The Confusion of Catholicism

[PumpkinCookie]

Jack Common you have contributed a lot. Let me boil this down.

Me: How do I know who is a Catholic and who is not?

You: Well, a true Catholic does/says/is: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,…

Me: I know bishops/priests/nuns/theologians who say NON-a, NON-b, etc…

You: Well, then they’re not true Catholics.

Me: Why do you get to define who is a true Catholic?

You: It isn’t me, it’s the Church who defines it.

Me: How do you know that’s what the Church really says? How can you be sure that your understanding is right and you’re a true Catholic, but the others are not?

You: [answer here]

 

[puzzledtoo]

Jack C…,
(…but in general the torture, imprisonment, burning of books, and execution of heretics is not in itself evil or illicit.) I’m sorry but I find this statement to be very disturbing. I believe it is evil to torture, and execute anyone. Think of political prisoners in different countries that are tortured, or executed for espousing a different opinion. So called heretics give their opinion on religion rather than politics but that doesn’t mean they should have been or be tortured and executed. This is done out of fear plain and simple and is evil. Saying it is okay in the name of religion is one thing that gives religion in general its bad reputation for some.
There is a “word of life church” near where I live that has some members that are under arrest for the killing of one of its members and beating of another. The one killed I believe was a teenager. I don’t pretend to know any of the details beyond this but would it have been okay for this “church” to beat and kill one of its members because they shared their beliefs that differed from the church teaching? I have no idea what the excuses are and I can’t imagine any excuse that would make me believe this is acceptable.
St. Philip Neri has a quote I like very much>>“If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in sweetness, patience, humility, and charity.” Those in any religion would do well to adopt this as a creed, in my humble opinion. Blessings to all-be well.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

For example, in America we have a “hate Obama club” and a “hate Trump club” among other clubs, (none of which have “hatred” in their actual names). It’s like “You hate Obama too?” “Bro!”.

I LOL’ed at this. You are right there are many hate clubs in the USA. It’s sad really.

Your thinking is too sophisticated for me, I’m sorry. I don’t get it. For me, Catholicism was an experience of oppression and confusion. It was like:

Church: you must believe these dozens of confusing and contradictory things with no evidence, or it’s off to the outer darkness with you

Me:

 

[Jack_Common]

Jack Common you have contributed a lot. Let me boil this down.

Me: How do I know who is a Catholic and who is not?

You: Well, a true Catholic does/says/is: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,…

Me: I know bishops/priests/nuns/theologians who say NON-a, NON-b, etc…

You: Well, then they’re not true Catholics.

Me: Why do you get to define who is a true Catholic?

You: It isn’t me, it’s the Church who defines it.

Me: How do you know that’s what the Church really says? How can you be sure that your understanding is right and you’re a true Catholic, but the others are not?

You: [answer here]

well, first of all, there is only so much room for ambiguity. for example, nobody would say that denial of the Trinity is Catholic. there are some matters which are more ambiguous. you are correct though that one cannot absolutely rely upon one’s own understanding. in the case of ambiguity you defer to the authority of the Pope and Bishops who express the mind of the Church authoritatively. there is more ambiguity today than in the past because modern theologians reacted against the precision of Scholasticism, calling it too artificial, and ended up themselves writing very ambiguous and imprecise theology. this has contributed a lot to the confusion which you see, and will have to be addressed in this century.

 

[Jack_Common]

Jack C…,
(…but in general the torture, imprisonment, burning of books, and execution of heretics is not in itself evil or illicit.) I’m sorry but I find this statement to be very disturbing. I believe it is evil to torture, and execute anyone. Think of political prisoners in different countries that are tortured, or executed for espousing a different opinion. So called heretics give their opinion on religion rather than politics but that doesn’t mean they should have been or be tortured and executed. This is done out of fear plain and simple and is evil. Saying it is okay in the name of religion is one thing that gives religion in general its bad reputation for some.
There is a “word of life church” near where I live that has some members that are under arrest for the killing of one of its members and beating of another. The one killed I believe was a teenager. I don’t pretend to know any of the details beyond this but would it have been okay for this “church” to beat and kill one of its members because they shared their beliefs that differed from the church teaching? I have no idea what the excuses are and I can’t imagine any excuse that would make me believe this is acceptable.
St. Philip Neri has a quote I like very much>>“If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in sweetness, patience, humility, and charity.” Those in any religion would do well to adopt this as a creed, in my humble opinion. Blessings to all-be well.

