Who's pulling the strings?

[hypatias mom]

Perhaps we Presbyterians need a dose of catechism and confession. We seem not to feel personally responsible for things we had no part in. Oh, btw, how can someone be Catholic and not believe in God?

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Maybe through the Grand Inquisitor method. The masses need something to believe in, something to give order and purpose to their wretched transient lives - even if they know it is wrong.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

Three things: denial, a cheerful disposition, and a lot of free time on your hands.

[Kaiser Hasan I]

Carol,

The trouble with Catholicism is where its defined. Similar to Judaism (although not to the same extent), Catholicism is as much a culture as it a religion. As an explanation, many catholics (usually of the older generation) identify with a member of the pantheon of Saints. This becomes the focal point of their faith in many cases. Specifically, this is not idol worship, but a focus on the historical account of a Saint whereby the individual self-identifies and therefore feels the presence of God through that saint as opposed to directly with Christ or even God itself.

I identify as "culturally Catholic". A cop-out to most. But the point is that being raised Catholic has some differences from the other denominations of Christianity. Where some protestants will consider Church and the morality of living as the extent of their faith, (separate from every day life) Catholics consider their religion as a part of their community even if they don't attend church. It's difficult to really explain, but I'll try. If you put a bunch of Catholics in a room, they will "talk shop" so to speak, even if they aren't practicing.

Consider the Pope as well. Being a Catholic is like having a whole other system of government that you are responsible to. Even if you don't practice (again). Every time a Bishop goes into the news and opposes something, or the Pope states his intent on a given issue, most Catholics must take that into consideration for their every day lives. It's like having another President or Prime Minister who legislates solely on issues of faith and morality.

Can a Catholic not believe in God? yes and no. A "good" catholic cannot deny the existence of God. However, since you are a catholic until you decide to reject the church or the church specifically states that you are not a catholic, you remain a Catholic for the rest of your life regardless of whether you like it or not.

For example: I do not attend church, I do not follow the Catechism however, in the few of the Church I remain a Catholic, albeit a bad one.

This occurs for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Church is present at most major life changes. Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, and Death. All of these events are supposed to be conducted on the authority of the Church. Notice that there are three events during youth? This establishes the child within the culture of Catholicism. So the result is, if the child is baptized, they are entered into the church. A Community event which puts the child into a community of the same faith. On First Holy Communion, the child enters into "Full Communion" with the church. Which basically means that the church further indoctrinates the child into the "community of the faithful". Once confirmed, that child is now an adult in the eyes of the church. The service of Confirmation is a direct statement by the child to a Bishop or Priest that they accept the church and its protocols as a guidance in their lives. So its an agreement to follow the church. To be married in a RC church is to have your marriage recognized by the Church itself. And to have a catholic wedding, means to agree to the laws of the church as to how your marriage will continue. No divorce unless through annulment, no use of contraception etc..

But there is more. For instance, in Canada, there are publicly funded Catholic school boards. The result is the "culture of Catholicism" I've tried to explain. If you are taught by catholics, all your peers are catholics and all you've been taught is from a Catholic perspective, it means that regardless of your personal beliefs, you are a catholic by environment.

How do I define that? Well for instance, I can tell you Canadian history from the perspective of my upbringing. Which means all events I've been taught about and their implications are centred around the church. The foundations of Canada? I was taught primarily about Jesuit missionaries, the Spanish expansion and French colonialism. What was missing? The presence of the Protestant Dutch and the Protestant English and their colonialism. Nothing is taught of these contributors in the catholic school system. The effect is that unless someone goes out of their way to learn it (as I did) their view of everything is through a Catholic lens.

