The Confusion of Catholicism

[OneSheep]

I would say: those who consider themselves to be Catholics had nothing to do with the creation of Catholicism itself and are not guilty for the crimes of their ideological forbears. They are victims, in some cases tragically so. They need your help and support, they need a place to go when the hate causes their souls to crumble and implode. They need to know that at least one person in “the world” doesn’t hate them back.

Cool!

I can totally relate to the sentiment. I remember at one point thinking that my faith was inherited along the lines of the simplest believers, like St.Francis, not those caught up in the hierarchy. Then it dawned on me that I was resentful of those “ideological forbears”, and I knew that I needed to take the steps to forgive them. As always, I used the guide “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” I do not condemn or condone their actions, but I understand. I see their good intent.

It took years for me to accept the fact that dualism is very, very natural; it is our default, and it serves us. We can move beyond it, but it has its place. The human mind addresses “from whence comes evil?”, and we project it coming from a bad place because we have condemned the source of such within ourselves.

I believe hate proceeds from our animal or physical nature. Like fear and disgust, it is meant to keep us away from things that would harm us. As we become more obedient to God and realize that this is totally his world under his control, our animal responses of hate, fear, and disgust are gradually replaced by wisdom, courage, and compassion.

I’m not sure that obedience helps with hate, other than we can discipline ourselves to “not hate” as I mentioned earlier, which does not really address the resentment, that is more of an exercise in disciplined thought. Forgiveness that starts with understanding drives the resentment away forever, but only on a case-by-case basis. So if the “discipline” is knowing that when I hate, I need to forgive, and that such forgiveness begins with understanding the person or part of myself that I resent, then this is the discipline that works for me. I can’t “not hate”, not realistically.

And hatred continues to be a triggered response for me, it still happens once in awhile. It’s a very mechanical response, just like fear and disgust. Do you agree?

Want to hear a terrible story about how much of a hater I am? When Osama Bin Laden was caught and killed, I went outside to take a walk. I lived in a larger city at the time, and I saw a total stranger across the street. I shouted “we got him! they killed Osama! woooo!” and he smiled and shouted back “oh yeah buddy! alright!! woooo!” No I was not drunk, no I was not a frat boy. In that moment of shared hatred and rejoicing in the death of a hated individual, two strangers united. Hatred is a powerful force. It brings strangers together against an enemy. It is a confirmation of our superiority. It gives us meaning.

But it is not such a terrible story, PC! It is very human! The dehumanization, the demonization, the perception of worthlessness of the other is part of being what we are, we all have the capacity! If OBL had been assassinated before I forgave him, I would have been rejoicing (internally) with you! We are all “haters” in terms of capacity. And yes, as we discussed earlier, shared hatred is a common “like”. Did I ever show you this?:

youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY

It is very difficult to forgive myself for being like that. I repent! While you were doing research, I was celebrating the destruction of another human being. You are a lot better than me Mr. Sheep!

Have you forgiven OBL? It may be easier to forgive him than it is to forgive yourself, at least initially. Can you see his blindness? Would you be as blind as he if you were in his shoes? (uh… before he died…) This takes some time to study and reflect. I could have done what he did if I lived his life and saw the world from his eyes.

Yes, your experience is sort of similar to mine in that you were more conservative when younger. So many people think that young people are liberal and then become conservative as they age. I think it is the opposite! Look at ISIS: it’s almost completely young people. Look at Quakers: they’re almost completely oldsters.

Ok maybe not confusion, maybe it is apathy and lack of cohesion that drives hatred. I’m not sure. It seems like the lack of cohesion drives a person to form an exclusive group and then the hatred results. Thanks for your contribution also.

I don’t think we necessarily “hate” the outgroup, unless that is what you would describe in those infants in the link I shared with you. We see the humanity of the ingroup, but our empathy is somewhat blocked for the outgroup. Can you see a function for the evolved psychology, the empathy-blocking mechanism? It (along with felt hatred) happens when we resent, and it happens when others stand in the way of what we want. Even chimpanzees have the capacity to de-chimanzeeize. Can you forgive them?

