A question for those who were raised Catholic

[JustaServant]

Okay, I’m exhausted, so this will be my last post for awhile.

I’m sorry and beg forgiveness for using the loaded term brainwashed in my OP. It was an unfortunate choice of word, conjuring up visions of Naziism and its ilk, and had no place on this forum. I promise to be more circumspect in future.


Thank you for all your responses, even the one that implied I’m a fool …

No apology needed for me. I don’t think I called you a fool (how’s that old song go? "Everybody plays the fool…?)
The problem with your argument was the basis of it:


Happens to us all.

 

[Prague]

Brainwashed! Absolutely Not! In my senior year of high school, way back in 1963 the priest that taught our religion class sent us all out to check out other faiths.
We attended many services of different faiths throughout the nine months. Methodist, Baptists of different types, Episcopaleans, LDs, Jewish services, and so on.
Then the priest would have the ministers etc. come to class so we could discuss their faiths.B

Best year of High School I ever had, and it did solidify my faith as a Catholic.
God Bless that priest.

 

[Windfish]

Speaking for myself, I was raised Catholic but carefully considered other religions and world views before I “reverted” to Catholicism. I even considered atheism but found that its existential and philosophical consequences were absurd. In any case, why believe anything? Because it’s true. Catholicism (i.e., Christianity) is true.

 

[LittleSoldier]

We are as stuck, LittleSoldier, in aything only to the degree we wish to be. The OP has already expressed regret at using that term and has moved on. Can’t you? In crtical thinking we try to see beyond snags that would inhibit a clear picture of what is intended. We read between the lines as well as the overt statement. So, we can get caught up in an emotional flag, or get on with business.

You and others on here remind me of the two monks who met a young woman at a river crossing. The older monk picked her up and and courteously carryed her across the torrent, and set her down, dry, on the other side. A few miles down the road the younger monk remonstrated that their order did not allow touching women. The older monk replied "I put that woman down at the edge of the stream; you are still carrying her!’

Unfortunately I missed that post by the OP. So I will move on. Of all the posts to miss, that’s the one! I was up all night and somehow that post went right by me, large letters and all.

My apologies to the OP and everyone else, my appreciation for the OP’s statement (and she is not a fool), and I will put the woman down (the way I’m going I will probably put her down in the river).

Maybe I’ll get some sleep tonight!

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Of course not. I object to being called a fool, corrupt, or have my ways labelled as ‘abominable’. Do you believe that no atheist in the history of the world has done any good? Talk about extremism! (And another reason atheists don’t put much stock in the morality of the Bible).

Just so everyone is clear. No one outright called the OP a fool. It was a quote from the Bible.

 

[Stoutgig]

I agree with others who understand the value of the question being raised here. I’ve never thought of my Catholic faith as brainwashing, but rather as a birthright. Like being born into a royal family.

To comment on your points, I’d start in Exodus when God instructs the Israelites to teach their children the history of what God has done for them. He does not say to teach them the pagan religions alongside their religion because there is only one Truth and God is not going to support the teaching of false religions. In fact, He makes a lot of effort to keep the Israelites from encountering those false religions. And we all know how that ended…

Likewsie today, parents are not going to teach their children beliefs which are false (and this is applied to any faith group). So, naturally as you point out the children are going to align with the beliefs of their parents. However, is this brainwashing? Not at all. As we all know, children eventually leave home and are challenged by what they encounter in their respective culture. Some people don’t care enough to investigate, others fall at the first challenge of their beliefs, others, however, take the challenge headon. They want to know their faith so they can feel secure they are where they should be and to defend those who question their beliefs.

There is a large anti-Catholic sentiment in America (despite our large numbers) and I agree with others who have said that we are here because we’ve study and believe that we are in the one true church of Chist. I guess my point is that Catholics are tested constantly so your choices for survival are as follows: 1. Don’t let anyone know you’re Catholic so they won’t ask you questions, 2. Someone asks you a question you can’t answer so you leave the Church, 3. Know your stuff so you can have a ready defense for anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.