I didn’t mean to offend you, sorry. I don’t think torture I’d much good either. look at the documentary I linked, it shows that the Church very rarely and very sparingly used torture. what I am defending is the notion that it was evil to suppress heresy and even kill heretics. if you think that is evil you need to read the Scriptures. look at what Moses does when he finds Israel worshipping the golden calf. Christ Himself said that we would bring His enemies before Him and slay them. of course, this is not something I advocate people do. it can only be done under the right authority, and should only be done when absolutely necessary and when the heretic refuses to stop spreading heresy. The reason that you might think it is evil to kill (very obstinate) heretics is that you have a worldly view. you don’t understand how evil heresy is and how it kills the soul. I would rather my loved ones die tonight than become heretics tomorrow. Like I said, it is more evil to be a heretic than a murderer. The theologians say that heretics are the gates of hell.

You have to remember that human beings do not have an absolute right to live. when we sin mortally we lose the right to live and are at the mercy of God.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No, the hater needs the other in order to project their illusion onto them. A theory I’ve been kicking around is that the Catholic Church needs dissenters or other religions in order to rally around what they reject. I do not think it is a coincidence that the early church fathers were principally engaged in the refutation and negation of competing Christian beliefs. Our only knowledge of what Arius taught, for example, comes entirely from arguments against his ideas. The primary sources were all burned. We have no idea if these representations of his ideas are straw men or otherwise inaccurate. Later in Church history, when more doctrine had been settled and foreign influence vanquished, the protestant reformation/rebellion came in to give the Church authority new ideas/groups to exclude. During the 18th -19th century, modern liberal democracy became the new enemy. Consider Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors. It’s a big long list of what is wrong and what the Church scorns and excludes. If that isn’t evidence of the Catholic identity being founded on exclusion, rejection, and negation, I don’t know what is!

Oh!, originally you were talking about egos which were not well grounded on a clear idea about themselves. You are now talking about an entire society. That is much more complex, PumpkinCookie. Instead of talking about a clear idea, I guess you would need now to talk about a clear doctrine which has become institutional. I think that it is much better if we walk a little bit more before we try to run and jump. Why don’t we go back to the analysis of individuals’ hate?

If when we are born we don’t have a clear idea of who we are, nor what to do, nor why we should do it, we should be born as haters; and I don’t think it is obvious that every child is a hater. As we grow, we are subject to the influence of a diversity of heterogeneous discourses. It is hard to develop a clear idea of oneself under such diverse influences. Still, it seems to me that not everybody in our societies is a hater. I know many people who exclude others, but there are also many individuals who don’t. And now that I have reflected about it, I remember that when I have talked to some of these people who don’t use to reject their neighbors but who use to be friendly and conciliatory; they are not peculiarly characterized by clear ideas about themselves, nor by transparent rules of behavior. Don’t you share a similar experience?

 

[Reepicheep]

Take a look at post #8. It looks like the poster has used exclusive and negative definitions to show what a Catholic is not.

Define “Mammal”. The definition will include that mammals give birth to live young rather than laying eggs. Is the statement that mammals are not egg-layers proof that the definition of “mammal” is negative and exclusionary?

Post# 8. "T*his *is Catholic: that is not Catholic. "
That’s how definition works. To say as part of a definition “these elements are not part of the defined thing” does not mean the definition is all negatives.

If the content of Catholicism is not ambiguous, why did it need so many councils to painstakingly define every little thing?

If the content of the laws of science is not ambiguous, why did it need so many scientists and so much research to painstakingly define every little point of the laws of science?

The fact that the official statement of a truth may require long and elaborate explanations does not mean the truth is ambiguous. Sometimes it means that the truth itself is complex. Sometimes it means the truth is being questioned and so our understanding must be clarified and refined.
We’ve been refining and clarifying for two thousand years. That’s time for a lot of councils.

Why does it need an office whose main job is to make sure Catholics don’t believe “the wrong thing?”

Because it is *important * to us that we know the truth, and not be led into error or falsehood.

Basically, if Christianity/Catholicism is not ambiguous, why do people who consider themselves to be Christians/Catholics have so many different contradictory ideas about what this means?

You just moved the goalposts. Are we discussing Catholicism or all Christianity, Protestantism included? Because I am not trying to defend Protestantism.