Again, we can understand our hatred rather than condemning it or condoning it. It is a transcending process. Once we see the blindness or ignorance in ourselves and the other, we make a new connection, there is new wholeness, holiness.

I don’t mean to derail your thread, bro. I do like going deeply into the issues, and we humans cannot separate the emotional from the intellectual.

Thanks!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Why don’t you go ahead and build your case that Catholicism is the most well-defined religion. …

It’s well defined at bottom but doesn’t convey its truths to its members.

Hence it has lost its identity.

In the specific case of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” explicit misinterpretations have severely clouded the issue. A basic degree of salvation lies in following basic teachings of the Catholic church and those churches derived from it. I don’t think that is a comment on people who haven’t been thoroughly offered those teachings by a fair interpretation of “thoroughly”. There may have been a number of people in a position to react differently to Jesus but this clearly doesn’t affect most Jews.

I accept this can be an emotional issue for all of us. If all you experienced during your Catholic period was being harangued about kow-towing, no wonder you are reacting.

I for one have always ignored those few catholics I came across who claimed the protestant faiths were incompatible with the Catholic other than on specific sacramental points.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I like Pope Francis because he is OK with ambiguity, like a child. He is not a hater because he embraces the ambiguity instead of trying to gain clarity by defining an evil “other” to work against.

Now that I come to think about it, in many ways the Christian concept of satan is literally an imaginary embodiment of evil to help Christians form an identity against something. Think of the baptismal promises. The very first question “do you reject satan?” Interesting…I’ll have to think about this some more…

This is a genuine strong point of Francis’. Really, he isn’t always ambiguous. But he is rather good at defusing.

As to your other observation that is superficial but it is as far as you have been able to penetrate. The Church is supposed to catechise before inviting anyone to join in this formula. Several facets to this:

• it doesn’t catechise anyway. Catechesis is supposed to relate to your experience in life
• you have always been free to remain silent while others say this aloud. Why did you think you were obliged? Did someone harangue you?
• on the off chance others have been catechised, how can you judge that they haven’t seen more in it than you do?

Why is there an assumption (in myriad threads throughout CAF, not least from “Catholics” themselves) that being Catholic is merely a matter of being told what to think? (Not a rhetorical question)

If you didn’t have a relationship with Jesus why would you feel a “call” to do things that would “pass in somebody else’s eyes” as “following Him”?

Another point I think you have picked up on, though not very explicitly: appearing to “target” an “other” can be an oblique way of using that “other” as a weapon against the person being addressed. True Christian behaviour, leadership and teaching never uses weapons against those approaching Christ’s people with proper openness of mind and heart. Were you taught to use discernment?

Though considered “done” as to sacraments from a young age, I have hung around all different churches as much or as little as I felt like, for decades on end. I have adhered to specific doctrines freely after colossal amounts of discussion with a huge variety of people. I think what I model isn’t fundamentally incompatible with what the Catholic church teaches (insofar as I can prise any sense out of it ) but that’s just my own take based on where I’ve got to so far.

I am part foreign in extraction but I and others have always taken it completely in our stride. Where I have been lucky to mix, diversity has always been taken for granted. In the US, for example, by contrast, everyone is apparently in rival bunches of excitable foreigners hyperanxious to exhibit forms of “conformity” either with the nation or with their subsection of it.

Whilst there were suspicions against us for being exotic, that didn’t make us uneasy about ourselves or get at each other for not being “fiercely loyal” or something like that. Whilst we were always far more religious than the average, religion just wasn’t a thing that got us hot under the collar at all! In other words religion didn’t become an element in “closing ranks”.

In relatively recent decades however, at one parish a dispute was created by people who claimed to believe the same as me and my friends, but claiming that we were wrong. So there will always be people like that around. It’s difficult. It’s a blessing I have always been protestant (except in sacraments) as well as what I came across of being Catholic.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Do you mean that my view of Catholicism is garish, disgusting, twisted, unrealistic, and woefully misguided? Maybe you are right. As I learned more and more about it, I became increasingly revolted. Was I just becoming more and more uninformed? How can I know?

