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.

Meaning vs. Discipline

I'm currently reading The Unlikely Disciple by Kevin Roose.  A student at Brown, Roose spends a semester at Liberty University.  Liberty U is the conservative, evangelical Christian, homophobic, creationist school founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell and Roose argued, correctly, that it's more foreign to the average Ivy Leaguer than most European countries.  He pretended to be a freshly converted evangelical in order to better fit in and learn secrets, he also took on various cultural behaviors such as no swearing or sex and joining the church choir - this was both to pass better and to experience the culture more effectively.  His main shock, at least up until page 170, was that nearly everyone at Liberty U was exceptionally friendly while also violently homophobic.

The second Gen Ed course, which he was able to take as a "foreign exchange student," focused on social and political issues and how an evangelical Christian should approach them.  These were largely simplistic and scathing stereotypes on gay people, people who have premarital sex, wives who have jobs outside the home, etc.  One statement by Roose jumped out at me:

"But aside from the patently offensive content, my biggest issue with [Gen Ed II] is the way it bundles political and social issues with religious issues, and what that means for a guy who's trying to give Christianity a fair shake."

This goes along with my previous post about dogma pushing away people, particularly young people, who're looking for personal meaning through religion.  Liberty U and many other religious institutions argue that personal meaning follows discipline.  I'm not saying that they're 100% wrong (mostly because it's not a right/wrong issue), but that argument is a poor way to interest potential peers.  Roose began to reap some spiritual connection through his altered behavior, similar to how his mentor A. J. Jacobs became more spiritual through his year of following Biblical laws (The Year of Living Biblically).

I argue that while it is possible to find spiritual connection through discipline, the process isn't simple enough to teach in a class.  Both Roose and Jacobs CHOSE to alter their own behavior, not because someone told them to, and they didn't do it out of shame.  And both of them explained that the discipline didn't lead directly to spiritual connection: instead, the decision to alter their behavior also included the decision to alter their attitude.  That isn't something that can be taught, demanded or shamed - which is precisely what evangelicals don't understand.

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?

The Beatitudes

I'm currently reading _God is Not Great_ by Christopher Hitchens. It's biased against all theists, but is an accurate historical account of nasty things done in the name of religion. One thing isn't mentioned in the entire 300 pages, the very thing that the majority of Christian organizations ignore, and what Jesus of the book of Matthew taught to the masses: THE BEATITUDES. I suppose Hitchens can be forgiven for excluding them because the very organizations he bemoans tend to forget that they exist as well.

The Beatitudes are only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew (5:3). Jesus proclaimed them to the masses of Galilee while healing the sick and all that good stuff. According to my copy of the Bible, the "New International Version" originally published in 1973, they are thus:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

When you read these, it makes sense that most Christian organizations ignore them..so that they won't have to follow them. I'm talking about Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jerry Fallwell, all the Catholic churches that passed out a SECOND collection basket to fund anti-gay marriage commercials, etc.

Obviously, queer people aren't the only mourners, the only people hungry for righteousness and the only ones persecuted. I'd like to say that all queer people are merciful peacemakers who are pure of heart, but that's not the case of any group of people. And we shouldn't have to wait for the pie in the sky when we die. In general, the people who need the Beatitudes the most are those who experience them the least.

Is it really too much to ask for people to actually pay attention to the words allegedly spoken by the person they worship? I don't care what people personally and privately believe and I respect and admire people who practice what they preach (compassion), but it is loathsome to proclaim your faith in something against which you viciously act.