Since my return to the Catholic Church, I've noticed a large gap between the actively involved parishioners and those who sit in the pew until receiving Communion and then leaving until next Sunday.
Let me be clear. I am aware that many people can't be as involved as they might want to be. Family, career, or health demands get in the way; maybe their parish's ministries and social groups aren't welcoming, or they don't consider themselves skilled enough to participate further (you are!). Some people are active in ways that don't involve the parish proper, whether at home, volunteering, or academically.
It stunned me the first few times parishioners told me "it's great that you're so involved. I don't even listen to the homily, I just come for Communion." Why?! Maybe it just isn't in me to take every part of the Church for granted since I was away for so long. In fact, I took it for granted that everyone there is there because they want to be there 100% - not just to sit in a pew for an hour a week. I'm there largely to make sure that the things that drove me away don't happen to anyone else. It's been struggle for me over the past few months to just let pew-fillers be rather than exhausting myself over attempts to motivate them.
Since the white supremacist "rally" at Charlottesville, many white Catholic bishops, priests, educators, women religious, and activists have spoken out against white supremacy. How much action is behind these words varies, and I'm trying to remain realistically optimistic - pessimism is not a motivator. Complaints from Catholics, generally those who're disillusioned from Catholic institutions altogether, point to the bishops and priests who have gone about business as usual. These passionate Catholics call to mind Rev. Bryan Massingale, Sr. Thea Bowman, Dr. Diana L. Hayes, and the dozens of Black Catholics who have been calling out the Church in America for its inaction and ignorance for decades.
I worry that the division between Catholics who work to dismantle white supremacy, and "business as usual" white Catholics is widening to the point that the latter group will intermingle with racist Catholics. And I wonder if that division lines up at all with the gap between active Catholics and pew-fillers. Ultimately, I worry that the passionate Catholics working to dismantle white supremacy will eventually become so disillusioned that they (we?) will leave altogether. And then who will be left?
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Friday, August 18, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Presenting "faith journey" aka existential crisis
Every Sunday from now until January, I'm meeting with a group of Catholic women for personal formation, community discipleship, and event planning. We will facilitate a women's spiritual retreat after our last meeting. The dozen of us went through the same retreat last month, facilitated by women who had met together all of last year.
Event planning is well-rehearsed. Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups. Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.
The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group. Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups. The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now. Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.
It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis! Go me! I'm such an overachiever! I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream). The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism. This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):
Here is this unusual opportunity to talk about myself openly before a group for a half hour, and... this is very cheesy... if I talk about theory, then who am I? If my developing plan to speak about my journey consists mostly of concepts that exist outside of me, then what does that say about me? The debate and contemplation of these ideas will continue after me, the same can't be said about relationships (I wonder how many people identify through their relationships out of a fear of mortality?). But if I end up impacting these studies through academia, does that reflect on the quality/value of my life? If I don't, does that imply failure?
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self. But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.
At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year. Mine was "be an agent of change." That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???). The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change. I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.
Event planning is well-rehearsed. Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups. Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.
The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group. Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups. The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now. Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.
It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis! Go me! I'm such an overachiever! I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream). The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism. This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self. But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.
At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year. Mine was "be an agent of change." That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???). The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change. I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Catholic community: sexuality vs wealth
Over the past 10 weeks I have been involved in a Catholic parish through attending Mass, talking with parishioners after service, participating in a Pastoral Plan Listening Session, meeting with two spiritual directors, and joining a theology discussion group. Finding a Catholic community that values hospitality was a long and difficult struggle. My enjoyment of this one is mingled with hesitation that it may all crumble into more of the same shame-focused elitism I'd found at other parishes over the past 3 years.
A significant portion of this hesitation roots in my sexual activity. The vast majority of parishioners are married parents, and the few single members I've met seek to join them. I've been open about my intention to continue "single" and childfree to no response, I think they either don't know how to react to that or just see it as none of their business (hopefully the latter). What I haven't revealed, though, is that I'm polyamorous. It hasn't come up in context. Sex & sexuality, in fact, haven't come up at all. Which is both a relief and frustrating - I prefer being casually open altogether. Neither my sexuality, nor my focus on sex ed, nor my polyamory play a large role in my spirituality; which only baffles me further when religious communities use those standards for judgement.
Contingent with my hesitation to be open about my polyamory is the wealth of the parishioners. Every Sunday the church's parking lot fills with BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, all new. I've been to two parishioners' houses and was stunned at the luxury. Infinity pools! 4 car garages! Stunning views of suburban Texas hillcountry! Marble countertops, multiple fireplaces, second story balconies, full wine racks, cathedral windows, oriental rugs. It's made me reconsider my material wealth. Although I'm not in a place to give financially, I've begun seeking out ways to give my time.