I propose you substitute “was” for “is”. You were actually becoming more informed about the false thinking of some around you, though probably not all, and not of what real Catholic faith was because it isn’t good at making that known.

That is how you can know that your view was becoming less twisted, unrealistic and misguided.

 

[Gorgias]

I have only three things to say.

First:

…… I can’t believe you just admitted that.

Umm… for someone who claims he knows the things that the Church teaches and is familiar with Church documents, you’re oddly unfamiliar with Church teachings and documents.

This is straight from the Vatican II document Lumen gentium. I recommend that you read paragraphs 14-16.

The fact that you think I’m “admitting” something really speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches. With all due respect, Pumpkin, it really seals my impression that you’re just tilting at windmills of your own imagination…

Second:

Why don’t you go read the essay I linked to? It’s mostly direct quotes of popes, councils, saints, martyrs, bishops, miracle-workers, visionaries, mystics, doctors, and early fathers.

I already told you why: it’s from a sedevacantist group. They explicitly teach that the Catholic Church is without a valid pope and is in the throes of apostasy and heresy. The amount of time it would take to research & refute the ways in which they’re taking things out of context really isn’t worth it to me. Unless, of course, you want to pay my salary while I take a sabbatical in order to do the research.

P.S. I will read Newman’s Essay once I am done with Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

Cool. I’m interested in knowing what your reaction will be!

 

[Gorgias]

Why is there an assumption (in myriad threads throughout CAF, not least from “Catholics” themselves) that being Catholic is merely a matter of being told what to think?

Ironically enough, I think it’s because that’s what non-Catholics and ex-Catholics have been told to think about Catholics…

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for that. :tiphat:

OK you think I am woefully uninformed. Maybe that’s true. Maybe I learned nothing at all, or totally wrong stuff, by spending years of my life carefully studying.

I think you left without knowing anything substantive.

And now, only now, are you learning what you should have learned.

Do you think that it is impossible for someone to know what the Church teaches and still reject it? The Fulton Sheen theory (love that guy by the way, terrific stage presence)?

Of course I think it’s possible.

And I think that most *every single person *in this category is fueled by his emotion.

Something happened–usually it’s something below the belt, dealing the with pelvic region, or perhaps with a failed marriage, or a priest who snubbed one’s mom when she was struggling to raise a child in the Church despite her drunk of a husband leaving her, or a Catholic school teacher who abused him as a young boy, a priest who told a boy that pornography was wrong, while secretly keeping porn in the confessional–that causes him to reject it, despite knowing the teaching.

All terrible, terrible things done by Catholics to someone trying to find his way in the world.

Now, emotionally, I understand how this would cause deep hatred and bitterness.

But I think we can all recognize the folly in rejecting what is true because one is influenced by his memories.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Originally Posted by Vic Taltrees UK
Why is there an assumption (in myriad threads throughout CAF, not least from “Catholics” themselves) that being Catholic is merely a matter of being told what to think?

Note I said “merely”.]

Ironically enough, I think it’s because that’s what non-Catholics and ex-Catholics have been told to think about Catholics…

I really don’t see what’s so ludicrous about the situation I have asked about here.

So, we have certain people who are non-Catholics and some of the ex-Catholics who were told this by non-Catholics. Fine.

Then among the people you “conveniently” airbrush out of your picture, ex-Catholics who have been told it by Catholics during their Catholic time, often their main formers, like parents, teachers, catechists, clergy.

Lastly we have those who are still Catholics but whose main impression of the faith is of this kind, who were told it by other Catholics including those prominent in their forming.

I have known several of both these groups personally and in addition, we have it from their own words from a number of fellow members at CAF.

