The Confusion of Catholicism

[PumpkinCookie]

Do you believe in miracles?

what might be a logical explanation for a virgin birth?

I think every human person is capable of moving beyond the confines of reason and logic.

It does seem like you might be willing to accept something that did not necessarily have scientific evidence but that satisfied your rules of logic/could be philosophically defended.

Yes. Fortunatly this is not Catholic, so that is not a problem for us either.

Yes I suppose so, but I think it would be more accurate to say that you are unwilling to allow even the possibilities. Claiming certainty is one thing, allowing that something may be possible is another. You seem to believe that things don’t exist without the certainty.

Perhaps not. I can only go on the posts.

I is not an “accusation”, just an observation.

Perhaps there is a better way to refer to the definition you have given here?

To me it seems very much the same as the “bible christian” for whom every thing is certain that they read in their bible, and everything out side it is suspect.

So I guess that means philosophy is ok? Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that you are fundamentalist with both logic and science?

I understand this. I would not be able to believe it either if I perceived it that way. I think you will find that is true with most Catholics, though there are also fundamentalist Catholics who do not do any critical thinking about their faith.

Yes. If I had this world view, or this ugly view of Catholicism, I am sure that I would feel the same. In fact, now that I think of it I did have that world view at one time and I remember that I frequently wished I had never been born! Fortunately I was able to experience in a personal and healing way that there are spiritual truths beyond the grasp of human intellect.

Not only is it spiritual, emotionally and cognitively crushing, does not seem to contain anything that contributes to a healthy existence of peace and joy.

I believe that God is unlimited so he can and does of course do things that we will never understand and I identify those things as miracles. Existence, free-will, love, and conscience are miracles in my opinion.

I’m not like a fundamentalist, in my opinion, because I am not certain of anything! I’m open to new evidence, beliefs, and reasoning. I do refuse, however, to pretend to be certain about things that can’t be demonstrated and don’t make sense.

For instance, I believe God is totally sovereign but I also believe in human free will. This is problematic because they seem mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, I believe, though I don’t claim certainty of course!

For me, many individual doctrines of Catholicism are abusive, and there doesn’t seem to be a coherent “whole” to it at all. It was driving me insane and making me miserable because the cognitive dissonance became unbearably intense as I learned more about reality and Catholicism (at least, a few accounts of it).

 

[guanophore]

For me, many individual doctrines of Catholicism are abusive, and there doesn’t seem to be a coherent “whole” to it at all. It was driving me insane and making me miserable because the cognitive dissonance became unbearably intense as I learned more about reality and Catholicism (at least, a few accounts of it).

It pains me to think of it.

Oddly what you hve been able to accept as teh “sovereignty” of God solved much of my dissonance, which was caused by projecting my own values/expectations on to the Creator. I have certain standards about what constitues abusive behavior also.

It was also an awakening for me to finally grasp that the Chuch was not just a human institution, and was an entity not defined or limited by the fallen members who are a part of her. After that I was able to recognize the coherent whole, that it is not defined or influenced by personal opinons.

Catholics, in the name of the Church, have done things that are shameful, abusive, and sometimes horrifying. If one cannot separate these acts of inidividuals from the One Faith that wsa deposited once for all to the Church, one can become quickly cynical.

 

[OneSheep]

It seems you have generalized that all Catholics hate atheists. Apparently many Catholic people you’ve dealt with have expressed this hatred. Maybe you should revisit your experience to try to figure out what was said or done that created a hating atmosphere. Its easy to pick a fight with people or maybe insult them or something and when they act like people always do when confronted, and fight back. Have you assume they hate you? Maybe this isn’t exactly the case. Maybe it was the other way around – some Catholics may have tried to prove God to you. And thus picked a fight. I can assure you, you are not hated by all Catholics and the formal church itself does not at all hate you. You are a person with as much human dignity as anyone else. And you are loved by God. Period. That will never be changed by you or by hateful Catholics. The laity sometimes in certain churches, especially, haven’t spent a lot of time learning how to live their faith around others that don’t share the same.

Good Morning KLM,

I thank you for your very thoughtful post, it truly reflects what I see as the modern Church’s demeanor toward people of all faiths, toward all people.

