A response to a response about the post below:
Sarah's in italics, David's in good Protestant bold:
I have just been re-reading your piece on Catholicism. Is it true that you are an ‘evangelical’ Protestant now (you say “All my life...” and then say “...I’d...” (past tense), so I remained unsure whether you were still evangelical or now just a plain ordinary Protestant, or whether the past tense was simply referring to your learning of Catholicism)? You still go to First Mennonite, right? I have never met any evangelical Mennonites - I’ve met evangelical Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Reformed, but never evangelical Mennonites.
Yes I’d call myself “evangelical,” although I’m afraid the term doesn’t have much objective meaning anymore. I first heard the word in college, before that I’d thought you just had your Christians and your non-Christians, I wasn’t aware that there were gradations of Christian, but I take “evangelical” to mean a Christian who adheres to the basics of the faith without being a “fundamentalist,” who despite incessant ignorant mischaracterizations are simply folks who hold to the five fundamentals of the faith as agreed upon at the 1893 Niagra Conference on Prophecy: inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, virgin birth and deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement of Christ’s death (he died for your sins), his bodily resurrection from the dead and his literal return someday in the Second Advent.
I agree with all five points (if “inerrancy” is defined as inerrant in what is taught rather than what is said, a particularly vicious little internecine cat fight it’s not necessary to drag you into), but I enjoy wine and read non-Christian authors so I’m an “evangelical.” The babbling ignoranti who produce mass-circulation magazines and newspapers and people TV talk shows think “evangelical” and “snake-handlin’ fundamentalist” are interchangeable terms. Basically I take “evangelical” to mean “someone who actually believes it and and tries to live according to what you say you believe Sunday morning,” as opposed to the sort of liberal Christian who sees the Christian myth as one way of approaching the problems of social injustice and as opposed to the sort of Christian who believes God Himself dictated every word of the King James Bible.
Mennonites are a funny breed, I’m not an ethnic “Mennonite” the way Elijah and Prudence Yoder from Lancaster County are Mennonites, I’m a Christian who’s currently fellowshipping with the Mennonites since it’s where we feel we need to be now, and should we move to Austin or Boston we’ll not limit our search for a church to the Mennonites in the area, but might feel at home in a Baptist or Episcopalian church.
I am interested to hear what your audience has to say on the Catholicism issue I don’t know how broad your readership is here, but I would be that SOMEone’s going to forward it to someone else who’s going to get their knickers in a knot.
Knickers have been knotted, although I did receive an intelligent e-mail I’ll probably post an answer to.
And I am assuming that you have deliberately set out to provoke a reaction...
I didn’t post just to jerk Catholics’ chains, I posted it to try to explain why in Austin or Boston we wouldn’t consider a Catholic church in our search. Not that Catholics can’t be Christians (in the “evangelical” sense of really wanting to follow Jesus Christ’s call and live lives pleasing to him via the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit), many are, but the Catholic system is not set up to facilitate a person’s relationship with the living Christ, it’s designed to perpetuate the Church’s monopoly on intermediation between God and man and fit people into an earthly ecclesiastical structure where the important thing isn’t what you believe but what you say and do.
The recent scandals bother me greatly since if the Church chooses to arrogate to itself the belief that only the Roman communion offers a full and complete Christian life and that any Christians outside of Rome are by definition missing key ingredients for a complete relationship with Jesus (for one calling itself “The Church,” much like the University of Virginia calls itself “The University” as if no other worthwhile universities exist), and declares the Pope Christ’s vicar on earth and declares itself the (emphasis on “the”) body of Christ on earth, it should, well, act like it. Can you imagine Peter or Paul finding out that those facilitating house churches in first-century Palestine were molesting boys and demanding sex from young girls and saying “Well, I think your ministry in Jerusalem’s wrapping up, but there’s a church in Antioch which needs a good pastor, why don’t you go there?” Of course not.
I guess it really got to me when I moved to Fairfield County, Connecticut and joined a Baptist church. I head story after story after story from guys who met Christ only after they left the Catholic Church, and story after story after story from people who after a Catholic childhood wanted nothing whatsoever to do with God or Jesus in any form. One guy told me he’d been a Catholic for thirty years and had never once heard the Holy Spirit mentioned from the pulpit.