 

[antroji]

I like your option 3, Stoutgig, though the “brainwashing” issue was dealt with some time back and dropped even by the OP. And the issue still isn’t the verity of our Church. It is about the process of acquisition of belief, which appears to be identical regardless of culture, time, place, or of the beliefs involved. We could be talking about How I Came To Eat What I Eat, but this is a forum on philosophy, primarily Catholic.

Once we are aware of and understand the process of acquisition of beliefs, then we might more usefully and competently treat of which belief is superior to, inclusive of, not relevant to, etc, someone else’s. Right now this is a question about an observed phenomenon made public note of by a poster, albeit with the appearance of an emotional slant in its original but since changed form. So far no one has made any contributing observations of significance relative to that observation, other than that some agree it happens.

There are books written about this subject, and pertinent ideas and principles, but none of those have been noted here. If I was the OP and got the barrage sent her way on here, I’d wonder what the heck are people thinking? This isn’t about being Catholic or not. And if you exclude the process of examining other religions, Stoutgig, you exclude it for non-Catholics as well. We Catholics are only about 1/4 of the world’s population, and not all strling examples, either, you might agree, even excluding recent bad press. So what do you propose for the other 3/4 if they are not to look? And then, there are, of course, all those 400+ exoplanets just in our galaxy and even unto the universe beyond the 13 billion light year radius we now see to. How many souls are out there that might not think or believe as we do, and yet perhaps acquire their beliefs in a way similar to our process? It is a fascinating thought experiment, eh? What is the spiritual significance of how a mind acquires a belief, and how can that belief be altered to favor the propensities of Soul?

 

[crowonsnow]

I like your option 3, Stoutgig, though the “brainwashing” issue was dealt with some time back and dropped even by the OP. And the issue still isn’t the verity of our Church. It is about the process of acquisition of belief, which appears to be identical regardless of culture, time, place, or of the beliefs involved. We could be talking about How I Came To Eat What I Eat, but this is a forum on philosophy, primarily Catholic.

Once we are aware of and understand the process of acquisition of beliefs, then we might more usefully and competently treat of which belief is superior to, inclusive of, not relevant to, etc, someone else’s. Right now this is a question about an observed phenomenon made public note of by a poster, albeit with the appearance of an emotional slant in its original but since changed form. So far no one has made any contributing observations of significance relative to that observation, other than that some agree it happens.

There are books written about this subject, and pertinent ideas and principles, but none of those have been noted here. If I was the OP and got the barrage sent her way on here, I’d wonder what the heck are people thinking? This isn’t about being Catholic or not. And if you exclude the process of examining other religions, Stoutgig, you exclude it for non-Catholics as well. We Catholics are only about 1/4 of the world’s population, and not all strling examples, either, you might agree, even excluding recent bad press. So what do you propose for the other 3/4 if they are not to look? And then, there are, of course, all those 400+ exoplanets just in our galaxy and even unto the universe beyond the 13 billion light year radius we now see to. How many souls are out there that might not think or believe as we do, and yet perhaps acquire their beliefs in a way similar to our process? It is a fascinating thought experiment, eh? What is the spiritual significance of how a mind acquires a belief, and how can that belief be altered to favor the propensities of Soul?

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. There is obviously a survival advantage here. That children so readily acquire the beliefs of their protectors and parents and the society in which they are born isn’t something that is consciously decided. It’s automatic, as you say. It could be numerology or having a favorite color.

Natural selection decides the degree to which these acquired beliefs befit the environment in which they occur, and is constantly testing their suitability. About all we can say with certainty is that belief acquisition is a good thing because it gives a survival advantage. The beliefs themselves are another question. And of course, a resource rich environment will spawn and support a much more diverse range of beliefs than an impoverished one, leading to the false conclusion that some beliefs are superior to others. Our common notion of racism for example is easily understood once the roots of inequality are identified. It’s just much easier to believe we are superior in some way.

 

[antroji]

Good points CrowOnSnow. And I am sure that the commensurate need to be right is a mechanism to reduce inner conflict so that one can deal with the world and live. It is akin to the biological imperative for self preservation, but is mental.

