Note: I have posted some of the following elsewhere on another discussion board. I am not trying to spam this one or it's forums. Instead, since this board actually has a forum for liberal Catholics, I thought this would make a good opening topic for me to introduce (and with which to introduce myself). I have included the substance of three short to medium-short posts as they go together and each helps to shed light on the one preceeding it, but feel free to reply as much or as little as you wish to each section:
Basic Premise
Some who are born into Catholicism see it as their spiritual home and hence even if they come to disagree with certain positions officially taken by the Church, they still consider themselves Catholic and see that as more important than their disagreements, sort of a like a family where not everyone always sees eye to eye but where everyone still feels like they are family. Such Catholics may even work to lobby for reform or changes within the Church.
Converts, on the other hand, may feel through their RCIA program that they need to be "in-line" with the Church on various social and political issues as part of their period of reflection and preparation. Ironically, someone in this position with the same views as one of the above-mentioned cradle Catholics may feel strange about joining a Church that they already have some disagreements with on particular issues.
To clarify what I mean, imagine an old one liter slender glass soda bottle. Take an uninflated party balloon, dangle it in the bottle, and fill it up. It will expand for a while and then conform to the bottle once it is full. Now take a balloon of the same size, inflate it first with the same amount of air, and then try to "get it" in another bottle the same size as the first. It won't go.
If you were a covert, did you have such concerns when joining the Church? If you were "born" Catholic, do you think this is a potential problem? How do you think one can or should reconcile the contradiction of the "born Catholic" who starts "in the bottle" and potential convert with similar or identical views and concerns who is "outside of the bottle"?
For Clarification of Potential Misunderstandings of My Bottle Analogy
There is a difference between agreeing with the religious and spiritual fundamentals of Catholicism (and to some degree Christianity in general), such as the love of God expressed through grace in the person of Jesus and in the experience of the sacraments, and disagreeing with a current expression or interpretation of such a basic truth or insight in conventional social or political terms, such as whether it is OK to use condoms or for priests to marry. The Church has altered its positions on issues of conventional culture throughout its history but this doesn't change the underlying insights concerning the core experiences and truths of the faith. The mass is no longer required to be in Latin, the view of the Church on astronomy was radically revised after the debacle with Galileo, etc. The list of changes sparked by Vatican II, let alone those decided at the Councile of Trent or over the preceeding millenium, indicate that it is the basic truth or insight about God as revealed through Jesus, rather differences over specific social/political positions, that is essential and immutable. If in thirty years there are women priests in the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean the grace of God is irrelevant? Does it mean that those Catholics are "better" or "worse" than those of fifty years ago because of such a change, or are both groups simply representative of their times? Would both not have (had) access to the same sacramental life? Is it more important to have all of the right conventional political views lined up with the Church, or to be properly oriented towards God and yet have some honest disagreements with the Church on certain views such as their relative silence on the human rights abuses committed by nations like China?
Again, if someone who grew up in the Church came to see such issues as problematic and out of love for the Church lobbied for reform, they are still practicing members of the faith. If someone who happened to recognize the truth of the the love of God expressed through grace in the person of Jesus and in the experience of the sacraments and also happened to have some of the same reservations (such as those mentioned) as our cradle Catholic, what should be the key emphasis that is impressed upon them? That the Church only wants to attract and admit those who precisely fit the current socio-political mold of official Church positions or that it welcomes those who genuinely feel an attraction to seek Christ in the Church even if they have some social/political views that are not in total compliance with official Church positions?
My own personal interest:
I was raised in a somewhat evangelical/fundmentalist "non-denomination" set of Protestant Churches. I vaguely recall in a Sunday School class being asked to close my eyes and say a Sinner's Prayer and to try to mean it with all my heart. I did as well as I could for a child, and since Jesus/Christianity was the only path I had access to, my inclination to follow that which is just, fair, and true seemed to be tied to that path. No one at that time suggested baptism at that time for the kids in my class, and as time went on I found I really didn't like the idea. Of being up in front of everyone, of having someone act in a theatrical fashion, dunking me "In the NAME of GAWUD!". And when I was slightly older, after I realized most people were baptized right after "being saved", I felt weird asking for baptism after people had apparently presumed I had already been baptized.
On the one hand, I grew up identifying as a Christian and faithfully attending church. On the other hand, Jesus always seemed remote - a cosmic sacrifice, a King, a Lord, a Judge - but not someone to whom I could relate as a person. The idea of a "personal relationship" with Jesus was really just a euphimism for "believing", i.e. giving intellectual and verbal assent to a series of historical propositions concerning the events surrounding the life of Jesus which made you a "believer". The selective literalism I was raised with had no place for any greater depth to understanding either scripture or Christ, such as ahistorical/timeless insights beyond mere history. As I got older, the tension between seeming contradictions about God, about Jesus, etc became more apparent, and like many people in this situation, the tension only got worse when I left home for college.