Sidenote: growing up Catholic in the MidWest, I saw dirt poor parishes and incredibly wealthy parishes and everything in between. Both blue collar and immigrant parishes were commonplace. Here in Austin, all Anglo parishes I've found have been white collar upper class - the only others are Latino, and I admit fault for knowing very little about them as I know almost no Spanish. Anyway, maybe the parishioners' wealth here is so obvious to me because it's so uniform.
The idea that I would be shamed for my sexual activity when I share the pew with those who live with such incredible material wealth is chafing. I haven't been to Confession in 16 years and this disparity is a new reason to avoid it further. I'm honest, open, and safe with my lovers: nobody is hurt (and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me that we're "hurting our souls"). But when I see that wealth, I see food withheld from the hungry, shelter withheld from the homeless, medicine withheld from the sick, and justice withheld from the imprisoned. And yet big names in the Church condemn my actions first. It remains to be seen whether or not this parish with join them, or if they'll continue to try to meet me where I am.
A significant portion of this hesitation roots in my sexual activity. The vast majority of parishioners are married parents, and the few single members I've met seek to join them. I've been open about my intention to continue "single" and childfree to no response, I think they either don't know how to react to that or just see it as none of their business (hopefully the latter). What I haven't revealed, though, is that I'm polyamorous. It hasn't come up in context. Sex & sexuality, in fact, haven't come up at all. Which is both a relief and frustrating - I prefer being casually open altogether. Neither my sexuality, nor my focus on sex ed, nor my polyamory play a large role in my spirituality; which only baffles me further when religious communities use those standards for judgement.
Contingent with my hesitation to be open about my polyamory is the wealth of the parishioners. Every Sunday the church's parking lot fills with BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, all new. I've been to two parishioners' houses and was stunned at the luxury. Infinity pools! 4 car garages! Stunning views of suburban Texas hillcountry! Marble countertops, multiple fireplaces, second story balconies, full wine racks, cathedral windows, oriental rugs. It's made me reconsider my material wealth. Although I'm not in a place to give financially, I've begun seeking out ways to give my time.
Sidenote: growing up Catholic in the MidWest, I saw dirt poor parishes and incredibly wealthy parishes and everything in between. Both blue collar and immigrant parishes were commonplace. Here in Austin, all Anglo parishes I've found have been white collar upper class - the only others are Latino, and I admit fault for knowing very little about them as I know almost no Spanish. Anyway, maybe the parishioners' wealth here is so obvious to me because it's so uniform.
The idea that I would be shamed for my sexual activity when I share the pew with those who live with such incredible material wealth is chafing. I haven't been to Confession in 16 years and this disparity is a new reason to avoid it further. I'm honest, open, and safe with my lovers: nobody is hurt (and there's nothing anyone can say to convince me that we're "hurting our souls"). But when I see that wealth, I see food withheld from the hungry, shelter withheld from the homeless, medicine withheld from the sick, and justice withheld from the imprisoned. And yet big names in the Church condemn my actions first. It remains to be seen whether or not this parish with join them, or if they'll continue to try to meet me where I am.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Forgiveness
Someone recently accused me of being unable to forgive, despite having known me for many years and having seen me forgive several people. The authorities of my childhood parish also accused me of an inability to forgive. Both parties are correct in one sense: they demanded immediate forgiveness on command, which I can not do.
Forgiveness is not an easy thing to define, it is more than simply saying "it's ok" when someone has caused harm. It involves releasing resentment, moving on both as an individual and as a relationship from an incident, letting go of hurt. One can forgive another without ever speaking to the transgressor: forgiving someone who's hurt you doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to resume a relationship. It's also possible to forgive someone who's died!
Functioning as an individual and as a member of a community is eased through forgiveness. The act, which is an almost entirely introverted event with fuzzy boundaries, ameliorates harmony both internally and communally. Forgiveness has been such a prominent religious concept because religious communities involve so much intangible vulnerability between participants. Both forgiveness and spirituality exist on the line between logic and emotion.
Time between the hurtful occurrence and forgiveness (whether of the self or of the transgressor) is immeasurable. The idea of needing to forgive in order to harmonize the self and the community is very old, and many ancient ritualistic religions involved going through some kind of ceremony in order to bring about forgiveness. Some of these traditions also argued that to die without having forgiven would cause disaster: ritual fixed this dangerous chance. Catholicism makes the same point, but with intimidation rather than facilitation*. The line of the Our Father "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" meaning, at least as it was posed to me, that if you don't forgive everyone right away then God has no reason to forgive you so you've doomed yourself to Hell if Jesus could forgive while on the Cross what's stopping you?!?