Do Protestants have their problems? Oh my yes. So why am I ragging on Catholics and saying the Church is beyond the pale? Because the whole idea of an earthly institution presuming to stand for the family of God is anathema to the proper Biblical teaching of what being a Christian is. The Bible does not teach that you are saved, put into right relationship with God by joining an earthly group and doing three of these and five of those and observing the group’s rituals and practices. It teaches that once you are saved, once you have made personal confession of faith you are a member of a spiritual group the family of God. Catholicism teaches that if you join the Catholic Church you’re a Christian. No, you’re not. You become a Christian first, then decide which church you want to join. That is the Protestant position, which I find to be the Scriptural one.
Just for the record, I am not a Catholic.
“Good Catlicks would think the Church is, well, not absolutely necessary - after all, wasn’t Father Feeney excommunicated for preaching that Protestants were not Christians? - but the best way. But friends, WHY BOTHER WITH ANY OF IT? Why require the panoply of observances and feast days and other such HUMAN accoutrements.”
For three reasons:
One, not everyone gets a good brain. Not everyone gets good parents to help improve the second-rate brain they did get. And not everyone gets to keep the brain they are given. So not everyone has the imagination to have a satisfying relationship with (their) god, simply because they do not have the capacity to do it on their own. It requires a certain rigor of thought to maintain a dialogue with an entity which is not actually responding in words (I am assuming here that people who have religious faith would agree that communication with their god is not a one-way street - even if one does not know what one’s god is saying or trying to say, to them or to the world at large. I have never heard a person of faith actually assert that their god does not communicate in some way), and it requires a good deal of brainpower to conceive of things like eternity or infinity or infinite goodness or even in the existence of Jesus Christ. I mean, if you think that Christ was actually begotten by a virgin and was born in a manger, you’ve got to have enough imagination to suspend belief in the physical and open yourself up to the mystical; and if you think that Christ was probably just a guy who had exceptional compassion and leadership, you’ve got to be able to imagine the historical context in which he lived, where one guy, without benefit of an iMac, could speak to large groups of people and hold their attention long enough to make it into the history books. Either way, it’s a lot to ask of someone who has difficulty just getting through 10th grade civics class. So the reason for observances and feast days and whatnot is to give people who do not have sufficient mental tools a framework for achieving transcendence, or just for seeing the whole ‘Wow, this thing is really bigger than just me and my own, often overwhelming, world - there is some magic here.’ And isn’t the ability to believe in some kind of ‘magic’ or ‘bigger than oneself’ idea the biggest reward - or, depending on how you look at it, the biggest pre-requisite - for faith?
See, it’s the whole deal about do you believe in God – functionally – or not. If you do believe in an omnipotent God who acts in human history you shouldn’t have much trouble with the Virgin Birth or other miracles. You don’t need “imagination” to buy into it, you just need to say “Well I have no idea how it could’ve happened but hey, I’m not God, and I’d wonder about a God I could understand.”
By the way, it’s the Gnostic heresy to suppose that those of greater intelligence somehow stand a better shot at finding a deeper relationship with God. The Bible teaches almost the opposite – the happiest Christians are the most childlike ones.
I’d say the Catholic reason for the feast days and observances and ritual and all is not to help the parishioners achieve transcendence – some might, more power to ‘em – but to impress on them their utter reliance on the offices of the Church. Look the first and overriding concern of the institution of Catholicism, as with any earthly institution, is to perpetuate itself. Its business is filling the human desire for a defined relationship with God, one which doesn’t impinge too much on the rest of your life. Humanity’s craving for food leads to the farm industry, humanity’s craving for clothes leads to the garment industry, humanity’s craving for escapism leads to the entertainment industry, humanity’s craving for God leads to the religious industry. So what’s the product? Earthly observances understandable to people and viewed by people as efficacious in meeting their desires to know that there’s a transcendent God out there and that they – the people – are doing what they should be doing to keep this God happy and to ensure heaven over hell when they die. That’s what Catholicism is, an earthly system designed by and for humans to sell answers people want to hear.