After my freshman year, I decided to put all things spiritual and religious on hold until I had a broader and deeper appreciation of history, other cultures, science, etc. As if following a common script, over several years this became a sort of default Deism, and then a default agnosticism. My frustration with the hardcore legalist/fundamentalist forms of religion, Christian and otherwise, started to grow and eventually boiled over, and years before Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the like started publishing I and others were online honing and refining the same arguments. Eventually this gave way to decision to start fresh, with as few influences as possible, as a seeker, rather than staying in the self-satisfcation of my anti-religionism.
I found that many of my ideas had already been espoused in Buddhism, and I tried to become informed about all the major Buddhist schools and traditions. From an initial atheist/strictly securalist intro to Buddhism I came to appreciate the deeper possibilities of spirituality, of the benefits of liturgy and ritual, etc, outside of the constricted view of such things with which I had been raised. I took advantage of the chance to practice a combined form of Chan/Pure Land Buddhism for a while. In the teachings of form and emptiness I found a parallel with the idea of a conceptually transcendent but historically (i.e. within the reality of space and time) immanent Source from which existence springs and dissolves and that both existence and the Source are different aspects of the same reality. This is akin to the theological notion of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of reality, or to the (functional) dichotomy of the historical and the ultimate, which fits well with what has been described as the panentheistic view of the Divine.
I became interested in interspiritual writings which lead me to the work of Br. Wayne Teasdale and his mentor Fr. Bede Griffiths along with folks such as Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Thomas Keating, etc., who are/were all Catholics commenting on other faith traditions, as well as Buddhist authors commenting on Christianity such as Thich Nhat Hanh and the current Dalai Lama. I am deeply fascinated with the dialogue that has taken place and with the perspectives offered by the aforementioned Catholic scholars and writers, as I had simply presumed Catholicism to be extremely conservative in all areas and generally if not totally closed to any appreciation of spirituality or religion outside of the Church.
So, here I am. Whatever I choose to call myself or how others choose to label me, my experiences in legalistic/fundamentalist Christianity, atheism, and Buddhism have shaped who I am today. I hope to be able to ask and answer questions with respect and love.
Summary:
I am fascinated and moved by many who have been spiritually nourished by Catholicism, from St. Francis of Assisi to Dorothy Day to Fr. Bede Griffiths, yet I am equally dismayed by the Roman Catholic Church's problematic history with authority and its current official positions on many contemporary issues centering on the pelvic region. This is in turn got me to thinking about how even while some Catholics may make a good witness for the Church, the Church itself might actually turn off or turn away people who cannot in good conscience agree with some of its current socio-political teachings or who may not feel like they are free to explore their faith and follow where the Spirit leads them. Obviously, then, liberal Catholics are a group I would be especially interested in hearing from! Thank for your patience in what is an extraordinarily long post coming from me.
Basic Premise
Some who are born into Catholicism see it as their spiritual home and hence even if they come to disagree with certain positions officially taken by the Church, they still consider themselves Catholic and see that as more important than their disagreements, sort of a like a family where not everyone always sees eye to eye but where everyone still feels like they are family. Such Catholics may even work to lobby for reform or changes within the Church.
Converts, on the other hand, may feel through their RCIA program that they need to be "in-line" with the Church on various social and political issues as part of their period of reflection and preparation. Ironically, someone in this position with the same views as one of the above-mentioned cradle Catholics may feel strange about joining a Church that they already have some disagreements with on particular issues.
To clarify what I mean, imagine an old one liter slender glass soda bottle. Take an uninflated party balloon, dangle it in the bottle, and fill it up. It will expand for a while and then conform to the bottle once it is full. Now take a balloon of the same size, inflate it first with the same amount of air, and then try to "get it" in another bottle the same size as the first. It won't go.
If you were a covert, did you have such concerns when joining the Church? If you were "born" Catholic, do you think this is a potential problem? How do you think one can or should reconcile the contradiction of the "born Catholic" who starts "in the bottle" and potential convert with similar or identical views and concerns who is "outside of the bottle"?
For Clarification of Potential Misunderstandings of My Bottle Analogy
There is a difference between agreeing with the religious and spiritual fundamentals of Catholicism (and to some degree Christianity in general), such as the love of God expressed through grace in the person of Jesus and in the experience of the sacraments, and disagreeing with a current expression or interpretation of such a basic truth or insight in conventional social or political terms, such as whether it is OK to use condoms or for priests to marry. The Church has altered its positions on issues of conventional culture throughout its history but this doesn't change the underlying insights concerning the core experiences and truths of the faith. The mass is no longer required to be in Latin, the view of the Church on astronomy was radically revised after the debacle with Galileo, etc. The list of changes sparked by Vatican II, let alone those decided at the Councile of Trent or over the preceeding millenium, indicate that it is the basic truth or insight about God as revealed through Jesus, rather differences over specific social/political positions, that is essential and immutable. If in thirty years there are women priests in the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean the grace of God is irrelevant? Does it mean that those Catholics are "better" or "worse" than those of fifty years ago because of such a change, or are both groups simply representative of their times? Would both not have (had) access to the same sacramental life? Is it more important to have all of the right conventional political views lined up with the Church, or to be properly oriented towards God and yet have some honest disagreements with the Church on certain views such as their relative silence on the human rights abuses committed by nations like China?
