Questions From Guests

[umbrabates]

They responded by saying "Who are you to argue against the likes of Augustine, Acquinis?"

It sounds like you just got in the wrong RCIA class for you. I would encourage you to try again at a different parish with a different teacher. Maybe ask around and see if anyone can recommend an instructor willing and able to field those types of questions.

RCIA instructors are human just like anyone else. Each with their own limitations in both knowledge and how to deal with their own shortcomings. It sounds like a good answer would have been, "that's a good question. Let me think on it and I'll get back to you." Please don't fault all of Catholicism for the transgressions of one person.

Good luck!

 

[badatusernames]

I suspect it is uncommon to be kicked out of RCIA. I've never heard of that happening, but I can imagine it. Most people really want to be there and it should be for them. Now someone with many more questions, or a particular style that does not fit in with the group might need individual attention.

Sorry for your experience. Sounds like they should have found someone to work with you individually and they failed you. Hard to know because I wasn't there, but that is what I might have tried for you.

I've met many former Catholics and many of them fall into a particular pattern. They were not terribly well raised as Catholics, either by the fault of parents or church, they went away to college and fell away from the faith. Then they ran into some evangelicals or fundamentalists. They discovered for the first time what they should have discovered as Catholics years before: a friendship with Jesus. They blame the Catholic Church for this failure, and to a degree maybe they are correct. They are fed a diet of anti-Catholicism and they eat that up along with everything else. What you end up with is someone who never knew much about the Catholic faith, even if they went to Catholic schools, because it never sank in. They think they know more than they know, but most of what they 'know' is anti-Catholic talking points.

You can tell because what they claim to know is usually lame, or blatantly false, and/or just the standard talking points. They are often bitter anti-Catholics themselves. It's obvious they haven't ever had an adult Christian faith as a Catholic.

This sort isn't everybody, of course. Mileage varies. I can be happy for this sort, that they finally did find Jesus. Better late than never. But they can be so confused about what they said they once believed. I facepalm a lot when I encounter this sort of person.

It's the evangelicals and fundamentalists who sometimes have their talking points all ready to go, but those talking points lack depth. Take for example the talking point about 'call no man father'. It's easy to whip out and deploy. But the answer, that takes a chapter of a book to fully answer. And the answer is sound, Biblical, historical, and satisfying. But that same person who launched the 'call no man father' attack will be unfazed by it, replying that the Bible sez ....

It's that sort of person who seems uneducated and truly uneducatable. Not everyone is like this. But there are plenty of them. They stick to their talking points, unwilling to learn a thing, attacking, hoping that by doing so they will save some of us from the Beast.

Catholicism is not an easy to understand religion. It doesn't reduce nicely to a few sentences. Every little thing has a book or three behind it. The Scriptures can be complex, and what was built from those Scriptures can be even more complex. Even the Catechism, designed to be simple, is deeper than it is simple. We have a partially systematic theology, which means that it cannot be treated as totally systematic (annoying those with systematic minds), and also if one does not engage in any systematic thinking it doesn't make sense either. Some other Christian groups can boil it all down to 'Bible sez' or a short list of rules and be done with it. We have long explanations, because we have thought about this stuff for many centuries, and that sounds all wrong when compared to 'Bible sez'.

Right, that makes sense. I totally understand it, I do think that the most commonly and most misunderstood denomination of Christianity is the Catholic Church.

Consider that the presenter was probably trying to the best of his or her ability and may have actually explained a particular point very badly. People presenting in an RCIA class should have had some training but are not, in themselves infallible. They may think they are representing the thought of Augustine or Aquinas capably, but may have missed the point. I sat in on one RCIA class at my old parish. The presenter was trying to make a complex point and mangled the Greek and Hebrew basis for his point. I tried for an immediate correction and it didn't go well. Then I dropped it, waited until the class was over, and explained it all very carefully to the presenter. They aren't infallible. Well, neither am I.