True Christianity does not require a “good brain,” believe me I could point to a few examples. God made all brains, He can reach all brains in ways He knows how. But again it all goes back to your presuppositions. If you assume religion’s a human construct and not divinely-inspired the Catholic Church starts looking quite sensible. If you assume religion is mankind’s attempt to understand a true God who loves them and sent Jesus to die for them so they might have life and have it more abundantly then Catholicism starts looking not only unnecessary and irrelevant but downright obstructionary.
Two, the Protestant god leaves you pretty much to your own devices. We would not expect people to understand the infinite nature of the physical universe without benefit of a few physics classes plus some mnemonic devices like songs about the periodic table of elements, or to keep thinking about the infinite nature of the physical universe without some continuing education courses - sure, some people can do the whole ‘independent learning’ thing, but many others would never have gotten a high school diploma if their principals hadn’t called their parents when they cut class. So why should we expect a person to continue to keep Jesus Christ front and center in their lives, why should we expect them to keep on actively thinking about their faith, without benefit of some handy mnemonic devices like observances and a little bit of structure like feast days?
In the Bible Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to help you in your daily walk with him. Catholics would argue, much as you do here, well, what’s the harm in it? What’s the problem with the rosary, it’s a quite nice mnemonic device. What’s the problem with praying to Mary or St. Jude or someone, they’re nice folks. What’s the problem with St. Aloysius Day or St. Alphonso’s Pancake Breakfast or any of it? Isn’t it better to be thinking about St. Aloysius Gonzaga than Britney Spears? What’s the problem?
The problem is that it substitutes second best for first best. Here are your options for living the Christian life: You can trust that God wasn’t lying when He said He’d send the Holy Spirit. That leads you to learn to listen to God’s leading – and He’s promised if you’re listenin’ He’s talkin’ – and take steps of faith you don’t always understand.
Or, Option B, you can have some earthly authority spell the whole thing out for you, assuring you that yes, here’s what God wants you to do in solid, concrete terms: Pray the rosary, pray to his mother, attend Mass, contribute to the Church, go to confession, take the Eucharist, etc. etc. etc. In other words, you get what humans dearly love: A To-Do list with the rewards guaranteed. With Protestantism you’re supposed to clear the decks for God to come in and act in your life. You’re asked to trust the goodness of God since He rarely tells you in advance what’s going to happen.
But again it comes down to how you view God. If you view Him as an all-loving all-powerful father- who actually exists and is revealed in Jesus Christ, well, why not trust Him with your life? What better bet could you make? At that point praying to St. Jude or spending your time and energy on satisfying the Catholic requirements are nothing but diversions from what you really want. But if you don’t believe God’s promises, if you think well, gee, I have to figure this whole thing out for myself and I’m not going to get any real help from God, He’s just setting me a task and is waiting at the finish line to see how well I did, then of course you’re going to want someone else to give you the answer, which is what Catholicism does. It’s not so much that Catholicism’s pagan or explicitly anti-Jesus, it’s just that there’s so much else in there irrelevant to Jesus that he gets lost in the shuffle.
Three, the Catholic Church has long recognized the power of the group (or ‘mob’, depending on where you sit on this issue). Watch a bunch of British soccer fans for an hour, or a group of half-drunk 22-year-olds on a nightclub dancefloor, or even a cruise-ship-full of vacationing suburbanites when the water gets a little choppy, and you lose any doubts you may have had about some kind of mass-consciousness. I don’t pretend to know why large groups of people in highly-charged (positively or negatively) situations respond in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts, but respond they do. Nothing is more conducive to a satisfying religious experience than going through it with a bunch of people, whether it is your entire family sitting down for a Friday-night supper or a roomful of Pentecostals speaking in tongues. Do Pentecostal people speak in tongues when they are alone in their living rooms?
Many Pentecostals are given “prayer languages” by the Holy Spirit which they use when alone. I haven’t, I’d be open to it but it hasn’t happened. It’s not necessary, but I think it’s something God gives those whom He knows needs it.
