschooling discussion mentioning that God likes strewing. It sounds like God is strewing a lot of things in your path and I'm certain that if you keep looking for your answers God will guide you to them. I'll pray that you find your spiritual home. God be with you on your journey!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 5:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
Karen's quote above reminds me so much of what all the talking heads were syaing as they scratched their heads after John Paul the Great died. He defied a political label. And, I think, really faithful Catholics do as well. Karen nailed this one. |
|
|
I've always chuckled, too, Elizabeth, at the journalists trying to figure out "what" John Paul the Great "was." He utterly confounded them -- they just didn't get it.
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 5:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
Karen, I liked your distinction about orthodox and heterodox. Do you think anyone converts to Catholicism as a heterodox? The person embraces Catholicism but is dissenting in some of the dogmas or doctrines? (I know there is a difference between the importance of these.) Is that an acceptable way to be Catholic, then? |
|
|
Hi, Julie,
Well, that's a very interesting question (about whether or not anyone converts as a heterodox.) First of all, I should probably say that you only really hear the word "heterodox" from orthodox people. I'm afraid someone who dissents from Church teaching might think I was name-calling but of course I'm really just attempting to clarify terms and positions for the sake of this discussion.
I've worked on our parish's RCIA team and have seen people go through the steps to become Catholic when they don't, deep down, fully embrace all of the Church's teachings. This always makes me very sad -- both for the person who is going through the motions and for the Church, which needs soldiers for Christ who really believe in and practice what they say they believe. I don't think people (at least not the ones I've seen) do it maliciously or with bad intent ... they usually do it because they don't understand exactly what it means to be a Catholic. They hint that they're doing it for a spouse, or that they don't really like the "whole birth control thing" or whatever ... I always urged people like that to wait, to really examine their motives and to understand that they don't have to become a Catholic if they really can't embrace the teachings. But, ultimately, we can only teach and urge ... I have certainly seen people come into the Church when I thought they probably weren't ready (due to some disagreements) but they claimed they were. That will ultimately be between them and God.
When one is received into the Catholic Church, one stands before the entire congregation, and before the Lord, and proclaims that she believes in all that the Catholic Church teaches and holds to be true. I, in good conscience, was not able to do that until I knew that I really would live in obedience to the Church. So, no, I don't think one should join the Church if one has serious disagreement with Church doctrine. It comes down to a matter of personal integrity, at the very least -- how could I stand there and say I believe in the whole package when deep down I knew that I didn't?
Also, there is an important difference between "doctrine" (dogma could be used pretty interchangeably here with doctrine) and "discipline." Doctrine is eternal and unchanging (that's why we have to accept it.) Disciplines, on the other hand, can and do change. For example, a celibate priesthood is a discipline (there are actually some married Roman Catholic priests.) It could, conceivably, change, though it's not likely to in the near future. But, the point is, it could because it is merely a discipline, not a doctrine. A male-only priesthood, on the other hand, is doctrine (because Jesus was male, and the priest acts "in persona Christi" to administer His sacraments to us.) Doctrines aren't up for discussion and change ... discipline can be. (This is where the media often clouds the issues because most journalists don't understand this distinction.)
Well, I'm out of time for now, but I'm loving this discussion and hope to get back to it soon! Your questions are wonderful.
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 6:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
tovlo4801 wrote:
| But during my RCIA class I came to terms with the one that was of critical importance and behind which all the other issues became less important. I came to believe during my RCIA period in the authority of the Church. I believed that what the Church taught was true. I didn't have to completely understand everything the Church taught, but I had to believe that this was where God's teaching authority rested and trust that the teaching was true. |
|
|
I'm stealing a few more minutes on the computer to get back to this discussion.
Richelle, you're telling my story! Yes, everything comes down to the authority issue. All other questions, concerns and difficulties with doctrines come back to the question, "Does the Catholic Church have the authority to teach and guide me or not?" I, too, came to believe that the Holy Spirit is indeed actively guarding the Church and that the Church could indeed "tell me what to do."
And what freedom there is in that obedience! I have found no greater freedom in my life than the freedom I have experienced as an obedient Catholic.
God used many different things to draw me to the Catholic Church -- my hunger for the Eucharist, my attraction to the Catholic Church's understanding of and emphasis on suffering (I used to sit in my friend's Catholic church and gaze at the most beautiful and enormous crucifix above the altar, just aching to understand that Man on the cross), and my need for an intellectual understanding of what the Church taught and why. But, ultimately it came down to that leap of faith ... once I accepted the authority issue, I made the leap to live as an obedient Catholic. And the graces have flowed from that obedience in beautiful and humbling ways.
Richelle, thanks for sharing your beautiful story. There are many parallels with which I can identify. And please stop underestimating yourself and your posts, my dear! You have so much to add here.