And now the guilt thing. Catholics and Guilt are a common concept of what people think of Catholicism. The idea of catholic guilt stems from one source. As a Catholic, it is inherent that we believe in "the forgiveness of sins". Which stems from the tenant that Christ believed in, turning the other cheek. Catholics believe in the concept of "original sin". Which is, the sin of Adam and Eve. And that only through the belief in Christ through the Church can that original sin be forgiven. This is where the ideas of Baptism and the "cleansing of sins" comes in. See, back during the early foundations of the church, when Rome was still the centre of Europe, the church was the official state religion. Some say that they hijacked other customs and holidays, but this is not the case. Roman Catholicism literally means "The Roman Universal Faith". The church is an incorporation of ALL of the religions of that time. Each had its own element. So the inclusion of the celestial pantheon (ie angels etc...) the establishment of the catholic calendar (easter Christmas etc...) and other elements such as Baptism. At the time, there were a series of strict laws regarding cleanliness in Jewish culture at the time. Everything from who could bathe where, what not to eat, where to bury the dead and how.

Since Christanity is basically just a Judaic cult, all its founders and followers were Jewish. As Jews dispersed through the Roman Empire, they brought the laws of cleanliness with them. Some of them caught on, mostly because people started to notice "Hey! Bathing is a good idea! Hey those guys aren't getting sick because they don't eat rancid pork!". These laws became cultural which eventually resulted in Baptism, Fish on Fridays, the use of incense etc..

The early church took these adaptations, and used them toward the dogma of the forgiveness of sins. Most notable in the idea that "the Lamb of God Washes away the sins of the world have mercy on us". A very very very catholic concept.

To summarize, Catholicism says humans are perfect in design, but inherently sinful due to original sin. Only through the church can that sin be forgiven. And the last point of Catholicism and Guilt:

When you die, you do NOT necessarily go to heaven. You ask for forgiveness from God, who forgives your sins and THEN, you enter into direct communion with God himself.

Because of this, Catholics acknowledge the sins of humanity and pray for the forgiveness of God. The impact CULTURALLY (as previously mentioned) is that Catholics are thereby subject to a higher amount of guilt in every day life depending on how much indoctrination of the church the individual has received.

A Demonstration:

John is a Catholic. John does is not particularly religious but his family belongs to a church and he attended a catholic school. John works a 9 to 5 job. John sees a homeless man and ignores him. John feels very bad about that and decides to relieve himself of his guilt. So John attends confession and speaks to a Priest. The Priest gives him some advice AND tells him a series of prayers which are required to forgive this trespass. John says his prayers and now, his obligation to God is fulfilled and John ideally does not feel guilty for ignoring the Homeless man, despite having done NOTHING to solve the problem.


In essence, THAT is Catholicism.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Being a Catholic is like having a whole other system of government that you are responsible to.

And that is why we in Britain had a phase of burning Jesuits back in the 16th and 17th Century...

[b3n|<3r|\|]

*applause*

Well said.

(Your Niftiness that is )

[Kaiser Hasan I]

Or why Catholics are periodically persecuted when Protestants are running the show. Namely because Protestants refuted the supremacy of the Pope for this very reason. As a result, they are predisposed to mistrust anyone with a second allegiance.

[hypatias mom]

It is interesting to note that both Protestants and Catholics are persecuted, depending upon where one is. My ancestors had to flee Scotland when they became Presbyterians, also called Zealous Covenanters, and refused to take the loyalty oath to the Church of Scotland and to the King. They were discriminated against, but became oppressors when they arrived in Northern Ireland. Here in the New World, they again had to fight against oppression, but this time in a political rather than a religious sense. One of the main reasons for the prohibition of a state church here in the States is because the Founders feared government-regulated church doctrine and practices, leaving men free to follow the dictates of their own consciences. This often results in non-belief, or non-adherence to various church teachings or dogma, but that again is part of one's responsibility before one's Maker. Without the freedom to choose to follow or not, Faith is nothing but slavery. A slave is not free to choose--he must do as he is bid. The free man or woman follows his or her conscience and follows or rejects faith in God, according to his understanding and inclination. God knew many would reject Him, but still made man's will free in this regard.