Ironically, what has been demonstrated on this thread is the very “hatred” observed by Pumpkin Cookie.

How would you feel, KLM, if a fellow Catholic is so vehemently opposed your own views that he refuses to shake your hand, even if your hand is offered with no condition of agreement, no conditions at all? Would you agree that this fails to demonstrate the Church’s acknowledgement of human dignity?

And actually, on reading PC’s story, he himself was brought up (part of a Catholic group) with this very exclusionary attitude, he saw it as a matter of holiness to be so self-righteous toward others, to look down on those who were not as “faithful” as he was. So yes, as a Catholic he did experience “the other way around” as you say. And then, he saw the light of his error, and rejected the Church as representative of God. He was steered wrong, and he is in the process of correcting. ( Pardon me, PC, if I am misrepresenting anything there)

Thanks for your addition to the thread!

 

[guanophore]

 So Aristotle had nothing to do with the invention of science, nor did the Arabs? You are rewriting history.

Of course any good comprehensive study of the development of thought will yield that “science” began to develop at the sme time as the hominids. Observation and problem solving to survive and not become prey to larger, stronger members of the food chain.

The preservation and development of science in the West was preserved by Catholics because those were the only stable, learned institutions left standing after the fall of the Roman Empire. My point is that there is no contradiction between Catholicism and science.

Saying that a person did not contribute anything novel or significant is not an act of hostility. I could say the same about many historical characters. I am not giving Jesus preferential treatment, just as I do not give preferential treatment to Mohammed or Ron. L. Hubbard.

I agree. It is more the tone than the statement. So are you asserting that Jesus did not contribute anything novel or significant to humanity?

But how do you know what Jesus said? How do you know he founded the church you belong to?

Using proofs that will not be accepted by you as valid evidence.

Ironically, what has been demonstrated on this thread is the very “hatred” observed by Pumpkin Cookie.

Yes, this has become clear to me as well. PC’s perception of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches translates to “hateful”, therefore, anyone who embraces the teachings of the Church will be a hateful person.

Additionally, those who are not “welcoming” persons who deny the teachings of the Church into Eucharistic communion are “exclusive” and perceived as “shoving” dissenters away. Therefore anyone who accepts the Church teaching on the meaning of the “Amen” at Eucharist is perceived as ostracising/hateful.

if a fellow Catholic is so vehemently opposed your own views that he refuses to shake your hand, even if your hand is offered with no condition of agreement, no conditions at all?   Would you agree that this fails to demonstrate the Church's acknowledgement of human dignity?

This makes following Christ dependent upon a human custom. If one does not engage in this popular human custom, they are failing to acknowledge human dignity.

It is a cultural expectation that has been connected to a value judgement of ostracising. “If a Catholic refuses to shake my hand, they are insulting my human dignitiy”. It is not far from that, to cooperation with other human customs. If a Catholic refuses to recognize that two persons of the same sex cannot have a valid marriage, they are insulting their human dignity (at the least) and persecuting them at the worst.

And actually, on reading PC’s story, he himself was brought up (part of a Catholic group) with this very exclusionary attitude, he saw it as a matter of holiness to be so self-righteous toward others, to look down on those who were not as “faithful” as he was. So yes, as a Catholic he did experience “the other way around” as you say. And then, he saw the light of his error, and rejected the Church as representative of God. He was steered wrong, and he is in the process of correcting. ( Pardon me, PC, if I am misrepresenting anything there)

It does appear that the pendulum has swung far to the opposite side. It is regrettable, but a common reaction when one cannot separate the Holy Bride of Christ from the fallible members that often poorly reflect her faith.

 

[paziego]

Of course any good comprehensive study of the development of thought will yield that “science” began to develop at the sme time as the hominids. Observation and problem solving to survive and not become prey to larger, stronger members of the food chain.

The preservation and development of science in the West was preserved by Catholics because those were the only stable, learned institutions left standing after the fall of the Roman Empire. My point is that there is no contradiction between Catholicism and science.

Yes. I also see science as something that has developed cumulatively over the years. With a general contribution by all of mankind. I see Galen as the first real scientist, although that is just a personal opinion.