No matter who demands forgiveness on command, the forgiveness itself is insincere when done through intimidation or fear. The fault of the insincerity is on the pressuring party, not the forgiver. I was already in the process of forgiving the person mentioned at the beginning of this post and the accusation of my inability only hindered the process. Thinking and writing about the nature of forgiveness is a step in resuming that process, which has an unknowable duration.
* It may seem logically inconsistent to many that I would return to the very Church that hurt me so much. Seeking out a parish of compassion and re-establishing myself as a practicing (keyword: PRACTICING. Practice, not doctrine.) Catholic are steps in my forgiving of the Church. By attending Sunday Mass and studying Catholicism, I'm harmonizing myself both as a spiritual individual and as a very tentative, doubting member of a community.
Forgiveness is not an easy thing to define, it is more than simply saying "it's ok" when someone has caused harm. It involves releasing resentment, moving on both as an individual and as a relationship from an incident, letting go of hurt. One can forgive another without ever speaking to the transgressor: forgiving someone who's hurt you doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to resume a relationship. It's also possible to forgive someone who's died!
Functioning as an individual and as a member of a community is eased through forgiveness. The act, which is an almost entirely introverted event with fuzzy boundaries, ameliorates harmony both internally and communally. Forgiveness has been such a prominent religious concept because religious communities involve so much intangible vulnerability between participants. Both forgiveness and spirituality exist on the line between logic and emotion.
Time between the hurtful occurrence and forgiveness (whether of the self or of the transgressor) is immeasurable. The idea of needing to forgive in order to harmonize the self and the community is very old, and many ancient ritualistic religions involved going through some kind of ceremony in order to bring about forgiveness. Some of these traditions also argued that to die without having forgiven would cause disaster: ritual fixed this dangerous chance. Catholicism makes the same point, but with intimidation rather than facilitation*. The line of the Our Father "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" meaning, at least as it was posed to me, that if you don't forgive everyone right away then God has no reason to forgive you so you've doomed yourself to Hell if Jesus could forgive while on the Cross what's stopping you?!?
No matter who demands forgiveness on command, the forgiveness itself is insincere when done through intimidation or fear. The fault of the insincerity is on the pressuring party, not the forgiver. I was already in the process of forgiving the person mentioned at the beginning of this post and the accusation of my inability only hindered the process. Thinking and writing about the nature of forgiveness is a step in resuming that process, which has an unknowable duration.
* It may seem logically inconsistent to many that I would return to the very Church that hurt me so much. Seeking out a parish of compassion and re-establishing myself as a practicing (keyword: PRACTICING. Practice, not doctrine.) Catholic are steps in my forgiving of the Church. By attending Sunday Mass and studying Catholicism, I'm harmonizing myself both as a spiritual individual and as a very tentative, doubting member of a community.
Friday, December 27, 2013
More Thoughts on Catholicism's Matriarchy
This podcast is a fascinating presentation on "Mary as Icon and the Feminine Genius." Although I don't necessarily agree with all of it, it's vital for conversation on the Feminine in Catholicism to continue. I've been working on this idea for a long time that the Catholic community is more matriarchal than most people anticipate: all the Marian shrines in yards, decals on cars, prayer cards, bedside statues, pendants, flowers, candles and rosaries evidence a feminine prominence. Future archaeologists will likely look back on Catholics and determine their practice as matriarchal, based solely on these common items.
Mary, in this podcast, is referred to as both the Tabernacle (Even the picture of the Tabernacle in the image above, which is referenced in the podcast, is vaginal) and as the Mother of the New Covenant. It's very important to put words to these concepts, which are often vaguely accepted in the background without much thought. Not only do these ideas about Mary reinforce Catholicism's connections with Pagan folklore and spirituality, but also empower women in the Church more than the patriarchal hierarchy has for centuries. As women are the most active laypeople, at least in America, a communal understanding of being more than fundraisers, Sunday School teachers and secretaries (read: assistants) could be a valuable foothold in the Catholic community.
Also, I just had no idea how profound Eastern Orthodox iconography is. Here I just thought it was a way of saying "look at all our money!"
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Actively Recovering Catholic
My life progression thusfar: Catholic, anti-Catholic, angry ex-Catholic, apathetic ex-Catholic, recovering Catholic, actively recovering Catholic. My active recovery began as genuine interest in how most parishes differ from the abusive parish of my childhood (St. Monica's in Chicago), then how they differ from each other; eventually each Mass I attended became more personal as it was one not influenced by St. Monica's. My Catholic identity never really went away, despite how rightfully opposed I was to it for a long time, and I want a more active healing than apathetic distance can offer.