Real catechesis involves intellectual guidance and great quantities of Bible-based (name removed by moderator)ut but in the context of trusting God in life’s ups and downs and, as one gets nearer and nearer to adult age, exercising one’s intellect and initiative in that relationship. Post-confirmational lifelong catechesis such as I have observed brings together people both who had a slightly heavy-handed style, and a laid-back style, of upbringing and gives them the chance to progress equally in this way.

On the whole I think it “poignant” rather than “ironic” that in so many localities there hasn’t been the opportunity to carry on progressing, deepening and growing in this kind of fashion.

The reason I included this in my question to PC which is also going to be read by thousands of “lurkers” with genuine curiosity, is that as I have pointed out before the question PC raised is not about how cleverly you can prove him wrong but about the emotional ground in the catholic community that leads to them sniping at non-believers, ex-believers, half-believers etc.

Onesheep hit upon some useful observations - it often relates to how meaningful relationships in the church are. In fact the core of Christ’s teaching concerns this, and it ties in with another of PC’s questions - why His teaching isn’t regarded as clear cut.

He calls for each of us to nurture the fruitful gifts in each other so that when they are profitable, we share in their reward - parable of talents, salt, light, lampstands, the servants who didn’t starve their fellow servants while the master was in the far country. (I Jn also refers - what is the actual quality and kind of the love for each other that “belies” love for God? I Cor 12:16-21, Eph 4:11 also.) A power-wielding element in the church for example will manoeuvre us out of this ambition and a “creep” like mentality will collude with that. Ready made underlying conflict, probably under a “nice” and “orthodox” veneer.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

In other words I am keen that both of you, Gorgias and Pumpkin Cookie, will have profitable spiritual lives that will enable yet others to grow and be fruitful in turn. So Pumpkin Cookie’s queries aren’t so naff after all!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I think you left without knowing anything substantive.

And now, only now, are you learning what you should have learned.

… knowing the teaching.

All terrible, terrible things done by Catholics to someone trying to find his way in the world.

Now, emotionally, I understand how this would cause deep hatred and bitterness.

But I think we can all recognize the folly in rejecting what is true because one is influenced by his memories.

Your post started good.

Adolescent faith is mal-formed by a mixed message. Obviously every child knows people don’t stick to what they say. But when they don’t try - that means we don’t even get to “know” the teaching in the first place, even if it is printed in a book.

So no we can’t recognise that. If as an old man you are betrayed, yes the potential for hatred and memories. In our earlier formation - it’s far more fundamental, it undermines our identity - another thing perceptively hit upon by the OP.

This is an “apologetic” that takes more than 3 minutes!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… How do you know the real heretics didn’t “win?”

… We have opinions about ambiguities and obscurities …

You’ve hit the nail on the head again. The real heretics are winning all the time! They are “orthodox”, they are power wielders and their hangers-on who are “creeps”, they sap the ambition of God’s people who for the first five minutes of their faith wanted to genuinely help each other to be fruitful and profitable. They are clouds without rain, they are the “super-apostles”, those who “bewitched” the Galatians, clanging gongs. They take away from the meaning of Scripture.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

Who is the final authority? Is is the pope? Which one? When popes contradict each other, who “wins?” When councils contradict each other, which one holds? Newest? Oldest? Biggest? It seems that no one agrees about what is the final authority.

…

Keep checking. And then check some more. Especially with Scriptures. And make sure you are filled with the Holy Spirit all the time.

That’s the general answer.

For the specific, work out where you are personally at the moment and talk to people about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Your post started good.

Adolescent faith is mal-formed by a mixed message. Obviously every child knows people don’t stick to what they say. But when they don’t try - that means we don’t even get to “know” the teaching in the first place, even if it is printed in a book.

So no we can’t recognise that. If as an old man you are betrayed, yes the potential for hatred and memories. In our earlier formation - it’s far more fundamental, it undermines our identity - another thing perceptively hit upon by the OP.

This is an “apologetic” that takes more than 3 minutes!

Really? You think it’s a correct path to reject what is true because you were betrayed?

I think it’s understandable for someone to make this mistake…but it’s a very, very, bad way to live your life.

It’s a…mistake to do this.