I agree that literacy and roman civic ideas where maintained by the church when everything else fell. Aristotelian science was rediscovered during the middle ages, and you are correct about the church being the one to receive and develop his tradition. Well, certain Catholics did, at least. Aristotle as not universally popular at first, and I believe his study was even forbidden in the University of Paris for some time.

I have actually met Fr’s Marcus Holden and Andrew Pinsent. Have you heard of them? They are priests who are also physicists at Oxford University. I respect what you are saying about the compatibility of science and Catholicism, and I know that it must be the case in order to have priests who are high-level physicists such as the ones I mentioned, or such as Fr George Lemaitre who postulated the big bang. I just don’t like it when people say that the Church is unrivalled in its scientific contribution to mankind, as I believe this is an overstatement.

I agree. It is more the tone than the statement. So are you asserting that Jesus did not contribute anything novel or significant to humanity?

Clearly he contributed Christianity to humanity. This is an enormous contribution in terms of its scale of historical influence. But I don’t believe anything novel was introduced with it. For example, alcoholics anonymous did not invent abstinence, even if they contributed to the world by promoting it.

I do not believe Jesus contributed anything which had not been said already by certain Greek or Indian philosophers, or by Zoroaster.

Using proofs that will not be accepted by you as valid evidence.

Yeah, I suppose so. I won’t go there…

 

[o_mlly]

Good Morning KLM,

I thank you for your very thoughtful post, it truly reflects what I see as the modern Church’s demeanor toward people of all faiths, toward all people.

Ironically, what has been demonstrated on this thread is the very “hatred” observed by Pumpkin Cookie. …

Catholicity or universality is the goodness in the Church that allows it to be inclusive of all peoples and cultures. Unity or oneness is the goodness in the Church that provides its identity by limiting the expression of ideas in its creed. The subject of the Church’s catholicity is human beings; the object of the Church’s unity is ideas. Holiness, I think, requires the Church to avoid forfeiting any catholicity (the inclusion of all human beings) and to defend our unity (the exclusion of unacceptable ideas). This formulation of ordering the “marks” would steer an ecclesiology to strive to optimize catholicity by minimizing the requirements for unity. The referent for modulating the two would be always to seek to maximize holiness.

If holiness is to be the regulating principle upon which unity and catholicity are to be moderated, then a concise definition of “holy” is required. Surely, the first component of holiness is charity. The gospels are replete with Jesus’ command to love. John tells us how we should love, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you” (13:34). Matthew tells us who we should love, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (5:44). A second component of holiness or blessedness, I think, is humility. The Beatitudes (Mat 5:1-20) tells us so. The blessed are disposed to being poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and accepting of worldly misfortune. To be holy is to be humble. Both love and humility, therefore, evidence our holiness. How should the Church apply charity and humility, as marks of our holiness, to regulate the virtues of unity and catholicity?

The subject of catholicity is human beings; the object of our unity is ideas. Humans are endowed with rights, and afflicted by vicious inclinations rooted in our will to power. Those who overly stress unity, the absolutists, would like to impose truth by coercion. They make the error of allowing their feelings about erroneous ideas to shift and become the same as their feelings about those who are in error. They think that just as error has no rights of its own and should be banished from the mind, so humans, when they are in error, have no rights and should be banished from the Church. Holiness, charity and humility toward all humanity, enlightened and unenlightened, prevents us from transferring righteous negative impulses toward untruths to the persons holding those untruths. Charity always prevents us from oppressing others, even with the truth.

On the other hand, the postmodern skeptics sometimes overly stress catholicity. They make relativism, ignorance, and doubt necessary conditions for mutual tolerance in a pluralistic society. They make the error of shifting their right feelings, charity and humility toward the human subject—who must be respected even in error—to the object, bad ideas. The relativists regard untruthful ideas as equivalent to truthful ideas. This “laisser faire” mode of intellectuality robs humankind and human intellect of the very act—adherence to truth—in which both human dignity and our reason for living exist. To love God is the first commandment; we are commanded to continually strain for the Truth. This requires us, in holiness, not to relax into skepticism, but to pursue Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. It is the Truth, not ignorance, which makes us truly humble, makes us truly holy.