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 6:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
tovlo4801 wrote:
juliecinci wrote:
| Karen, I liked your distinction about orthodox and heterodox. Do you think anyone converts to Catholicism as a heterodox? The person embraces Catholicism but is dissenting in some of the dogmas or doctrines? (I know there is a difference between the importance of these.) Is that an acceptable way to be Catholic, then? |
|
|
The teachings that have been definitively discerned, you cannot dissent from and still be faithful to the Church.
|
|
|
Richelle,
Yes, that's right. If one is dissenting from infallible teachings, then one is, in essence, Protestant. When one is looking at becoming Catholic, one has to ask oneself if one truly believes all that the Church defines as infallible doctrine.
When I worked with RCIA, we all took our responsibilities very seriously and if someone openly flouted Church teaching the situation was addressed ("speak the Truth in love"). But, you're also right that ultimately, some people will enter the Church for their own reasons. God can work through all kinds of circumstances, even less-than-ideal, or even sinful ones.
I also agree that there are many things on the spectrum which are a matter of taste regarding spirituality or preferred devotions, etc. There's room for many different kinds of people in our universal (which is what "catholic" means) Church. Just think about the many different religious orders, all with different charisms -- there are Franciscans, and Dominicans, Benedictines, etc. Different people, different gifts, and different expressions of spirituality ... no problem with "dissent" in those areas, because they aren't disagreements about the core beliefs. But, dissent about infallible teaching goes to the very essence of what it means to be a Catholic.
I often go back to the words of St. Augustine:
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
Okay, time for me to get off this computer and preview a movie for family movie night.
Hope to get back into this discussion in the next day or two!
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen E.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 6:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
| Otoh, I do not agree with the role of women as defined by the Church |
|
|
Oh, I'd love to discuss this more. Have you read any of John Paul II's writings on women?
I used to be a member of NOW, marched in pro-choice rallies, and considered myself to be a staunch feminist.
These days, I would have to say that I've found a more authentic feminism in the Catholic Church than I've ever found anywhere else.
Okay, I'll quit dominating this conversation and will go do the movie-preview I keep saying I need to do. I'm sure you're all sick of me by now anyway!
__________________
God bless,
Karen E.
mom to three on earth, and several souls in God's care
Visit my blog, with its shockingly clever title, "Karen Edmisten."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 7:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Karen, I love reading your posts so don't feel you must apologize for posting so much. I enjoy Willa and Richelle's and any others that post too. Each person brings a slightly different perspective.
When you talk about accepting infallible teachings, it is more the interpretations of the teachings I'm getting at. Not all theologians accept the same explanations behind the virgin birth, resurrection, real presence, the trinity, how salvation is accomplished and so on. I have read a wide variety of views about each of these. Biblical literalism (Protestant version) sees the interpretation of the doctrine to be the infallible part—in other words, if you see the virgin birth differently than the way the plain English translated text in the NT describes it and the way most evangelicals define it, you are wrong - and likely not Christian.
So what I am finding interesting is that many Catholics that I know who consider themselves orthodox will accept what feels like and looks like the straight forward interpretation of something like the virgin birth, but then there are other Catholics for whom that interpretation falls short of life—they have spent time in dialog with other theologians in their tradition, and work it out differently, come to a different way of understanding or seeing it. It is in this way that they continue to feel connected to the Church and that their voices are prophetic while honoring the core of the tradition.
Then there are those more traditional Catholics who resist the teachings of these more liberal-minded theologians (like Richard McBride or Hans Kung or Elizabeth Johnson or Catherine LaCugna) who see these kinds of theological insights as heresy — outside of true Catholicism.
Do you see what I mean?
In evangelicalism, we just declared that those who didn't see the Bible as infallible and didn't believe the essential doctrines were non-Christians (they included Catholics in this picture of unbelievers, btw). What I'm seeing in Catholicism is that there seems to be a much wider tent —these varying points of view to wrestle with each other.
Where I am stuck is that while according to the Church, I am Catholic (having been confirmed already), I am not a practicing one. According to myself, I am unable to embrace all of the doctrines at face value, even though I find myself attracted to the mass and to the history, the theologians who express Catholic theology and some of their very worthy interpretations of faith. As I study, I can see ways of understanding the Church doctrines that are non-traditional, that fit better with my intellectual honesty at this stage in the game and that give me a renewed sense of hope or faith.
My issues are not due to a lack of interest or the need to align with a spouse or even to simply pick a place to worship. My theological issues are deeply felt and are the result of concentrated study. I am not flippant about any of it at all.
So I don't know how I feel about returning to the Church if I am coming in with a different way of interpreting the faith than, say, many of the members here on this forum. I don't know how others feel about it. It is something I am exploring.
Does that make more sense?
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 7:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for the link to feminstsfor life! What a great website.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: May 07 2005 at 7:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Karen.