I do think that looking back on it, he was trying his best to his ability to explain a concept and did not explain it so well. It was more the reaction to my question that didn't sit right with me.

Some of your questions were pretty good ones. They may not have been apropos of an RCIA class with a bunch of people in them, but it would have been good if they found ways to get you real answers outside of class. I'm trying to imagine myself in the place of the RCIA presenter, and I think I would have been intimidated to see you with a raised hand. I would hope to handle it better, not to speak beyond my own understanding, and to get you answers after and outside of the class.

There was no attempt to answer my questions or anything further outside of RCIA class, the presentation of it was very much "this is what we believe and do, accept and do it or not." Like I said before, I think, it was probably more a combination of someone who shouldn't probably have been teaching an RCIA class and an authoritarian priest (he made a lot of comments that would probably be a red flags that he should remain a priest and not become a bishop).

Canon law (not 'cannon' but 'canon' - a measuring stick) is of course legalistic because it is the law of the Church. It is supposed to be legalistic. And we need a code of law to govern the functioning of the Church, to handle cases of what is allowed and not allowed. When one does not act according to the heart, the rules kick in. But if one follows the heart, in tune with the heart of Jesus, canon law is not needed. One could be oblivious to it and all would be fine. It's there as a necessary backup and restraint for those of us who behave badly, mostly for those behaving badly in the name of the Church. For the rest of us it actually protects our rights from those behaving badly.

The catechism does refer to canon law from time to time, and thus it sometimes comes off as legalistic. Mostly it deals with teaching on faith and morals, not on legal structure.

The section on 'General Norms' of the Code of Canon Law is worth a read. Some other sections on the sacraments as well.

Maybe this was just something else that was poorly explained to me as well. It was presented like Cannon Law and Catholic morality is just about following a rigid list of rules. For example, the Mass thing I talked about earlier or I remember having asking my roommate "Why do you have to have to give up meat on Fridays. What's so bad about choosing to give up bread or sweets or something else instead?" He just responded by saying you're welcome to give up what you want, but explained that meat is what Catholic Church and Cannon Law says to do. It seems to me that the point of fasting is not about what you give up, but why you give it up.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Maybe this was just something else that was poorly explained to me as well. It was presented like Cannon Law and Catholic morality is just about following a rigid list of rules. For example, the Mass thing I talked about earlier or I remember having asking my roommate "Why do you have to have to give up meat on Fridays. What's so bad about choosing to give up bread or sweets or something else instead?" He just responded by saying you're welcome to give up what you want, but explained that meat is what Catholic Church and Cannon Law says to do. It seems to me that the point of fasting is not about what you give up, but why you give it up.

Again, it's 'canon' as in a way to measure, and not 'cannon' as a thing that is used in war. Not to harp or anything, but one of my missions in life, and this one is just a VERY small mission, is to have it called 'canon law' or the 'canon of Scripture' and not 'cannon'. Total end of rant. By the way, lots of people do that, not just you. Lots of Catholics too, who should know better. OK. NOW end of rant. Was I ranting? Yup.

Catholic morality was often approached as a list of rules. Not by any means always, but often enough. People will ask what the absolute minimum they need to do to just barely get by. And so a bare minimum is established. You have to fast minimally on Fridays in Lent, and what fasting is has to be spelled out. But those are minimums for people who want to know the absolute bare bones minimum. It's not like that's supposed to be the norm. It's not like that is how we are supposed to approach it, and yet some do. The norm is to fast with some regularity, with some actual hunger, for a real purpose in conjunction with prayer. Jesus told us we would be fasting. It's normative for Christians, all Christians, or at least it should be. The Catholic Church lamely provides an absolute minimum requirement and that is interpreted as a rigid rule. For real fasting, look at some of the Orthodox in how they do it. That's rules.

 

[Open Heart]

Why do so many Catholics assume that if you have legitimate disagreements with the Catholic Church that you either simply received bad information or do not understand something? Is it really not possible in the mind of some Catholics that they might be wrong about something or have gone in error? I don't mean "they think they're right" cause everyone does.