 

[PRmerger]

Calculus is qualitatively different from religion. I can demonstrate that Calculus allows us to successfully determine the area under curves. You cannot demonstrate that Jesus is God. No one can demonstrate that Muhammad is his true and final prophet, etc.

There are about a million things that you believe using the same epistemology that Christians use to believe that Jesus is God.

One has to wonder why you have such a double standard…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Umm… for someone who claims he knows the things that the Church teaches and is familiar with Church documents, you’re oddly unfamiliar with Church teachings and documents.

This is straight from the Vatican II document Lumen gentium. I recommend that you read paragraphs 14-16.

The fact that you think I’m “admitting” something really speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches. With all due respect, Pumpkin, it really seals my impression that you’re just tilting at windmills of your own imagination…

I need to make something clear to you. I am not making personal arguments against you or your faith or whatever. I don’t even know you at all. I am raising arguments against those I perceive to be motivated by hate. I have no evidence or reason to suppose you are motivated by hate. OK? Not personal.

I know very well what some Catholics think the Church currently teaches. I articulated it several posts back at the request of PRMerger. I can similarly articulate what I understand some Catholics to believe about all sorts of things.

The newer understanding of some Catholics regarding EENS is a contradiction of older teachings and beliefs. I linked to abundant evidence, but there is much more. You will try to explain away any contradiction by saying that the individual opinion of all those famous Catholics doesn’t ultimately matter. OK, that’s fine. The problem is, we have no reliable way to distinguish individual opinion from truth when it comes to religious matters, unfortunately. How did all those famous and important Catholics get the wrong idea? Surely you can’t maintain it’s because Catholic teaching is unambiguous.

I expressed shock because I said “evangelization is pointless” and you (appeared to) affirm it! That is shocking, even for the subset of Catholics who believe the sophisticated teaching of Lumen Gentium.

I already told you why: it’s from a sedevacantist group. They explicitly teach that the Catholic Church is without a valid pope and is in the throes of apostasy and heresy. The amount of time it would take to research & refute the ways in which they’re taking things out of context really isn’t worth it to me. Unless, of course, you want to pay my salary while I take a sabbatical in order to do the research.

OK so you’re an academic. I used to be, but I quit so I could make more money and do whatever I want. It’s awesome, I highly recommend it. Most academics in this country are abused except for the increasingly few with tenure at large institutions, in my opinion. There is this attitude that if you leave academia, you’re a “sellout” and that your soul will disintegrate into despair as you slave away for a mouth-breathing manager in some meaningless and exploitative “job.” This has not been my experience at all; my life and health have improved in general since “breaking out” LOL.

Since you’re an academic, I’m certain you can engage sources with which you disagree. You already understand the bias of the source, so what’s the problem?

And, if Catholic teaching is so unambiguous, why would you need an entire sabbatical to research and refute the claims made? Shouldn’t it be obvious and clear?

 

[davidv]

I need to make something clear to you. I am not making personal arguments against you or your faith or whatever. I don’t even know you at all. I am raising arguments against those I perceive to be motivated by hate. I have no evidence or reason to suppose you are motivated by hate. OK? Not personal.

I know very well what some Catholics think the Church currently teaches. I articulated it several posts back at the request of PRMerger. I can similarly articulate what I understand some Catholics to believe about all sorts of things.

The newer understanding of some Catholics regarding EENS is a contradiction of older teachings and beliefs. I linked to abundant evidence, but there is much more. You will try to explain away any contradiction by saying that the individual opinion of all those famous Catholics doesn’t ultimately matter. OK, that’s fine. The problem is, we have no reliable way to distinguish individual opinion from truth when it comes to religious matters, unfortunately. How did all those famous and important Catholics get the wrong idea? Surely you can’t maintain it’s because Catholic teaching is unambiguous.

I expressed shock because I said “evangelization is pointless” and you (appeared to) affirm it! That is shocking, even for the subset of Catholics who believe the sophisticated teaching of Lumen Gentium.