Also: suppose you ask five people to name the capital of Texas and one says “Fort Worth”, another says “Amarillo” and another says “Austin”, while two others say “I don’t know” Does that mean there’s real ambiguity about the identity of the capitol of Texas? Or is it that one person is right: Austin is the capitol of Texas. and those who gave other answers are wrong or ignorant of the correct answer?

Why do organizations like “Catholic Answers” exist if the content of Catholic faith is obvious to any believer?

Who said it was obvious to any believer? Pumpkin Cookie, I went to school for about twelve years to learn things like basic physics, mathematics, history. Are physics and chemistry “ambiguous” subjects because it took me so long to learn, and it required a school to teach me? “Complicated” is not the same as “doubtful” or "ambiguous’.

Here is a thought experiment: let’s say a bishop teaches that women should be ordained. I have personal acquaintance with such a bishop. Is this bishop not really a Catholic? How would we know?

Suppose a police officer accuses me of being drunk, and I ask to be subjected to a breathalyzer test to prove I’m sober. Suppose the police officer tells me that by law I must pay a fee to be tested since I’m requesting it and not being told to take it. Suppose it turns out the officer is mistaken or actually lying to me. There is no such legal requirement.
Does that mean the officer is not really a police officer? Or does it mean only that this particular police officer is mistaken or lying about this particular point of law?

A Catholic bishop who claims that women may be ordained as priests does not stop being a Catholic. He doesn’t even stop being a bishop. He’s just wrong about that bit of Catholic doctrine.

 

[puzzledtoo]

Jack C…
Thank you for the apology though it probably really isn’t warranted. We simply see things differently. We see what we believe and we all do the best we can with the knowledge we have right now. My reaction as unfortunately are my beliefs are based in emotion. Emotions have their place but probably not in a philosophy forum. This is probably one reason why I’ve never been good at debating. However I am going to go to the link you mentioned and read some of your scripture you alluded to as well. The evil that has been committed and continues to be committed in the name of religion and truth has not and is not committed by god. It is committed by people that are living in fear and until this fear is let go of by humanity we all suffer. This is my belief. Be well and stay safe.

 

[Reepicheep]

Hasn’t “disagreement” led to torture, imprisonment, the burning of books, and the execution of those who disagree?

Yes it has. Many times over. Disagreement still does not equal hatred. My best friend outside my family was an atheist for about the first ten years of our friendship. We were still friends. Now he’s a believer but is convinced the Catholic Church is, or serves, the Whore of Babylon. It’s a grief to me. We’re still friends.

Don’t those seem like acts of hate? Fortunately the Church’s ability to do such things has been broken, but do you think it would be right for them to resume if they were able to gain power again?

Such acts are never right. Hatred is never right. None the less, disagreement does not equal hatred. Not everyone who disagrees, even over very important matters, will indulge in hate.
I would point out also that Christians in general and Catholics in particular have been on the receiving end of such persecutions many times in history.

I agree with you that simple disagreement is not hatred, but the reaction to disagreement is where there exists potential for hatred.

Yes, and how does this prove anything about Catholicism?

Consider: you disagree with Muslims right? Do you think they are just as good as you? That God loves them just a much…or deep down do you feel just a little more “special” than them?

God loves Muslims as much as He loves Christians. As for how I feel:–
Pumpkin Cookie, do you feel a little more “special” than me because I’m a Catholic? What, if anything, would it prove if you said yes? If you say no, how can you prove your answer? And if you think my response is unfair, then how do you justify asking me that question?

They want to give communion to remarried Catholics who remain remarried and continue to have sex with each other like married people do sometimes. Are they Catholic?

Check my post # 46, at the bottom. A bishop who disputes Catholic doctrine does not stop being a bishop. He’s just wrong on that point.

Let’s flesh out the difference between “exclusion for a cause” and “ostracism.” What precisely are the differences?

Let’s not. I’m willing to discuss issues with you. I’m not willing to nitpick.

Would you say the Pharisees did not hate Jesus but merely disagreed with him?

Some of the Pharisees hated Jesus. What’s your point?

 

[Reepicheep]

No, the hater needs the other in order to project their illusion onto them. A theory I’ve been kicking around is that the Catholic Church needs dissenters or other religions in order to rally around what they reject.

