It seems to me that though Joan of Bark (great handle!) used what for many is an emotionally loaded word, she brings up an important point. That point is the question of habituation by osmosis. (Yes, you might have used a less emotional and more accurate word, Joan. Brainwashing implies forcible mental change in someone who already has a particular mindset. Might you be flavored with a bit of anger?) It is, as well, a point that anyone conducting a sincere interior survey would naturally question about, I would think, as a point of epistemology/cosmology. Apparently many on here have similar considerations. Wow. Joan has a brain.
That means that habituated answers won’t wash in her case, I would suspect, not if she is honest with herself and our replies. And she is right. Does anyone out there in forum land have a clear grasp of any non-Christian religion or philosophy, or any understanding of the dynamics of self-inquiry, witnessing, linguistics, study of the Bible as literature/history, comparative religions/philosophies, boolean logic as applied to language, history of the Church from both Faith and secular viewpoints, theories of meaning, translation, communication, phenomenology, the nature of collections, abstracting, process, uniqueness, general semantics, critical thinking, emotional loading, etc, etc. Would we put our children through such courses so they could decide for themselves? Hmmmm. If they are lucky, lol! Even if they won catechism contests.
But those are a few areas of considerations and disciplines that I can think of offhand that would apply to a sincere study of what the other 2/3+ of the world, from the non-dualists to the cargo cultists consider to be valid, at least, if not true world views. They would apply equally as well to any belief system, social, secular, scientific, cultural, political, or whatever, not just religious. If we don’t do what Joan is doing, I feel we hazzard being remiss in our examinations of conscience, which, after all, means “with knowing.”
And please, that is not a criticism or slam on the Church; it is not. It is in support of looking at where we come from, how, and why. Anyone who espouses what they believe just because they grew up that way might be diminishing their appreciation of what they claim to stand for. You say you thought long and hard about being a Catholic? You think other folks, from other beliefs, even atheists, don’t? Are we completely and consciously aware of what filters and assumptions we incorporate in our thinking? Do we know that there are about 100 common fallacies in thinking that are rampant in everyday speech, the media, conversations, etc? And that doesn’t include the tendency of the human mind to try to make itslef right in its current possition at almost any cost. Why do we think it often takes a shock to get people out of a rut?
Naturally, as we grow up in a family, we socialize to that bit of culture. That is good. We increase our chance of survival that way! Some of us stay there mentally, wherever/whenever we were born, and others–one way or another–“get” that there is a bigger world than our block and our neighbors and Fox news. Consider the deep field photos from the Hubble. Knowing another language and traveling get us over some of that pretty soon as well, unless we are thick.
Wherever you end up, Joan, as a Catholic or whatever, I would point to you as someone who at least honestly earned where they arrived, instead of being there by default–default of lack of inquiry. Kudos, and if you end up honestly here in the Church, you will be that much stronger. And IMHO, you won’t go to hell for being honest and diligent. Au contrair.