I don't happen to understand why there are so many layers of religious figures between the worshipper and God in some religious systems, when the Bible says there is one Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. The idea of having anotherr mortal man able to determine the destination of my soul is something totally foreign to me. Confession to the Lord, rather than to a person, seems the only logical process. I acknowledge that it is always helpful to talk about one's concerns or sins with a person one considers mature in the faith, and of course, to ask forgiveness of one who has been wronged by me, but for a man to declare my sins expiated on his own authority seems to usurp the authority which belongs only to God.

I imagine that having grown up in a Catholic rather than a Protestant world would have given me a different perspective, but here in the States, not only are the public schools not Catholic, but they are actively attempting to expunge God from civil life altogether. Home and church life, as well as private parochial schools, are the places that young people in this country are exposed to the faith their parents wish them to follow.

[Kaiser Hasan I]

In examining the dogmatic virtue of one system over another, you are entirely correct. I had an argument with the Arch-Bishop who leads the Arch-Diocese of Toronto just before my confirmation years and years ago. It was quite a scene since a 12 year old is supposed to show a bit more reverence to a figure who sits on par with aristocracy and is considered an ecclesiastical Prince. None the less. I asked why the church was necessary when Christ stated "wherever two or more are gathered in my name." For my insolence I nearly wasn't allowed to confirm, but, the answer I received was appropriate. The Bishop stated that the value of the Church and its institutions to the faithful is a standardization of the dogma. That the church is valuable first as a tie to our history and also because its able to have a huge pool of scholars to research the gospel and the implications of it in every day life. Now, I don't know much about non-denominational Christianity, but I do know that the onus of interpretation is left to the participant, not the authority. Which makes more sense to me, especially in terms of your statement "freedom of faith".

But the Bishop did raise a point which often gets ignored. The concept of historical tie. People wonder why it is that the church is slow and dogmatic. Well for one, its a constant. Since Peter, there is an unbroken line of the faith through the Bishop of Rome (the pope). Now this may be highly political and almost bordering on heretical, but the value of a political leader of the faithful has its ups and downs. As I've said elsewhere, I identify as "culturally Catholic", so I get a bit of a kick out of knowing I belong to an ancient fraternity which can trace its routes back to pre-Christian foundations of the Roman Kingdom and the role of the Pontiff. It's age, in my mind is impressive and is likely one of the only reasons I identify as Catholic any more at all. I hate to say it, but simply, Catholicism isn't exclusively about Christ (despite what the dogma may say), its also the fraternity of 1 Billion living human beings, and the influence that it has on the way the world moves. And the fact that the Roman Catholic church is the last heir to the Roman Empire has a bit of something to it as well.

So, I suppose that the minimalism enjoyed by other denominations could see Catholicism as elaborate, out of date and irrelevant. But consider that being a Catholic is being a second citizen in a hypothetical state. Surely there's something to that?

[hypatias mom]

By that same general reference, I gain personal and cultural relationship with another large group of Christian believers, who also are run on a governmental system on which our US government was based. We, also, answer to a hierarchy of leaders, from our local pastors, to our Presbytery, to our Synod, to the General Assembly. We have a Book of Order and a Book of Confessions, and people who join the Presbbyterian church agree to not only the tenets of the faith, but the church's polity as well. It is rather like pledging allegience to the flag. But if we disapprove of what our General Assembly rules, we are always free to change to a church whose rulings or perspectives agree more closely with what we believe the Word is telling us.

[Prodigy Almighty]

I don't understand why some Catholics feel they need to take the blame for things not their fault. It makes no sense to me.

Oh, No No! Please, let them take the blame... (says the Episcopalian)

Just ignore the fact that my Rector is married and has two sons.

[Jacobus Loki]

I remember a story about another 12 year old disputing with the Powers that Be in a temple.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

No that doesn't entitle you to crucify him...

[Jacobus Loki]

Perish the thought! Price of nails these days? Not to mention overtime for the Centurions.....