A bit of a background: I am a former Inquirer who was kicked out of RCIA for what the priest said for "not understanding my place as a RCIA student" In other words, I asked too many questions our leader did not like me asking. As a result, I became not necessarily anti-Catholic, but more off-put and weary/skeptical of the Catholic Church. However, any time I ever get into a discussion with a Catholic and present a sound counterargument or counterpoint, they almost always respond by saying I either don't understand the RCC teaching or received bad information.

That also reminds me...

How common really is it for someone to get kicked out of RCIA?

Hey bada!
First of all, I'm so very sorry you had a bad experience. The RCIA director should have seen that your questions were in earnest (that you weren't just trolling) and sent you to someone in the church who could have dealt with you one on one. It's true that RCIA isn't really a place for debate. But it's not like debate is a bad thing. It's how some of us (like me) learn.

I have never heard of anyone being "kicked out" of RCIA, although I know those who have left after a time, realizing that Catholicism wasn't for them.

I would say that your thinking and scrutiny is on a higher level than RCIA is meant to deal with (as mine was). My suggestion is that you read a LOT of books, and have conversations with more knowledgeable. Look for someone on this forum who seems especially knowledgeable, and PM them with your questions. You are welcome to question me. I'm a convert, who went through a time when I was actually pretty hostile to Catholic teachings, so I'll have a lot of patience.

 

[Open Heart]

Consider that the presenter was probably trying to the best of his or her ability and may have actually explained a particular point very badly. People presenting in an RCIA class should have had some training but are not, in themselves infallible. They may think they are representing the thought of Augustine or Aquinas capably, but may have missed the point. I sat in on one RCIA class at my old parish. The presenter was trying to make a complex point and mangled the Greek and Hebrew basis for his point. I tried for an immediate correction and it didn't go well. Then I dropped it, waited until the class was over, and explained it all very carefully to the presenter. They aren't infallible. Well, neither am I.

THIS is very true. Most RCIA instructors have never heard the word transcendental, much less know what it means, or can relate it to God.

@badatusernames FWIW, God is both transcendent AND personal. His imminence and his eminence are paradoxical truths.

 

[badatusernames]

Again, it's 'canon' as in a way to measure, and not 'cannon' as a thing that is used in war. Not to harp or anything, but one of my missions in life, and this one is just a VERY small mission, is to have it called 'canon law' or the 'canon of Scripture' and not 'cannon'. Total end of rant. By the way, lots of people do that, not just you. Lots of Catholics too, who should know better. OK. NOW end of rant. Was I ranting? Yup.

Sorry! I wasn't even aware that I was doing it.

Catholic morality was often approached as a list of rules. Not by any means always, but often enough. People will ask what the absolute minimum they need to do to just barely get by. And so a bare minimum is established. You have to fast minimally on Fridays in Lent, and what fasting is has to be spelled out. But those are minimums for people who want to know the absolute bare bones minimum. It's not like that's supposed to be the norm. It's not like that is how we are supposed to approach it, and yet some do. The norm is to fast with some regularity, with some actual hunger, for a real purpose in conjunction with prayer. Jesus told us we would be fasting. It's normative for Christians, all Christians, or at least it should be. The Catholic Church lamely provides an absolute minimum requirement and that is interpreted as a rigid rule. For real fasting, look at some of the Orthodox in how they do it. That's rules.

So essentially, the meat thing, for example, is really more just showing as example as the bare minimum and not really supposed to be the norm? How did it get interpreted and kind of become the norm then?

Hey bada!
First of all, I'm so very sorry you had a bad experience. The RCIA director should have seen that your questions were in earnest (that you weren't just trolling) and sent you to someone in the church who could have dealt with you one on one. It's true that RCIA isn't really a place for debate. But it's not like debate is a bad thing. It's how some of us (like me) learn.

