I have recently become interested in Buddhism as a philosophy. While I am a Catholic, believe in God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the Bible, and sacred tradition, I also find myself sharing some common beliefs with Buddhists.
I don’t consider Buddhism a religion although it’s usually classified as one. There are no God(s) or Goddess(es) in Buddhism.
I was wondering if I could be a Catholic-Buddhist without going against Catholic teaching. Any thoughts?
While I cannot for the life of me remember its source at this moment, the best Christian answer that I’ve heard to the draw of various “Eastern” non-God centered religions is to look at their ultimate object. While there is a great deal that is at least perhaps not immediately directly offensive about Buddhism, it is still problematic from a Christian perspective precisely due to its lack of God. The ultimate goal, as Buddhists have told me, is to achieve a kind of emptiness, devoid of attachment to the world or the ego. The problem with this, of course, is that such a goal does not bring one to God. Whereas Christian monks and mystics also experience a sort of detachment, it is from the life of the secular world in order to draw closer to God through a life spent in prayer and sacrifice. It is not self-centered. Through their example, the great saints of the deserts and mountains of the East have drawn others into a complete life in Christ, which is indeed the fullest life you can have. Buddhism has, at its best, drawn people into nothing.
In sum: No, you cannot, but you don’t need to be. Look to Christian traditions, not those that cannot lead to Christ. Christ is life, and anything else is not worth meddling in.
The primary belief in Buddhism is that the self does not exist. Christianity has a belief in souls, which is akin to the very belief Buddhism aims to eliminate.
I think there are elemtns and certain beliefs of Buddhism that are universally beautiful, but I don’t know enough about Buddhism to say straightfoward, and in whole
Robert Kennedy S.J. is a Jesuit priest and Zen teacher, so I presume it must be acceptable on some level.
When I was in college, oh so many decades ago, I remember seeing a book in the library whose title tickled my fancy: Zen Catholicism. it was originally published in 1963.
A recent convert to the Catholic Church, and while friendly to Tibetan Buddhism, I had no interest in Zen Buddhism so I didn’t read the book. However, it apparently was written by a former Benedictine abbot and has a nihil obstat and imprimatur… by no less than Cardinal Spellman of New York. Spellman was known as a strong conservative, being opposed to the Vatican II reforms discussed (and implemented) during his tenure.
Looking about the web, it appears that the book is regarded as very dry. Still, it’s existence suggests some level of convergence of Catholicism and Buddhism. But, as I mentioned, I haven’t read the book.
I don’t honestly know the answer to your question, but Peter Kreeft has an interesting article on Comparing Christianity and Buddhism that you may find interesting: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/religions_buddhism.htm
Does no one else find this very idea disturbing?
It veers awfully close to moral relativism and the thought that nothing is good, nothing is bad, and there are no universal truths.
No. IMO, you cannot be Catholic and Buddhist—and it doesn’t matter what individual priests might seem to believe; they would be leading others astray, which is wrong.
Yes, I find it very disturbing. I’m not blaming the poster because I think the fault lies in not being properly educated in the Catholic faith.
All religions have a philosophy. You may see Buddhism as a “philosophy” but you cannot ignore the fact there are Buddhist shrines and statues. Being Catholic and a Buddhist is like being Catholic and a Jew, Catholic and Presbyterian, Catholic and Amish.
There’s another post which asks if Catholics are committing idoltary if they have a statue of Buddha. Yes.
I have also been very surprised when a priest speaking from the pulpit discussed his interest in Buddhism.
Well, Buddhism doesn’t have a lot of common ground with Christianity in doctrine
You can’t be both Catholic and Buddhist
Blessings!!!
:):)
The problem with mixing the two is when you get to a belief like reincarnation vs. the resurrection. Only one can be true. Additionally the idea of Nirvana is significantly different from Heaven.
No. You cannot.
I don’t think that one can be both a Buddhist and a Catholic. However, that does not mean you cannot be interested in Buddhism. I don’t think that you have to identify yourself as Buddhist to enjoy and benefit from their rich teachings.
Amen.
There are no “rich teachings” to be found in Buddhism. I explored Buddhism strongly during my three years of personal apostasy, when I fell away from all Christianity. Absolutely nothing found in the Buddhist concepts of the “four noble truths”, the “eightfold noble path” and the “middle way” cannot be found in Catholic tradition and teaching, and taught in a much clearer, less ambiguous, more succinct and God-glorifying way. Buddhism is redundant at best, blasphemous at worst (since either atheism, agnosticism, or Gautama-worship will be found, and not Christ), and not necessary at all.
Like all other non-Catholic religions, it pays to stay away from it altogether. The Church gives us better than Buddhism.
It’s a bit ironic that you attack “relativism” using relative language (“awfully close”). Suppose you attack this belief for what it is rather than what it is close to?
After all, many fundamentalist Protestants think that the statement “Catholics are Christians” is 'awfully close" to moral relativism. The problem with this kind of language is that you can’t prove or refute it.
I can’t see any reason to believe that the affirmation “a person can be both Buddhist and Catholic” is morally relativist, since I can’t off the top of my head think of any moral values affirmed as good in Buddhism but condemned as evil in Catholicism, or vice versa. (Maybe you could make the argument that the Catholic understanding of faith and obedience to the Church would be considered unhealthy by Buddhists, but i can’t think of any moral values inculcated by Buddhists with which Catholicism would have a problem.) There is a difference of emphasis between the moral teaching of Buddhism and that of Catholicism (or any other form of Christianity), but not as far as I can see an outright contradiction. The disagreements come with regard to doctrine and metaphysics.
So one could make the claim that “Buddhist Catholicism” is *doctrinally *relativistic. Even then, we ought first to inquire how Buddhist Catholics understand each term. Catholic doctrine can be interpreted in various ways, and Buddhism is a far broader umbrella than Catholicism.