[hypatias mom]

I have often noted that the young frequently hold their elders to account, and remind them when their example falls short of their teaching. This is especially true in parenting or in discipling youngsters in the faith. Their, "But didn't you say.....Then why do you...?" is a cold dose of truth poured onto an erring soul. When young people ask their spiritual elders difficult questions and are either rebuffed or chastised, they lose both respect for and faith in the veracity of the teaching they have received. It behooves adults to pay careful, courteous attention to their students/disciples so they can continue to earn the right to lead them into a more mature faith.

[Erik Mortis]

Honour the Gods!

[b3n|<3r|\|]

Honour British spelling too it seems!

[Ruth]

What? People talking about Catholicism?! The One True Faith?! *Jumps in*

I've only skimmed through this conversation, so I'm probably just sending it further off into tangent-land, but, anyway...

I was raised Catholic (though probably not quite a well as some of the rest of you), and I certainly agree with what the Kaiser has said about feeling Culturally Catholic. I've never been a very good Catholic (I think my mother's faith was beginning to waver some by the time I came along, and my father is not Catholic), I haven't been to Mass regularly since I was Confirmed nearly six years ago, and these days I don't consider myself to be religious at all, but I still identify somewhat with the Catholic church, despite my significant disagreement with many of its social doctrines. Most of it probably goes back to the fact that my mother side of the family is essentially a giant pack (who needs birth control?) of German Catholics (My aunt was a nun for short time in the 60s, I had great-uncle who was priest and I spent large portions of my childhood going to church picnics [gambling for Jesus!] and such).

I'm somewhat thankful that I was raised in a Catholic setting because I've found, that, at least in my case, it has made me more accepting of other faiths. When you grow up trying to defend (to yourself and others) a Church with such an enormous (and well-recorded) history of crazy actions and practices (most history classes are simply a veiled excuse to beat on Catholics - "Galileo! Martin Luther! Indulgences! Protestant Work Ethic!") you eventually realize that every religion is pretty crazy in the end, so there's no sense pretending that your own religion is perfectly logical, whilst making fun of your neighbor's. Essentially, I try to ridicule every religion (well, mostly just every denomination of Jesus-lovin', because I begin to get lost after that) equally. I've found that most Protestants I've met seem to be more critical of denominations outside of their own, whereas most of the Catholics I've talked to seem to lean more towards a 'Whatever" sentiment. But, it's possible that I only talk with arrogant Protestants and bad Catholics, so my observations are probably completely meaningless. And, this may all just go back to the way my brain works and actually have nothing to do with the religious environment in which I was raised.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Ruth - mocking Muhammed-lovin is fun too.

[hypatias mom]

I think intolerance in any religious group or religious practiioner is a sign of immaturity and insecurity. To feel obliged to make fun of someone "outside" one's group just reveals one as a malcontent. People who are truly comfortable in their own faith, belief system, or lifestyle don't usually go around trashing everyone else's One may hold to one's beliefs strongly without being objectionable, and perhaps even win someone to one's perspective by one's respectful attitude toward others. No one is attracted to angry, intolerant speech, but, rather, toward a kind or soft conversation. Reason, kindness, and openness are very attractive..

[Ruth]

No one is attracted to angry, intolerant speech, but, rather, toward a kind or soft conversation. Reason, kindness, and openness are very attractive..

That's certainly true on a person to person level, but sadly, when in more collective masses, it seems as though people gravitate towards the angry intolerant ones, hence the reason people such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh still have active audiences.

[Erik Mortis]

But those people are likely themselves.. already angry and intolerant... So it's less that people like anger and intolerance, as it is people like similar people.

[Jess]

I agree.

[Erik Mortis]

So does Social Psychology. My favorite of all psychologies..

[Jess]

Sociology

[Scott of Hyperborea]

Sociology =! social psychology!!!

Both could potentially be useful, but in my experience, sociology has been a lot of people with political axes to grind writing long polemics about how The Man is keeping people down, while social psychology is responsible scientists doing and reporting experiments.