I have never heard of anyone being "kicked out" of RCIA, although I know those who have left after a time, realizing that Catholicism wasn't for them.

I would say that your thinking and scrutiny is on a higher level than RCIA is meant to deal with (as mine was). My suggestion is that you read a LOT of books, and have conversations with more knowledgeable. Look for someone on this forum who seems especially knowledgeable, and PM them with your questions. You are welcome to question me. I'm a convert, who went through a time when I was actually pretty hostile to Catholic teachings, so I'll have a lot of patience.

I wasn't simply told to leave and never come back kicked out, but it was pretty much presented as a dichotomy of stop or leave. The reason I went in with already more than a basic knowledge was having a Catholic roommate who I discussed faith with a lot. It's not really like I had another option unless I wanted a drive I didn't have time for. The other parish in town, I've been told by my roommate and my former fellow parishioners, may or may not have been Sedevacantist.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So essentially, the meat thing, for example, is really more just showing as example as the bare minimum and not really supposed to be the norm? How did it get interpreted and kind of become the norm then?

One can fast, for example, on Wednesdays AND Fridays through the year. This was apparently practiced in some places in the early Church. One can then fast even a bit more for Lent and for some other special reason. Fasting shouldn't be just a Fridays in Lent thing where they avoid meat for a few days. But the folks who want the absolute bare minimum, it's spelled out for them.

We used to have abstinence from meat on Fridays through the whole year. But it was seen as a rule thing (bad) by the Church, and they were trying to get us to see it as other than that. So they told us we didn't have to avoid meat on most Fridays but to figure out something else for fasting and abstinence. Most people heard something which was not said -- that there was no need for any fasting or abstinence except for Fridays in Lent. They went with the minimalist rule. The hope was that they would incorporate fasting and abstinence into their prayer life and run with it as a spiritual practice. It was a flop. Not because the Church wasn't trying, but because too many of us just want to do the absolute bare minimum. There is a movement unofficially underway to abstain from meat on all Fridays and to be deliberate about more fasting and abstaining through the year. And I hope it catches on, because prayer does work better with fasting.

The other parish in town, I've been told by my roommate and my former fellow parishioners, may or may not have been Sedevacantist.

If they are SSPX, the excommunications of that group have been lifted, so they are technically Catholic but may not have the approval of the bishop to minister in your area. If they are FSSP, a group that left the SSPX a few years ago to rejoin the Catholic Church, feel free to check them out. Both are very traditionalist, both are Catholic, but the FSSP will have the approval of the bishop if they are in your area. They will have a different liturgical emphasis that you may find appealing or not. If it's another 'Catholic' group than these two, keep them at arms length.

 

[badatusernames]

One can fast, for example, on Wednesdays AND Fridays through the year. This was apparently practiced in some places in the early Church. One can then fast even a bit more for Lent and for some other special reason. Fasting shouldn't be just a Fridays in Lent thing where they avoid meat for a few days. But the folks who want the absolute bare minimum, it's spelled out for them.

We used to have abstinence from meat on Fridays through the whole year. But it was seen as a rule thing (bad) by the Church, and they were trying to get us to see it as other than that. So they told us we didn't have to avoid meat on most Fridays but to figure out something else for fasting and abstinence. Most people heard something which was not said -- that there was no need for any fasting or abstinence except for Fridays in Lent. They went with the minimalist rule. The hope was that they would incorporate fasting and abstinence into their prayer life and run with it as a spiritual practice. It was a flop. Not because the Church wasn't trying, but because too many of us just want to do the absolute bare minimum. There is a movement unofficially underway to abstain from meat on all Fridays and to be deliberate about more fasting and abstaining through the year. And I hope it catches on, because prayer does work better with fasting.

Oh ok. I think I see what you're saying.

