So after after much consideration over the past year I had started RCIA in September. I have attended three Masses and three classes and I am loving everything about the Catholic Faith. I’ve read the Catechism, This is the Faith and am half-way through a short history of the Catholic Church. My reading of the Catechism came up in my third RCIA class. The fellow teaching that night started talking about how faith is more of a felt thing not a learned experience and then one of the other teachers turned to me and said I was reading into the Faith too much and needed to rely on my feelings. Then the other guy teaching that night launched into how he was probably beating a dead horse about my reading the Catechism but I need to feel the faith not read about it. I came home in tears. Reading the Catechism was a very hard but fulfilling thing for me and it felt like I was looked down upon for trying to read about the Catholic faith and not just trust my gut as it were. I don’t have a passionate, born again faith in God and never really have but I feel great comfort in learning about the Catholic faith and can believe based upon what I have read and understood. Is my faith wrong? Do I not have what it takes to be a Catholic? I’ve always thought the Catholic faith was more of a learned theological thing and not a born again christian feeling. I thought it was about learning and understanding and grasping for more than just a feeling. I’m so lost right now.
Chances are that they felt threatened. When I was in RCIA in the 90s, I got in a theological argument with the priest (he said that God didn’t have perfect foreknowledge/eternal knowledge of our actions because if He did the actions wouldn’t be free), and I cited the Catechism to him. His response was that the Catechism was really for bishops to read, not for laypeople or even parish priests:shrug:.
In your place, I’d have been tempted to say something snarky like, “Why exactly am I here then instead of joining the Pentecostals or the Mormons?”
But it’s good that you didn’t–you are more virtuous than I am

.
That being said, I have come to realize that one problem with my attempts to become Catholic in the 90s
was that I approached the matter in too cerebral a way. I had a conversation some years ago with a friend who is a Thomist philosopher and a very traditional Catholic, and he told me that it seemed to him that I approached Catholicism as if it was a matter of solving historical/theological puzzles, rather than as a matter of knowing and loving Jesus. At least he said something to that effect (I may be paraphrasing him a bit wrong), and it startled me because he is one of the most intellectual, analytical people I know (he’s a Thomist for a reason!). Also, we were talking about similar if vaguer things that another Thomist friend had said to me.
I was in flight from the emotionalism of my (quasi-Pentecostal) Holiness heritage. I thought I could defend what I was doing best if I made it a matter of pure reason. But it wasn’t and isn’t–it never is.
I am now at a place in my life where I
do think that following Jesus very probably involves becoming Catholic. And I think I was convinced of this back in the 90s, but I was such a conflicted person back then, so convinced of the sinfulness and worthlessness of my own intuitions, that I didn’t talk about it that way. I talked about it as if Catholicism were a magic bullet that would give me secure answers to my intellectual questions, instead of a way of following Jesus.
It may be, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that your RCIA directors sense something similar in you, and if so perhaps you should listen. But it may also be that they simply don’t want to have to deal with theological complexity. Even if this last it he case, God may still be saying something to you through them. I don’t know you so of course I am in no position to say that this is true. That certainly doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read the Catechism, of course.
Edwin