 

[paziego]

Catholicity or universality is the goodness in the Church that allows it to be inclusive of all peoples and cultures. Unity or oneness is the goodness in the Church that provides its identity by limiting the expression of ideas in its creed. The subject of the Church’s catholicity is human beings; the object of the Church’s unity is ideas. Holiness, I think, requires the Church to avoid forfeiting any catholicity (the inclusion of all human beings) and to defend our unity (the exclusion of unacceptable ideas). This formulation of ordering the “marks” would steer an ecclesiology to strive to optimize catholicity by minimizing the requirements for unity. The referent for modulating the two would be always to seek to maximize holiness.

If holiness is to be the regulating principle upon which unity and catholicity are to be moderated, then a concise definition of “holy” is required. Surely, the first component of holiness is charity. The gospels are replete with Jesus’ command to love. John tells us how we should love, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you” (13:34). Matthew tells us who we should love, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (5:44). A second component of holiness or blessedness, I think, is humility. The Beatitudes (Mat 5:1-20) tells us so. The blessed are disposed to being poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and accepting of worldly misfortune. To be holy is to be humble. Both love and humility, therefore, evidence our holiness. How should the Church apply charity and humility, as marks of our holiness, to regulate the virtues of unity and catholicity?

The subject of catholicity is human beings; the object of our unity is ideas. Humans are endowed with rights, and afflicted by vicious inclinations rooted in our will to power. Those who overly stress unity, the absolutists, would like to impose truth by coercion. They make the error of allowing their feelings about erroneous ideas to shift and become the same as their feelings about those who are in error. They think that just as error has no rights of its own and should be banished from the mind, so humans, when they are in error, have no rights and should be banished from the Church. Holiness, charity and humility toward all humanity, enlightened and unenlightened, prevents us from transferring righteous negative impulses toward untruths to the persons holding those untruths. Charity always prevents us from oppressing others, even with the truth.

On the other hand, the postmodern skeptics sometimes overly stress catholicity. They make relativism, ignorance, and doubt necessary conditions for mutual tolerance in a pluralistic society. They make the error of shifting their right feelings, charity and humility toward the human subject—who must be respected even in error—to the object, bad ideas. The relativists regard untruthful ideas as equivalent to truthful ideas. This “laisser faire” mode of intellectuality robs humankind and human intellect of the very act—adherence to truth—in which both human dignity and our reason for living exist. To love God is the first commandment; we are commanded to continually strain for the Truth. This requires us, in holiness, not to relax into skepticism, but to pursue Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. It is the Truth, not ignorance, which makes us truly humble, makes us truly holy.

Extremely well written.

Do you think there is some possibility of ambiguity as to what is the right balance between orthodoxy and charity?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, o_milly,

I agree with paziego, that your post is thoughtful and well presented.

Catholicity or universality is the goodness in the Church that allows it to be inclusive of all peoples and cultures. Unity or oneness is the goodness in the Church that provides its identity by limiting the expression of ideas in its creed. The subject of the Church’s catholicity is human beings; the object of the Church’s unity is ideas. Holiness, I think, requires the Church to avoid forfeiting any catholicity (the inclusion of all human beings) and to defend our unity (the exclusion of unacceptable ideas). This formulation of ordering the “marks” would steer an ecclesiology to strive to optimize catholicity by minimizing the requirements for unity. The referent for modulating the two would be always to seek to maximize holiness.

I agree, and I would add that the “object” of the Church’s unity in “ideas” must certainly include the object of bringing forth the Kingdom of God, which includes service to those in need. We have a “unity” in action as well as ideas. Also inherent in what you are saying is that if we ever endeavor to defend our unity in such a manner, the “exclusion of unacceptable ideas” must be be done with extreme caution and should always err on the side of those who appear to have such “unacceptable ideas”. In other words, it is charitable to give people the benefit of the doubt, and if such a “benefit” cannot be immediately available, then questions and effort at understanding are in order. Truth is not relative, but individual experiences and vocabulary describing Truth are quite varied.

