14 Comments:

• Man, Publius... why do you have to be all thoughtful 'n' shit about issues near and dear to my heart while I'm running late on the first day of school!?!?!
  
  I am Catholic. I disagree strongly with some of the church teachings. Yet my IDENTITY as a Catholic makes it more complicated than it might seem to reject the religion outright, even though I thoughtfully disagree with the church. Currently I cannot handle the hypocrisy of disagreeing and still practicing, so I am not going to church right now, but I am losing a great deal of my spiritual expression of self by not experiencing mass. I'm in the middle of this dilemma. I'll post on my blog as I wrestle with it, but I'm currently stagnant. The issue for me is that I do find spiritual value in the faith practices, so it's extremely difficult for me to reject the religious institution outright. If I didn't find a great deal of value in the spiritual side of all my religion, it would be a lot easier for me to reject. The religion has helped center me, has helped me learn to be more caring toward others, has helped me develop values of social justice, has helped me appreciate other faith practices, has humbled me, has helped me feel like we all have the responsibility to use our talents and skills to make the world a better place, and so forth. I am not ready to abandon my religion, but I am not willing to agree with all of it's teachings. I'm currently stuck.

  By  BrightStar (B*), at 8:48 AM  

• Sorry to be so inconveniently interesting :)
  
  It sounds like your situation is precisely what I had in mind when I was attempting to describe the problem. I had someone else in mind when I was writing it, but I'm glad it seemed to represent your problem.
  
  I have a somewhat unusual religious upbringing, since my parents stopped going to church fairly early but my mother was very religious. I didn't discover until college that she had a very Catholic attitude about religion that she had transmitted to me. I joined the Church for a time, but my intellectual qualms drove me a away from it - its stands on social policy in particular, as well as its very authoritarian structure.
  
  I hope I wasn't offensive in any way. I'm honestly not trying to bash churches in general. I'm very supportive of religous faith, generally. The whole point of my post is to express sympathy with the conflicts church membership can cause people.

  By  Arbitrista, at 9:21 AM  

• Thanks for the compelling topic, Publius. My political science department is in the process of discussing exactly this issue at the moment (a colleague is taking your position that religion and reason don't easily mix). So, perhaps I can offer some help to both you and brightstar.
  
  I have discerned two dominant theories about how the world works. I call them the relationship theory and the information theory. The relationship theory argues that individuals are inherently incapable of affecting positive change in the world without a relationship with God (God is the cause, people and the world are the effect). Thus, any person must seek a good relationship with God, and through God with other people. These relationships provide the foundation for taking any positive action. Without those relationships, positive action is impossible.
  
  The information theory argues that individuals are inherently capable of affecting both positive and negative change depending on the information gathered about the world around us. Accurate, complete information will help us implement positive change (we call it competence), while inaccurate or incomplete information leads to negative change and destruction. The proper use of good information depends on one's ability to properly understand it, and on one's good intentions.
  
  Organized religions are very good at providing relationships where few or none would exist. But their implicit assumption of human incompetence leads to the appeal to authority (based on the idea of original sin). In contrast, what we can call "spirituality" is very good at keeping you open to good information, and helping you maintain a good will that allows you to use information toward positive ends. All of the sciences are based on the assumption of the inherent worth of good information.
  
  So, if I were a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or part of any other religion, I would go to church for the relationships supported by rituals. I would not, however, listen uncritically to everything that the priest or Imam says, because I don't believe in original sin or inherent human incompetence.
  
  Hope that helps.

  By  Marriah, at 11:18 AM  

• A clarification, which doesn't really detract from your point. Not everything the Pope says is considered infallible. Also, it's, ahh, interesting to look at the history of Papal infallibility. The idea wasn't really bandied around until circa 1000 or so, and wasn't codified until Vatican I in the late 1800s. Furthermore, I don't belive that the Pope will decry evolution ex Cathedra.
  
  That aside though, your point (and B*'s) stands as to how one reacts when one's religion creates dogma to which one is completely opposed. (My bona fides: 'happily' practicing American-style Catholic.) I agree with a great deal of the Church's social policy. Most people forget all the parts about charitable works, peacefulness, and mercy. As to the outdated, sexist, and judgmental parts of dogma, with only minor qualms, I reject them. I practice the exact kind of dogmatic cherry-picking that priests hate.
  
  I have very little qualms about doing so. It's a human institution with human errors, as the history of the church attests time and time again. A thousand years ago, someone saying Mass in Latin would have been a heretic, perhaps a dogmatic cherry-picker himself. Yet today we would view that person as a maverick, making church teachings accessible to commoners. Then there's the whole excommunication of Galileo. I'm not sure that history won't judge current practices any differently (e.g., the priests excommunicated for ordaining women).
  
  So to get back to your question, I guess there's a number of things one could do. Robotically following the "new" teachings is not a viable option for intellectuals (I claim). One could get fed up with it all and ignore religion entirely. One could nail a manifesto to the door of one's local church and found a new religion. One could leave the Church and seek out one more in line with one's beliefs (a practice that's not so different from dogmatic cherry-picking to an individual). One could stay, seethe, and clamor for change. Or one could shrug, throw up one's hands in disgust at the old 'fallible man' thing, and go back to practicing that faith that one believes.
  
  The latter choice is mine, obviously, but I can only pursue that path predicated on the belief that the Catholic Church, while making some wrong decisions, will never become antithetical to what I believe in. Ask me again after the Church (hypothetically) declares women should not hold jobs, nonbelievers should be forcibly converted, and declares non-white males unfit for heaven. That is to say, I haven't considered where my breaking point is on dogma.