Don’t you think it’s better to inquire first, and then condemn in specific terms if necessary, rather than making a vague and undefinable accusation that Buddhist Catholicism is “too close to moral relativism”?
Edwin
There’s much to be interested in.
While I am a Catholic, believe in God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the Bible, and sacred tradition, I also find myself sharing some common beliefs with Buddhists.
There’s a big step from saying that you share “some” common beliefs with Buddhists (there are few people on the surface of the earth with whom I don’t share some common beliefs) to expressing a desire to call yourself a “Catholic Buddhist.”
I don’t consider Buddhism a religion although it’s usually classified as one. There are no God(s) or Goddess(es) in Buddhism.
First of all, that’s not quite true. In traditional Buddhist cosmology, there certainly are gods and goddesses, but they cannot bring salvation, and thus their worship is not a part of the Buddhist dharma properly speaking (though Buddhists may pay homage to various gods and spirits for purposes unrelated to final enlightenment, as I understand it). Furthermore, in Mahayana (and Vajyrayana) Buddhism one could argue that the buddhas and boddhisattvas are essentially gods and goddesses. Certainly the line between the two categories often seems quite thin, as when some Japanese Buddhists identify the Shinto kami Amaterasu with the Buddha Vairocana.
More to the point, why define a “religion” purely in terms of “gods and goddesses”?
There are certainly many devotional practices in Buddhism that look like what we normally call religion. The problem is that “religion” is hard to define, and some scholars (most recently and notably a scholar of Japanese culture, which may be relevant for the present discussion) have suggested that we should just stop using the term at all. But if we are going to use it, we should probably use it in a broad rather than a narrow sense, and should certainly not base theological arguments on our own rather arbitrary definition of “religion.”
The same goes the other way: conservative Christians can’t just say “obviously Buddha is an idol because he’s a figure in a non-Christian religion.” Both sides need to define just what in Buddhist belief and practice is compatible or incompatible with Christianity. I’d like to hear that argument from you–your OP is rather vague.
I was wondering if I could be a Catholic-Buddhist without going against Catholic teaching. Any thoughts?
To quote Pitti-Sing from the Mikado, “Bless you, it all depends.”
You really haven’t explained just what you mean by a “Catholic Buddhist,” so how is anyone to answer your question? (This hasn’t stopped plenty of people from trying, of course.)
Which school of Buddhist philosophy do you have in mind? Generally, the Buddhist doctrine of “no-self” is considered rather hard to reconcile with the Christian doctrine of God and of humans as made in God’s image, but I’ve heard attempts to do this based on a radically apophatic doctrine of God.
I would recommend the Buddhist section of Paul Griffiths’ Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes for some thoughtful Buddhist perspectives on this subject (and Griffiths’ introductions are helpful for a Christian perspective–Griffiths is himself a Catholic theologian and an expert on Buddhism). I find the pieces by Dharmasiri (a critique of the Christian doctrine of God from the Theravada perspective) and Masao Abe (a constructive and appreciative evaluation of the differences between Zen and Christianity and what each can learn from the other) to be particularly helpful.
Edwin
It will not, of course, in itself unite you to the Living God who is Father, Son, and holy Spirit. But most Christians throughout the centuries would be quite startled by the suggestion that detachment from selfish desire does not bring you *closer *to God, whether as a preparation for Christian faith or as a means for the sanctification of believers.
Whereas Christian monks and mystics also experience a sort of detachment, it is from the life of the secular world in order to draw closer to God through a life spent in prayer and sacrifice.
Buddhists and Christians certainly differ about what is ultimate, but each tradition recognizes (or should recognize) some value in the practices of the other.
It is not self-centered.
The fact that you consider Buddhism “self-centered” shows not only how little you understand it, but how little you understand what you said above about Buddhists practicing detachment from ego.
A religion whose most basic teaching is that we have no self is hardly “self-centered”! One could make a much better case that Christianity is self-centered (though that wouldn’t be fair either), because many Christians believe that individual salvation is the primary goal of Christianity.
In sum: No, you cannot, but you don’t need to be. Look to Christian traditions, not those that cannot lead to Christ. Christ is life, and anything else is not worth meddling in.
But if all things are created in Christ and hold together in Christ, this statement is meaningless, because there isn’t “anything else.” There are defects and imperfections in created things (particularly those created by humans, such as religions) which lead us away from Christ. But all that is was made by and in and through and for Christ.
Edwin
So because you–by your own present belief not in a very healthy spiritual state at the time–didn’t find these teachings in three short years, you are sure they don’t exist? Wouldn’t you consider this a frivolous claim if someone made it about Catholicism?
Like all other non-Catholic religions, it pays to stay away from it altogether…
When it comes to matters of truth, beauty, and goodness (the things that really matter), only a hireling stops to ask if the inquiry will “pay.”
Edwin
As a former Tibetan Buddhist turned Catholic, my view:
Buddhism is too big and diverse to be discussed without reference to the specific schools and practices involved. Some practices and beliefs conflict, some don’t, some might seem to conflict but can be reconciled legitimately in your own mind. If you are exploring notions of interdependence or emptiness as philosophical concepts or useful ways to think about problems, there probably isn’t any conflict. If you aren’t a practicing Buddhist (by which I mean taking refuge vows), you probably aren’t in direct conflict.
There are certain doctrines found in many Buddhists traditions that directly conflict as well as certain general principles that you will need to choose among. The big ones will be glaringly obvious: rebirth, the lack of belief in an unchanging Creator, vs the divinity of Christ and salvation through Him, etc. On these, you need to fall on the side of Catholicism to be Catholic.