If holiness is to be the regulating principle upon which unity and catholicity are to be moderated, then a concise definition of “holy” is required. Surely, the first component of holiness is charity. The gospels are replete with Jesus’ command to love. John tells us how we should love, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you” (13:34). Matthew tells us who we should love, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (5:44). A second component of holiness or blessedness, I think, is humility. The Beatitudes (Mat 5:1-20) tells us so. The blessed are disposed to being poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and accepting of worldly misfortune. To be holy is to be humble. Both love and humility, therefore, evidence our holiness. How should the Church apply charity and humility, as marks of our holiness, to regulate the virtues of unity and catholicity?

Yes, and charity must be practiced in the context of culture. For example, what is seen as charitable and respectful in the U.S. (shaking hands with our friends, and even our “enemies”) may be seen as disrespectful elsewhere (though I am not sure where that might be). As an example, to me, humility means having the ability (even when the opinions of the other appear downright “unacceptable”) to shake a person’s hand as a fellow child of God.

The subject of catholicity is human beings; the object of our unity is ideas. Humans are endowed with rights, and afflicted by vicious inclinations rooted in our will to power. Those who overly stress unity, the absolutists, would like to impose truth by coercion. They make the error of allowing their feelings about erroneous ideas to shift and become the same as their feelings about those who are in error. They think that just as error has no rights of its own and should be banished from the mind, so humans, when they are in error, have no rights and should be banished from the Church. Holiness, charity and humility toward all humanity, enlightened and unenlightened, prevents us from transferring righteous negative impulses toward untruths to the persons holding those untruths. Charity always prevents us from oppressing others, even with the truth.

I agree completely.

On the other hand, the postmodern skeptics sometimes overly stress catholicity. They make relativism, ignorance, and doubt necessary conditions for mutual tolerance in a pluralistic society. They make the error of shifting their right feelings, charity and humility toward the human subject—who must be respected even in error—to the object, bad ideas. The relativists regard untruthful ideas as equivalent to truthful ideas. This “laisser faire” mode of intellectuality robs humankind and human intellect of the very act—adherence to truth—in which both human dignity and our reason for living exist. To love God is the first commandment; we are commanded to continually strain for the Truth. This requires us, in holiness, not to relax into skepticism, but to pursue Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. It is the Truth, not ignorance, which makes us truly humble, makes us truly holy.

Exactly. I do not hesitate to add, again, that extreme care must be taken to understand a person’s views before the “relativist” label is applied. Very often seeming differences in ideas are merely differences in vocabulary. More often, perhaps, are differences in spiritual development, which I think is a lot of what Pope Benedict referred to as far as “legitimate differences” are concerned. Indeed, what may appear to be a nod to “relativism”, is merely a patient and humble approach to pursue the Truth. “Ignorance” is our default condition, we can all hold hands and walk together as we seek the “harmony” called for by Pope Benedict and others.

Thanks!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Catholicity or universality is the goodness in the Church that allows it to be inclusive of all peoples and cultures. Unity or oneness is the goodness in the Church that provides its identity by limiting the expression of ideas in its creed. The subject of the Church’s catholicity is human beings; the object of the Church’s unity is ideas…[CUT]…On the other hand, the postmodern skeptics sometimes overly stress catholicity. They make relativism, ignorance, and doubt necessary conditions for mutual tolerance in a pluralistic society. They make the error of shifting their right feelings, charity and humility toward the human subject—who must be respected even in error—to the object, bad ideas. The relativists regard untruthful ideas as equivalent to truthful ideas. This “laisser faire” mode of intellectuality robs humankind and human intellect of the very act—adherence to truth—in which both human dignity and our reason for living exist. To love God is the first commandment; we are commanded to continually strain for the Truth. This requires us, in holiness, not to relax into skepticism, but to pursue Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. It is the Truth, not ignorance, which makes us truly humble, makes us truly holy.

Thank you for your excellent contribution.

Using your framework, I see the attempt to build unity out of objective uncertainty and ignorance as the cause of hate. Hate is the mode by which artificial unity takes shape. On the other side, I see indifference both toward people and ideas as the result of relativism. There must be another way!