But as you say, or imply, beliefs are parochial. They function in the family, the neighborhood, or whatever group on is part of. But what happens when we meet someone from a different set of requirements for survival than our own? It takes radically different skills and perspectives to survive as an Eskimo that a Tuareg than a Seminole, than a Celt, than a Polynesian, etc, etc.

I remember reading about a man who hired a helper in the Congo to do some scientific work. The helper threw up in the jeep because he had never traveled faster than a run and his senses were addled. And then he asked, once on top of a high place, how it could be that there were animals so tiny as the ones he now saw on the plain. He had no perspective competent of distance, as he had never seen father than about 300 feet in his home forest. They had to drive him down to the herd to convince him that they were full sized animal. The poor fellow was in a state.

So it is little wonder that we knock heads about what is “true.” Our local experiential truth and its assumptions may be radically different than someone else’s! That may not have mattered so much in ancient times, but now we have easy contact with about any place on the globe, and darned if we don’t have to deal with folks a heck of a lot different than us.

But of course, our way is right. We just forget that it is right for us where and when we are. We might die in Polynesia, the Arctic, or the Sahara. Along with that comes all the weight of momentum of dealing with the ideas of cultures extremely competent of survival in those places where our ignorance would be deadly to us without help. We just don’t have the tools to get along somewhere else so different.

Yet we expect that our traditions, even Catholicism, will be self evident to someone else! Well, I’m guessing that they think the same about their Shintoism, Cargo Cult, or local deities. So how do we communicate?

It can’t be by claims of being right by dint of authority/ies completely foreign to the subject of our interest. So maybe we might ask what is fundamentally common to us all. Not from the perspective of our Faith, but from experience. And what is that one irrefutable commonality, before you start talking about Soul, or Sonship, or Jesus?

 

[Big_Dummy]

The OP is overlooking some facts,

In Jurnor High students tends to question everything and debate religion among other things.

People do change religions based on their personal research into other traditions.

If people were brainwashed, there would not be those freedom of choices.

 

[crowonsnow]

The OP is overlooking some facts,

In Jurnor High students tends to question everything and debate religion among other things.

People do change religions based on their personal research into other traditions.

If people were brainwashed, there would not be those freedom of choices.

Not sure the OP overlooked that but certainly that behavior wherein our beliefs are malleable confers an even greater survival advantage. There are numerous examples of cultures unable to adapt that disappeared.

Of course they really didn’t disappear, they are us.

 

[Joe_5859]

I can only speak for myself, but I was definitely not conditioned to be skeptical about my society. In England we were all raised to to believe that our elders – in the church, in parliament, and in our families – knew what was best. It was mainly through reading as a teenager that I began to question things.

Conditioning is not limited exclusively to early childhood. Teenagers and even adults are susceptible to the blowing winds of shifts in cultural thoughts. Not that I’m accusing you or anything, just pointing out that it’s possible.

Absolutely. I believe that someone who switches his or her beliefs as a free adult is more objective, because that person has seen more than one side of the argument.

So the only way for someone who is raised Catholic to be objective is to switch religions? I disagree. I actually find that a tad insulting. One can seek to understand others viewpoints and even do so successfully without having to buy into them. All you need is a bit of intellectual honesty.

 

[Philthy]

Everyone is different. Some adults are able to cast off childhood indoctrination and come to other conclusions. Others cannot.

All can cast it off IMHO, some simply choose - as adults - not to.

BTW, haven’t you ever heard anyone say: “I was raised to believe that ___ is wrong!” It’s a revealing choice of words, don’t you think?