OK so you’re an academic. I used to be, but I quit so I could make more money and do whatever I want. It’s awesome, I highly recommend it. Most academics in this country are abused except for the increasingly few with tenure at large institutions, in my opinion. There is this attitude that if you leave academia, you’re a “sellout” and that your soul will disintegrate into despair as you slave away for a mouth-breathing manager in some meaningless and exploitative “job.” This has not been my experience at all; my life and health have improved in general since “breaking out” LOL.

Since you’re an academic, I’m certain you can engage sources with which you disagree. You already understand the bias of the source, so what’s the problem?

And, if Catholic teaching is so unambiguous, why would you need an entire sabbatical to research and refute the claims made? Shouldn’t it be obvious and clear?

Why does unambiguous imply obvious and clear? Complex things can be very unambiguous but be far from obvious and clear.

 

[Gorgias]

I need to make something clear to you. I am not making personal arguments against you or your faith or whatever. I don’t even know you at all. I am raising arguments against those I perceive to be motivated by hate. I have no evidence or reason to suppose you are motivated by hate. OK? Not personal.

Hmmm… ok, I believe you, but…

… just a couple posts ago, you told me that I (or Catholics in general) are ‘violent’. Did I misunderstand you?

I know very well what some Catholics think the Church currently teaches. I articulated it several posts back at the request of PRMerger. I can similarly articulate what I understand some Catholics to believe about all sorts of things.

OK, but here’s the thing: it’s unreasonable to judge a group by the subset of the group who misunderstands the group itself and its stances! (My favorite example of this comes from sports: the Cleveland Browns were 3-13 this year. If I look at them as my standard, my conclusion is that football stinks! No one can play the game, no one has talent, no one has what it takes to win! And yet… that’s an invalid analysis, since I also need to look at the Steelers and the Broncos and the Panthers. I can articulate what the Browns teach me, but that isn’t the whole of the NFL – and it certainly isn’t representative!)

The only way that you might be able to make the claims that you’re making – that the views of ‘some’ in the Church are telling – is if you were able to demonstrate that, institutionally and everywhere, the Church wants people to believe those erroneous teachings, and actively attempts to promulgate them. Can you do that?

The newer understanding of some Catholics regarding EENS is a contradiction of older teachings and beliefs.

Actually, it’s not. At least, it’s not what the Church taught and meant by EENS (although, I’ll admit, in years gone by, the Church had a less active and charitable view of ecumenism). Here’s another book for you to consider reading – it’s a historical view of the way that EENS was expressed throughout the centuries. The author makes the case that it never meant what you say it means. The book is Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response by Francis Sullivan. It’s a really good read.

I linked to abundant evidence, but there is much more. You will try to explain away any contradiction by saying that the individual opinion of all those famous Catholics doesn’t ultimately matter.

No… you linked to a sedevacantist site, which is trying to take those quotes out of context and in prooftexting snippets in order to try to make them say what they want them to say. It’s not the individual opinions of famous Catholics I’m disputing – it’s the way that the folks at that site are abusing those quotations that I’m taking issue with.

How did all those famous and important Catholics get the wrong idea?

They didn’t. Their quotes are being twisted. Read the Sullivan book; you’ll see.

I expressed shock because I said “evangelization is pointless” and you (appeared to) affirm it!

No, evangelization isn’t pointless. I was responding to your assertion that the Church teaches that you must be converted or else you go to hell. That’s patently false, and I wish you’d stop making that false claim…

I’m certain you can engage sources with which you disagree. You already understand the bias of the source, so what’s the problem?

Which source’s bias… yours, or the Church’s?

And, if Catholic teaching is so unambiguous, why would you need an entire sabbatical to research and refute the claims made? Shouldn’t it be obvious and clear?

It’s called ‘hyperbole’, Pumpkin.

And yeah, it would take a few minutes or hours or Google searches for each of the quotes, in order to discover the contexts and demonstrate the way those quotes are being misused. (In fact, the first few Scriptural quotes are obvious on their face – they talk about those being saved but don’t at all address the notion of those not being saved, or those being saved in other ways, or assert that there aren’t others being saved.)