If they are SSPX, the excommunications of that group have been lifted, so they are technically Catholic but may not have the approval of the bishop to minister in your area. If they are FSSP, a group that left the SSPX a few years ago to rejoin the Catholic Church, feel free to check them out. Both are very traditionalist, both are Catholic, but the FSSP will have the approval of the bishop if they are in your area. They will have a different liturgical emphasis that you may find appealing or not. If it's another 'Catholic' group than these two, keep them at arms length.

I am not sure what they are, just that most people did seem to keep them at an arms length.

 

[Open Heart]

I wasn't simply told to leave and never come back kicked out, but it was pretty much presented as a dichotomy of stop or leave. The reason I went in with already more than a basic knowledge was having a Catholic roommate who I discussed faith with a lot. It's not really like I had another option unless I wanted a drive I didn't have time for. The other parish in town, I've been told by my roommate and my former fellow parishioners, may or may not have been Sedevacantist.

You never should have been referred to RCIA -- it is obvious that you needed personalized attention, or even if you were in RCIA, it needed to be supplemented with individualized attention. Someone really dropped the ball, and I'm so very, very sorry.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You never should have been referred to RCIA -- it is obvious that you needed personalized attention, or even if you were in RCIA, it needed to be supplemented with individualized attention. Someone really dropped the ball, and I'm so very, very sorry.

RCIA is not specifically for a believing Protestant becoming Catholic, though that seems mostly to be what it is used for. It is designed to lead one up to baptism, then confirmation and full membership. A different model, the Inquiry Class model, if that is still used anywhere, would be better. That treats the new person as a believer just working through the last details before confirmation and full membership. My wife got neither, but went through individual meetings with a priest that lasted a few weeks. There are all sorts of people who enter and all sorts of levels of readiness. There is not a one size fits all answer to all of them even if that is how it is usually presented. RCIA can be very good at what it does, with the right leadership. It is a baptismal class for adults, and it properly lasts several months so as to get in the appropriate scrutinies and mystagogy. In this case I agree that something individualized and personal would have been much better. The ball was dropped. We are supposed to be better than that.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

My RCIA experience was a very good one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why do so many Catholics assume that if you have legitimate disagreements with the Catholic Church that you either simply received bad information or do not understand something? Is it really not possible in the mind of some Catholics that they might be wrong about something or have gone in error? I don't mean "they think they're right" cause everyone does.

A bit of a background: I am a former Inquirer who was kicked out of RCIA for what the priest said for "not understanding my place as a RCIA student" In other words, I asked too many questions our leader did not like me asking. As a result, I became not necessarily anti-Catholic, but more off-put and weary/skeptical of the Catholic Church. However, any time I ever get into a discussion with a Catholic and present a sound counterargument or counterpoint, they almost always respond by saying I either don't understand the RCC teaching or received bad information.

That also reminds me...

How common really is it for someone to get kicked out of RCIA?

It's very uncommon...I'm sorry you were treated that way-RCIA is for Inquiry. You're supposed to ask questions to overcome your doubts. I wonder, maybe, at the tone or something like that. Don't be detered by that, if you truly seek to be Catholic. Find another parish or environment where you can ask the questions you have and continue on your road.

To answer your first question, though-those of us here, Rhamiel, me, and a few others, simply trust the Church because we were once where you are-we questioned and were convinced. Maybe we had similar objections, but when it was explained in the right way, it made sense. We believe we are the Church founded by Christ, and that our faith comes directly from God's mouth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't necessarily believe that you were "kicked out" of RCIA; but if you were, it was almost certainly not for simply asking questions as a seeker and a student. You were probably rude and combative, and you probably know this. Much like on internet forums, where people go to Catholic forums and ask questions in a passive aggressive way, as if to say YOU'RE WRONG, and then claim that they were sincerely just asking questions, despite the fact that everyone else clearly saw that they were making statements rather than asking questions.