And now I have no idea what I've gotten myself into or what I'm doing or where I'm going. My stance on dogma hasn't changed: I just don't believe it. I'm not Christian in any sense: Jesus was a cool guy according to the Gospels but the Messiah, salvation, sin, etc. aren't a part of my spirituality at all. The theology absolutely fascinates me and I love learning it. I do believe that something is going on, and attending a nonjudgmental Mass makes me feel just as connected to that something as hiking through the mountains does - just in very different ways.
Aside from my apathy regarding dogma, I do believe in the Catholic Church: when open-hearted people gather together in a sacred (sacred in the sense that it isn't mundane) setting to share a ritual passed on by generations, something is attained. Yes, the Church hierarchy has done many terrible, awful things and I face those head-on and call people out on their bullshit. And few people know better than I just how cruel laypersons, even those who win community service awards in their parishes, can be to each other. It is because I know the horrors in the Catholic Church that I value the goodness in it and seek it out and want to be a part of it. Other religions have similar disparities and rituals of togetherness, Catholicism is just the religious language to which I'm attuned.
Of course I'm ready to become more involved in my local Catholic community AFTER moving to an area where there's almost none.
I really have no idea what I'm doing.
And now I have no idea what I've gotten myself into or what I'm doing or where I'm going. My stance on dogma hasn't changed: I just don't believe it. I'm not Christian in any sense: Jesus was a cool guy according to the Gospels but the Messiah, salvation, sin, etc. aren't a part of my spirituality at all. The theology absolutely fascinates me and I love learning it. I do believe that something is going on, and attending a nonjudgmental Mass makes me feel just as connected to that something as hiking through the mountains does - just in very different ways.
Aside from my apathy regarding dogma, I do believe in the Catholic Church: when open-hearted people gather together in a sacred (sacred in the sense that it isn't mundane) setting to share a ritual passed on by generations, something is attained. Yes, the Church hierarchy has done many terrible, awful things and I face those head-on and call people out on their bullshit. And few people know better than I just how cruel laypersons, even those who win community service awards in their parishes, can be to each other. It is because I know the horrors in the Catholic Church that I value the goodness in it and seek it out and want to be a part of it. Other religions have similar disparities and rituals of togetherness, Catholicism is just the religious language to which I'm attuned.
Of course I'm ready to become more involved in my local Catholic community AFTER moving to an area where there's almost none.
I really have no idea what I'm doing.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Marylike Standards for: Modesty in Dress
I found a pamphlet today, at Church of Gesu in Milwaukee, entitled "The Marylike Standards for: Modesty in Dress." Printed by The Fatima Center, fatima.org is their site. Inside, The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI is quoted on women's clothing - words from 100 YEARS AGO!! Then there's a checklist of 7 points regarding measurements and material of women's clothing. Very precise.
There is the statement "Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress." Christian womanhood in terms of apparel? Don't different Christian women find solace and support in different models for different reasons? Allowing quarter-length sleeves sure is accommodating, but I'd be more concerned about protecting ALL women from sexual assault. Which brings me to my next point -
"A girl who follows these...she will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others." A person can't be an occasion of anything because a person is a person. I don't know what The Fatima Center meant by "occasion of sin" but I do know that clothing is not responsible for sexual assault or rape, the rapist is. And if anyone should be ashamed, it's the person who chooses to be embarrassed by another person's appearance. The Fatima Center seems to have forgotten much of the Gospels, particularly Luke 7:36-50. Church of Gesu had no similar pamphlets regarding men's garb or behavior, nor does Fatima.org mention any such modesty in dress for men.
And lastly, The Fatima Center holds no respect for women's decisions regarding their own bodies. Slacks, jeans and shorts are banned - how is a woman supposed to run or jump or climb or bike? Shouldn't this be an individual's decision?
There is the statement "Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress." Christian womanhood in terms of apparel? Don't different Christian women find solace and support in different models for different reasons? Allowing quarter-length sleeves sure is accommodating, but I'd be more concerned about protecting ALL women from sexual assault. Which brings me to my next point -
"A girl who follows these...she will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others." A person can't be an occasion of anything because a person is a person. I don't know what The Fatima Center meant by "occasion of sin" but I do know that clothing is not responsible for sexual assault or rape, the rapist is. And if anyone should be ashamed, it's the person who chooses to be embarrassed by another person's appearance. The Fatima Center seems to have forgotten much of the Gospels, particularly Luke 7:36-50. Church of Gesu had no similar pamphlets regarding men's garb or behavior, nor does Fatima.org mention any such modesty in dress for men.
And lastly, The Fatima Center holds no respect for women's decisions regarding their own bodies. Slacks, jeans and shorts are banned - how is a woman supposed to run or jump or climb or bike? Shouldn't this be an individual's decision?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Egalitarian Catholic Spirituality
The Virgin Mary is worshipped throughout Catholicism almost as much as, if not more than, Jesus. A few years ago, a large group of Catholics actually petitioned the Vatican to elevate Mary to Jesus' level - they were turned down because that's not how theology works.
