Sabbatical
Early in the month of June, I listened to an interview with Jack White on NPR’s Fresh Air. What struck me the most about him was his discussion about God. Terry Gross, in her engaging manner, wandered into spiritual territory – somewhere I wasn’t so sure Jack wanted to go. What unfolded was an amazing discussion about God and creativity. It lasted a mere few moments, but it was blazingly apparent that Jack White believes in God and believes that not only are we creations of God but that we are here to extend the creativity that is God. I was intrigued mainly because I automatically assumed that, if anything, Jack White would be your prototypical agnostic. “Oh, I believe in something, I just don’t know what” or “I don’t know. I think I’m truly Buddhist deep-down” are examples of the answers I expected to hear from him. But, giving me a run for my money, he sounded like I think! It wasn’t a big surprise then, to find out that he was raised in a large Catholic family probably within 15 miles from where I grew up.
Midway through the month of May, I read about the forced resignation of Fr. Thomas J. Reese from his position as editor of America magazine, a Jesuit Catholic publication. According to the National Catholic Reporter, Fr. Thomas J. Reese, infamous for presenting both sides of a thoughtful moral argument, had been butting heads with then Cardinal Ratzinger. I had never heard of Fr. Reese or America prior to this incident, but my eyes were opened to the very real possibility that the very same icy veined conservatism that seems to be running amuck in our country is taking a strong foothold in Catholicism as well. Catholicism has rarely veered from its rigid course, something I find admirable, yet frustrating. But, this new strain of ill-will and outright self-righteousness is infecting its way through Catholicism, a religion at times a little closed minded but always characterized by varying forms of rituals, worship, and thought. At various times in its long history, Catholicism provided the very means to scientific, philosophical, and artistic expression and thought. Conversely, though, Sr. Joan Chittister illustrated in her May 12th column the varying times, much like now, when the Catholic Church was less than progressive:
It may well signal to the world that we have already decided—Galileo, and Modernism, the Inquisition and the Index notwithstanding—that there is no other position but our position on anything, that we know the answers before we even completely understand the question, that we never have to update old answers to meet new insights or information.
It could be seen to say that Catholicism is static, that we have already determined that we never have to rethink the Catholic position on anything from interfaith marriages to fish on Fridays.
It may send the message that no thinking is acceptable whatsoever inside the boundaries of Catholicism, that Catholics are given every answer, they never have to suffer the embarrassing reality of having to come to one together.
It may indicate that we are not a self-critiquing institution now, any more than we were when the Reformers tried to question the selling of relics and the practice of indulgences and the chaining of the scriptures.
It may even suggest that growth in the Holy Spirit is not really our intention, however much we pretend to espouse it.
Indeed we must “weep for ourselves and for our children” if this is a sign of things to come. We have a great deal more to lose than Tom Reese does.
From where I stand, it looks like it’s a sad day for Catholicism when America magazine becomes the kind of publication we choose to repress. The purpose of this magazine, for instance, is not to promote pornography or anarchy or hate mongering. the purpose of America is to promote thinking about the issues Catholics confront in society today. But thinking, apparently, is not allowed.
My last post, some time ago, had much to do with the future of Catholicism. I wrote in frustration and perhaps in anger, but I also wrote in great anticipation for the future and what it held for all facets of the Church. I wrote of the masking of separatists. Or was I writing of revolutionaries? I have learned a little bit in my time away from writing and making my thoughts public. Before I expand, I want to bring into light what was a major impetus for my sabbatical:
Cas, the main tenet of Catholicism as a hierarchical body is that the Pope is infallible. So, those who go against the Pope’s edicts are by definition, non-Catholic, including those who are pro-choice, for married priests, for the ordination of women, for contraception, proponents of gay marriage, etc. The Pope and therefore the Church are under no obligation to change with the times, even if membership suffers and the image of Catholicism seems archaic.