Yes and No. To a certain extent we are all dependent upon the experience and wisdom of others in forming attitudes about moral issues. After all, not all issues can be objectively agreed upon - just look at the political climate in the US right now in the context of the question of how much tax should each individual pay. Such expressions provide a platform for discussion without saying outright one opinion is correct and the other is wrong.
In the end the point remains the same: an upbringing provides a structural format for discipline and shaping an individual to a cultural norm. All children need this. At some point in their development most people sort out what they believe: often they don’t drift very far from the culture they were raised in because there is much good in virtually all cultures. Sometimes they drift in a different direction. This can happen for a variety of reasons.
All things considered, I believe I remain fairly objective and I was raised Catholic. I wonder if you find it difficult to accept that someone would be objectively drawn to the Catholic faith since you now reject Christianity.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

I believe that someone who switches his or her beliefs as a free adult is more objective, because that person has seen more than one side of the argument.

The fact that someone switches their beliefs does not mean that the person is more objective: it simply means they have explored both sides and decided they were either wrong about something or perhaps that something different is now influencing the choice they are making.
Similarly one who does not change their beliefs is not prevented from seeing both sides of the argument as you imply. They may, of course, not be truly open to the possibility of changing their beliefs, but they also may be open and after considering all the facts remain convinced of their long held beliefs.
You appear to have a bias regarding the objectivity of people who remain faithful IMHO.

Blessings!

 

[Crash001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash001

Plain and simple…this is just a ‘silly question’.

Why?

I hate to make this seem so black and white, but this is a silly quesiton because there is nothing about the Catholic faith that “forces indoctrination or forces someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs.”

I didn’t ask before, but what were you hoping peoples answers would be?

Beyond that definition, anything more seems “to me” that it is splitting hairs. Parents teach children, Teachers teach children, everyone in society teaches children (my children) through their travels, the various cultures/sub-cultures, etc., but I wouldn’t consider them brainwashing my children anymore than the catholic Church.

Sure, there are teachers that are conservative or liberal and make it known in their class through their “teachings”, but I wouldn’t consider these teachers brainwashing my kids, just “emphasizing” their points of view. The role of parent(s) is to help children interpret their comments and make decisions of their own.

Sorry for being defensive, but if teaching kids to “Love their neighbor” more than anything else is considered brainwashing, then it’s a pretty good thing the catholic Church does in my mind.

I do appreciate seeing all of the other responses though, as its good to see the various opinions on the subject.

 

[antroji]

Good points, Crash001. Yet it seems to me that there is an underlying question of some importance in Joan’s original post, regardless of whatever emotional or dogmatic associations are triggered. Stated too briefly and probably too succinctly, it is this:

If we know about ourselves that the mind of any human being absorbs a habitual viewpoint on a spectrum of matters, and some of those have a critical bearing on the outcome of one’s life relative to an afterlife, political stance, or any major life issue, is it not incumbent on anyone who knows that to discover the accuracy, validity, or truth of their seemingly arbitrarily acquired standpoint by a rigorous examination that may include ideas, dynamics, and information now foreign to their perspective and practice as there are tools available for examining them impartially?

We seem to be impressed with the importance of spreading the Word as we understand it. Muslims and others are equally and in some cases more militantly invested in doing exactly that as well, but from their perspective. How do we all back off from the picture and make some Universally applicable assessments that would allow a standard that yields a facility in changing from a habituated structure to one that is more in tune with Reality? Is that not a question that is of interest to anyone on here?

For example, there are structural differences in our language which make subtle ideas in play at the time Jesus taught nearly impossible to translate, if for no other reason than that we don’t “get” the actual reference. One of these, for example, is that in many Middle Eastern teachings, the Jewish people being part of that scene, the word “I” can have a drastically different denotation than what we ordinarily use in every day speech. So if Jesus says “I,” which of those is He using? Does He mean “me” referring to His Person, or is He, likely being familiar with such things, using the other meaning? If He is not referring to His Person, could that change the meaning of things as we commonly understand them? Many authors in the West have addressed such a question, and I’ll bet it isn’t even commonly known of.

It may not matter to any of us who are fine with simply absorbing and practicing the Church’s teaching and who find it efficacious in our lives, as I know we do. But some of us are curious to a more subtle degree and such questions are both a source of wonder and of subtle satisfaction in their aspects. And I think that that is where, albeit clumsily, the OP’s actual question lies.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

My eyes! Please, Unity, can you stick to a dark colour, I had a hard time reading that.