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think you left without knowing anything substantive.

And now, only now, are you learning what you should have learned.

Alright, let me tell you a story. When I was growing up and going to CCD classes, listening to my parents, and attending mass I always felt uncomfortable. Something was wrong. So, I cut a deal with God. I mean, Abraham and Moses did it, so why not? In general, based on the readings I heard in mass, he seemed amenable to deal-making, so I gave it a go. I said “OK God, I don’t believe this stuff. But, I will go along with it and go through the motions 100% just in case this happens to be true. If it turns out it isn’t true and you want to send me to hell for idol worship, then I’m going to argue that a powerful and influential organization tricked me and ingrained prejudice into me from birth such that I was unable to figure out the truth, and therefore it wasn’t my fault. Also, I will try my very hardest to figure out the truth and I will never give up.”

I cut this deal when I was around 12 years old, and I have done my best to honor it ever since. Do you really think I somehow managed to learn nothing “substantive” in the time since?

Of course I think it’s possible.

And I think that most *every single person *in this category is fueled by his emotion.

Something happened–usually it’s something below the belt, dealing the with pelvic region, or perhaps with a failed marriage, or a priest who snubbed one’s mom when she was struggling to raise a child in the Church despite her drunk of a husband leaving her, or a Catholic school teacher who abused him as a young boy, a priest who told a boy that pornography was wrong, while secretly keeping porn in the confessional–that causes him to reject it, despite knowing the teaching.

All terrible, terrible things done by Catholics to someone trying to find his way in the world.

Now, emotionally, I understand how this would cause deep hatred and bitterness.

But I think we can all recognize the folly in rejecting what is true because one is influenced by his memories.

I have no doubt the Church has created an army of people who absolutely loathe it due to the actions of nuns, priests, and dysfunctional communities. Pope Francis talks about an “inoculation against faith.” I think millions of those have been handed out, for sure.

None of the things you mention apply to me, personally. Thank God I was never abused by a priest, never had “pelvic issues,” am happily married, etc. I remember I was part of a protestant bible study in college (Catholics didn’t have one) and all of those guys were addicted to porn. And these are the guys studying the bible weekly! It was awful. It’s truly a crisis for many men. I somehow never had that problem. I don’t recall my parents being snubbed.

So why did I become a hater? I think maybe it was a step on the journey. I defined my religious beliefs against Catholicism on my way toward a more positive understanding of what I believe rather than what I don’t believe. As I learn to be OK with the ambiguity of my own beliefs, I am slowly leaving my hatred behind.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Why does unambiguous imply obvious and clear? Complex things can be very unambiguous but be far from obvious and clear.

You’re right, complexity could also be perceived as “non-obvious and unclear.”

For instance, the US tax code. It is neither obvious nor clear, because it is immensely complex. However, it doesn’t appear to be ambiguous. You don’t have arguments between different judges and lawyers about the mileage rate for 2015.

Within Catholicism, there are arguments about the “facts of the matter” so to speak. Catholicism is certainly complex, but I am arguing that it is obscure and ambiguous, and my evidence is that there are long standing disagreements about many topics. Christianity is similarly ambiguous. The arguments never end. We don’t see any similar problem with the US tax code or calculus.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hmmm… ok, I believe you, but…

… just a couple posts ago, you told me that I (or Catholics in general) are ‘violent’. Did I misunderstand you?

I am not saying you are violent. Catholicism, or any exclusivist religion, is itself violent in so far as it dooms to eternal torture those who disagree. Now, maybe Lumen Gentium opens up a “loop hole” for those who are invincibly ignorant but heretics and apostates are still doomed. I do not think it is possible to make a case that someone like me is not extremely likely to go to hell, unless “invincible ignorance” is a very wide category. The problem is, it’s an ambiguous designation. It is impossible to determine the extent of someone’s ignorance objectively or subjectively. The demand to convert thus works insidiously. How can I know if I’m invincibly ignorant? I can’t! Therefore, I must spend my entire life trying to convince myself that Catholicism is the truth, or I will prove that I’m not invincibly ignorant! I can’t escape. I can’t close Pandora’s box.