Paradoxically, by never ceasing in our search for the truth, we can never become convinced that we’ve already found it. It is not truth itself, but our willingness to chase after it that is at the root of humility in my opinion, as Socrates showed us so long ago. Pompous proclamations of infallible certainty about all manner of ambiguities and obscurities seems to be rather the opposite of this humility.

 

[guanophore]

Catholicity or universality is the goodness in the Church that allows it to be inclusive of all peoples and cultures. …

I think this might be the best short essay I have ever read since I came to CAF, and that is a LOT of posts.

The only place I might take issue is that the unity is centered not on ideas, but on the person of Christ.

 

[o_mlly]

Extremely well written.

Do you think there is some possibility of ambiguity as to what is the right balance between orthodoxy and charity?

Vatican II, in its document Decree on Ecumenism, promotes charity in working toward unity by teaching that we should hold those with whom we disagree “with respect and affection as brothers." The document also suggests a new humility in our grasp of the truth, “When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.” And as an expression of the holiness of humility the council acknowledges “ecclesia semper reformanda” – “Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth.”

St. Paul knew that possessing charity was more important than possessing truth, “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).

 

[o_mlly]

I think this might be the best short essay I have ever read since I came to CAF, and that is a LOT of posts.

In The Far Side, cartoonist Gary Larson personifies animals in order to give us humans a humorous perspective on ourselves. One such cartoon portrays several dogs standing upright in a room, wearing laboratory smocks, crafting equations at a blackboard and carefully examining under microscopes various doorknobs. The caption reads, “Knowing how it could change the lives of canines everywhere, the dog scientists struggled diligently to understand the Doorknob principle.” I am in the dogs’ dilemma: inexorably but futilely drawn to discover the deep mystery that will make me free. Like Larson’s dogs, I struggle to understand the plan of an intelligence beyond mine, a plan that deeply affects my life. Salvation to me, like the doorknob to the dog, is the idea in the mind of a higher being, and I consider my pretension at grasping this mystery quite fragile. If I stumble onto the truth, it will only be because my Creator planned that I do so.

The only place I might take issue is that the unity is centered not on ideas, but on the person of Christ.

Of course, you are right. After all, it is His church.

 

[guanophore]

… we can all hold hands and walk together as we seek the “harmony” called for by Pope Benedict and others.

It is certainly possible, and I would say ideal, that we be able to walk the steep and narrow path together, helping one another lest we fall. But the harmony called for by the popes is not hand holding and walking with each other as much as it is harmony with the heart of Christ. It is being in harmony with Him that creates harmony between us.

Thus the Apostle writes:

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Eph 4:3vf

Unity is created by the Spirit, and we are to keep and preserve it. It emanates from the one God, and being in the One Faith.

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you for your excellent contribution.

Using your framework, I see the attempt to build unity out of objective uncertainty and ignorance as the cause of hate. Hate is the mode by which artificial unity takes shape.

Well, I will grant that hate has a way of creating unity, in terms of the “hate club” we have discussed before, but I don’t see the mechanism by which the attempt in itself would necessarily lead to the hate you are talking about. As you know, I look at this “hate” (note the scare quotes!) as more of an ingroup/outgroup thing, a natural byproduct. That said, we have already touched on this, but what is the mechanism that directly leads to “hate” with such attempts? Does it boil down to the practice of coercing vs. educating/influencing? And then, if forgiveness itself is a central tenet of the content of the “unity”, hatred only persists with those who are either oblivious or are lacking in catechesis.

On the other side, I see indifference both toward people and ideas as the result of relativism. There must be another way!

Not to be contrary on that point, but in what way does relativism lead to indifference toward people and ideas? Relativism is problematic, but the only indifference I detect is people’s indifference toward those that hold relativistic ideas of truth.

The “way”, (I ad nauseum, sorry) is that we focus on relationship as having a primacy over words. It is a focus on Eucharist as something much, much more than a head-thing. I am not saying there is not a place for defending the faith. What I am saying is that at the end of the day everybody shakes hands, smiles and gives a hug. The truth will always, always stand on its own; it’s is not going anywhere. I have no fear of losing the truth! However, it is quite clear that animosity over ideology is contrary to the Kingdom on both a micro and macro scale.

Paradoxically, by never ceasing in our search for the truth, we can never become convinced that we’ve already found it. It is not truth itself, but our willingness to chase after it that is at the root of humility in my opinion, as Socrates showed us so long ago. Pompous proclamations of infallible certainty about all manner of ambiguities and obscurities seems to be rather the opposite of this humility.

I could never say I have “found it” from a logical standpoint, from a “belief in doctrine” standpoint, or an obedience standpoint. I have found the truth in relationship, it is a wholeness, a oneness. That said, it is my Church, the gospel, that led me down the path of that prayerful meeting. In humility, however, I have nothing to show as “proof”. The gospel is True not because somebody says it is true or because I believe in miracles. I know it is True because I took the path presented to me (by a priest, and the Gospel) and it changed my life.

I know you’ve seen this before, but it truly is a quote worth repeating:

“Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. We receive the truth when we meet [it].”

Pope Francis

Pope Francis is not throwing out the encyclopedia. He is saying, to me, that there is much, much more than the encyclopedia. And there is!

 

[OneSheep]

It is certainly possible, and I would say ideal, that we be able to walk the steep and narrow path together, helping one another lest we fall. But the harmony called for by the popes is not hand holding and walking with each other as much as it is harmony with the heart of Christ. It is being in harmony with Him that creates harmony between us.

I believe you have it, we have harmony between us.

Guanophore, I think I finally understand. I understand that you are definitely one of the most argumentative, stubborn, incorrigible and lovable curmudgeons on the CAF.

I have one question.

Those two guys in your avatar-picture, do they ever, ever stop sparring?

Never mind. Let’s go grab a beer, shall we? They may be serving pumpkin cookies at the pub. What the heck, let’s invite him too. Paziego, are you in? O_milly’s buying.

Shoot, almost forgot the womenfolk. Granny, Gorgias, Simpleas, pull up a stool, will you?

Anyone else out there? Join us. O_milly’s nailed it. Let’s celebrate!

 

[simpleas]

I believe you have it, we have harmony between us.

Guanophore, I think I finally understand. I understand that you are definitely one of the most argumentative, stubborn, incorrigible and lovable curmudgeons on the CAF.

I have one question.

Those two guys in your avatar-picture, do they ever, ever stop sparring?

Never mind. Let’s go grab a beer, shall we? They may be serving pumpkin cookies at the pub. What the heck, let’s invite him too. Paziego, are you in? O_milly’s buying.

Shoot, almost forgot the womenfolk. Granny, Gorgias, Simpleas, pull up a stool, will you?

Anyone else out there? Join us. O_milly’s nailed it. Let’s celebrate!

Almost forgot the womenfolk… that’s because us “womenfolk” are far ahead of you menfolk!

 

[GracieRuth]

Pumpkin, this is just an educated guess, but it sounds like you are the one that is unsure of what you are, and you are projecting that on others.

There is a lot that Catholics have the freedom to disagree on. We are required to obey the Magisterium. Now, not everything in the Magisterium is infallible, and so the Pope and bishops are free to debate among themselves whether they should change this or that. THIS IS ALL PART OF BEING CATHOLIC.

Most atheists and agnostics are not anti-religionists. I’ve known quite a few and they simply are not hostile, but live and let live. Only the New Atheists believe religion should be wiped off the planet.

Similarly, Catholics are to hate no one. I certainly don’t hate atheists. I think skeptical sorts serve an important purpose – they keep us on our toes!!

 

[paziego]

Vatican II, in its document Decree on Ecumenism, promotes charity in working toward unity by teaching that we should hold those with whom we disagree “with respect and affection as brothers." The document also suggests a new humility in our grasp of the truth, “When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.” And as an expression of the holiness of humility the council acknowledges “ecclesia semper reformanda” – “Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth.”

St. Paul knew that possessing charity was more important than possessing truth, “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).

Even though I agree with the sentiment of treating people well in a debate, I still have to agree with PumpkinCookie. You cannot presuppose the truth, you must let you enquiry lead you wherever it may take you. Believeing your doctrines to be infallible is not humility.

Love is not the only theme in the New Testament. I have chosen some extracts where this is not the case.

John 15:19New International Version (NIV)

19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Calling non-believers hateful is already a bad start. Not everyone who is not persuaded by Catholic apologetics and therefore not a believer is a hater. This creates a clear “us and them” dynamic. It makes it a matter of faith to believe the world hates you, and that you are above this world and above those “of” it.

John 3:16-19New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

This is a blanket statement about non-Christians, declaring us evil. This is not loving and is totalitarian. It is aggressive, militant rhetoric. Furthermore, it stressed belief rather than a search for truth. It clearly says that the only reason people reject Christianity is because they love doing evil so much. So according to John there is no legitimate disagreement with Christianity - if you don’t buy it, it is only because you are morally depraved; and because of that you richly deserve your condemnation.

2 Timothy 2:24-26New International Version (NIV)

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Non-Christians are doing the devil’s work. That makes us clear enemies, as God is in enmity with the devil. I know it says that opponents must be gently instructed, but this is with a view to our eventual conversion. What happens to a person who is not persuaded?
From the previous quote we can see that the gentleness and love only goes so far. If someone rejects what is being taught it is because he is addicted to evil and hateful.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”

The non-believers are wicked and unrighteous forces of darkness, apparently. How can such a blanket character judgment be made? How can you love someone who is all those things, and who you are commanded to keep separate from?

 

[tonyrey]

Pumpkin, this is just an educated guess, but it sounds like you are the one that is unsure of what you are, and you are projecting that on others.

There is a lot that Catholics have the freedom to disagree on. We are required to obey the Magisterium. Now, not everything in the Magisterium is infallible, and so the Pope and bishops are free to debate among themselves whether they should change this or that. THIS IS ALL PART OF BEING CATHOLIC.

Most atheists and agnostics are not anti-religionists. I’ve known quite a few and they simply are not hostile, but live and let live. Only the New Atheists believe religion should be wiped off the planet.

Similarly, Catholics are to hate no one. I certainly don’t hate atheists. I think skeptical sorts serve an important purpose – they keep us on our toes!!

They may also serve to refine and help us define more precisely the meaning of the terms we use. A devil’s advocate can have an angelic effect.

 

[KLM789]

Good Morning KLM,

I thank you for your very thoughtful post, it truly reflects what I see as the modern Church’s demeanor toward people of all faiths, toward all people.

Ironically, what has been demonstrated on this thread is the very “hatred” observed by Pumpkin Cookie.

How would you feel, KLM, if a fellow Catholic is so vehemently opposed your own views that he refuses to shake your hand, even if your hand is offered with no condition of agreement, no conditions at all? Would you agree that this fails to demonstrate the Church’s acknowledgement of human dignity?

And actually, on reading PC’s story, he himself was brought up (part of a Catholic group) with this very exclusionary attitude, he saw it as a matter of holiness to be so self-righteous toward others, to look down on those who were not as “faithful” as he was. So yes, as a Catholic he did experience “the other way around” as you say. And then, he saw the light of his error, and rejected the Church as representative of God. He was steered wrong, and he is in the process of correcting. ( Pardon me, PC, if I am misrepresenting anything there)

Thanks for your addition to the thread!

To One Sheep –
Well, as a Catholic I have several times experienced fellow Catholics’ vitriol. The priest at church with the worst parishioners often spoke sternly in the homily, directly, about the various attitudes. At the time with my personal issues I tried my best to communicate further etc. Finally changed parishes, so I could have a church life. As far as what I was feeling? I was angry at the gaul at first and then realized I have never prayed enough for people like this. They are a minority, but when they get a little power in a parish they can cause havoc. This type of story is as old as organized religion. I’m lucky that whenever I was confronted I had enough confidence in my belief that I could ignore them. I have been able, always, to seek out company among believers who demonstrate what I find to be Christ’s message. You do realize, living a Christian life while being confronted on a daily basis in a non-Christian world is hard even for the most faith grounded person. I think you should lighten up on people who appear so hateful. Walk away. And, if you still find yourself questioning their motives, bad as they seem, maybe what is really going on is you are, indeed, on your own search for God and perhaps the Christian truth. Bless you. Otherwise, why do you care so much?