I have to thank Tony for sharing his views when I last wrote. It caused me to search far and wide as well as deep and introspectively to find out what these statements really meant to me. Tony’s first sentence truly is something of a cannonball, with the mention of the Pope’s infallibility. This is a notion well preserved and continued throughout the Church. I still wasn’t sure if what he stated was actually the truth, though. I’ve almost completed a book called “Why Do Catholics Do That?” written by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. Hardly a liberal, I find his insight into the workings and history of the Church very interesting and plainly obvious when peered into without cloudy politics. About the Pope, Dr. Johnson says:
“Infallibility doesn’t mean that every Pope will be absolutely correct on everything that he talks about; it doesn’t mean that the Pope knows everything that there is to know in the world, either. Still less does it mean that every Pope enjoys personal freedom from sin, which would be impeccability; Christ did, of course, and Mary, but the popes, no. Nobody claims that they ever did. (In fact, every Pope in history has had a personal confessor; a priest permanently assigned to that duty.)”
As far as being contrary to the Pope’s edicts, if the case were that any dissenters would essentially not be Catholic, then there would be very few Catholics. Even Catholics that unknowingly dissent, by far the largest percentage of members, would be left out in the cold. Some of the greatest Catholic thinkers railed against Papal policy (the Jesuits seem to me to be a “troublemaking” group – very admirable qualities to me). The belief that Catholicism does not allow for thought outside of the given norm has solidified greatly in answer, I believe, to the rising rigidity of the Christian right as a whole. I’m not looking for the Church to become overtly progressive, no, but I am looking for the Church to once again become a bastion for reason within religion. I fully agree with Tony’s assertion that the Catholic Church doesn’t have to change with the times because it has done so very few times in its almost 2000 year long history. This is actually one of the things I enjoy about Catholic Church, to be quite frank. It is surely old and it has an amazing history as well as burning scandal and philosophical/moral fruition because of it, but the Church remains virtually the same as it has.
Basically, what I’ve learned over the last several weeks is that there is definitely room for all types of Catholics because history has proven that they existed, the present proves that they exist now, and, based on these ideas, it is plainly visible that this will be the case in the future. Having rigid leaders such as Pope Benedict XVI is what allows for many ultra-Catholics to thrive in believing such things as the Pope’s infallibility. I’ve noticed recently that the phrase “The cafeteria is closed” has shown up on various bumper stickers. I had absolutely no idea what this phrase meant until I looked it up. With the advent of the reign of Benedict XVI, certain Catholics believe, joyfully so, that the majority of Catholics that pick and choose their beliefs (i.e. in a cafeteria line) will no longer do so with the enforcer in charge. I’m not so sure that this is the case. I think that many Catholics see this as a reason to return to the Church. Tradition leaves deep marks on our souls and many of us see this as the perfect time to remove ourselves from exile. Change is indeed afoot in the Catholic Church but I don’t think the wave is moving the way many conservatives believe it is. The Church has a lot of picking up to do and much work lies ahead, especially in America and in Europe, but I firmly believe that the tide has not only turned, but is filling the halls of the Vatican.
Last night my wife and I had a decent theological discussion consisting mainly of Church policy and my views contradictory to it. She is of the thought that if you can’t think exactly the way that you are presumed to think in the Catholic Church, then you aren’t wanted and don’t belong. Kim seemed to be hung up on not being wanted, which I understand fully. I could only answer that no matter what, they’ve (they being the Church) got me and they’ll have to deal with me. She went a step further and asked why I had indeed returned to the Catholic faith. I could only answer simply, “I couldn’t resist. I gave up.”
Randy: If I were fine with gay marriage, pro-choice, and fine with gay priests could I still consider myself Catholic?
Me: Well, you could consider yourself whatever you wish, but strictly speaking the answer would be “no” I believe.
This is an exchange from that same discussion following your last post. I still believe it to be true in the strictest sense. In other words, a logical agrument could be made to support my statement. But is it really that important? Aren’t we just talking sematics?
I see it like this. Christianity is like the oceans, the mountains, or the air we breathe. Everyone is free to partake and no one can claim ownership over Christ himself. Conversely, Catholicism is like a club and to be a member, you’ve got to play by the rules. But if you don’t, you’re still allowed to participate as long as you can deal with the fact that certain other club members might disapprove of you. Most people have no problem with that. So my point is that the topic of my exchange with Randy, while fun to debate, is entirely irrelevant.
“The cafeteria is closed”? Come on. Who do these people think they are? They should leave the judging up to God. And furthermore, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks they can summarize and communicate their faith with trite statements slapped on the bumper of a car.