  By  sheepish, at 11:41 AM  

• “…part of church doctrine says that the Pope is always right.” I never believed this after I first read about the Borgia Pope. I even asked a priest about it but, since it was during confirmation classes, I didn’t really get a satisfactory answer. It was the beginning of my breaking away from the religion with which I was raised.
  
  I’m with Sheepish, as far as “I practice the exact kind of dogmatic cherry-picking that priests hate.” But after going through a few different stages, I chose a different option than he did.
  
  “One could get fed up with it all and ignore religion entirely.” That’s me. But, just a reminder, faith and religion are not the same things.
  
  I also went through B*’s stage. I was very unhappy not having a place and a “group”, so to speak, within which to practice my faith. And, again like Sheepish, I felt there was much in the Catholic Church of value. I still do.
  
  I wasn’t completely comfortable with giving up formal religion until I had a slight change of perspective. I do believe in Heaven and Hell, and have my own ideas of what they entail. And I didn’t feel that only members of a particular religion were going to Heaven. So, what was the point, then, of following any particular one?
  
  And, at first, my view was that none of them had gotten everything figured out exactly right. Now, though, even while I still believe that, I tend to think that many of them have gotten some very important things right which are just handled differently, or not at all, by the others. So, again, I cherry pick.
  
  But, to tell you the truth, my faith is not so very dependent on teachings of any kind. It’s a very simple faith. And I like it that way. So, finally I am very much at peace with my decision to just make my faith as much a part of my daily life as I can and not participate in any formal religious practices.
  
  However, unlike you, Publius, I do have some major issues with the Catholic Church that stir me to anger and tempt me every now and then to bash it. I do recognize that this is very personal reaction and try to keep it under control. But I have to admit that it does sometime get away from me. I guess I feel entitled, as a former Catholic, as we feel entitled about talking of our family. Still, I do try very hard not to give in to it.
  
  I don’t mean to offend anyone either, and I certainly am not interested in trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. But I find it so very sad the way religion has become so tangled these days into politics and, even more horrifying, terror. It seems so obvious to me that this is not the way that faith is meant to be used.

  By  Rebecca, at 1:52 PM  

• This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  By  Rebecca, at 2:01 PM  

• Oh, I get very angry with the Church too - primarily where it's social policy is actively harmful to the world. "Condoms help spread AIDS" comes to mind. I get angry at my university or my country some times, but that doesn't mean I don't want to be part of them. It's all a question of what the tipping point is. That's a personal issue. Getting back to Publius's original point, for an evolutionary biologist, perhaps dogmatic embrace of creationism would be that point. For someone else, maybe it would be something different.

  By  sheepish, at 2:36 PM  

• Attorneys have a similar struggle. Where does an attorney draw the line on issues such as abortion and capital punishment and Church teachings? Suppose a prosecutor is charged with a death penalty case. Will the Church forbid Communion because he or she chooses to stay on the case?
  
  I have struggled with my Catholic upbringing for as long as I can remember. I am what they call a "cafeteria Catholic". I agree and disagree with many of the Church teachings. I have considered other faith, but worry about possible excommunication from family.

  By  Seeking Solace, at 8:28 PM  

• This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  By  Seeking Solace, at 8:28 PM  

• I haven't had time to read all the comments, but I'll just chime in that some intellectual Catholics I know have recourse to those intellectual founding fathers of the church you mention, while distancing themselves from the current papal administration. (I suppose their position is similar to Sheepish's.) But I know that it's not easy for them to do so.

  By  kermitthefrog, at 9:52 PM  

• Kermit: My problem with the founding church fathers is that they're all spectacularly authoritarian about social issues.
  
  Seeking Solace: Yeah, I suspect family is frequently a major reason that people don't break with faiths with which they are now uncomfortable.
  
  Sheepish: I'll admit I find it odd that a lot of people adhere to the "cafeteria" style of religion, when said religion is by nature very exclusive and doctrinaire. There's a reason it drives priests nuts.

  By  Arbitrista, at 8:01 AM  

• Your main point is the primary reason I turned my back (for lack of a better term) on forms of Christianity and other organized religions.
  
  I don't know who said it (I'm thinking it was Jesus) but, I think it applies - do what you know in your heart to be true. My theory is that if people would follow this advice, we wouldn't be having these silly conversations.
  
  Oh, not that your topic is silly, it isn't...neither is the discussion you've created...
  
  *off to soak my head*

  By  Penguin, at 11:09 AM  

• I don't think a religion exists whose entire canon I agree with. Given that, and given that (while very private about it) I prefer to practice my faith in a communal setting, what choice do I have?

  By  sheepish, at 11:45 AM  

• Not much, Sheepish. I looked and looked for a very long while. Although, I have to admit that it was not the communal setting that was so important to me. It was looking forward to being spiritually engaged by the sermons. When I was starting to become spiritually enraged, instead, I had to leave.
  
  I love talking about my faith, but there are so few people I feel comfortable doing so with - even within my own family. So I can think of nothing I'd enjoy more than hearing a wonderful sermon, great readings and lovely music and then discussing it all afterward like a great movie. I'm very disappointed that I can't have that. But I just figure, for right now, anyway, I'm meant to do this one on one.

  By  Rebecca, at 4:40 PM  

Post a Comment
<< Home