So the persecuted need their persecutors? The bullied schoolchild needs his bullies so he can have someone to hate? Black slaves in pre-Civil War America needed the slave-owners so they could hate them?
It is never good or right to hate; but “I need someone to exclude” is not the only credible motive for hate.
For that matter, rejecting dissenters is not proof that one hates them, no matter how many times you say that it is.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the early church fathers were principally engaged in the refutation and negation of competing Christian beliefs.

Those who teach and defend truth are likely to do a lot of refuting of errors.

Our only knowledge of what Arius taught, for example, comes entirely from arguments against his ideas. The primary sources were all burned. We have no idea if these representations of his ideas are straw men or otherwise inaccurate.

What is your source for the assertion that no other source of information about Arius survives? And I would say you have no evidence that Catholic accounts of what Arius taught are straw men.

Later in Church history, when more doctrine had been settled and foreign influence vanquished, the protestant reformation/rebellion came in to give the Church authority new ideas/groups to exclude.

Pumpkin Cookie, are you trying to say that the Catholic Church* created* the Protestant reformation?

If not, then what is your point? The Protestant movement came into being and opposed Catholic teaching. The main doctrine of Protestantism at that point was that the Catholic Church was wrong, and often, that Catholics were wicked. Of course the Catholic Church opposed and attempted to refute the Protestant teachings.

During the 18th -19th century, modern liberal democracy became the new enemy.

Made themselves the new enemy, as the Protestants had before.

Consider Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors. It’s a big long list of what is wrong and what the Church scorns and excludes. If that isn’t evidence of the Catholic identity being founded on exclusion, rejection, and negation, I don’t know what is!

And when my chemistry teacher insisted on pointing out the errors his students were making, was his big long list of what was wrong, proof of his intolerance toward us?

The legal code of any nation will be a big long list of what is wrong, of behavior that is forbidden and excluded. Does that mean all nations are haters?

 

[Reepicheep]

You are right, he is absolutely using the “hate” dynamic to rally his supporters.

One thing I must say is that Pope Francis is absolutely NOT a “hater.” I think he actually believes in Jesus and has built his identity in a personalistic theology with no room for hate. I admire him very much.

Thank you.

…though I’m not sure what a “personalistic” theology means.

 

[Reepicheep]

(snipped)

You: It isn’t me, it’s the Church who defines it.

Me: How do you know that’s what the Church really says? How can you be sure that your understanding is right and you’re a true Catholic, but the others are not?

You: [answer here]

We know because Mother Church tells us. Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Oh!, originally you were talking about egos which were not well grounded on a clear idea about themselves. You are now talking about an entire society. That is much more complex, PumpkinCookie. Instead of talking about a clear idea, I guess you would need now to talk about a clear doctrine which has become institutional. I think that it is much better if we walk a little bit more before we try to run and jump. Why don’t we go back to the analysis of individuals’ hate?

If when we are born we don’t have a clear idea of who we are, nor what to do, nor why we should do it, we should be born as haters; and I don’t think it is obvious that every child is a hater. As we grow, we are subject to the influence of a diversity of heterogeneous discourses. It is hard to develop a clear idea of oneself under such diverse influences. Still, it seems to me that not everybody in our societies is a hater. I know many people who exclude others, but there are also many individuals who don’t. And now that I have reflected about it, I remember that when I have talked to some of these people who don’t use to reject their neighbors but who use to be friendly and conciliatory; they are not peculiarly characterized by clear ideas about themselves, nor by transparent rules of behavior. Don’t you share a similar experience?

You’re right, children are not often born “haters.” I think this might be because they have no ego. They are not attempting to construct a narrative about themselves, but rather are open and curious. Therefore, they do not hate.

Yes, the reason why people who are not haters seem to be “fuzzy” is because they have abandoned the pursuit of a clear ego. They’re like children. I think very few people manage to build a clear self-understanding without becoming a hater. Socrates is an example, though I sure some people would accuse him of being a hater. His wisdom was founded on his understanding of his own ignorance, not a self-illusion. Just some ideas.

Consider the Westboro Baptist Church by contrast. They’re doctrinal positions are starkly clear, and they have a robust and vital mission. They are driven and fearless in their deep hatred. Can you imagine a discussion between Socrates and members of the Westboro Baptist Church?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…[lots of stuff]…

I wrote out detailed responses to all of your analogies, but I think they all have the same problem.

We can’t verify the truth of a religious claim like we can verify the truth of other claims. The problem is that religious truth is supposed to be objective like any other kind of truth, but we don’t have the same mechanism to verify the claims.