The hierarchy and doctrine of the Church have a long history of misogyny, heterosexism, and mistreatment of women. Women must be subservient, silent, obedient, and serene breeders (if not chaste virgins for life).
In practice, however, particularly among the lower classes, the spirituality of Catholics is more woman-centric. Check how many shrines to Mary are in your neighborhood, how many rosaries hang from rearview mirrors (or that people wear, which a good Catholic isn't technically supposed to do), how many Mary/rosary tattoos you see. Then all the Catholic woman saints and leaders: St. Joan of Arc, Dorothy Day, St. Barbara, Mother Theresa, St. Ursula, Princess Diana (I'm aware that she was Anglican, but that didn't stop my childhood parish from praying to her), etc. In spiritual practice, Catholicism gets rather egalitarian.
The hierarchy may topple from the scandals in a largely secular world, but people will continue the rituals, symbols, traditions, etc. of Catholicism. Which means the worship of a female icon isn't going away anytime soon.
The hierarchy and doctrine of the Church have a long history of misogyny, heterosexism, and mistreatment of women. Women must be subservient, silent, obedient, and serene breeders (if not chaste virgins for life).
In practice, however, particularly among the lower classes, the spirituality of Catholics is more woman-centric. Check how many shrines to Mary are in your neighborhood, how many rosaries hang from rearview mirrors (or that people wear, which a good Catholic isn't technically supposed to do), how many Mary/rosary tattoos you see. Then all the Catholic woman saints and leaders: St. Joan of Arc, Dorothy Day, St. Barbara, Mother Theresa, St. Ursula, Princess Diana (I'm aware that she was Anglican, but that didn't stop my childhood parish from praying to her), etc. In spiritual practice, Catholicism gets rather egalitarian.
The hierarchy may topple from the scandals in a largely secular world, but people will continue the rituals, symbols, traditions, etc. of Catholicism. Which means the worship of a female icon isn't going away anytime soon.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Recovering Catholic
I've had a loose concept of Catholic-based paintings/artwork for about a year now, it's been very slowly coming together. Aside from acrylic paint (<3), I'm using rosaries, pendants, prayer cards, flyers, etc.
It's difficult to describe, verbally, what this artwork expresses (thus the painting!). All the little icons and such are from a thrift store in Milwaukee. Going through the box of Catholic items there has been a very odd experience: everything is familiar, but my more recently acquired logic wonders wtf all this crap really DOES. Emotional comfort vs. rational reason.
The fact that there is some emotional comfort in these familiar things is pretty odd, considering all the terrible things I endured at St. Monica's Elementary. Discovering that St. Monica's is so extreme that it isn't acknowledged by the Chicago Diocese, though, has helped so much. I'm discovering actual Catholicism now, separating it from extremists. Many horrors occur in Catholicism and there is no way I'll convert back - I'm sifting the pleasant out from the abusive. Obedience to a cruel hierarchy is separate from artistic/musical/poetic appreciation. The comfort of some supernatural mother figure makes no logical sense but can be emotionally appealing.
That's one of the main reasons why Catholicism has been so successful for so many centuries: the emotional appeal tends to be much stronger among uneducated people.
Individual people and greed for control are responsible for what I've endured, just like with most evil committed in the world. I can appreciate parts of what they twisted, even if just as a familiar and complex myth. If I abandon that solely because I don't logically "believe" in it, how am I any different from the people who avoid fiction because they're afraid to feel anything? Like it or not, Catholicism is among my roots and I'm clearing away the weeds they planted.
Seems to me that there are three reasons for following a religion:
1) actual belief. "This deity actually exists, this special person actually did that, and I must do this." Logical thinking minus measurable evidence
2) cultural tradition. "We are this group and we do this. If this deity actually exists, it would be an additional benefit." Communal functioning.
3) emotional appreciation. "The symbols and stories are aesthetically appealing to me." No different from secular work.
I primarily have #3, but can appreciate #2 to a degree. My family has a mix of #2 and #3 and I would attend mass with them because I enjoy any time spent with them - if we're appreciating beauty together, even better!
Times like these I wish I had some sort of spiritual guide (an actual person, not an angel or something). The one great priest I knew has been warped by an administrative job and the Quakers to whom I reached out demanded community obedience in exchange for discussion. I'm done searching; though it may be lonely processing these icons by myself (nobody else from St. Monica's cares, or they're perpetuating), it's certainly safer.
And when my shitty 8th grade principal told me that I could never be non-Catholic since I was baptized, I thought she was just bullshitting me. No other religious culture could ever feel so familiar, make such irrational sense.