OK, but here’s the thing: it’s unreasonable to judge a group by the subset of the group who misunderstands the group itself and its stances! (My favorite example of this comes from sports: the Cleveland Browns were 3-13 this year. If I look at them as my standard, my conclusion is that football stinks! No one can play the game, no one has talent, no one has what it takes to win! And yet… that’s an invalid analysis, since I also need to look at the Steelers and the Broncos and the Panthers. I can articulate what the Browns teach me, but that isn’t the whole of the NFL – and it certainly isn’t representative!)

The only way that you might…[CUT]… Can you do that?

This demonstrates my point. There is no way to determine who the “real” football team is. Modern Catholics are a subset of “Catholics” as a whole. Who is right, when it comes down to it? I’m not judging Catholicism based on one subgroup, I’m saying that it is impossible to judge because all we have are subgroups each making claims to be the “real” Catholics. I of course cannot demonstrate that the “Church” wants people to believe whatever, because I can’t determine what “they” actually teach due to the contradictions. The more people you exclude from the definition “Catholic” the clearer it becomes of course. “Hate” is how we form these subgroups and give ourselves clarity.

Actually, it’s not. At least, it’s not what the Church taught and meant by EENS (although, I’ll admit, in years gone by, the Church had a less active and charitable view of ecumenism). Here’s another book for you to consider reading – it’s a historical view of the way that EENS was expressed throughout the centuries. The author makes the case that it never meant what you say it means…[CUT…Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response by Francis Sullivan. It’s a really good read.

OK I will read that. I do read the things people tell me to read. I think someone on the forum suggested I read “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Fantastic book by the way. I have found that when people suggest I read certain things, it’s almost always worthwhile.

No… you linked to a sedevacantist site, which is trying to take those quotes out of context and in prooftexting snippets in order to try to make them say what they want them to say. It’s not the individual opinions of famous Catholics I’m disputing – it’s the way that the folks at that site are abusing those quotations that I’m taking issue with.

All Christians engage in “prooftexting” LOL. It’s the standard operating procedure of theology. Look at the redacted and heavily edited Old Testament readings they use in the contemporary mass. The current Church feeds people “prooftexts” to make the “Old Testament” appear to support their theological claims on a daily basis. Do you have a higher standard? Why do you accept this behavior then?

They didn’t. Their quotes are being twisted. Read the Sullivan book; you’ll see.

No, evangelization isn’t pointless. I was responding to your assertion that the Church teaches that you must be converted or else you go to hell. That’s patently false, and I wish you’d stop making that false claim…

Which source’s bias… yours, or the Church’s?

It’s called ‘hyperbole’, Pumpkin.

And yeah, it would take a few minutes or hours or Google searches for each of the quotes, in order to discover the contexts and demonstrate the way those quotes are being misused. (In fact, the first few Scriptural quotes are obvious on their face – they talk about those being saved but don’t at all address the notion of those not being saved, or those being saved in other ways

, or assert that there aren’t others being saved.)

Wait, if everyone is going to heaven if they’re good and honestly seek God, regardless of their religious beliefs, then what purpose does evangelization serve? Is Catholic life really so much better than other forms of life? If it all works out in the end, why bother?

Of course I am biased. There are no unbiased sources regarding this kind of thing. Everyone is biased!

OK, I’m sure you could construct an argument showing that the quotes don’t actually mean what they appear to mean in plain and simple language, but you would be just giving me more evidence in support of my claim that the teachings are ambiguous.

If the sentence “All Jews, pagans, and heretics are certainly going to hell” doesn’t really mean just that, you can’t also claim that the whole issue is unambiguous! Where did these popes, councils, saints, fathers, and doctors get these ideas, if it has always been clear from the beginning?

I will read that book after I finish the others.
[/quote]