Does a lone hockey fan smash a store window by himself when there are no other hockey fans in the vicinity? Of course not. Catholicism (along with lots and lots of other religions) has recognized that a whole bunch of people engaged in the same ritual at the same time is one heck of a powerful force.
Exactly. Protestantism observes the primacy of the individual, Catholicism stresses the corporate. Draw your own world political historical parallels with socialism and capitalism, etc.
A feast day or observance - neither of which is particularly restricted to Catholicism - is just another way to get a bunch of people on the same page at the same time, when Sunday morning from 10 to 11:30 is not quite enough. And when you get a bunch of people thinking and doing the same thing at the same time, well - there’s very little you can’t do, whether it’s changing public policy or simply raising money for your new stained-glass window.
Again, you’re right. In human terms I can’t argue with you. And I think Catholicism takes the human approach as opposed to the Godly approach on this line.
All this said, I haven’t directly answered your question about ‘Why do they make it compulsory?’ It’s compulsory the way going to school until you’re 16 is compulsory - only there isn’t an age limit, because people who spend their lives leading others in religion know that the minute you can say you’ve got the whole religion thing down pat is the minute you either go off the rails into the land of ‘evil’ or are able to keel over dead (and therefore pass into ‘heaven’) without any regrets on either side. Neither of which is particularly practical, because society doesn’t support ‘evil’ and if everyone who has achieved a level of transcendence gets to split for heaven, what will happen to the rest of us? We have to keep the ‘evil’ to a minimum, and the spiritually enlightened here among us for at least a while. We do that by making the whole religious-rituals thing compulsory for life, so that no one gets to say that they have ‘completed’ their learning.
Assuming that God does not exist, that the whole point of religion is to keep the masses properly opiated or at least thinking about what they should be thinking about instead of just wondering who to rape and pillage next you’re right. Were there no loving, personal God desirous of a personal relationship with His creation I’d say Catholicism is to be commended for the work it’s done keeping our barbaric human impulses in check. It’s like if you don’t really believe you’ll find True Love you’re quite content to stay in a functional and comfortable relationship. But if you do believe there is a God Who created you and loves you and wants a personal relationship with you, then Catholicism looks like one huge diabolical deception. If you do find True Love you can’t think about your past humdrum relationship, hi-dear and sex on Wednesdays without a shudder.
“Look, it’s not that Catholics can’t find Christ, it’s all about why tie blindfolds around your eyes and plug your ears in your search? Isn’t the point that it really isn’t you searching for Jesus, it’s Jesus searching for you? Catholicism strikes me as the perfect compromise for those who want the fire insurance of knowing they’re goin’ to Heaven and avoidin’ Hell by one of two avenues; either by identifying themselves as members or by working their way to Paradise by accumulating earthly Brownie points.”
Without going too deeply into this one, I have to say: This is a position taken by lots and lots of religious people of all kinds of faiths - there is no way that Catholicism has a lock on this kind of thing. Neither the tying of blindfolds nor the accumulation of earthly brownie points can be ascribed solely to Catholics, and I’d even argue quite strenuously that Catholicism isn’t even the worst offender, just possibly the more obvious to us because of the large numbers of Catholics in North America. I have been told, to my face, that I am going to burn in eternity by Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, United Church (low-dogma Protestant) people and even Mennonites, but I have never been told that by a Catholic.
Taking the last point first, probably because Catholics don’t believe in it any more. In the Catholic conception of Hell there’s, I don’t know, maybe Hitler down there, everyone else goes through greater or lesser stints in Purgatory and eventually all get to Heaven.
Catholicism used to have it pretty clearly spelled out, how many Brownie points you earned for this or that, for saying a Hail Mary or contributing to the construction of the new cathedral or whatever. Why else do you think the Pardoner was peddling indulgences to the other travelers to Canterbury? The idea was that all humans have x-weight of good works, you need x-score to get into heaven and Jesus has a limitless store of good works, so when you rented a relic John the Baptist’s hangnail or something long enough to rattle off a few prayers over, Jesus tossed x-number of good works from his account into yours, cutting the tally of how long you’d have to work through Purgatory from 56,892 days to 51,892 days and if you do it in Rome, well then the points are doubled and you’re down to 46,892 days. It’s not that medieval anymore, but I don’t think the underlying philosophy’s changed.