It's difficult to describe, verbally, what this artwork expresses (thus the painting!). All the little icons and such are from a thrift store in Milwaukee. Going through the box of Catholic items there has been a very odd experience: everything is familiar, but my more recently acquired logic wonders wtf all this crap really DOES. Emotional comfort vs. rational reason.
The fact that there is some emotional comfort in these familiar things is pretty odd, considering all the terrible things I endured at St. Monica's Elementary. Discovering that St. Monica's is so extreme that it isn't acknowledged by the Chicago Diocese, though, has helped so much. I'm discovering actual Catholicism now, separating it from extremists. Many horrors occur in Catholicism and there is no way I'll convert back - I'm sifting the pleasant out from the abusive. Obedience to a cruel hierarchy is separate from artistic/musical/poetic appreciation. The comfort of some supernatural mother figure makes no logical sense but can be emotionally appealing.
That's one of the main reasons why Catholicism has been so successful for so many centuries: the emotional appeal tends to be much stronger among uneducated people.
Individual people and greed for control are responsible for what I've endured, just like with most evil committed in the world. I can appreciate parts of what they twisted, even if just as a familiar and complex myth. If I abandon that solely because I don't logically "believe" in it, how am I any different from the people who avoid fiction because they're afraid to feel anything? Like it or not, Catholicism is among my roots and I'm clearing away the weeds they planted.
Seems to me that there are three reasons for following a religion:
1) actual belief. "This deity actually exists, this special person actually did that, and I must do this." Logical thinking minus measurable evidence
2) cultural tradition. "We are this group and we do this. If this deity actually exists, it would be an additional benefit." Communal functioning.
3) emotional appreciation. "The symbols and stories are aesthetically appealing to me." No different from secular work.
I primarily have #3, but can appreciate #2 to a degree. My family has a mix of #2 and #3 and I would attend mass with them because I enjoy any time spent with them - if we're appreciating beauty together, even better!
Times like these I wish I had some sort of spiritual guide (an actual person, not an angel or something). The one great priest I knew has been warped by an administrative job and the Quakers to whom I reached out demanded community obedience in exchange for discussion. I'm done searching; though it may be lonely processing these icons by myself (nobody else from St. Monica's cares, or they're perpetuating), it's certainly safer.
And when my shitty 8th grade principal told me that I could never be non-Catholic since I was baptized, I thought she was just bullshitting me. No other religious culture could ever feel so familiar, make such irrational sense.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Actively Ex-Catholic
My upbringing was very Catholic. The clergy, faculty, administration and volunteering parents all regretted Vatican II, they were that conservative. They also tolerated and even encouraged the bullying and abuse that happened to me. I allowed all that to happen for so long because, firstly, I didn't know that anything else existed and, secondly, I thought that that's what God/Jesus/Mary/etc. wanted.
Then I went through a rebellious phase in which I hated all Christianity. This is very common as the atheist population grows (at least amongst the middle-and-higher classes). I never blamed God for everything that happened, to me, though; I just changed my concept of God. There's the argument, commonly used by militant atheists, that God can only be two out of these three qualities: omnipotent, all-good, omniscient. Ignoring the subjective meaning of "good," this argument excludes another quality: active.
My relationship with an inactive God ("God" just being the Western term for an unknowable, ultimate being/force/essence. Tao comes close to my concept) is separate from my relationship with Catholicism. There are still many questions I want answered about the terrors of my childhood. I continue to study Catholicism not only to uncover more answers, but also to find peace with Catholicism. It's highly unlikely that I'll ever "be" Catholic again, but being mad at it is a waste.
Catholicism has been successful for centuries for a very good reason: symbols, rituals and hierarchies are emotionally appealing in a chaotic environment. Many "nonbelievers" (future blog to come on belief) attend mass regularly because it can be a calming weekly ritual and it's pretty. I admit that, when I'm having a crazy week, the idea of attending a peaceful mass with my family sounds like a nice escape where I won't have to think. And it would help heal some old wounds.
It is possible, and maybe even healthy, for an ex-Catholic to find harmony with Catholicism. It's as big a character in my past as my parents; I've made peace in my relationship with the absence of my father, Catholicism is next.
Then I went through a rebellious phase in which I hated all Christianity. This is very common as the atheist population grows (at least amongst the middle-and-higher classes). I never blamed God for everything that happened, to me, though; I just changed my concept of God. There's the argument, commonly used by militant atheists, that God can only be two out of these three qualities: omnipotent, all-good, omniscient. Ignoring the subjective meaning of "good," this argument excludes another quality: active.
My relationship with an inactive God ("God" just being the Western term for an unknowable, ultimate being/force/essence. Tao comes close to my concept) is separate from my relationship with Catholicism. There are still many questions I want answered about the terrors of my childhood. I continue to study Catholicism not only to uncover more answers, but also to find peace with Catholicism. It's highly unlikely that I'll ever "be" Catholic again, but being mad at it is a waste.