With regards to the sabbath, the commandment is quite clear.

Exodus 20 (NJB)

Notice the bolded part. It doesn’t say: You may only do some work. It’s an absolute command, which is why practicing Jews take it very seriously. Look up Numbers 15:32.

As for your comments about many people not being real Christians, well, that’s an accusation often made about Catholics by protestants.

And again, I’m being dragged off topic …

Like I have said, if you actually had come to church, you will know that Christians are not obliged to perform Jewish laws anymore, if you read the book of Romans, your eyes will actually be opened. And why just stop at the Sabath, Seven day adventist seem to love the idea of drag out a particular thing they like the the Old Testament and try to apply it. Why don’t we also follow the Jewish dietary or the Jewish custom of circumcision? Why just stop at the Sabath day?

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Look, my problem with your whole brainwashing scenario is that you’ve made two mistakes in logic:

1. By asking us if we’ve considered that we might have been brainwashed, you’re essentially asking us to prove we haven’t been. That is, you are asking us to prove a negative.

You mean in the same way that atheists are asked to prove that God doesn’t exist?

Anyway, I didn’t ask you to ‘prove’ you haven’t been indoctrinated. I only asked if you ever suspected you might have been, based on the fact that people of all faiths (not just Christians) were usually raised with that faith. Another way for me to ask would be: do you believe that Muslims, Hindus, JW’s, practicing Jews, etc. have come to their faith through logic, or simply because of the way they were raised?

1. Suggesting we may have been brainwashed sounds like the fallacy of “poisoning the well.” Regardless of what arguments we give, it can be claimed such arguments stem from our being brainwashed.

I question the way I was raised all the time, and I often wonder if I really believe based on my experiences and logic, or if I was simply indoctrinated. It’s an ongoing process.

If you want to argue against Christianity, give us some logical arguments. As for me, logic tells me Christianity is either true or it isn’t (going by the law of non-contradiction), regardless of whether one is raised to believe it or not. So suggesting we believe it’s true most likely because we were raised that way is incredibly weak.

You’ll notice I made the same suggestion about Muslims, Hindus, JW’s, practicing Jews, etc. And I would make the same suggestion about Republicans, Democrats, communists, anarchists, Buddhists, etc. Any strongly held belief system that is passed on from generation to generation should be questioned in this way.

Did it ever occur to you we might believe Christianity is true based upon logic? I suggest you read Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli’s *Handbook of Christian Apologetics and then come back here and try to refute the arguments in that book, including their 20 arguments for the existence of God. Lest you think the authors are arguing Christianity is true because they were brainwashed by their upbringing, I should point out that Kreeft is also the author of *Socratic Logic, *a textbook which is currently in its third edition.

*These include “The Argument from Change,” “The Argument from Efficient Causality,” “The Argument from Time and Contingency,” “The Argument from Degrees of Perfection,” “The Design Argument,” and “The Argument from Contingency.” The authors also include objections to these arguments, objections which they soundly refute.

I haven’t spent my life living on a mountaintop in Tibet. I’ve spent most of my life living in overwhelmingly Christian countries (England and Canada). I have heard the arguments. I don’t find them convincing.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Would you let your children decide for themselves whether to play in the street or not? Or eat whatever they want to?

No, but then people of all faiths can agree that playing in the street or eating junk food is a bad thing. Religion is less clear, as our world proves.

One could argue that a child is in the religion which God wants them to be in because of birth.

Is that true of Muslims and Hindus also? Would you not want to convert them because that would be contravening God’s will?

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

But you base your conclusion on who is more objective only on those who switch their beliefs! What about those who argue, contemplate, study, and research yet remain fully satisfied with their original beliefs? They are certainly as objective as those who have switched their beliefs!

Perhaps. But without being able to look into the day-to-day details of someone’s life, it’s impossible to know how much they have contemplated, studied and researched other faiths. And I would ask you if you would argue such a point if we were talking about Muslims and Hindus instead of Christians?