I think that too many converts assume that Catholicism is a static religion full of rules and obligations that don’t change. So when something does change it’s like they can’t deal with it. I’ve always seen Catholicism as having an intellectual aspect to it that is separated from, and not required for, salvation. Clerics argue over interpretations and Councils clarify doctrine. Blah blah blah.
Here’s what matters - Did you help your “neighbor” or “family” today? Did you pray today? The Church has an important role also…to keep things organized, and to facilitate a successful faith for individuals. But one cannot rely solely on the Church for their faith and salvation.
I’d be cautious about the phrasing of this.
Yes, love is paramount.
But truth does matter. And the Catholic Church claims to have the fullness of truth.
It’s genuinely important, because of
love and the
care of souls, to never let someone get tricked into thinking that to be Catholic they have to believe an actual, impossible, contradiction.
God made us rational creatures. Our minds are good. We are meant to be able to look around and spot the difference between trustworthy consistency and untrustworthy inconsistency.
Mormonism, Islam… even atheists would say (typically) that they value helping “neighbor” and “family”. But it matters that we be Catholic. Catholicism is true.
And it’s trusting that Catholicism is true that helps us hold fast to particular truths about what love looks like: e.g. love requires loving both mother and child, not killing a child to make things more convenient for the mother.
When one begins to doubt the truth of Catholicism, so much unravels that yes, in the end, the capacity to love well takes a hit as well.
Catholicism isn’t necessarily a “static religion”, as you put it. We’re a tree growing from a seed. But always growing into a tree, not a cow. And God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Suggesting that Catholic
teaching about God could
fundamentally change between yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and Catholicism still be worth trusting…?
I think that’s exactly the kind of (accidental, implicit) rhetoric that can (accidentally) shake certain people away, and discourage them from trusting the Church.
And incidentally at this point I’d advise everyone to remember that no one here on CAF can formally ‘speak for the Church’ here. She speaks for Herself. If we want to know what she teaches, sure it’d be
ideal if we could trust that to be accurately communicated by strangers in person or online… but God has allowed us to live in the age of the Internet and long-distance shipping, and we can seek out and review official Church documents online or in print if we want.
May none of us allow ourselves to be shaken away by anything masquerading as the Church that isn’t definitely Her.