I have a friend who once (10 years ago) was told by a doctor that he needed surgery on his Achilles Tendon. My friend asked the doctor "have you done this before?" The doctor walked out of the room and never went back. I'm sure my friend asked him this question in a way which offended the doctor. Is it possible that something similar happened?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I was not being rude, and don't think I was being combative. I was trying to understand. I remember the first thing that kind of set it off was when they talked about the nature of God and they described it in such a way that came across like they were saying that they were defining God as a person in a general limiting way. I then asked just the same "Isn't that defining God as a person? What about his transcendental nature?" and they responded by saying "Who are you to argue against the likes of Augustine, Acquinis?" to which I replied "I'm not. I'm trying to understanding." They replied "You don't need to understand, you just need to believe." I just stayed quiet the rest of class that day. It was in a later session that it exploded.

Doesn't sound like an RCIA program I'd want to go to...sorry for that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I talked about what happened in the post above. It wasn't so much a class in personalities, but more I think a very authoritarian priest and someone who probably shouldn't have been teaching an RCIA class.






I know there's a lot of misinformation out there. I'm from a somewhat Evangelical background and I've heard some people say some very ignorant things about Catholicism. That makes sense that many of you guys are aware of the level of ignorance is out there and think that's part of what is going on with it.

I'd love to hear some more of your objections, if you care to talk.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sorry! I wasn't even aware that I was doing it.



So essentially, the meat thing, for example, is really more just showing as example as the bare minimum and not really supposed to be the norm? How did it get interpreted and kind of become the norm then?



I wasn't simply told to leave and never come back kicked out, but it was pretty much presented as a dichotomy of stop or leave. The reason I went in with already more than a basic knowledge was having a Catholic roommate who I discussed faith with a lot. It's not really like I had another option unless I wanted a drive I didn't have time for. The other parish in town, I've been told by my roommate and my former fellow parishioners, may or may not have been Sedevacantist.

Regarding meat, that's more of a practice we can do as penance, not a demand. If you see it as a demand, understand why you're doing it. It's a sacrifice made for Christ in sorrow for his crucifixion. My problem is that we love seafood, so fasting from meat and eating fish is something we look forward to. So I try to find fish dishes we don't enjoy too much. like just baked fish instead of going for lobster.

 

[Open Heart]

I don't generally debate with people that go to conspiracy theories for explanations of things that happened they don't like or doesn't fit into their worldview, especially in regards to organizations in which I know a lot about like my own field's organizational and governing body.

The APA decision was not based on objective science. The anus is an out hole, not an in hole. Use it wrongly and you'll end up incontinent.

 

[Michie]

Lord have mercy.

 

[badatusernames]

RCIA is not specifically for a believing Protestant becoming Catholic, though that seems mostly to be what it is used for. It is designed to lead one up to baptism, then confirmation and full membership. A different model, the Inquiry Class model, if that is still used anywhere, would be better. That treats the new person as a believer just working through the last details before confirmation and full membership. My wife got neither, but went through individual meetings with a priest that lasted a few weeks. There are all sorts of people who enter and all sorts of levels of readiness. There is not a one size fits all answer to all of them even if that is how it is usually presented. RCIA can be very good at what it does, with the right leadership. It is a baptismal class for adults, and it properly lasts several months so as to get in the appropriate scrutinies and mystagogy. In this case I agree that something individualized and personal would have been much better. The ball was dropped. We are supposed to be better than that.

Yeah, actually almost all of our RCIA class were Protestant converts.

Doesn't sound like an RCIA program I'd want to go to...sorry for that.

Thank you!

[Staff edit].

 

[SaNcTaMaRiA]

One look at natural law is enough to see that homosexuality is disordered. Anatomy as well as scripture is pretty clear that God created us man and women for a reason. God's nature has order and sodomy does not fall within that order.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but don't close your mind to the honest consideration that you could be wrong. Homosexuality is one of those subjects that people are very passionate about and rightfully so. However, when examining it in the scope of God's law we have to remove that emotion and look to what the objective truth says about it.

I have gay friends, and we tend to avoid this subject. However, they understand my stance, but also understand that I am but a humble sinner myself and would never chastise or berate them.