Catholicism has been successful for centuries for a very good reason: symbols, rituals and hierarchies are emotionally appealing in a chaotic environment. Many "nonbelievers" (future blog to come on belief) attend mass regularly because it can be a calming weekly ritual and it's pretty. I admit that, when I'm having a crazy week, the idea of attending a peaceful mass with my family sounds like a nice escape where I won't have to think. And it would help heal some old wounds.
It is possible, and maybe even healthy, for an ex-Catholic to find harmony with Catholicism. It's as big a character in my past as my parents; I've made peace in my relationship with the absence of my father, Catholicism is next.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Changing Church
The Cardinals and others who appointed Ratzinger to be Pope did so in hopes that he would return the Catholic Church to a more conservative, insular status. Pope John Paul was, for Catholicism, very liberal and he made the Church more "worldly" as a way of genuinely helping more people of more backgrounds. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, is just the opposite and has a strong background of being a dick. However, though he has made it his mission to de-secularize the Catholic community, he has made some small but rather drastic changes:
1) He forgave the Beatles for saying that they were bigger than Jesus. When John Lennon said that, he was saying that they were more popular than Jesus and, according to the thousands of people who thought that the Beatles could HEAL them, he was right. When Pope Benedict forgave the Beatles, while replacing Pope John Paul's "modern" music (Christian rock) with traditional Gregorian chanting, he took a large step into the mundane and secular world. Ringo Starr aptly pointed out that the Vatican has more important things to worry about.
2) The Church, for the past century, has been adamantly opposed to artificial birth control. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. It's a good little Catholic's mission to breed as many Catholics as possible and birth control impedes that. And because the Church is opposed to homosexuality, gay people shouldn't even be doing anything that would require birth control anyway. Pope Benedict, however, recently declared that birth control should be used as a safety measure in certain circumstances as long as it wouldn't prevent pregnancy. A gay prostitute should use a condom to protect himself from AIDS! Whoa!
3) Pope Benedict has now theorized that God was behind the Big Bang. This isn't a new concept, but it's a big deal for a Pope to concede that the science of how the universe came into being could be correct if God is behind it. Catholicism and science have never really gotten along, so this is another issue of Pope Benedict bridging the gap between the Church and the secular world.
The Church has been, for centuries, incredibly slow to change. Vatican II was uncharacteristic, to say the least, and took a monumental effort. In fact, the changes of Vatican II weren't as important as the fact that the Church admitted that it needed to change! That admittance was unprecedented in the oldest social organization existing today. Many people, clergy and lay and non-Catholic, have opined that a Vatican III should take place - especially considering the sex scandals. That's incredibly unlikely, even just considering how slowly the Church processes anything.
Pope Benedict's few changes, however, especially made by someone who was such a stalwart of Catholic elitism for so long, imply that more is going on within the Church than we know. If the hierarchy thought that they were desperate for new members in the 90's (see Sister Act 1 & 2), they must be flogging themselves now just to keep who they have. The sex scandals are turning away everyone except for the people who are too poor to have anything but the Church. The Pope's changes may seem trite to us, but they're drastic cries for help by the Church.
1) He forgave the Beatles for saying that they were bigger than Jesus. When John Lennon said that, he was saying that they were more popular than Jesus and, according to the thousands of people who thought that the Beatles could HEAL them, he was right. When Pope Benedict forgave the Beatles, while replacing Pope John Paul's "modern" music (Christian rock) with traditional Gregorian chanting, he took a large step into the mundane and secular world. Ringo Starr aptly pointed out that the Vatican has more important things to worry about.
2) The Church, for the past century, has been adamantly opposed to artificial birth control. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. It's a good little Catholic's mission to breed as many Catholics as possible and birth control impedes that. And because the Church is opposed to homosexuality, gay people shouldn't even be doing anything that would require birth control anyway. Pope Benedict, however, recently declared that birth control should be used as a safety measure in certain circumstances as long as it wouldn't prevent pregnancy. A gay prostitute should use a condom to protect himself from AIDS! Whoa!
3) Pope Benedict has now theorized that God was behind the Big Bang. This isn't a new concept, but it's a big deal for a Pope to concede that the science of how the universe came into being could be correct if God is behind it. Catholicism and science have never really gotten along, so this is another issue of Pope Benedict bridging the gap between the Church and the secular world.
The Church has been, for centuries, incredibly slow to change. Vatican II was uncharacteristic, to say the least, and took a monumental effort. In fact, the changes of Vatican II weren't as important as the fact that the Church admitted that it needed to change! That admittance was unprecedented in the oldest social organization existing today. Many people, clergy and lay and non-Catholic, have opined that a Vatican III should take place - especially considering the sex scandals. That's incredibly unlikely, even just considering how slowly the Church processes anything.