If you claim that a mammal doesn’t lay eggs, this is so and we can verify it. It is so because we have collectively decided to classify animals in this way, and we can verify it by observing mammals giving birth to live young.

If you claim Austin is the capitol of Texas, this is so and we can verify it. It is so because Texans have agreed at some point to call Austin their capitol. We can verify this by reading the laws, looking at maps, and speaking to Texans.

If the Catholic Church claims that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, we cannot verify this.

If some Catholics claim the eucharist is a symbol, and others claim it is actually God, we have no way to know who is right. There is no way to verify the claim or its negation.

1. If you say “the true Church teaches it is God” how do I know that you know what the real Church is? How can you verify it for me? How can we know the Presbyterians or Anglicans didn’t get it right? How can we verify it?

Religious dogma therefore seems inherently more ambiguous than facts about the physical world or facts about political agreement. This is why there are so many religions and why there is so much disagreement, and why exclusivist religions breed hate when they come into contact with each other, in my opinion.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes it has. Many times over. Disagreement still does not equal hatred. My best friend outside my family was an atheist for about the first ten years of our friendship. We were still friends. Now he’s a believer but is convinced the Catholic Church is, or serves, the Whore of Babylon. It’s a grief to me. We’re still friends.

Fortunately you do not have power over him so you are not able to suppress him or his views. However, doesn’t your Church teach that his views should be suppressed? Doesn’t “error have no rights?” This is hate. You are not a hater, and that’s good! However, hate is part of the institution, and I believe it is a factor in the psychology of many believers, especially conservative “traditionalists.” I suspect this, because I used to be one. I was full of hate, and so were my friends and community, at the time. No, not childish hate, but this feeling of superiority and “separation” from “the world.” Look at the uproar over the video recently made by Pope Francis saying we are all children of God, regardless of religion. It’s like “what??? you mean…those people are God’s children too??” I remember that mindset, and it is born of hate.

Such acts are never right. Hatred is never right. None the less, disagreement does not equal hatred. Not everyone who disagrees, even over very important matters, will indulge in hate.
I would point out also that Christians in general and Catholics in particular have been on the receiving end of such persecutions many times in history.

Yes, humans have always hated each other. Catholics are not more hateful than anyone else. But shouldn’t they be more peaceful?

God loves Muslims as much as He loves Christians. As for how I feel:–
Pumpkin Cookie, do you feel a little more “special” than me because I’m a Catholic? What, if anything, would it prove if you said yes? If you say no, how can you prove your answer? And if you think my response is unfair, then how do you justify asking me that question?

No, I am not more special than you or anyone else. We’re all humans just trying to be happy and good. If your path to happiness and goodness is Catholicism, good for you!
Your religious beliefs are perfectly great and totally acceptable. I’m not trying to get you to change your mind. You should believe whatever you think is true, and I’m sure God will bless you for doing your best. I think the same about Muslims, and anyone else, regardless of religion.

Hate though, is destructive. If a person’s beliefs are grounded in hatred, they should change their beliefs. They are harming themselves and humanity in general, in my opinion. None of us are immune to hatred, so we should keep an eye on our souls, to make sure we aren’t haters. Spoken as a true hater

Check my post # 46, at the bottom. A bishop who disputes Catholic doctrine does not stop being a bishop. He’s just wrong on that point.

How can you prove that he is wrong? Because other bishops said the opposite? How do you know they are right?

Let’s not. I’m willing to discuss issues with you. I’m not willing to nitpick.

Philosophy is nit-picking my friend. It doesn’t appeal to everyone. Reepicheep certainly wouldn’t like it. I’m more of a Dr. Cornelius myself…LOL

Some of the Pharisees hated Jesus. What’s your point?

If you suspect they hated Jesus, is it so off-base to suspect the Church hated “heretics” or “Christians they disagreed with at the time?”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So the persecuted need their persecutors? The bullied schoolchild needs his bullies so he can have someone to hate? Black slaves in pre-Civil War America needed the slave-owners so they could hate them?
It is never good or right to hate; but “I need someone to exclude” is not the only credible motive for hate.
For that matter, rejecting dissenters is not proof that one hates them, no matter how many times you say that it is.

Mere disagreement and rejection is not proof of hate, but torture, imprisonment, and burning of books and people is evidence of hate, in my opinion.

Bullied children and black Americans have good reasons to resent and hate their bullies/masters. I never said that poor self-image is the only reason to hate, but I do think it is the main source of irrational hatred.

