Dear BluesPicker,
Thank you for the quotes.
This is the normal pattern, in my experience. “I have no need for inner experience. I have outer assurances”. In fact, I find a rather clear correlation between one’s preoccupation with outer forms and one’s lack of any inner substance.
From what I’ve experienced, this could be the most pervasive and dangerous trap that comes across to me from many good Catholics. They say they know they are not worthy, etc. and that it is impossible for them to get into heaven by winning behavior contests and by amassing great deals of knowledge about Church teachings, reciting them, and as far as anybody can tell, outwardly conforming to them. But one who is sufficiently sensitive can see that they are divisive – not just between religions but among Catholics – and arrogant, condescending, etc. toward the same… but when these things are brought up to them they get defensive and/or offensive and demand the person telling them about it explain how well they themselves adhere to Church teachings, and when confronted with Bible passages, they either say I’ve got it wrong or more often ignore it and address other parts of my posts – but never offer what they think it actually means. Probably because what it clearly states is contrary to what they think.
I don’t see them as “bad” Catholics any more than myself, because IMO it’s 90% about how one was brought up and taught, and only occasionally do I encounter people who have been taught
how to think, and not
what to think. Questioning facts is part of my own beliefs – whether it be religious teachings, physics, math, social issues, or what have you. I ask questions about things that seem incomplete or don’t make sense, because before I say they are right or wrong I want to understand exactly what the other person is telling me. And if they appear wrong, I want to know why it appears to conflict with other authoritative documents. I can take others’ word when it comes to outward appearances. Like if I’m surrounded by police saying, “drop the weapon!” I’m going to immediately drop my butter knife, not say, “oh, you don’t understand. I was just about to make toast. This is no threat to you.” Same way I think when we are told if we do this particular act it will buy our way to heaven and that act will mess it up, that is not free will. Sin isn’t just an act; it is an attitude that may or may not result in an outwardly observable “disobedient” behavior. Father Rohr is very clear that while the outward acts are important, they don’t imply Real Transformation, and I have seen quite a few scriptures to back that up.
The question for me is how much of your life do you want to give to maintaining, supporting, and cheering the container, and when do you get on to finding your real life and “giving it away”? Any preoccupation with exalting or maintaining Peter does not seem to be the least part of Jesus’ teaching, but once you replace the contents with the container, Peter becomes your concern, your figurehead, your projection screen, even your vicarious salvation. Peter is fine, but he was never meant to be a substitute for Jesus or the Gospel."
This is a very difficult topic that even as of a few weeks ago I would not have tried to put into my own words for lack of courage and lack of how to put it in words that would come across as charitable to someone who has fallen prey to this trap. But recent debates on CAF have proven to me that under the exterior, even those I criticize have a good heart. I think it’s like a light. It’s there, but just might be hidden under a bushel. If I wish to follow Jesus, it is up to me to see that light through the bushel – without expecting them to remove the bushel first.
That said, I have mixed thoughts about it. Rohr has said a number of times that the Church needs both “factions,” if you will (my word not his). When I first heard him I thought he would like to see the whole structure brought down, but then I realized that he didn’t feel that way which was a relief because I had come to my own conclusions which is this: like it or not, the “exterior Church” has protected the wisdom of Jesus and carried it through 2000 years. Many gave their lives fighting, or others by refusing to fight, so that we may even have a Bible and other teachings to discuss on this forum today.
The Church would not have lasted this long given the reality of the world, if everyone was actually “like Jesus,” and refused to strike back at enemies who honestly believe they will get a good place in heaven with 72 virgins (as comedian Jeff Dunham asked his dummy Achmed the Dead Terrorist, did anyone say those were female virgins?
) based on how many Christians they kill, then we would have no Bible and would be completely, instead of partially, enslaved by the most powerful. So I have the utmost honor for those who maintain and fortify the exterior. I’m not a fighter, but my life and my freedoms are protected by those who are. What saddens me is that I believe it is possible to do both; have a strong crust and a good heart in the center, without going against Church teachings. As we discussed in another thread recently, the Church says we are expected to value our own lives above those of an unjust aggressor, and if we deal the aggressor a lethal blow in self-defense, even if we “accidentally” hit him harder than necessary, if the goal is self-defense or the defense of other whose lives are entrusted to our authority, then it is not against the commandment about killing.
If everybody were like me, our ancestors and religious predecessors would have been killed long ago.
(continued on next post)
And this was to a group of catechists! Our whole table just stared at each other.
As you said, there are so many good, faithful, Catholic writers out there - I’ll stick with them.
i tend to take for granted that everyone knows about it.