I have not read any of JPII's writings. My current readings about women and the church have been through several feminst theologians (such as Elizabeth Johnson - Catholic) and a few womanists (black feminists). The central premise that really solidified my viewpoint has to do with the value placed on women if they are inadequate to fully represent Christ. How can God declare "woman" as "good" if there is something deficient in her biology to prevent her from being able to stand in the place of Christ in the ministry? Can biology really limit the working of God through a person? If so, then what does that say about women from God's point of view?
Though Christ was male on earth (by necessity Christ had to be male or female), the Real Presence today, the God who is with us, transcends gender. God is available to all and empathizes with all. The capacity to transmute the divine must be resident in both male and female if we are bearers of the image of God. The fact that one gender is relegated to the leadership and authority role merely due to biology (private parts) strikes me as supremely out of step with what we know today about both men and women and their capacities for compassion, leadership, insight and ministry.
Additionally, leadership has the role of influencing (controlling?) those led. Without representation of all sorts of people, we are left with leadership that reflects a particular way of seeing. To me, that diminishes the image of God - since God is available to be known through all kinds of people, including both genders.
Theology is the intersection of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Scripture and Tradition have long guided the governing structures of both Protestant and Catholic churches. But today, both Reason and Experience have shown us that the sexes are not different in the ways once thought (capacity to reason, to be educated, to lead, govern and so on). The genders bear different biological functions but that does not infringe on their capacity for contribution in the body politic nor in the spiritual realm.
If it does, then we are saying things about God that I believe are heretical (actually). We are declaring that God has created women to be deficient purposefully; further, we suggest that Jesus is not as capable to relate to/empathize with women since gender is constitutive of his being. He is, therefore, man only; not primarily human.
Mary Daly says, "If God is male, then male is God." I know that sounds harsh. But it is something to sort of roll around in your head for a bit and compare with the facts of history. Our modern age that celebrates the possibility of women choosing to lay down their potential for leadership, education, working and voting is very different than the ages where women were forcibly restricted from all of these.
And while I fully understand the view of complementarity (equal value, different roles), the truth is that that view has not worked politically at all and I believe that it is likewise not possible spiritually. We can choose different roles, we do have different biological roles. But I don't see women as less able to govern or minister than men simply due to biology. For me, that diminishes the God we worship.
I promise not to argue about this. I only share what I learned to give you some insight into how I'm thinking. Feel free to disagree, even strenuously.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Robin
Forum Pro
Joined: March 06 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: May 08 2005 at 12:11am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Julie!
First of all I just want to say that I'm a very simple soul and I'm definitely not a great intellectual, but the Lord has given me a great faith.
As a faithful Catholic who loves Our Lord and His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,who is obedient to Our Holy Father as unto Christ Himself, and who abides strictly in obedience and faith to all the teachings of the Catholic Church I would have to say that you are searching for the truth in the wrong places. You will not find the beauty of the Faith by reading dissenters who call themselves theologians. Women are very highly regarded by the Church and the only human to have the great grace to be Immaculate and to carry God in her womb was a woman. It is not about a woman being "deficient in her biology" but about being obedient to God and having humility. Christ chose twelve men to be His Apostles. He breathed His Spirit on the eleven that remained faithful and made them priests. He did not make one woman a priest nor did He tell one woman that "whose sins she forgives are forgiven and whose sins she retains are retained." If you don't believe the Gospels and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and if you don't believe that the Holy Father is the vicar of Christ then the answer is no, you are not a faithful Catholic and cannot receive the sacraments. This doesn't stop you from attending Mass, but it does make it impossible to receive the sacraments. I think this is a matter of a lack of faith and the only way to resolve it would be to pray for faith and read only the Truth. When I was first converted from a Cradle Catholic to a practicing Catholic the only books I read were by authors whose names started with ST: St. Augustine, St. Therese, St. Louis de Montfort. These are the authors we can trust. There is so much confusion out there, so many lies and half truths that it is very easy to drown in the ocean of heretical writings being constantly put forth.
"Lord, I want to believe, increase my faith."
These are my convictions and I say them with love and humility - even if it didn't sound like it .
PS I just opened my Catholic Dictionary and this is what my eyes fell upon (it looks to be written more in your language than mine) ... Doctrinal Dissent - The theory that a professed Catholic may legitimately disagree with an official teaching of the Church and in fact, should disagree in order to advance the Church's interests. It is based on one of several erroneous premises, e.g., Modernism, which denies that divine faith is an assent of the mind to God's revealed truth, or process theology, which postulates an evolving deity and therefore an everchanging truth. Most often the dissent applies to some doctrine of Christian morals which, though infallibly true, because taught by the Church's universal ordinary magisterium, has not been solemnly defined.
__________________
Robin Dupre
"If we become what God intended for us to become, we will set the world on fire." ~ St. Catherine of Siena
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: Coming to faith