I once witnessed a Catholic priest (a Jesuit, in fact) state in his homily his belief that nobody goes to Hell. In other words, Hell does not exist, not even for the most evil people of all-time. Needless to say, hearing that from a Catholic priest blew my freakin’ mind. Thinking back, I am struck by the fact that his belief flew in the face of so many Catholic teachings that he probably could have been disrobed for speaking it publicly. And if that can be said about this dedicated long-time priest, that his belief system is technically un-Catholic, what chance do I have to measure up to the “official” standards of the Church? After that realization, I drew my own conclusions, as have countless others.
So I say congratulations, Cas. I’m sure glad you didn’t take the shallow and obnoxious “I-want-to-do-whatever-I-feel-so-I’m calling-myself-a-Buddhist” route. Best wishes.
Some additional thoughts:
-Here’s the scene at the Kopacki residence, “Leave it to Beaver”-style:
Cas walks through the front door at 5:30 pm and sets down his hat and briefcase. Kim, just finished with washing dishes, dries her hands on her apron and hands Cas his pipe and slippers.
“How was your day, dear?” she asks cheerily.
“Fine. I’ve returned to the Catholic faith.”
“That’s nice, dear. The meat loaf will be ready in five minutes.”
-I don’t think anything in the Johnson quotation is in conflict with what I wrote. Infallibility, to those who believe in the concept, doesn’t mean that the Pope is viewed as perfect, just that his decision-making is guided by God and therefore cannot be disputed. Kind of the way some people view the authors of the Bible as thought God were dictating to them. In both cases, the men are merely the vessels through which God delivers His message.
-Lastly, I hope Jack White never reads what you wrote, Cas. His ego is big enough already that we don’t need him thinking that he’s saving souls.
Yeah! That’s what I told my girl. God doesn’t want me to use a condom…
Dude, that was the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for your comments, Tony. As far the the anti-cafeteria Catholics go, I totally agree. I figure that everyone probably should just worry about their own selves. The whole scene in the Leave it to Beaver episode (mind you, I LOVE Leave it to Beaver…) is pretty accurate in a comedic sense for sure. I have problems with the thought that people may think I’m bonkers for switching teams so much until I just figured I’d beter just admit to myself that I’m Catholic. Oh, Kim doesn’t wash dishes. It’s in her marriage rider.
As far as Jack White goes, yeah….I don’t think he held any sway over my feelings, although I found it very cool that he thought that way, and I’m sure he doesn’t need any more inflation of ego. Narrowing myself to Catholicism (and it is, indeed, narrowing…) might even be in reaction to the “la-la-la…I believe in everything…do you like the ‘Coexist” stickers I have on my rusty bumper?!?” kind of attitude that is so prevalent in Portland. I fully believe in interworking with other faiths, but Portland is just so damned unfocused when it comes to spirituality and religion.
Ah well.
It’s a great over-simplification to say that my argument boils down to “i don’t go where i’m not wanted.” My reasoning is that despite how i feel about the trappings of Catholicism, how beautiful so many aspects of it are (or even that i could justify conversion just based on heritage with 97% of Portuguese being Catholic, and at the least my great-grandmother was very devout), Catholics believe in many specific things. i could happily recite prayers like a meditation, pray the rosary, appeal to saints, worship in a cathedral… but i do not believe in most components of Catholic dogma. There are many, many denominations for people such as myself, & i can’t even bear to marry myself to one of them (& i’m not sure why i, unlike you, Cas, feel absolutely no interest in doing so- the only church i’m willing to allign myself with is the Unitarian church, & you’ve made it clear that you’ve had enough of that), but Catholics believe in specific things, & i do not believe these things. i am not Catholic because i can not be, no matter how much i am moved by the Grotto, how much i admire many Catholic teachings, for all of the good i find in it.
i’ve met people who are so desperate for an identity that they will cleave themselves wholly to a church, infatuated with the idea of being someone or something new & i find that kind of behavior so irritating… i won’t be one of those people. It’s undignified, & it’s an insult to the serious, to the true-believers. & i know that you, Cas, are not one of these people, but i would just be a poser. No thanks.
So that’s why you like the new White Strips album…are you turning to Christian Rock? How’s the new DC Talk album anyways?
Sod off, pal.
By the way, I started liking the selections I heard from the album before the God-talk started. So, stuff that in your sandwich and eat it, buddy. And, for the record, I have ALWAYS been a DC Talk fan.