Pope Benedict's few changes, however, especially made by someone who was such a stalwart of Catholic elitism for so long, imply that more is going on within the Church than we know. If the hierarchy thought that they were desperate for new members in the 90's (see Sister Act 1 & 2), they must be flogging themselves now just to keep who they have. The sex scandals are turning away everyone except for the people who are too poor to have anything but the Church. The Pope's changes may seem trite to us, but they're drastic cries for help by the Church.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Living with Catholicism
A few months ago, I read "Catholicism in America" and, subsequently, most of the pieces of my Catholic childhood came together. Now that so much makes sense (the teachers/clergy/administrators discouraged questions and encouraged blind obedience because they thought that Vatican II never should have happened...knowing the long history, this is a logical conclusion), a lot of my anger and bitterness is gone. I pity Catholicism more and it's easier to understand wtf they're doing...except that the sex scandal will never make sense.
I've come to accept that, having spent 18 years in Catholic/Jesuit schools and coming from a very Catholic family, I'll probably always have a soft spot - or at least a few scars - for Catholicism. Sometimes, I translate catechism, the hierarchy of the Church, what they do and why to those without this long background. I'll probably never understand why Catholicism seems so alien to others (it doesn't make any logical sense to me either and it makes me uncomfortable, but it has a semblance of home)...but now I can say "Protestantism is very alien to me because it's so different from Catholicism. I expect certain things to be there and done in a certain way; without those things, Protestantism seems empty and bland...which is really ridiculous because Protestantism makes MORE SENSE to me!!"
With the current sex scandal and this shitty pope, the Church itself isn't changing THAT much but the way people (in the developed world. Don't even get me started on how successful the Church has been in brainwashing third world countries) approach Catholicism. When I read articles, particularly the recent Time magazine article, I wonder if people without 2 decades of Catholicism can read between the lines like I do.
Here: the reason why the Church has been so slow to respond - and to not really respond anyway - is because, without millions of semi-obedient people the world over, it won't exist. If things continue in this direction set by the sex scandal, the Church will have only its history and the poorest people in the world to support it...and why would they want them?! Once Catholicism came to the Americas, it shifted to rely more on foreign laymen than on clergy alone. Now, they may have to shift back in a world that doesn't have the same respect for clergy.
I've come to accept that, having spent 18 years in Catholic/Jesuit schools and coming from a very Catholic family, I'll probably always have a soft spot - or at least a few scars - for Catholicism. Sometimes, I translate catechism, the hierarchy of the Church, what they do and why to those without this long background. I'll probably never understand why Catholicism seems so alien to others (it doesn't make any logical sense to me either and it makes me uncomfortable, but it has a semblance of home)...but now I can say "Protestantism is very alien to me because it's so different from Catholicism. I expect certain things to be there and done in a certain way; without those things, Protestantism seems empty and bland...which is really ridiculous because Protestantism makes MORE SENSE to me!!"
With the current sex scandal and this shitty pope, the Church itself isn't changing THAT much but the way people (in the developed world. Don't even get me started on how successful the Church has been in brainwashing third world countries) approach Catholicism. When I read articles, particularly the recent Time magazine article, I wonder if people without 2 decades of Catholicism can read between the lines like I do.
Here: the reason why the Church has been so slow to respond - and to not really respond anyway - is because, without millions of semi-obedient people the world over, it won't exist. If things continue in this direction set by the sex scandal, the Church will have only its history and the poorest people in the world to support it...and why would they want them?! Once Catholicism came to the Americas, it shifted to rely more on foreign laymen than on clergy alone. Now, they may have to shift back in a world that doesn't have the same respect for clergy.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Review of Roman Catholicism in America by Chester Gillis
I read this to gain a better understanding of my strict Catholic upbringing; Gillis went above and beyond my expectations! Because I can now understand the empty traditions, hostility, and control exerted by the staff, administration and clergy, I'm one step closer to forgiving them.
The fact that this was written before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who, as recanted in this book, is a destructive slimbebal) became Pope Benedict and before the pedophilic scandals came to their worst point is actually a strength. It's easy to read the book from this point and see how the Catholic church does change drastically over time whether it wants to or not.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231108710/ref=cm_cr_mts_prod_img
The fact that this was written before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who, as recanted in this book, is a destructive slimbebal) became Pope Benedict and before the pedophilic scandals came to their worst point is actually a strength. It's easy to read the book from this point and see how the Catholic church does change drastically over time whether it wants to or not.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231108710/ref=cm_cr_mts_prod_img
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)