Again, if someone who grew up in the Church came to see such issues as problematic and out of love for the Church lobbied for reform, they are still practicing members of the faith. If someone who happened to recognize the truth of the the love of God expressed through grace in the person of Jesus and in the experience of the sacraments and also happened to have some of the same reservations (such as those mentioned) as our cradle Catholic, what should be the key emphasis that is impressed upon them? That the Church only wants to attract and admit those who precisely fit the current socio-political mold of official Church positions or that it welcomes those who genuinely feel an attraction to seek Christ in the Church even if they have some social/political views that are not in total compliance with official Church positions?
My own personal interest:
I was raised in a somewhat evangelical/fundmentalist "non-denomination" set of Protestant Churches. I vaguely recall in a Sunday School class being asked to close my eyes and say a Sinner's Prayer and to try to mean it with all my heart. I did as well as I could for a child, and since Jesus/Christianity was the only path I had access to, my inclination to follow that which is just, fair, and true seemed to be tied to that path. No one at that time suggested baptism at that time for the kids in my class, and as time went on I found I really didn't like the idea. Of being up in front of everyone, of having someone act in a theatrical fashion, dunking me "In the NAME of GAWUD!". And when I was slightly older, after I realized most people were baptized right after "being saved", I felt weird asking for baptism after people had apparently presumed I had already been baptized.
On the one hand, I grew up identifying as a Christian and faithfully attending church. On the other hand, Jesus always seemed remote - a cosmic sacrifice, a King, a Lord, a Judge - but not someone to whom I could relate as a person. The idea of a "personal relationship" with Jesus was really just a euphimism for "believing", i.e. giving intellectual and verbal assent to a series of historical propositions concerning the events surrounding the life of Jesus which made you a "believer". The selective literalism I was raised with had no place for any greater depth to understanding either scripture or Christ, such as ahistorical/timeless insights beyond mere history. As I got older, the tension between seeming contradictions about God, about Jesus, etc became more apparent, and like many people in this situation, the tension only got worse when I left home for college.
After my freshman year, I decided to put all things spiritual and religious on hold until I had a broader and deeper appreciation of history, other cultures, science, etc. As if following a common script, over several years this became a sort of default Deism, and then a default agnosticism. My frustration with the hardcore legalist/fundamentalist forms of religion, Christian and otherwise, started to grow and eventually boiled over, and years before Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the like started publishing I and others were online honing and refining the same arguments. Eventually this gave way to decision to start fresh, with as few influences as possible, as a seeker, rather than staying in the self-satisfcation of my anti-religionism.
I found that many of my ideas had already been espoused in Buddhism, and I tried to become informed about all the major Buddhist schools and traditions. From an initial atheist/strictly securalist intro to Buddhism I came to appreciate the deeper possibilities of spirituality, of the benefits of liturgy and ritual, etc, outside of the constricted view of such things with which I had been raised. I took advantage of the chance to practice a combined form of Chan/Pure Land Buddhism for a while. In the teachings of form and emptiness I found a parallel with the idea of a conceptually transcendent but historically (i.e. within the reality of space and time) immanent Source from which existence springs and dissolves and that both existence and the Source are different aspects of the same reality. This is akin to the theological notion of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of reality, or to the (functional) dichotomy of the historical and the ultimate, which fits well with what has been described as the panentheistic view of the Divine.
I became interested in interspiritual writings which lead me to the work of Br. Wayne Teasdale and his mentor Fr. Bede Griffiths along with folks such as Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Thomas Keating, etc., who are/were all Catholics commenting on other faith traditions, as well as Buddhist authors commenting on Christianity such as Thich Nhat Hanh and the current Dalai Lama. I am deeply fascinated with the dialogue that has taken place and with the perspectives offered by the aforementioned Catholic scholars and writers, as I had simply presumed Catholicism to be extremely conservative in all areas and generally if not totally closed to any appreciation of spirituality or religion outside of the Church.
So, here I am. Whatever I choose to call myself or how others choose to label me, my experiences in legalistic/fundamentalist Christianity, atheism, and Buddhism have shaped who I am today. I hope to be able to ask and answer questions with respect and love.
Summary:
I am fascinated and moved by many who have been spiritually nourished by Catholicism, from St. Francis of Assisi to Dorothy Day to Fr. Bede Griffiths, yet I am equally dismayed by the Roman Catholic Church's problematic history with authority and its current official positions on many contemporary issues centering on the pelvic region. This is in turn got me to thinking about how even while some Catholics may make a good witness for the Church, the Church itself might actually turn off or turn away people who cannot in good conscience agree with some of its current socio-political teachings or who may not feel like they are free to explore their faith and follow where the Spirit leads them. Obviously, then, liberal Catholics are a group I would be especially interested in hearing from! Thank for your patience in what is an extraordinarily long post coming from me.
Last edited:
Sooo...