You’re right, Catholicism doesn’t have any monopoly on this, I believe Islam is very close to such a system. But imagine this: You go to a restaurant and ask for a roast beef sandwich with mashed potates and snap beans and gravy. They make it for you. At the end of the meal you walk out and you’re shocked, shocked when someone comes running after you brandishing a piece of paper with some number you’re supposed to pay? What? You’re shocked, right? No, you understand that in a restaurant you pay for your food, $6.95 for the Blue Plate Special, $7.45 for the Blue Plate Special with cole slaw and $14.90 for two Blue Plate Specials with cole slaw.
Now imagine going home and asking your mother for a roast beef sandwich with mashed potates and snap beans and gravy. She makes it for you. When you’re finished you pull eight dollars out and say thanks, keep the change and walk out, right? Wrong. She’s family, she’d be very, very insulted and hurt if she thought you assumed you had to pay for every good thing.
That’s Catholicism. The Bible teaches that you’re a member of God’s family, a son, a daughter. Catholicism teaches well yes, but you still have to pay for His love. Want more of His love? Say a few more novenas and Hail Marys and perform a few more acts of devotion and you will be a Better Child Of God with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, both in this life and the next. There isn’t a more hateful way to eviscerate the true Gospel message of unconditional love and acceptance than the method of making you work for what God promises is granted freely.
It reminds me of a starving community in, oh, Sudan or somewhere. Everyone’s starving. U.N. says right, let’s help, and drop off six truckloads of free rice for everyone. Great, free food for all. But a group rushes the sacks of free rice and say no, you have to work for it. For every hour of work you get one cupful of rice, every time you say something bad about the U.N. you have to work three hours for a cupful of rice, we get all the rice we want, if you want to buy the rice here’s the price sheet, now get to work. This actually happens, it explains America’s involvement in Somalia.
That is exactly what Catholicism has done with God’s free grace and offer of forgiveness for any who come to confess their sins and His desire for a father-child relationship. Catholicism has said oh, you want some of God’s forgiveness and love? Go to confession, say these Hail Marys and Pater Nosters, perform good works (we’ll tell you what qualifies) and we’ll spoon some grace your way. It’s a cabal building a fence around the oasis in the desert and charging admission. The oasis is free. The U.N. rice is free. God’s love and grace and forgiveness is free. Humans, however, see an opportunity to charge money for what should be free for all.
I’m not a Socialist, some things shouldn’t be free for all. Yet God has declared that His love and mercy and grace are free for all since they’re essential to life. Catholicism says well yes, they are essential for life, so join our church, follow our rules, jump through our hoops, contribute to our coffers and we’ll see that you get some of these free things.
I appear to be making a case for Catholics here - I am not. I don’t have much truck with any of this kind of thing, but there is a reason we have religious choices: Everyone needs something slightly different out of religion, and while I agree with very little of it, I’ve come to the conclusion that I will never really understand anyone else’s spiritual needs sufficiently to prescribe the machinations of their faith.
No, I understand you’re not making a case for Catholicism per se, but as a non-believer yourself you naturally think of religion the way Catholicism does. It makes sense to you – it’s a way for people to arrive at some sort of belief system about God, and it’s predicated on the sort of human values we naturally assume if God is thought of as a Super-Human projection – He likes those who work harder for him, nothing’s free, etc.
It’s evangelical Protestantism which doesn’t make sense to you since that requires a belief in a loving, personal God from whom you are separated by sin and a belief that Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection are means by which your separation from God is bridged, and that such atonement is free and open to all and that God loves us as family and that God deals with us as individually as a father deals with his different children. If you believed that you’d be a Protestant, and then if you saw this loving, gracious God Who saved you for no other reason than that He created you and He loves you and He wants you to have the best life possible and Who really, really wants to spend time with you the way a father really wants to spend time with his children; if you saw this God Whom you know being depicted as the sort of God who demanded Hail Marys and purgatory and selling food to his hungry children, it’d piss you off too.