Those who teach and defend truth are likely to do a lot of refuting of errors.

I have no evidence to prove that they were refuting errors. For all I know, the “heretics” were right.

What is your source for the assertion that no other source of information about Arius survives? And I would say you have no evidence that Catholic accounts of what Arius taught are straw men.

I am not aware of any primary source material dealing with Arius’ supposed theology other than negations. Constantine ordered the burning of all his works, and the execution of all sympathizers and anyone in possession of his writings. There is a fantastic website that seems to be temporarily down. Here is a cached version: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y5QwiV_LttwJ:www.fourthcentury.com/arius-chart/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Pumpkin Cookie, are you trying to say that the Catholic Church* created* the Protestant reformation?

If not, then what is your point? The Protestant movement came into being and opposed Catholic teaching. The main doctrine of Protestantism at that point was that the Catholic Church was wrong, and often, that Catholics were wicked. Of course the Catholic Church opposed and attempted to refute the Protestant teachings.

Made themselves the new enemy, as the Protestants had before.

I think Christianity thrives on conflict. It is apocalyptic, it isn’t meant to be a blueprint for a stable, long-term civilization. The reformation was the western Church creating centuries of conflict for itself, in order to re-invigorate itself. Liberal democracy in the 18th-19th centuries was a top-down conflict rather than a horizontal conflict. With Protestantism it was king vs. king, bishop vs. bishop, layperson vs. layperson. With liberal democracy it was small business owners and urban peasants vs. kings, bishops, and landed elites. Can’t have martyrs and heroes without conflict and violence of course.

And when my chemistry teacher insisted on pointing out the errors his students were making, was his big long list of what was wrong, proof of his intolerance toward us?

The legal code of any nation will be a big long list of what is wrong, of behavior that is forbidden and excluded. Does that mean all nations are haters?

We can do experiments to provide evidence suggesting the chemistry teacher is right.

Laws are based on the mutual agreement of the governed by way of representative democracy (in the USA and many nice places to live).

Religious dogmas are based neither on consent nor empirical fact. They are mere appeals to authority. To force those beliefs on others by threat of violence is an act of hate. Suggesting that others will go to hell because they don’t believe such and such religious dogma is an act of violence (albeit certainly not as serious as physical violence/confiscation of property/torture).

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Thank you.

…though I’m not sure what a “personalistic” theology means.

It seems that Pope Francis isn’t so focused on dogma, but rather his personal relationship with Jesus (whom he believes to be God). I get the feeling that if I asked him a question like “why is it such-and-such” he would say “Jesus.” His faith seems to be “fuzzy” and “mystical” and “personal.” This kind of faith doesn’t seem based on hatred.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We know because Mother Church tells us. Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Me: How do you know?

You: Because the Church says so.

Me: How do you know that is what the Church really says?

You: Here, they say so right in their own book.

Me: How do you know you are interpreting their book correctly?

You: [answer here]…

 

[OneSheep]

I LOL’ed at this. You are right there are many hate clubs in the USA. It’s sad really.

Your thinking is too sophisticated for me, I’m sorry. I don’t get it. For me, Catholicism was an experience of oppression and confusion. It was like:

Church: you must believe these dozens of confusing and contradictory things with no evidence, or it’s off to the outer darkness with you

Me:

Good Morning, PC!

I suppose one advantage I have is that I grew up with very dedicated Catholic parents whose beliefs were rather “cafeteria-ish”.

I mean, their beliefs were also contradictory but basically much more accepting of differences. I went through a “holier than thou” period with them, and then wised up.

Pastoral work is very tricky. You will never see a Pope throw down a book of doctrine and say “if you don’t believe all of this, you are out”. Patience and humility should be exercised by all leadership. In addition, words are such superficial manifestations of a lifetime of experiences, as I said earlier. On the other hand, there are those who are very picky about who they consider in the “ingroup”, and to some degree those attitudes also have to be patiently respected!

PC, you didn’t know better when you were like that. Have you come to terms with your old self? And when you do, you will be able to see that those who are exclusive also have a gap somewhere in their thinking/experience. Jesus was/is inclusive in mind and attitude, and that is who you appear to be today. It seems to me that the truth is finding its place in you, as it does (eventually) in all of us.

Blessings

 

[Partinobodycula]

Wonderful thread PC, thank youopcorn: