My parents were both raised Catholic but by the time myself & my elder brother were born my mother had gone over to pentacostalism - so i was raised a protestant,school & all.
I came to the Catholic church a couple of years ago & yes I have been accused of looking at other peoples faults instead of my own.
But people only tend to say that when they disagree with me over one of the churches moral teachings.

So 'they' say i don't understand because I don't remember what the church was like in the old days.But the church has changed - shouldn't 'they' be happy about this?
why do i have to listen to people complain about ills that have already been righted?
I hate people who do nothing but complain about the past all the time.

You think being raised catholic was tough? Try going to a pentacostal school/church where they tell you the end of the world is nigh & that God will spit you out if you're not on fire for him & you're made to feel guilty for drinking alcohol!
lar | 04.26.06 - 3:11 am | #

Sounds to me like both women never really were catholic in their beliefs, just catholic in their culture.

"it’s really, really hard to ... not get bent out of shape at really inappropriate Catholic-bashing" --Zuzu Commentor

You make this sound like it's a bad thing, or that catholics deserve inappropriate bashing.

"because of the nature of recent converts. They have all but destroyed our parish." --Zuzu

Let me get this straight, you convert religions because you don't like the (I assume conservative) converts... to me, it doesn't sound like you hold that religion very seriously, or that you're raising political affiliation above religious conviction.

Is it correct that how these women use their membership in faith to devalue the contribution from recent converts? If liberals don't like conservative converts, shouldn't they do something useful about it like start making liberal converts? Is it really so bad to spread your faith by talking about it to someone who might not know the real church except in lampoon?
Bookstopper | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:13 am | #

Lar,

I think that people who disagree with the church also tend to think that since the church has the ability to define morality, it can also change it or apply it selectively. It can't. Disgruntled members manifest their discontent in a number of ways. Acting out against God, Catholic bashing, misinterpreting its laws, and insulting more faithful catholics are my favorite ones that I've seen.

I live in the bible belt, so I know what it's like to live with fundamentalist types. They may be tough at times, but the ones that are the most insulting have their hearts in the right place. The only really bad ones are the Tartuffes who are more interested in status and money than actual holiness. I have plenty of stories about them too.
Bookstopper | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:23 am | #

I'm not a Roman Catholic -- I don't even play one on television -- but Dawn's description of Zuzu and her "amen corner" (nice phrase, kiddo!) resonates.

There are, it seems, two kinds of people when it comes to religious zeal. Those who are, to borrow a phrase, "more Catholic than the Pope," which may not be a bad thing, when you think about it. If you're a convert TO a given faith, why NOT embrace it fully and deeply and happily? In fact, if I read the New Testament book of Acts, that's kinda what those folks back then did.

The others are the, well, "anti-zealots," if I may use that term, such as Zuzu. They stand Mencken's bit about Puritans -- someone who is afraid that someone else, somewhere, is having a good time -- on its head. Zuzu, who may indeed be a very nice person one-on-one, seems just plain frosted that anyone could like what she does not. Therefore, the liker has to be crazy AND needs to be enlightened.

It's funny how that works. Having changed spiritual "homes" more than once in my life (ask me how!), the one thing I haven't really done -- yet -- is stand in front of home "a" with a picket sign, real or virtual, saying it stinks and everyone has to move to home "b" with me. For one, you don't win people with negative arguments, I've found. For another, we seem to forget it is God who leads. I can't "convert" anyone -- that's the Lord's role, in the person of the Holy Spirit, as I read the Bible, that is!
Mark Kellner | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:35 am | #

From　one of the commenters: "It doesn`t matter what religion I am now (neo-pagan actually), a part of Catholcism will always be with me."

It reminds me of what my grandmother told me, when I was 15 and I told her I could no longer call myself Catholic anymore, because I decided I wasn`t pro-life. She said, "You can leave the church, but the church will never leave you."

She was right.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:58 am | #

That's pretty g**damn hilarious. It reminds me of Monty Python's We Were Poor sketch. You call that Catholic? We were so Catholic that...

I'm not Catholic, but I don't mind when Dawn preaches to me because (1) she's sincere, (2) she takes her cues from the source material rather than bending the source material to conform to her views and personal desires, and (3) she's positive. It was the lack of those things that drove me out of the Church of Liberalism.
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:26 am | #

all I can say is if she really was catholic and knew her faith, she would not let anyone or anything separate her from the sacraments....
Theresa | 04.26.06 - 7:10 am | #

There are "nominal" members in every facet of Christianity, be it Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or what have you. They think, or seem to think, that retaining the brand name justifies their apostacy. The one thing they have in common is the way they poo-poo the zeal of new members in a not so veiled (and all too often successful) attempt to make them ineffective Christians. The truely sad part is that many of the nominal members also occupy influential places in the local cuhrch or parish.
J Rob | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 7:25 am | #

Dawn,

"Ex-Catholic" stories have been around a long time, probably as long as the Church itself - what distinguishes so many of them is that they are written and proclaimed by terribly angry and hurt people whose rejection of the Church (and often, God) has not seemed to make them happy. Ironically, not a few ex-Catholics become Episcopalians because they want to live they way they want to live but be surrounded with Catholic trappings. My experience with them is that still leaves them hungry - starving even - for God but their anger and their hurt will not permit them to sup at the rich banquet table of the Lord.
Dan Crawford | 04.26.06 - 7:33 am | #

Um, folks, I was raised Catholic.

Heh!

Be sure to memorize Shea's Sixth Immutable Law of Internet Discourse

Your critics are perfectly right that Church is not the ideal Church. However, it is Christ's Church and is filled with losers like us because it's a hospital for sinners. To leave it and then linger around it, furious that others are finding it to be a Home and Mother is, well, one of the odd pathologies of ex-Catholic culture. I don't find myself lingering around my old Church, bitter that others are happy there. And I particularly feel no motivation to tell other communions how to order their internal affairs. I'm delighted to see people become Catholic. But part of the glory of the thing is that it adamantly refuses to bow to my consumerist desires. I *love* that.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 8:08 am | #

Being "raised Catholic" does not automatically guarantee true understanding of Church teachings or give one carte blanche to dismiss someone else's experience! I find my friends who are converts to have a deeper understanding of the Catechism and have inspired me to learn more about my faith.
KatieButler | 04.26.06 - 8:27 am | #

Gee, and I thought it was the people who disagreed with and hated the Church without leaving who were ruining it for everyone. I see I was comletely wrong. It's those of us who LOVE the Church that are making it impossible to live with. Wow.
Dennis | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 8:38 am | #

I was taken aback by the "institutional memory" remark until I realized that my institutional memory and the author's were completely different. The comment, I guess, must refer to the "good old days" of the Catholic Church when everything was feel good, do good, learn nothing and ignore morality issues. Hard to believe that those that we called "hippie" priests and nuns are now looked on with nostalgia as they plunge through their sixties and are being replaced by the JPII generation.
Robert N G | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 8:44 am | #

So you "unfairly escaped" previous Church horrors like the Magdelene Laundries etc? Cry me a river!

Yesterday I had this very conversation with a coworker and I told her, that as a Jew, if anyone had the right to be angry at the Church, it was me.

Basically its all about Christ's presence in the Eucharist. If that essential Matter does not matter to you, by all means attend the low calerie version at the Episcopal Church. And don't let the door knob hit you.....
Janjan | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 9:00 am | #

I can't quote chapter and verse...

but didn't Christ tell a parable about the wage-earner hired after everyone else collecting the same salary?

& in the case of Dawn & others- that the original branches of the olive tree would be grafted back on?

& that we should not get too puffed up with ourselves, as we can easily be removed from that same olive tree?

God bless the converts that bring new life & enthusiasm to the Faith that we grew up with!
Faith | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 9:13 am | #

I am glad we gain people with faith and zeal to replace those who have lost The Faith or are lukewarm.

Crossing the Tiber was never any easy journey.
Greg Long | 04.26.06 - 9:44 am | #

FYI: The quote she links to was also from Feministe, not another blog. It was just in the comments section.

[Corrected -- thanks! - Ed.]
Jill | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 9:50 am | #

Ditto Katie and Greg. I'M a cradle Catholic, but I somehow escaped the "horrors" and never thought of the Church as an exclusive club. The converts I know are a welcome shot in the arm. The more the merrier, welcome all! Is the "no more please, we have quite enough members already" attitude part of the contraceptive mentality? Also, GB Shaw's response to Chesterton's interest in conversion was to tell him that he REALLY didn't know the Church as an insider otherwise he'd stay far away (words to that effect anyway).
Bradamante | 04.26.06 - 9:58 am | #

Sounds to me like both women never really were catholic in their beliefs, just catholic in their culture.

It sounds like a lot of converts have the luxury of Catholic beliefs without much cultural baggage attached, and overestimate the ease of separating the "wheat" from the "chaff" in such a situation.
Jeff | 04.26.06 - 10:04 am | #

One of the things I admire about Dawn is that she picks her religion on the basis of moral truth and not on the basis of what church she grew up in. Zuzu needs to understand the Church isn't a facet of culture. It's an institution devoted to the search for truth.
Richard J. Stuart | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:06 am | #

To elaborate: I don't think it's so much a case of "cradle Catholics" versus "converts" as it is those who grew up in areas where Catholicism had a controlling interest in the culture versus those who grew up in more "neutral ground." And I suspect converts may be overwhelmingly in that latter group, if only because it's hard to find converts when everyone's born into the religion.
Jeff | 04.26.06 - 10:08 am | #

Actually, I grew up in a neighborhood where, if you weren't Catholic, you were Jewish.
Janjan | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:18 am | #

I too was 'raised Catholic,' though that gives me as much moral authority as does the fact that I wear socks. Even worse, cultural Catholicism addles the mind and moral compass. Thank God for 'Magisterial Catholics'--cradle and convert. On the Journey Home the other day there was an interview with a wonderful young couple, both of whom came into full communion with the Church from Evangelical Protestantism. Their enthusiasm for the faith was infectious and any parish would be blessed to have them as members. More please!
reluctant penitent | 04.26.06 - 10:30 am | #

...sigh...I can't stand this attitude.

Catholicism is a belief system -- NOT an ethnic inheritance (you hear that John Kerry!!?).
Tex | 04.26.06 - 10:31 am | #

I think the complaints about "converts" were partial inspiration for this:

Matthew (20: 1-16)

"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.'

So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.

Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'

When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'

He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'

Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Jim | 04.26.06 - 10:34 am | #

I have to admit to being a bit jealous of Dawn and other converts sometimes. In their conversion journey, they came to the truth from the outside, and display a fervor that inspires me. I've been Catholic all of my life, and I've only grown deeper in my faith, but converts certainly keep us cradle Catholics on our toes. They're like that kid that started piano lessons in high school when you started at age 6, and they're better players than you are. It makes me make sure I don't take my faith for granted.

Although I suppose there are worse things to be jealous of than a fiery faith, it is rather reminiscent of a certain prodigal son's brother...
Andy | 04.26.06 - 10:38 am | #

"Catholicism is a belief system -- NOT an ethnic inheritance."

Excuse me, but it is both.

Question for the holy rollers, from the cafeteria: isn`t being a half-assed Catholic better than being nothing at all?
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:41 am | #

No, L...and I think somewhere in Revelation, the Lord says something about spitting the lukewarm out.

Why sit in the cafeteria and eat "rainbow meat" when you can dine at the finest Table?
Janjan | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:46 am | #

Um, because I prefer "rainbow meat." Janjan, I disagree wholeheartedly. Otherwise, I wouldn`t be raising my kids Catholic -- even as my husband insists they`re Buddhists.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:50 am | #

Oh man, would I like to wade in at length on this, but I'm just too busy. As a convert of some 25 years standing, I've come into contact with apostate and merely nominal Catholics like this more than once. In most cases it's fairly clear that they never had more than a superficial knowledge of the faith. I know a couple right now who don't seem to quite get the difference between Deepak Chopra and the Pope.

By the way, you can also get the anti-convert thing from the right. Some people never get over the suspicion that if you didn't grow up with it you're not quite to be trusted.

Just one more thing--it's important to recognize that many people really have been hurt by someone associated with the Church, or by some effect of someone only partially following the Church's teachings (e.g. not using birth control but also not restraining sexual desire when a woman's health or the families welfare is at risk--although I doubt many Americans under 40 have seen this). So compassion is more in order than anger.

Bravo to what Tex, Mark Shea, St. Kansas, and Janjan said above.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:52 am | #

p.s. more comments arrived while I was writing mine--Janjan, I'm not so sure about half-assed Catholics. So many people have stayed in the Church under those conditions and had an awakening at some point. A debatable point, to be sure.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:55 am | #

I'm not sure whether being a "half-assed" Catholic is better than none at all. I guess if they don't misrepresent Church teaching it's all right. But who would I rather hang out with? I'd rather hang around with a devout Lutheran than a "Catholic" who couldn't be bothered to go to Mass or accept Church teaching. If you know the truth, you have a greater responsibility to do something about it.

Also, in terms of converts having "unfairly" escaped the Magdalene laundries, etc...how many cradle Catholics actually did experience the Magdalene laundries? I'm 21 years old; so I sure as heck didn't. The only "horror" I experienced was watching one of my parish priests get carted off for extortion and pedophilia, and my father, who is a convert, experienced that horror too. And what's wrong with telling a lifelong Catholic that you've found the True Way, if the lifelong Catholic has had it all along?

I'm so happy that you are Catholic, Dawn. You're not over-the-top, you're excited but sensible about it, and you just keep telling people you're glad to be Catholic. It makes me glad to be Catholic.
Jane | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:55 am | #

Well, that is what's great about the Catholic Church: No one, not even the most rabid convert gets to check anyone's "faith credentials" when they walk in the door.

If you're a "half-assed" Catholic, fine, it's none of my business, but don't give me a hard time because I'm there by choice.
Janjan | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 11:03 am | #

In most cases it's fairly clear that they never had more than a superficial knowledge of the faith. I know a couple right now who don't seem to quite get the difference between Deepak Chopra and the Pope.

Amen, Maclin! I get the converse from Protestants a lot. I call it the "altar boy syndrome." You know... "I was an altar boy, so I know all about them Cath'licks. I remember all about how we used to worship idols of Mary and kiss the pope's foot just before being molested by the priest..."

Apparently having been born into a Catholic family (or saying you were) means that whatever twaddle you spout about the Church must be true.
Joel | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 11:06 am | #

I'm sort of a cradle Catholic: born into a devout Catholic family, but completely uneducated by them. And at the Catholic school where I went, the teachers assumed we knew everything already, and taught nothing about the faith. My sibling and I all left the Church at various times; a couple of us took a second look and came back. While I'll agree that there is such a thing as cultural Catholicism, I think it's a separate animal from practicing, believing Catholicism. Eating fish on Fridays may make you a cultural Catholic. It doesn't mean you know why Catholics eat fish on Fridays, or have the wherewithal to be able to assess, accept, or reject the eating of fish.

As far as half-assed Catholics go: Staying in the Church means following its rules. That's in the baptismal vows. If you were baptized as an infant, your parents made those vows for you, but it's up to you to assess them and uphold them as an adult, if you choose. Church membership is voluntary for adults, remember. If one has no desire to uphold the vows, one has no business claiming to uphold them. What's more, if one is really unhappy with the Church, one should go where one will be happy. If one dislikes the Church, but is happier there than anywhere else, one has some serious thinking to do about obedience and priorities and disagreements. Otherwise, you're just eating fish, and that's on the menu everywhere.
Kate B. | 04.26.06 - 11:19 am | #

I'm reminded of the bit in Walker Percy's Lost in the Cosmos where he suggests you should never send an apostate Irish Catholic on a deep-space, multi-year mission, since you can never tell when his next transmission might include the demand for a priest to hear his confession.
Tom | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 11:27 am | #

Kate B.: I still think it's a heck of a lot easier to evaluate the "fish on Friday" cultural Catholocism when you're not surrounded by people who think having a steak on Friday is on the same level as, for example, using contraception.
Jeff | 04.26.06 - 11:37 am | #

Jeff--

I've never met a Catholic, no matter how hardcore, who thought steak on a Friday was as grave a sin as contraception. And saying that you can't evaluate your own cultural situation because you're in it is like saying, "Mom, I had to buy it--the TV told me to" or that no one can disagree with their own pasts. But people do evaluate and reject aspects--or entireties--of their cultures regularly. Thus, while I can have some sympathy for the diffculties involved, I can't really excuse anyone from the task.
Kate B. | 04.26.06 - 11:41 am | #

I agree with the everyone who points out thst the problem these "cradle Catholics" have with converts is due to their inability to distinguish between "cultural" and "belief" Catholicism. But I disagree with Jeff's characterization of converts as having the "luxury" of beliefs without baggage, and of overestimating the difficulty of separating the wheat from the chaff.

It is not a luxury, it is an impoverishment not to have grown up with the richness of Catholic culture. The REAL problem is that most people are no longer educated in the most minimal rudiments of logic. It is NOT difficult to separate (in one's mind) "beliefs" from "culture" if one has any access whatsoever to the great Catholic intellectual tradition.

If the converts have come to Catholicism because their intellectual quest has led them there, they will, simply because they are intellectual seekers, have an advantage over people who have never been taught to think analytically or who have never contemplated the propositional content of their religion. But the fault lies entirely with those who are unable or unwilling to use research and logic. (Even if people whose understanding of Catholicism is riddled with falsehood have been poorly educated, it is, assuming they are at least literate, still their fault, for not using the brains God gave them; at any educational level, there is no shortage of books explaining the faith.)
Joseph | 04.26.06 - 11:52 am | #

I'm reminded of the bit in Walker Percy's Lost in the Cosmos where he suggests you should never send an apostate Irish Catholic on a deep-space, multi-year mission, since you can never tell when his next transmission might include the demand for a priest to hear his confession.

Never heard that one, Tom -- thanks! Walker Percy just rose several notches in my estimation (having read only "The Moviegoer").
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 11:57 am | #

Dawn,

The apostate Christians who post over there simply don't like those who actually take their beliefs seriously. Serious believers are a painful reminder that if they took their own beliefs seriously, they might be forced to question the tenets of radical feminism. And *that* might cause them to be labeled as "godbags" by their little feminist friends. So they choose the wide, easy road over the narrow, difficult one. They have chosen a false god(ess) -- feminism -- over the One True God.
Susan B. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 12:00 pm | #

It's not so much the luxury of not having the cultural aspects as part of one's belief; it's more the luxury of practicing outside such a culture, and being able to accept or reject the culture at one's choosing. (As well as bringing in other aspects of non-Catholic culture, such as the idea that the Church is exclusively for the elite "saved" people rather than being catholic in the small-letter sense.)
Jeff | 04.26.06 - 12:10 pm | #

Well, I had a comment [on Feministe, and Jamie comments below that it wasn't deleted after all -- Ed.], but it got "moderated away", so I posted it in its entirety on my blog.

I did get a response before it was deleted, but she didn't want the rest of the info about the Church being published. I guess some people not only want to hide the Light of Christ under a bushel basket - they want to try to snuff it out of existence anywhere they can! Luckily, like Jesus in a programming contest - I save! ;-)
Jamie Beu | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Is zuzu the one chopping off her breasts? Or is that Jill?
BillyHW | 04.26.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Sorry - my blog entry is here: http://spaces.msn.com/jamiebeu/blog/cns! 6E0753BD56367285!396.entry
Jamie Beu | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 12:24 pm | #

CORRECTION 4/26/2006 12:27PM EDT: My comment was not deleted. I had searched for it before it was accepted by the moderator. Mea culpa.
Jamie Beu | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 12:33 pm | #

I could write all day on this thread. But for now I just have a comment for L.

I'm glad you're raising your kids Catholic. And I'm glad you're still Catholic, even if you don't agree with everything. Stick around and who knows what can happen. God works in mysterious ways and all that good stuff. I know it somehow seems to be working for me.
Mark | 04.26.06 - 12:41 pm | #

What's really sad in all this is that the catholic church is historicly the most pro-woman institution in history. For 2000 years, it has stood against the exploitation of women. Feminists are advocating free love which will turn into a license to exploit women, and they are bashing the catholic church to do it.

I will be very fearful about the future of women if they actually win against the church.
Bookstopper | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 12:42 pm | #

It is my observation that too many people, regardless how and when they became Catholic, insist on being the Pope of the Church of Me. And that covers people who are more Catholic than the pope as well as people who let their consciences be their guides, no matter what wacky places that takes them.

Too many of us have been assimilated (yes, in near Borg-like fashion) by American culture and its egocentric theory of the universe: "it's all about me." Well ... it isn't.

Trouble is, some folks just can't handle the truth.
C.J. | 04.26.06 - 12:44 pm | #

Jeff--

But rejecting the culture you're born into is what converts--to any religion or philosophy--do. The children of Republicans vote Democrat if they want to. Converts to Catholicism may have the luxury of viewing it from outside American Cultural Catholicism, but what about the traditions they're leaving? We all "accept or reject cultures at our choosing." It's why people convert. It's why people shop at malls, or only buy organic. If one is unthinkingly accepting a culture, one needs to wise up fast.
Kate B. | 04.26.06 - 12:58 pm | #

"What's more, if one is really unhappy with the Church, one should go where one will be happy."

Since when was it all about being "happy?"
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 12:59 pm | #

"I will be very fearful about the future of women if they actually win against the church."
Bookstopper, I honestly have no idea what you`re talking about there.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 1:00 pm | #

Kate B.,

My upbringing is very similar to yours. I too was raised Catholic with little input from my parents. I've just recently really started talking to them about Catholic teaching and the Catechism specifically. My kids are currently in the process of getting Confirmed.

"As far as half-assed Catholics go: Staying in the Church means following its rules. That's in the baptismal vows. If you were baptized as an infant, your parents made those vows for you, but it's up to you to assess them and uphold them as an adult, if you choose. Church membership is voluntary for adults, remember. If one has no desire to uphold the vows, one has no business claiming to uphold them. What's more, if one is really unhappy with the Church, one should go where one will be happy. If one dislikes the Church, but is happier there than anywhere else, one has some serious thinking to do about obedience and priorities and disagreements. Otherwise, you're just eating fish, and that's on the menu everywhere."

I'm not sure if I misunderstood you here. L, for example, has said she does not agree with everything the Catholic church teaches. Are you suggesting that she leave the church and find one that makes her happy? I would hope that she sticks with the Catholic church; she may come to understand the teaching and change her views. Maybe she won't change her views. But I always thought the church was open to everyone.

I know I have not been the perfect Catholic. From the time I left high school to a year or so ago, I was one of those cafeteria Catholics. I definitely knew what was right and wrong, but I sure as heck wasn't practicing any of it. By reading Dawn, The Anchoress, Amy Welborn and some of the other good Catholic writers, I have started to practice my faith. I'm glad I never left to find something that made me "feel good".

Good things happen to those who keep searching and don't give up.
Mark | 04.26.06 - 1:03 pm | #

L- Keep on trucking. Just your being interested in God is something He (Yes, He) can use. And let your hubby know that Buddhism is nice (I was in an ashram for quite a while), but there's no God who died for us in Buddhism; in fact, there's no God who died and was resurrected, having 500 witnesses at a time, and having profound impact on billions of people in the world 2000 years after the event. Let your kiddies know, too, and may God smile on you for your efforts and may he bless you, your husband and children abundantly.
No Spin | 04.26.06 - 1:13 pm | #

Thank, No Spin, but my husband is essentially a pagan ancestor worshipper who prays to his grandmother. But somehow I believe, rather than his being in darkness, he is in a different light -- this officially makes me a heretic, I think.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 1:27 pm | #

I could write all day on this thread. But for now I just have a comment for L.

I'm glad you're raising your kids Catholic. And I'm glad you're still Catholic, even if you don't agree with everything. Stick around and who knows what can happen. God works in mysterious ways and all that good stuff. I know it somehow seems to be working for me.

I am with Mark on this. I've known way too many 'half-assed' Catholics who later had a deepening of their faith that would be akin to many of our own conversions. I am loathed to see, or even suggest, that anyone cut themselves off from the major source of grace in their life.

I think the exception may be the case where someone is actively working against the faith (commenting and challenging others in blog discussions hardly seems to count in that regard).

I know the verse where the lukewarm are spewed out, but I also hear in my heart the prayer of the father asking for healing for his son.

“I believe, help my unbelief.”

Was he half-assed because he didn’t believe ‘well enough’?

Finally, I think even those of us who claim to fully accept church teaching are very ‘half-assed’ in our own way. In that we are all sinners and fail to live up to it fully. If we are to erect a barrier to the half-assed, one day we might find that we ourselves can’t climb over it.
SteveG | 04.26.06 - 1:27 pm | #

In our discussion of this issue, folks are making statements about what the Church is: a belief system, a cultural inheritance, etc. But we are all missing something that is all too important.

The Church boldly and startlingly proclaims that it is the church which Christ established with His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. It claims that the Apostles were entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel and spreading the faith, becoming the first bishops. The new adherents were to be baptized and added to the church. This baptism was, and is, not a membership ritual for a club, but admission to the Body of Christ.

(For the sake of expediency, I am not going to address the status of the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants; the Catechism does so very well. I'm not trying to be "triumphal").

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, the ex-Catholics who hang around and throw stones realize this, at least on a subconscious level. If Christianity is true, then the Church and her sacraments must be true, because even to a cultural Catholic, faith without sacraments, priesthood, and liturgical seasons seems bogus.
philly_bob | 04.26.06 - 1:28 pm | #

But somehow I believe, rather than his being in darkness, he is in a different light -- this officially makes me a heretic, I think.

I dunno about that making you a heretic, but how about a half light instead of different light? From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
SteveG | 04.26.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Yeah -- I think it`s better to see with half a light, and sit on half an ass, than curse the darkness on no ass.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Good one L.

I think Confucius said that.
Mark | 04.26.06 - 1:44 pm | #

I say that all of this demonstrates the pull that the Church has in the hearts of those who know Her. I am a cradle Catholic "revert" who spent his 20's partying and "f---ing around" as Zuzu would put it, and then I came back; I never considered myself anything but Catholic, even when I was out there.

My own zeal comes from the fact that I went out into the world and found nothing else to fill the Big Empty. As Walker Percy said when a friend asked why he became Catholic, "What else is there?"

I say it's the One True Way because I'm trying the novel experiment of telling the Truth when I say the Nicene Creed on Sunday morning. Part of the hazard of saying "I believe" is that you also come to realize there are other things you don't believe.
Fallen Sparrow | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 1:46 pm | #

Congratulations on your conversion, Dawn....it's such a joy!
JV | 04.26.06 - 1:47 pm | #

I think I got sidetracked back to the "cradle vs. convert" thing.

But I think (and this was my original point) that the Catholic Church, like all religions, presents a very different face when it's the overwhelming majority than it does in regions when it's a minority or part of a plurality. Converts appear to come from the latter situation most often, whereas the "why I'm no longer Catholic" people seem to be from the former.
Jeff | 04.26.06 - 1:47 pm | #

Someone named Kat commented on Zuzu`s post:

"What these RCIA converts you talk about are missing with the Church, or any Christian church for that matter, is that Christianity is not designed for perfect people. It is a faith based on forgiving SINNERS. Which is why I can go every week and know I am welcome by God if not by my pew-mate who thinks he knows better."
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 1:51 pm | #

what distinguishes so many of them is that they are written and proclaimed by terribly angry and hurt people whose rejection of the Church (and often, God) has not seemed to make them happy.

My comment is the first one quoted in the post. My rejection of the church has made me much happier as I no longer have to go through the motions and feign belief in something that makes no sense to me. I'm not angry at it, though I wish it would quit coddling Bernard Law.
Big Worm | 04.26.06 - 1:51 pm | #

For some reason, probably my ridiculous roommate, it put my name as "Big Worm" in the comment above. My name is Josh, not Big Worm.
Josh | 04.26.06 - 1:59 pm | #

“I believe, help my unbelief.”

boy, is this ever my motto. As I said before, thank God they don't give you a "faith based" test when you walk in the door of the Catholic Church. Was it GB Shaw who said "The Catholic Church? Here comes everybody...."
Janjan | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Was it GB Shaw who said "The Catholic Church? Here comes everybody....

Actually that was James Joyce. His other interesting remark about the Catholic Church is put into the mouth of his alter ego in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Then, said Cranly, you do not intend to become a protestant?

I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?
Eamonn | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:10 pm | #

What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

One of my favorites! And this from Oscar Wilde (pre-death-bed-conversion)...

"Of all religions, Catholicism is the only one worth dying in."

sorry, back to your originally scheduled programming.
SteveG | 04.26.06 - 2:14 pm | #

L., Jeff, SteveG, Mark--

First, allow me to apologize if I am oversimplifying or misrepresenting the quandary of "half-assed Catholicism." That's not my intent, although it may in fact be my deed.

I am understanding by "half-assed" not
a) imperfect belief
b) imperfect action
c) imperfect understanding.
We're all, as someone pointed out, half-assed in those regards, and can never be full-assed, so to speak (althou I'm of the opinion that anything worth doing is worth doing with both buttocks. Maybe that's why I'm sitting on a donut cushion right now. Anywho...)

I understand by "half-assed" someone who has rejected the Church's teachings, in one or many areas, and who does not follow her precepts, and yet who claims to be a believing, practicing (as opposed to cultural) Catholic. That seems to me to be dishonest; if we voluntarily choose to join (or remain a member of) the Church, we're supposed to be in it all the way. That means assenting to teachings and following orders we don't agree with, because we trust the Church. And because it is about happiness: the eternal kind, for which we are willing to sacrifice temporal happiness, if need be.

I don't understand (and maybe this is my problem) why someone would stay with a Creed they don't fully believe and are not willing to follow. Especially if they no longer think it will lead to the aforementioned eternal happiness. Inertia? I don't know. It makes very little sense to me, and this is probably where (and why) I'm oversimplifying the problem.

Searchers--I got no problems with. Lazy Catholics who agree but just don't bother--some problem, but not much. People who disagree, disobey, and stay--I just don't see why.

Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding or over simplifying. I'm not trying to drive anyone out of the Church; I just don't see the benefit spiritual inertia.
Kate B. | 04.26.06 - 2:18 pm | #

"I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty." ~John Waters

That one always made me smile.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:22 pm | #

"That seems to me to be dishonest; if we voluntarily choose to join (or remain a member of) the Church, we're supposed to be in it all the way."

How about honestly saying we`re not in it all the way, because doing so would be a bold-faced lie -- but we think there`s enough there not to leave entirely?

"I don't understand (and maybe this is my problem) why someone would stay with a Creed they don't fully believe and are not willing to follow."

Speaking only for myself, some of us don`t quite understand why we`re doing it, either.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:25 pm | #

Aside to Dawn re Lost in the Cosmos: give it a try, you might really like it. How can you resist a book that promises to answer the question: "Why it is possible to learn more in ten minutes about the Crab Nebula in Taurus, which is 6,000 light-years away, than you presently know about yourself, even though you've been stuck with yourself all your life?"
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:28 pm | #

I've never met a Catholic, no matter how hardcore, who thought steak on a Friday was as grave a sin as contraception.

I have.

I had a Great Aunt that was so into the fish on Friday thing, that she insisted that one shouldn't eat meat on Wend. and Friday.
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 2:32 pm | #

From all this discussion of "half assed Catholics" I can't help but wonder if commenters think that Italy, Mexico and Austria are filled with "half-assed Catholics?"
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 2:36 pm | #

Geoduck2, considering that Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe, they`re either abstaining, or they`re sitting on one cheek.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:49 pm | #

My name is Josh, not Big Worm.

Whatever you say...Big Worm. ;)
saint kansas | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:52 pm | #

geoduck: I was actually originally thinking of it in terms of folks who take both the "no contraception" pronouncement and the "fish on Friday" practice (am I mistaken that there's no actual Biblical or Church requirement for this?) as something "in between" - a part of their religion, but not an essential part.
Jeff | 04.26.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Having lived in Italy for a semester and met the men, I'm going with the one-cheek theory. I have no experience of Austria of Mexico.

"Speaking only for myself, some of us don`t quite understand why we`re doing it, either."

And that's where the breakdown in my understanding is--when I got to that point, I left.
Kate B. | 04.26.06 - 2:57 pm | #

So did I -- but I came back. Why? I can try to explain, but not sure I can.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 2:59 pm | #

One way of looking at it, maybe: I was born a Catholic, and grew up to be a radical feminist, and thought I could never reconcile the two. But then I studied Zen Buddhism (not as a convert to Buddhism -- I was just curious, because I lived in Japan a long time), and I realized that two seemingly opposite things can both be true.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:03 pm | #

...two seemingly opposite things can both be true.

Indeed they can. For instance, that one person can be both God and Man. That's a paradox. "Seemingly" is the key there. On the other hand, though, there are mere contradictions in which it's genuinely impossible for both sides of the opposition to be true. Two plus two can't add up to both four and not-four.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:17 pm | #

One person`s paradox is another person`s half-ass.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 3:22 pm | #

Question for the holy rollers, from the cafeteria: isn`t being a half-assed Catholic better than being nothing at all?

L. As a "holy roller", let me answer. If you go to church occasionally, and have an opportunity to catch fire for the real presence of Christ, sure.

But if you're not really Catholic, but just trot out the Catholic monikker when it suits you, no, it's not better than nothing.

John Kerry is worse than nothing.
Tony | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:16 pm | #

Question for the audience:

Do you think that attending Catholic schools make 'raised Catholic', 'ex-Catholic', 'lapsed' or 'nominal' status more or less likely, and why?

I attended public school 25 years ago, and seemed to notice that many of my peers in Catholic school viewed Catholicism as another class to be taken rather than their faith.
Jim | 04.26.06 - 4:29 pm | #

"I had a Great Aunt that was so into the fish on Friday thing, that she insisted that one shouldn't eat meat on Wend. and Friday."

When I was a little kid in the 60's, we didn't eat meat on Wednesdays or Fridays in Lent in the Archdiocese of Chicago. We fasted from midnight before Communion, too, then it was switched to 3 hours sometime in the late 60's.
Therese Z | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:36 pm | #

There's a certain brand of supposedly Catholic critic that revels in remembering a fictional church, always of their youth. They pitch their memories mostly towards non Catholics, who have a fictional collective memory, mostly based on such fables, and on movies and the like. Chances are that the true extent of their Catholic exposure is that they were baptized, and that's about it.

These peopole always remember a super strict Catholic Church, and probably a super strict Catholic School, run by hard boilded nuns who wacked people with rulers. This church, by the way, spoke Latin.

I'm a life long Cathlic, 42 years old. I can't remember the Latin Mass, and I can barely recall seeing nuns wearing habits. I've known a few nuns, and a few brothers as well, none of whom were scary in a strict sort of way.

Because of my profession (the law) I get around a lot. And because of that, in one setting or another, I'll hear one of these fables. I've been told about the Latin Mass by people younger than me, who definately never heard one. Still, I'll hear "When I was a kid, we went to Mass every day, and it was in Latin. . ." Yeah, right.

Or I'll also hear about the super strict Cathlic school they went to, even though they're from this town, and the school has all state certified lay school teachers, and no nuns, and hasn't for years. Still, ". . .the nuns made us. . ." No they didn't, there weren't any nuns there.

What these are is in the category of "war stories", that provide an excuse for being disgruntled. Like all such stories, they're mostly fictional.

Finally, people who feel they have a proprietary right in the Catholic Church, because they were born into it (and later abandoned it) are nuts. The Catholic Church is catholic, that is, univeral. Everyone has a right to it. And not only Cathlics, really. So people who want to criticize on this lines are completely in error. Moreover, I've always felt, and will state now, that converts deserve more of our respect than those born into the Faith. It's a lot easier to proceed along the path we were born into, then to find it if we were not.

Now, before I go back to working here, let me tell you about how I had to walk uphill,, no ride a mule uphill (there were no cars then) back when I was a kid, on my way to the one room school house. . .
Yeoman | 04.26.06 - 4:44 pm | #

One person`s paradox is another person`s half-ass.

Nah, that would at best be only one cheek of the paradox. And a contradiction would be two half-asses each belonging to a different person, hence unresolvable into a unity. While Catholic doctrine offers some genuine big-ass paradoxes.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:46 pm | #

What is the sound of one ass clapping?

Yeoman, we moved last year to San Francisco (from Tokyo), and my kids` school has three nuns, though they`re all leaving at the end of this school year. One is sweet, the other are....not sweet.
They`re all elderly and wear habits, complete with big rosaries around their waists (short dresses, though -- and their hair isn`t totally covered).
They don`t hit with rulers, yet they`ve reduced my older son to tears without even raising their voices. After four months of this, he decided he`s an athiest. I told him, um, you have the rest of your life to think it through -- you don`t have to decide right away.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 4:57 pm | #

considering that Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe, they`re either abstaining, or they`re sitting on one cheek.

Yes. I think people should consider that they sound ready to toss millions of members out of the Roman Catholic church.

And they might consider that the teachings on contraception haven't been declared "infallible."
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 5:16 pm | #

To clarify some earlier points for you youngsters, in the olden days we had "ember days". I don't recall exactly when, but those were additional days of fast and abstinence on certain Wednedays and Fridays, I think. One of the six precepts of the church is to "fast and abstain on the days appointed" so we are not talking about more Catholic than the Pope here, but rather ordinary people following the rules as they then existed. I'm sure uncle jim can back me up on this.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:28 pm | #

I'm a revert of sorts. While looking for a parish after university, I stumbled into an Episcopal church and by the time I realized it was not Catholic, I was "hooked." At the time, I was thrilled that as an Anglo-Catholic I could indulge my insatiable intellectual curiosity (something not encouraged in the Church I encountered in my late adolescence) and, I was certain, there would be no priests shouting at me or trying to quash my joy, both of which I had also encountered as a Catholic. And there didn’t seem to be much difference. all the Sacraments were offered even if none were required and I could still believe what I always believed, even believe in the supremacy of the Pope. In retrospect, I realize I also left because I was a Magisterium Catholic and, at the time, the Magisterium was discounted or ignored.

Years later when I finally accepted that the lack of a magisterium in the Episcopal Communion was insurmountable, that there was no authority at all, I knew I had to leave. About the same time I also realized that I had learned (in the “safe” Anglican Communion no less) to shout back and that my joy was as unquashable as my intellect insatiable. (Episcopal priests are no less arrogant than those in the Catholic Church.) I had also come to realize that though I had engaged in a great deal of study, my learning had been guided by political agendas that limited my ability to reach my goal: I had been educated to be impartial, to comment on known facts but coming to know and love God better was beyond the scope of those taught me.

So I returned because I am spiritually ravenous and more than I can possibly take in – spiritually, intellectually, emotionally – is offered to me in the Catholic Church. (I am encountering source material that was never mentioned in any text from any of the classes I took. My education is beginning again!) My hunger remains but I’m surrounded by many converts and reverts and re-awakening Catholics as ravenous as I am. We know that we won’t be fully satisfied this side of Heaven but that knowledge isn’t reason enough to starve ourselves while on earth.

In “Why the Church,” Luigi Giussani reminds us that Christ chose to work with and through human beings as we are, including our fallenness and sinfulness, and so to expect that the Church will exclude any aspect of our humanity is to demand some other Church and not the one that Christ instituted. It is to be a gold miner focused on all the mud when the only thing worth our attention is the gold within. What we reverts and converts and re-awakening Catholics have found is so wonderful we can’t keep it to ourselves – we’ve found the gold. With increasing humility and a solid understanding that we too are sinners, it is a time to “shout it from the housetops” even though there are those who will be offended. Thank God there was a real home for me to return to.
Drusilla | 04.26.06 - 5:31 pm | #

Dawn makes a great a point in her introduction.

Look at Frances Kissling, the president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Many years ago, one of her fellow board members, Marjorie Reiley Maguire, had a falling out with her. Maguire, whose husband-dissident theologian, Dan, dumped her for another woman, revealed that Kissling never goes to Mass or receives any of the sacraments.
D------ | 04.26.06 - 5:36 pm | #

Very educational. I didn't know that Catholics and former Catholics used the word ass so much in theological discussion.
I'm certain that you don't have to look far in any direction to find many, many people who say, "I used to be" or "I was raised" __________ (insert 'Catholic' or any Protestant denominational name of your choice here)but I left the church because of Hypocrites/Condemnation/too many rules/I grew out of it," etc.
Without ignoring the real problems in every church at every level, I have found that most former "church kids" for lack of a better term are really rejecting Christ, unless of course they have just switched allegiances because of "conversion" (which they may have not had, regardless of what background they grew up in) or some understanding of doctrine which convinces them that they need to find a new church home. This is true of both Protestant converts to Catholicism, as well as Catholic converts to Protestantism, in my experience. Ultimately, our allegiance must be to Christ, his calling and way. He is the way and the truth and the life, and without him no one comes to the Father. The church I am part of is far from perfect (having me in it, to point out the obvious) but I am committed to the church because Christ was.
John Mark | 04.26.06 - 5:40 pm | #

John Mark, I normally delete or censor a--. However, since L. was willing to listen to opposing arguments, I didn't censor her for fear she would take it as a sign to butt out.
Dawn Eden | 04.26.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Thanks. Next time I`ll say, "half-butted." :)
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:48 pm | #

L says: "I was born a Catholic, and grew up to be a radical feminist, and thought I could never reconcile the two. But then I studied Zen Buddhism (not as a convert to Buddhism -- I was just curious, because I lived in Japan a long time), and I realized that two seemingly opposite things can both be true."

It is correct that Catholicism and radical feminism cannot be reconciled. The former teaches women and men to lay down their lives for others and to take up the cross. Radical feminism teaches the opposite. It emphasizes a woman's right to grab all she can for herself, and if that requires her to kill her unborn child, no problem.

Given the difference between feminism and Catholicism, Catholic women who buy into modern feminism are always dissatisfied with the Church if they don't leave it outright. The convert typically has lived by the confused code of secularism (of which feminism is one variety), discovers that secularism is empty and false and that Catholicism brings life and truth, and thus experiences joy at discovering Catholicism.
Dan | 04.26.06 - 5:50 pm | #

Feminism is an ideology that supports legal, political, civil and social equality between the sexes.
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 5:53 pm | #

Oddly, Dan, I buy into modern feminism, and I am neither "dissatisfied" with the church, nor did I leave it outright -- or rather, I thought I did, but I really didn`t.

I would define "radical feminism" very differently from the way you do. I take it to mean equal opportunities for men and women based on ability, not gender. And I don`t seek to destroy the traditional family (since I`m part of one), just the notion that all families must be traditional.

As far as abortion views, I rely on free will and the primacy of conscience, and my belief that a divine supreme being really wouldn`t insist all woman go through with all unwanted pregnancies.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 5:56 pm | #

....and my comment above wasn`t supposed to drag this thread back over to the abortion debate. I acknowlege the church`s position on that is very clear, and my own is dissenting.
My point is only that it`s not as straight-forward as, "If you`re a pro-choice feminist, you`re simply no longer a Catholic."
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 6:12 pm | #

L, I accept your representation that you are not dissastified with the Church but it is hard for me to understand why not given your views on abortion. What the Church teaches about what the "divine supreme being" wills concerning unwanted pregnancies is directly contrary to what you believe. How can you be happy with a Church whose understanding of what God wills is radically different than yours? Further, it is obvious that you reject the Church's teaching concerning abortion and sexual morality, which are issues at the center of the so-called "culture war." How can you be happy with a Church that takes positions diametrically opposed to yours on the key issues of our day?
Dan | 04.26.06 - 6:13 pm | #

I guess the "key issues of our day" are not the key issues in my life. I guess I believe there`s more to life and spirituality than sex and pregnancy.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 6:17 pm | #

Regarding them mean nuns: L., I sure hope your son gets over that. But grown-up Catholics make too much of these nun hardship stories. I grew up in a near-100% Protestant culture. All of my teachers through the 9th grade, and the majority through 12th, were middle-aged-to-old Protestant women, some married, some not. Some were really good teachers, some not. A few were mean as hell. I remember one who would lose her temper and walk up and down the rows with a ruler just whaling away on every back. Others had the knack of being firm but kindly. In short, I feel pretty sure they were broadly similar, as a class, to the storied nuns.

It never occurred to me that the behavior of these teachers had anything to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity. Nuns, by virtue of their very distinctive position, bear an equally distinct witness, which can, obviously, work for good or ill. But in the end adults ought to be able--short of serious abuse, at least--to get over these resentments.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 6:28 pm | #

I understand, and agree, that there is more to spiritual life than sexual morality. My point is that the differences between the Church's and feminism's respective teachings about abortion and sexual morality are not differences about mere details but, rather, reflect entirely different, and irreconciable, worldviews.

In any event am glad that someone like you chooses to remain in the Church rather than go wholly to the otherside (or should I say "to the unholy side"?), assuming you accept that, as JPII put, "conscience is a student, not a teacher."
Dan | 04.26.06 - 6:32 pm | #

I totally agree with Maclin's last comment. I find it irritating when someone says, "Oh, my priest was so awful, that's why I left the Church." It never would even occur to me to equate my Pastor with what the Church has to offer.
Dan | 04.26.06 - 6:36 pm | #

Damn I'm really annoyed I didn't see this post until there were 105 comments up. I haven't time to read all those more than two ahead of this but I have to say if the sermons were the most important part of the mass I would have given up going at age 16.
But Dawn this post has to be one of the funniest I've read in ages.
Another Steve | 04.26.06 - 7:22 pm | #

There are lots and lots of us who choose to remain in the church rather than leave -- I`m hardly unique.
I actually don`t agree that feminism is about sexual morality. That`s not to say that the subject CAN be argued from various feminist viewpoints, but with no definitive conclusions. How else would you explain prolife feminist groups?

"Conscience is a student, not a teacher." I`ve always liked that one.

And I think my son will survive the nuns, and come out better for it in many ways. And as I said, they`re all leaving soon.
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 7:28 pm | #

If we're going to use terms like "radical feminism," we should probably do a bit of research to figure out what they actually mean. "Radical" does not mean "extreme" when it modifies "feminism." It's a developed line of feminist thought, and not at all as you (Dan) characterize it.
Jill | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 7:47 pm | #

My point is that the differences between the Church's and feminism's respective teachings about abortion and sexual morality are not differences about mere details but, rather, reflect entirely different, and irreconciable, worldviews.

What people do not seem to understand is that the defintion of "pro-choice" is, specifically, a legal position. Someone can advocate the legal position of pro-choice and have personal choices that are vastly different.

Just as one can believe that contraception ought to be legal, yet choose not to use it in their own life; or promote to others that it is immoral to use contraception.

Especially if one looks at the abortion rate of a country like the Netherlands -- it's easy to see how someone who wants the result of very few abortions could support the legalization of abortion. (For example - check out the abortion rate of Romania durring the 1980s. The whole illegalization tact didn't work so well.)
---------

Anyways, I know devout Catholic feminists who are not pro-choice, and I know Catholic feminists who are pro-choice. But they don't have a problem with being both a feminist and a Catholic.
--------

One final thing -- I think many Catholics are familiar with the different theological approaches to concepts like ensoulement over the centuries.
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 8:03 pm | #

I actually don`t agree that feminism is about sexual morality.

Yes - I absolutely agree with this. In fact, in the last 15 years or so, there's been a lot of talk in feminist circles about girls being pressured into sexual acts.

Likewise, there's been much discussion about concepts of consent, sexual pressure, and date rape, and how to make sure girls and women understand their worth is not about their bodies or their "sexual desirability."
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 8:08 pm | #

L. -- at the risk of sounding judgemental; I don't know if God would want unwanted pregnancies or not. After all, who "doesn't want" them? God, or human beings?
But I am absolutely sure that God doesn't want people to kill unborn babies.
"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." -- Mother Theresa
John Doman | 04.26.06 - 8:30 pm | #

John, I recently cited that very same Mother Theresa quote on my blog! May she rest in peace and be canonized soon, but she never expelled any nine-pound flowers from her vagina.
(Neither did I -- I had 3 c-sections. I grew big flowers.)
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 8:42 pm | #

If there's anything crying out to heaven for vengeance in the blogosphere it's that nobody seems to show up to put the smarmy blognoramuses of the world in their place. Oh how I wish I had my Chestertonion word-of-smiting at the ready. People like the femmes you mention make me fume, and in my fuming I develop an inability to formulate a suitably crushing response. I am left all discombobulated and stuff. Oh bother.

Warren
warren | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 9:42 pm | #

How about this: Thou shalt not kill.

Sorry if that interferes with your "spirituality".
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 9:59 pm | #

Please turn down the sarcasm, John J.
Dawn Eden | 04.26.06 - 10:09 pm | #

John J., are you talking to me, or giving Warren a suggestion on what to say to smite the femmes?
L. | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:35 pm | #

L, I was talking about liberal women succeeding in excising the catholic culture from liberal-leaning areas.
Bookstopper | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:42 pm | #

Jim, I was raised catholic, and went to a mix of catholic and public school. Catholic is better, but only slightly. Plenty of people loose their faith because of anti-catholic teachers who feed them lies and assumptions rather than the truth of their discipline. Also, there are nominal catholics who attack any kind of real faith displayed in their presence.
Bookstopper | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 10:48 pm | #

John J., are you talking to me, or giving Warren a suggestion on what to say to smite the femmes?

Yeah - who are the "femmes" you're talking about?
----
Come on, people can't actually be surprised that there are feminist Catholics, can they? We invited a feminist nun speak at our high school graduation baccalaureate as the keynote speaker.
geoduck2, | 04.26.06 - 11:04 pm | #

Yes. I think people should consider that they sound ready to toss millions of members out of the Roman Catholic church.

You should consider the parable of the wheat and the tares, and the parable of the wise and foolish virgins.

It's not very Christian to assume that people in the Church can not be very wrong-headed indeed.
Mary | 04.26.06 - 11:18 pm | #

The Evangelicals hint this one on the head:

God has no grandchildren.
Mary | 04.26.06 - 11:19 pm | #

"Yes. I think people should consider that they sound ready to toss millions of members out of the Roman Catholic church."

Membership is voluntary. I don't want to toss anyone out, but that leaves something of a conundrum, doesn't it? If you don't walk the walk, it doesn't much matter what talk you talk. If someone is not willing to accept and abide by the Church's teachings--"abide by" being the big one--then haven't they already tossed themselves out? It's not my place to say to anyone, "You're not doing it right--Go away!" I just wonder why anyone who's already decided not even to try would want to stay.
Kate B. | 04.27.06 - 9:30 am | #

How about honestly saying we`re not in it all the way, because doing so would be a bold-faced lie -- but we think there`s enough there not to leave entirely?

The reason this kind of thinking causes scandal (i.e., confusion to the weak-of-faith) is because it is a renouncement of the vow taken at Baptism/Confirmation to believe and uphold all that the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

How can one make that vow, and say that they only agree with part of it? Would you say a man is a good husband when he cheats on his wife because he doesn't agree with the "remain faithful" part of his marriage vows - would you say he's still good, because he agrees with *most* of what he vowed?

Joining the Church (the Body of Christ) is very much a spiritual wedding, because the Church is the Bride of Christ. If someone says they "used to go to Mass" or they are a "lapsed Catholic" or "they grew up Catholic, but aren't anymore", yet they still call themselves Catholic before others - these people are like divorcees who remarried, but still claim to be married to their ex-, just because they have some sentimental attachment or fond memories. Doesn't make much sense, and it just confuses everybody else.

The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - this is the creed that we recite at every Mass. If you're not going to Mass, you're not reciting it, so you don't know what to believe, so you have no right to claim what Catholic do or should believe. If you are reciting the creed, but don't believe it, you are a liar. (That's what it's called when you say something that's not true, right? Well, you're saying "I believe..." but you don't - that's a lie!)

What part of "One" do you not understand? One in belief, hence the overdue need for the Catechism, so we are all on the same page. In medieval times, we had an excuse for divisions and misinterpretations - in the electronic present world, no such excuse remains. "I would rather you were hot or cold - lukewarm I vomit out of my mouth" (Revelations).

It is possible to be a Catholic feminist (see "Feminists for Life"), but not if you agree with the belief that abortion should be allowed. What part of "thou shalt not kill" did you not understand?

As I said before, the main issue is not that we're condemning individuals - we have no right to do that, for we don't know the state of your soul. What we are doing is condemning errors and scandals that weaken the faith and understanding of those who are seeking the Truth. It is akin to yelling at you to get out of the piranha-infested waters: we don't hate you for being in the water - we are trying to save you from a fatal error, while also making enough racket so others won't follow the lethal example. It's love, not hate.

God bless.
Jamie Beu | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 10:35 am | #

Without reading every single comment thus far, I'd like to make the point (hopefully it hasn't already been made) that there aren't very many real ex-Catholics, as in, the ones who've been ex-communicated. From a theological law standpoint, the people who irk you by claiming to be Catholic from birth still are Catholic. It's like the Marines--former Catholic, 'retired' Catholic, yes, ex-Catholic, no.

And, anyone who claims it's not a culture is off their rocker.
Em | 04.27.06 - 12:06 pm | #

If someone is not willing to accept and abide by the Church's teachings--"abide by" being the big one--then haven't they already tossed themselves out?...I just wonder why anyone who's already decided not even to try would want to stay.


I'd suggest there's a reason for the concept of infallability vs. other church doctrines.

If everybody walked the moment they disagreed with some church teaching....Well, if you look at the mid-19th century you'll see some unfortunate things said about the concept of voting & citizenship by the Pope. However, those unfortunate teachings didn't cause all the Irish Catholic Americans to buzz out of the church.

All teachings are not equal.
geoduck2, napper | 04.27.06 - 12:19 pm | #

It is possible to be a Catholic feminist (see "Feminists for Life"), but not if you agree with the belief that abortion should be allowed. What part of "thou shalt not kill" did you not understand?

Pro-choice Catholics often believe that the legal system is not able to reduce the abortion rate.

(See the history of Romania in the 1980s. Look up the abortion rate in Romania today. Or name any state that suceeded in reducing the abortion rate through criminalization.

My point is, someone can reasonably believe that criminalization will not decrease the actual abortion rate.)

Look: I outlined exactly how someone could believe that abortion ought to be legal because he/she believed that abortion rates would stay the same or increase as a result of criminalization.

Ask yourself if the act of criminalization is enough for you? Or is it the actual rate of abortions?

Do you now see how someone could not believe that a legal change would result in a specific outcome?
geoduck2, napper | 04.27.06 - 12:32 pm | #

geoduck,
I beleive you are mistaken in thinking that the teaching on contraception is not an infallible teaching.

True, no specific papal pronouncement has been made as in the case of something like the immaculate conception, but that is not the only way in which a teaching can be held as infallibly taught.

Infallability can arise as part of the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium.

Jimmy Akin has a post from way back where he discuss this a bit in relation to contraception...
Contraception Is Mortally Sinful: An Infallible Teaching

...as well as another article where he discusses the true nature of infallability and it's application using a couple of examples..

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/ 06...nstances_o.html
SteveG | 04.27.06 - 1:07 pm | #

SteveG.,

I've got a very devout Catholic friend who insists that the teaching on contraception is not an infallible teaching. My friend is very well read in theology, and has been a active Catholic all her life. It sounds like there are disagreements about this in the laity.

I should admit I'm a Protestant born and raised, so I really don't have the theological background to know what I'm talking about. (I do, however, trust my friend's expertise and knowledge of the state of the theology. She's friends with quite a few Priests and Nuns, so I think she has a lot of people to talk to about this.) My Italian, Italian-American and Italian-Canadian relatives, however, are all still Catholic.

(My father was raised Catholic, but at University he began dating my Protestant mother. They attended a church group influenced by the Lutheran theologen Paul Tillich. When the time came to get married, my mother declared in no uncertain terms that her children would be raised Protestant. My Great-Grandfather was very worried about my mother marrying a Catholic; at the time it was considered a "mixed" marriage. My father became Protestant and we all went to a Protestant church.)
geoduck2, napper | 04.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

SteveG.,

I've got a very devout Catholic friend who insists that the teaching on contraception is not an infallible teaching.

Without intending to question your friend’s integrity, I have to point out that it’s usually the folks who refuse to accept the teaching that make that claim, and then attempt to justify it.

I’ll be flat out honest (and probably get some guff from some of my fellow Catholics), but I am not always particularly enamored of this particular teaching. There are times that I wish it were otherwise, and find it very challenging to handle. But despite my desires, it’s manifestly clear that the teaching is not up for debate in any real theological sense. And it's also clear from my own experience (having lived both ways) that it's got the power of truth behind it in very practical terms.

My friend is very well read in theology, and has been a active Catholic all her life. It sounds like there are disagreements about this in the laity.

But this is really the key to the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. That there are disagreements about the teaching among the laity does not bear on whether it is an infallible teaching or not.

I’ll be honest enough to admit that there is even disagreement on this among the clergy, but it’s better called dissent, because the unarguable truth is that the voice of the Magesterium, and in particular the papacy, has been unrelentingly clear throughout history on this issue, and has never said anything other than that it is immoral according to Catholic teaching.

Regardless of her resources (and I don’t doubt she has them), I would need only point out that this issue has been addressed in at least three papal encyclicals (an extremely authoritative teaching document) in the last century, and all three popes come down with a resounding ‘no’ when asked if contraception was morally permissable.

I do, however, trust my friend's expertise and knowledge of the state of the theology. She's friends with quite a few Priests and Nuns, so I think she has a lot of people to talk to about this.

I have quite a few friends who are Priests, nuns, and even a Catholic author or two. The defining characteristic they share is that they are totally loyal to the teaching voice of the church when it comes to matters of faith and morals, and not one of them would agree with your friend's assesment.

If your friend has priests or nuns telling her that the teaching on contraception is not an infallible one, she is either being misled, her confidants are misinformed, or they are dissenters from church teaching.

If it’s the latter, I’d be willing to bet that there are a lot of other things that they don’t accept as well.

My father became Protestant and we all went to a Protestant church.

I am a former Protestant myself. Be careful, stick around here long enough and your heritage just might reclaim you. ;-)
SteveG | 04.27.06 - 2:24 pm | #

Just a note on the fasting thing a few comments back: Eastern Orthodox fast on Wed. and Fri. bec. Wed. is the day Jesus was betrayed and Fri. is the day he died. And the goal is to not eat meat, fish or dairy. Maybe that's where the Great Aunt got her fasting rule?

As to the church part, I also wonder why people stay in the church when they don't really believe what she teaches. But for myself it was a question of where else would I go? I am at the point of believing that if I don't agree with a church teaching, it's much more likely that I don't understand or am blinded by my own sin than that the church is wrong.

I don't have any experience with the Catholic church (having not been raised Catholic and now being Orthodox), but my mother was and has talked about the irony of sleeping with one's boyfriend while eating only fish on Friday. But I know enough Catholics to see that very few people, even if they're "lapsed," even if they hate it, ever really leave the church behind.

That's the part I think is amazing and wonderful.
Lucy | 04.27.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Dawn,

Personally I'm happy to trade one convert like you for a dozen of those "I'm a quarter Irish so I can say whatever I want about the Chruch" fools.

Rest assured their great-grandparents are probably shaking their heads up in Heaven.
Fidei Defensor | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 5:07 pm | #

If in order for one to truly be Catholic they have to follow every Church teaching to a T -- including the rules about not using contraception -- y'all are gonna have some serious membership problems, given that more than 90% of Catholics use contraception at some point in their lives.
Jill | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 6:46 pm | #

"What part of 'thou shalt not kill' did you not understand?"

The part that says killing in self-defense is justified, and killing in a Church-sanctioned "just" war is okay, too -- but every woman is reqired to gestate every embryo no mater what the circmstances. Yeah, I have a problem with that, I`ll admit.
L. | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 7:35 pm | #

Without intending to question your friend’s integrity, I have to point out that it’s usually the folks who refuse to accept the teaching that make that claim, and then attempt to justify it.

Well, on a personal and practical level it doesn't affect her life, as she is a life long virgin, and not in a relationship.

and in particular the papacy, has been unrelentingly clear throughout history on this issue, and has never said anything other than that it is immoral according to Catholic teaching.

For her the specific issue was that the Pope had not labeled it as a infallible something or other. (I don't remember the term she used.) It was of particular significance to her that the Pope hadn't issued some sort of infallibility order or label. She said if he does, she would become an Episcopalian.

That was the point that was of particular importance to her.
-----
Most other life long Catholics I know are not particularly interested in reading Church theology or teachings. They go to Mass and participate in the sacraments, and leave the arguing to others. They use contraception; it's of such little significance that they don't even find it controversial.
----

Then there are Italian Calabrian Catholics of my grandparents' generation.

Ohhh boy - you all would have a field day with them. My illiterate grandfather went to his grave insisting that St. Rocco was more important in theology then St. Peter. (St. Rocco was the patron Saint of the town he was born in.)

Did he understand the theology in a complex way? Of course not. But it would be ridiculous to say that he wasn't a Catholic.

It's ridiculous to say he wasn't a good Catholic; it wasn't his fault that he didn't understand the role of St. Peter. Anyways, one does not have to be a theologian to be a part of the Catholic church. One doesn't have to be an intellectual to have a full religious experience.
geoduck2, napper | 04.27.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Its made for some interesting reading to see how some Catholics here have been coining the phrase 'half assed catholic' in which to call fellow catholics who are not as strong in faith as themselves.
Surely they are just as some of yourselves were at various stages in life, less developed in faith? And if so, what gives the right to others judge over this and as one person earlier- said they would rather associate with an evangelical than a catholic who never goes to mass at all? Its the kind of arrogance that turns people away from faith in the first place and gives christianity a bad name.

And in reaction to some earlier assumptions about catholics who have so 'easily' returned to the faith and culture with which they were raised: Growing up catholic does not always determine whether you will take on the faith with fervour, but if by chance the cultural elements should draw you back in, then what is so wrong with this? If a little catholicism takes root in a person through say, the attraction of that whith which they were raised, then surely this should be embraced and not viewed by supposed 'full assed' catholics as somehow inferior to their own beliefs.

And furthermore, the assumption that certain people even qualify as 'half assed' catholics seems entirely arrogant anyway. Who are we to decide whether anothers experience is less so than our own? What because they are less vocal? attend church less? It would be interesting to know the grounds on how a person qualifies as one in the first place.
half assed catholic | 04.27.06 - 9:41 pm | #

f in order for one to truly be Catholic they have to follow every Church teaching to a T -- including the rules about not using contraception -- y'all are gonna have some serious membership problems, given that more than 90% of Catholics use contraception at some point in their lives.

Jill, I hear people banter this number around over and over. What sort of Catholic use contraception? Baptized Catholics? Regular church-going Catholics? How about devout Catholics?

And "some point in your life" isn't really a problem. We are all sinners. We can get right with Jesus at any point in our lives. This means that we can go to confession, repent, have a conversion of heart and go forth vowing to sin no more.

That's the cool thing about Catholicism. Even you, Jill, could walk into a Catholic Church sign up for RCIA, get baptized, confessed, communed and confirmed and walk out pure as the driven snow and as good a Catholic as Dawn :)

Here's another thing. You can even slip up occasionally. It happens to all of us. When this happens, the priest, in situ Christi, can clean you right up again, kind of like washing off the normal road salt from your car.

What is problematic, though, is saying that a dirty car isn't a problem. Or that you enjoy wallowing in... uhhh... I don't want Dawn editing me so I won't say it. ;)

So it doesn't really matter how bad you might have been, if you contracepted, or aborted your child, or committed murder against an adult, you can still repent, convert, confess and be as pure as the driven snow. You may need to pay some temporal punishment (like a jail sentence for your crime), but your soul will be on the right path.
Tony | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 10:14 pm | #

geoduck,
Well, on a personal and practical level it doesn't affect her life, as she is a life long virgin, and not in a relationship.

For her the specific issue was that the Pope had not labeled it as a infallible something or other. (I don't remember the term she used.) It was of particular significance to her that the Pope hadn't issued some sort of infallibility order or label. She said if he does, she would become an Episcopalian.

I recognize the position she’s trying to espouse, and I can assure it’s a terribly poor understanding of what infallibility is (that’s what the links I provided discuss).

Under her model, the Trinity has never been infallibly taught. What she really means is that the teaching has not ever been ‘dogmatically defined’, which is true. But that is something different than saying it’s not an infallible teaching, which it most certainly is.

Beyond that, do your see the irony in saying that there is no practical effect in her life, but then stating that she would leave the church if she doesn’t get her way?

Again, it looks to me like a person whose taken a position, and is trying to justify it.

Anyways, one does not have to be a theologian to be a part of the Catholic church. One doesn't have to be an intellectual to have a full religious experience.

True enough, but what one does need is to be obedient to Christ, and to the church through whom He speaks, to the best of ones understanding and ability.
SteveG | 04.27.06 - 11:10 pm | #

I think I was the one who first brought up the term "half-a**ed catholic" (before I knew Dawn preferred "half-buttocked"). I used it tongue-in-cheek (ooooh, BAD BAD BAD unintentional pun!) -- but seriously, I am a "cradle" Catholic who has trouble accepting a few church teachings. I would be a liar if I pretended to go along with everything, and yet I stick with the religion -- I go to mass and am raising my kids Catholic, but I harbor no illusions that I`m a "good" Catholic. Nope, I`m not -- but I personally think it`s better to sit on half a cheek than nothing at all.
L. | Homepage | 04.27.06 - 11:53 pm | #

L., thanks for clarifying that so the commenter wouldn't think it was self-righteous Catholics who initiated the "half-a**ed" term here. Never thought I'd have you playing rear guard.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 12:00 am | #

Beyond that, do your see the irony in saying that there is no practical effect in her life, but then stating that she would leave the church if she doesn’t get her way?

Again, it looks to me like a person whose taken a position, and is trying to justify it.

Well, she has certainly taken a ideological position, and she understands that it is in contra-distinction to church teachings. She believes that the Church will eventually change it's teachings about the issue.

For example, she's not living in my town anymore, but I would assume she's very happy about the recent investigations into the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

I am the one that noted it has no practical effect on her life, not her. She could very well disagree with me, on that point.
---------------

This is the thing about contraception use and Catholics. We know that the vast majority of Catholics in 1st world countries use contraception. (I know my Catholic relatives use contraception. They live in a rust belt city that is full of Catholics. Everybody is a Catholic and everybody uses contraception.)

It's not even debated, except young people talk about learning about NFP in pre-marital counseling, and then they talk about how they aren't going to use it.

And we talked about the total fertility rate in Mexico - dropping from 7 kids/woman to 2/kids per woman since 1962.

If this is a infallible teaching, something certainly has not been communicated to the laity.
geoduck2, napper | 04.28.06 - 12:49 am | #

Well, she has certainly taken a ideological position, and she understands that it is in contra-distinction to church teachings. She believes that the Church will eventually change it's teachings about the issue.

People have been waiting for that since the 1930's when the Anglicans gave the OK at the Lambeth conference. Shortly after the encyclical Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage) was issued by Pope Pius the XI.

Then they were hoping desperately for it in the 60’s when Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

I am afraid she’ll be waiting for a LONG time and will be sorely disappointed on this score.

Believe me, there are no loopholes on this teaching. I should know. I’ve been looking for one for the past 7 years. ;-)

If this is a infallible teaching, something certainly has not been communicated to the laity.

Truer words were never spoken.

There are many reasons for this. One huge factor is how the issue was handled in the 60’s.

You had the formation of a commission to study the issue in the early 60’s, which resulted in nearly everyone thinking that the teaching would be ‘overturned’, and then nearly 6 years after the commission, Pope Paul VI, in opposition to the advice of the commission (who’s findings had been ‘leaked’) saying that contraception was immoral in Humanae Vitae.

There was such a terrible negative reaction and disappointment at the encyclical, that a real spirit of dissent on the teaching rapidly became the norm.

Pope Paul VI, having been utterly stunned by the reaction became mostly ineffectual in dealing with the dissent that arose.

We are still partly living with the results of the mishandling of the issue back then.

Beyond that, my own feeling is that many priests realize how tough of a teaching this is for a culture in which hyper individualism reigns supreme, and are hesitant to talk about it.

This leads to a cultural situation where for most people, unless they specifically go in search of an answer on this, are of the mistaken (and probably largely innocent) belief that your friend holds too.

They have never been taught that it’s true, and when forced to even address it (i.e. pre-cana class), they are very resistant to consider it even if challenged (and mostly they aren’t really ‘challenged’ on it).
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 8:26 am | #

"And furthermore, the assumption that certain people even qualify as 'half assed' catholics seems entirely arrogant anyway. Who are we to decide whether anothers experience is less so than our own? What because they are less vocal? attend church less? It would be interesting to know the grounds on how a person qualifies as one in the first place."

Self-named Half-Assed Catholic:
"I understand by "half-assed" someone who has rejected the Church's teachings, in one or many areas, and who does not follow her precepts, and yet who claims to be a believing, practicing (as opposed to cultural) Catholic."

I'm not out to get those who don't go to Mass. I'm not out to get anyone. I'm trying to understand why anyone who has already decided to reject the teachings would stay in the classroom. If I'm being unnecessarily harsh, I apologize. It's just that I don't get it.
Kate B. | 04.28.06 - 10:02 am | #

I talked to a theology-student friend of mine last night, who informed me that there are something called the Seven PRecepts of the Church that all Catholics are called to follow. Google brought up the following list:

The Seven Precepts of the Church
I. To attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and resting from servile works.
II. To observe the days of abstinence and fasting.
III. To confess our sins to a priest, at least once a year.
IV. To receive Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist at least once a year during Easter Season.
V. To contribute to the support of the Church.
VI. To obey the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony.
VII. To participate in the Church's mission of Evangelization of Souls.(Missionary Spirit of the Church

The rejection of the Church's teachings of Matrimony (where alot of this discussion started) would seem to qualify as a rejection of some of the basic tenets of the faith. If one rejects the basics, why would one stay? Don't get me wrong--I love incense, and all, but I'm just not understanding, here.
Kate B. | 04.28.06 - 10:06 am | #

I'm not out to get those who don't go to Mass. I'm not out to get anyone. I'm trying to understand why anyone who has already decided to reject the teachings would stay in the classroom.

The main issue is not that their not leaving the classroom - that'd be beautiful if they stayed (and even attended more often), because maybe they'll hear something that will click.

As a quick aside: instances like this often make me think of the parable of the seeds that were scattered and some fell on the roadside, some fell in shallow soil, and some fell in good soil. I look at the seeds in the shallow soil like falling leaves. Even though they fall, grow a little, but then burn up or rot, without fully growing, over time, the remains pile up and become fertile soil for future seeds. I think this is the way that it is for those who reject some of the faith - if they keep hearing the word of God, it may eventually take root, after enough seed has been sown, even if all the seeds thrown beforehand just become compost.

Anyway, the main issue is not the "staying in the classroom" - it's the publicly proclaiming "I'm a Catholic, and I believe in abortion". It's scandal. I don't "it's shocking" - I mean, by the literal definition of the term, it is scandal - "a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin." It gives, not just the wrong impression, but a damaging example as well, of what the faith stands for. This is where the problem comes in. People get confused, because somebody is using the label and claiming something contrary to it.

This is why we get so vocal about it.

BTW, Kate, thank you for posting the 7 precepts of the Church. I learned them when preparing for Communion, but that was from my mother, who made sure we knew our stuff. Many, however, were not so blessed, and are "blissfully" ignorant of such things.
Jamie Beu | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 10:36 am | #

I know all about the 7 Precepts, because "Matrimony" is my main stumbling block. I married a Japanese Buddhist who told the priest who married us that he intended to raise his future children as Buddhists. The priest still married us (in apparently what was the Catholic equivalent of a civil ceremony), but implied I was no longer eligible for any sacaments. Fine -- I accept that. I made my decision to marry my husband and allow his religion to get top billing in our household.

And as for publicly claiming, "I'm a Catholic, and I believe in abortion/contraception/female priests," I think it`s important to differentiate between the Catholics who inist that one can still be a "good/devout/full-fledged" Catholic without believing in every teaching, and the Catholics like me who honestly acknowlege that our beliefs put us squarely in the cafeteria. Relatively speaking, since I`ve never had an abortion nor done any sort of work for abortion rights groups, my invalid marriage for which I remain unrepentant is always going to keep me out of the "good/devout/full-fledged" category.

(And sometimes I think I`m one of the few people in the cafeteria who has actually bothered to read Humanae Vitae.)
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Oop -- missing line here in this sentence that got erased somehow -- should say:

Relatively speaking, since I`ve never had an abortion nor done any sort of work for abortion rights groups, my hypothetical opinions on the subject matter far less than my decision to marry about as far outside the faith as it`s possible to get. My invalid marriage for which I remain unrepentant is always going to keep me out of the "good/devout/full-fledged" category.
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 1:25 pm | #

P.S. Despite everything, I still think that God sent me my husband. It`s my own personal paradox.
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 1:31 pm | #

L.
Didn't you say earlier though that in fact you are raising the kids Catholic?

If that's the case, couldn't you fairly easily get your marriage convalidated (assuming you are correct that it is invalid)?
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 2:23 pm | #

P.S. Despite everything, I still think that God sent me my husband. It`s my own personal paradox.

That is beautiful. I'm really glad to read that you believe that. I agree; all good gifts come from God.

I think Chesterton would have appreciated your having a personal paradox.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 2:43 pm | #

Dawn,
What a great link! What a great article on one of my all time Heroes! Thanks!

To whatever extent I am able to think clearly, I owe it to having read Chesterton.

His chapter on paradox (in orthodoxy) in particular remains one of my all time favorites.

And he made others think, through pronouncements zany enough to pass their defenses and explode devastatingly within their minds.

That about sums up the effect he had on me.
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 3:07 pm | #

Yes, Steven, I eventually had the kids baptized in Tokyo, and when we moved back here, I put them in Catholic school.
It is my understanding that to convalidate, I would need to repent the original circumstances of my marriage -- e.g., originally agreeing not to raise them Catholic. And since I still think I did the right thing, overall, and am unrepentant, and would do it all over again if I had to, then I think it`s more honest if I just accept things the way they are.

Ironically, my husband wants another baby, and I don`t, and he kids me, "I thought you were Catholic!" I point out that if I were a "good" Catholic, I never would have married him in the first place.
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 3:15 pm | #

Chesterton`s conversion inspired another "paradox guy" I`ve always admired:

http://www.catholicauthors.com/w....com/ waugh.html
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 3:25 pm | #

Yes, Steven, I eventually had the kids baptized in Tokyo, and when we moved back here, I put them in Catholic school. It is my understanding that to convalidate, I would need to repent the original circumstances of my marriage -- e.g., originally agreeing not to raise them Catholic. And since I still think I did the right thing, overall, and am unrepentant, and would do it all over again if I had to, then I think it`s more honest if I just accept things the way they are.

Tricky stuff, and this is just my opinion, but I think it’s possible that you might be giving yourself a harsher assessment than you deserve.

You say you’re not repentant, but your actions in getting them baptized, and raising them Catholic, suggests something more subtle at work.

Regardless of how you view past actions, your actions have to at least some extent shown a desire to ‘make amends’ (at least that’s how it looks from the outside). As they say, sometimes action speak louder than words, eh?

I suspect that you’ve already done so, but if not, it might be worthwhile for you to speak with a priest about the situation.
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 3:28 pm | #

Chesterton`s conversion inspired another "paradox guy" I`ve always admired:

Another great article. I'm ashamed to admit that I've never read anything by Waugh, but I think I am inspired to do so now.
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 3:37 pm | #

I agree, Steve.

It sounds, L, like you are confusing repentence of the sin with wishing to change the past entirely (which just cannot be done). Nobody (or maybe a rare few) who love life would ever want their past changed, because "my decisions, right or wrong, have made me the person I am today." An excellent example of this would be Fr. John Corapi, who said that anyone can come to him for confession, because he is yet to hear a confession worse than his own. Does he regret and repent of the sins of his past life? Absolutely. Is he sorry they happened? Doubtful, because it is part of the path that has led him, and others (by bad example or amazing conversion story), back to God.

Chesterton said (at the beginning of Orthodoxy, but I'm paraphrasing here) that there are 2 ways to get home - one is to never leave. If you're home, it doesn't really matter the route. (Love Chesterton too - one of the few authors I've re-read multiple times.)

You may actually be suffering from a case of hyper-scruples. My advice, at any rate, is see a priest in confession, tell him your situation, and proceed from there.

And our prayers are with you - we'd love to see you at the sacraments again.
Jamie Beu | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 3:42 pm | #

Well said Jamie!
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 3:44 pm | #

I`m not giving myself a "harsh assessment" at all --- I am just trying to be honest, and act honestly. It seems pretty obvious that a few of my "Culture of Death, Homosexual Agenda" social views are always going to put me outside the mainstream of Catholic thought.

And, obviously, to get my kids baptized, I had to talk at length to a priest -- a kindly old Italian Franciscan in Tokyo, very used to international, interfaith marriages, who just said, "Peace in the family is most important."
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 3:51 pm | #

Thanks to all of the people in this comment thread who have been very encouraging. When I posed my first "half-cheeked" Catholic question in my comment, I prepared for the firestorm, but folks were very civil.

As for marriage, I don`t regret and repent a thing, even though my husband is just as much a "cultural Buddhist heathen" as he was when we met. In effect, the decision was, "Your church or your man," and I picked the latter (since at the time I mistakenly believed that I was excommunicated simply for not being pro-life, anyway). We`ve been together for 21 years, married for 15, and there is not a trace of sorrow or regret in my heart for marrying him.
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 3:57 pm | #

I`m not giving myself a "harsh assessment" at all --- I am just trying to be honest, and act honestly.

That’s very obvious, and for my part, I really do admire it.

My comments still stand though in the sense that from what you’ve said here (I realize that I probably know very little about the entirety of the situation) I am just not seeing a particular impediment regarding convalidation. Am I missing something obvious?

It seems pretty obvious that a few of my "Culture of Death, Homosexual Agenda" social views are always going to put me outside the mainstream of Catholic thought.

Again, while I disagree with your stance here, your honesty is refreshing in so many ways. I won’t gloss over this stuff and say it’s not an issue, but it seems to me to be an issue of a different nature than the convalidation, no?

And, obviously, to get my kids baptized, I had to talk at length to a priest -- a kindly old Italian Franciscan in Tokyo, very used to international, interfaith marriages, who just said, "Peace in the family is most important."

Good advice, but did he say that convalidation was not possible in your circumstance?
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 4:00 pm | #

As for marriage, I don`t regret and repent a thing, even though my husband is just as much a "cultural Buddhist heathen" as he was when we met. In effect, the decision was, "Your church or your man," and I picked the latter (since at the time I mistakenly believed that I was excommunicated simply for not being pro-life, anyway). We`ve been together for 21 years, married for 15, and there is not a trace of sorrow or regret in my heart for marrying him.

I think you might be missing our point here. It’s probably due to my being unclear, but let me take another stab.

The thing that caused the priest to not want to validly marry you was that the children were not going to be raised Catholic.

That ‘impediment’ has been removed by the fact that they have been baptized and are in fact being raised Catholic.

That’s all that I was trying to get at.

With regard to regret and repentance of your marriage, the point is that there’s no requirement or suggestion that you should have such feelings.

As Jamie said, that is part of the reality of what has made you who you are. In less you detest yourself, how can you detest that fact?

In fact, I was in a very similar situation myself. I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, then left the Church shortly after confirmation. I later married an atheist (was pretty much agnostic myself at the time).

When I explored returning to the church, no one asked me if I’d regretted or repented of marrying my wife. The only question was whether it was sacramentally valid or not.

That issue resolved, no part of my confession included regret for marrying my wife. I did repent of some of my obstinate attitudes that led to my being such a schmuck about a lot of things (including how I approached the marriage-i.e. a good bit of thumbing my nose at religion and the church), but not about the marriage itself.

Again, it's hard in a comment discussion to get at all the subtleties involved, and I could be missing a lot. That's why the suggestion to talk to a priest (your pastor preferably) about the situation specifically regarding convalidation (assuming you even have an interest in it). He would be able to better discern if and how you should proceed.
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 4:18 pm | #

You say, "I am just not seeing a particular impediment regarding convalidation. Am I missing something obvious?"

Well, obviously, it`s not very important to me, or I would figure out a way to do it.

Actually, the priest didn`t seem at all concerned that my marriage was invalid. This was a man used to ministering to the bar hostesses of Roppongi (where the Franciscan Chapel is located), and he also described to me how he had recently conducted an exorcism for a person he believed was mentally ill. He probably saw more of the gamut of human experience in any one month than many priests see in their entire lives.
L. | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 4:21 pm | #

You say, "I am just not seeing a particular impediment regarding convalidation. Am I missing something obvious?"

Well, obviously, it`s not very important to me, or I would figure out a way to do it.

Fair enough.

I think we (Jamie and I) were just trying to make sure you weren’t not doing it because you thought you couldn’t.

Actually, the priest didn`t seem at all concerned that my marriage was invalid. This was a man used to ministering to the bar hostesses of Roppongi (where the Franciscan Chapel is located), and he also described to me how he had recently conducted an exorcism for a person he believed was mentally ill. He probably saw more of the gamut of human experience in any one month than many priests see in their entire lives.

Your situation probably seemed downright tame to him. ;-)
SteveG | 04.28.06 - 4:31 pm | #

Yeoman, are you still out there? I'm about your age, 43 (I do really remember Latin mass), and it really grieves me to hear all those nuns slandered. Maybe by 1968 the really cranky ones had left, but I remember some really some really extraordinary women with commitment to their task, intellect and confident command. Most did their work out of great love. My memories of growing up Catholic are of a caring and culturally rich environment. I'm confident this is not just nostagia. The drawbacks I do recall were a sort of suspicion of the wider culture (our was a largely immigrant neighborhood) and an overdeveloped attachment to the Kennedys. I do grieve that culture that has been lost, but am really excited about the coming springtime of the faith. My hope is to be as annoying in my faith as a convert! Anyone else GLAD they were raised Catholic?
Bradamante | 04.29.06 - 3:54 pm | #

Mark Shea (from waaaaay above): I, too, love the fact that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a haven for the Already Perfect. I like to think of it in terms of the little ditty Bernard and Bianca sing in *The Rescuers*: "R-E-S-C-U-E, Rescue Aid Society." Yep, that's us--the rescued, who keep having to be rescued, because we keep getting ourselves into pickles. ;)

Blessings,

Diane
diane | 04.30.06 - 2:31 am | #

For centuries the French have long distinguished between three kinds of Catholics: believing and practicing, believing but not practicing, and neither believing nor practicing. There has long been room for the latter because Catholicism, traditionally, has been as much a cultural as a confessional reality. I say "has" because I think it's gradually ceasing to be the case.

With globalization and secularization—even in Catholic bastions such as Ireland, Portugal, and the Phillipines—one can no longer take for granted the persistence of such a thing as Catholic culture. As in the former Dark Ages, so in today's impending Dark Ages, the Church will soon become an intentional community sustained by the assiduous efforts of a few. Those few, of course, will be derided as holier-than-thous, as more Catholic than the Pope, and as just about everything else you can think of. But they will be the saving remnant through which Christ's promises to the Church will be fulfilled.
Michael Liccione | Homepage | 04.30.06 - 1:32 pm | #

i think this is all retarded. who cares what yur parents said or any of the stuff. you guy must not have a life if yur going to leave cmts on here tlking about yur religious faith and at the stuff... no one cares. you all are such retards. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD!
milan | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 7:38 pm | #