Foundations of faith
For a long time now, I have vacillated between the extremes of what I believe.
Like any other human being, I have cherry-picked my Catholic faith to fit my liberal politics; just like conservatives cherry-pick the Old Testament to fit their politics. This is pretty symptomatic of my life in the modern age of only being willing to digest what is short, succinct and clear; no room to delve into the squishy ambiguities of secular life vs. the seeming moral absolutes set down by institutional religion.
If you're a person of faith and Internet-savvy, you've probably seen this video.
Being the liberal Catholic that I am, I have several people on my Facebook stream who have either shared this (how I found it) and those who've posted response videos extolling the value of the church. But so far, the conversation has been entirely academic for me, in the contexts of current societal standards, vis-a-vis the wrongs and evils that organized religion has committed in the name of its authority and devotion to its mission. Now, the pendulum has swung back and it's giving me pause to really question my beliefs. The swing-back is this video:
Surprisingly, the cause for my introspection is not actually this back-and-forth on the social media circuit. It was actually when the local priest was a guest on EWTN Live last week. He spoke on the mission work that the church does here. In all honesty, the mission here has been ongoing since my great-grandfather was baptized into the church, causing a long line of Native Catholic families, of which, I am a part.
The thing that got me thinking was the first five minutes of the show. Let me say that I understand the reason for this interview on EWTN: to illustrate the purpose of the church's mission work and basically ask the Catholic public-at-large to support it through financial contributions. If you're going to watch the whole thing, I will say that my reservation is not in as dire straits as most Americans are led to believe, it's simply that we lack access to the basic tools that enable large population-bases to thrive; go to any other rural part of America and you'll probably find the same story. I will, however, grant that alcohol and drug abuse is a problem for a culture that didn't have a developed tolerance to the pattern of behavior that can cause abuse.
In any case, the first five minutes basically left me with a sense of alienation. As I said, yes, there was a specific purpose for that interview and I will grant that. However, as I said, my great-grandfather was baptized into the faith as a young man, as was his daughter and so, her husband converted from Episcopalianism to marry her and thus, my mother and her sisters were Catholic. And therefore, I am Catholic. But even with that history of devotion to the faith, I felt that I and the other legacy Catholic families here were being painted with the broad brush of being newly-converted and saved.
This train of thought reminded me of two things: regardless of how long one's family has been in the faith, one should always strive to evangelize oneself on a regular basis; and that even though I do come from a (mostly) Catholic tradition, I can't really speak to the actual teachings of Christ.
And so, I realized the pattern of behavior that I adopted: saying I'm a follower of Christ's teachings, eschewing the Old Testament (since, as I was taught, Christ's law abolishes our strict adherence to Mosaic law) and the opinions of the apostles, outlines in the Epistles. But, since I can barely make it through the first three Beatitudes before the self-doubt comes through, I called bullshit on myself and set myself a challenge: read the Gospels.
If I really think of myself a Christian foundationalist, espousing only what Christ taught, I should really bother to give a shit what Christ taught. But then for added measure after I finish the Gospels, I will read the Epistles to decide if I can hold myself to apostleship as outlined there. Which, may cause more self-doubt, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
The biggest question, though, is that when it's all read and processed and digested, what if I still can't agree with my Catholicism, much less Christianity? I mean, one of the things that keeps me as a person of faith is my willingness to suspend disbelief of my reason. But see, that's also polarizing the two as well, as if they operate independently of each other. In the past, I have been able to use them to resolve questions of science and faith through the existence of the soul or the afterlife -- academically resolve anyway, I do still carry doubts in my faith -- as well as being both pro-choice and pro-life.
So, if I can't find a resolution, what then? I have already been baptized and confirmed, my soul is claimed. Does that mean I get the automatic free pass to heaven? Does that mean more is expected of me as a follower of Christ and the consequence is damnation?
All very good questions that I intend to explore as I read the New Testament in its entirety. For the record, I've already read the first seven chapters of Matthew and I am thankful to the Vatican for providing such scholarly footnotes which, provide less comfort to the confusion.
Adventure awaits!
Like any other human being, I have cherry-picked my Catholic faith to fit my liberal politics; just like conservatives cherry-pick the Old Testament to fit their politics. This is pretty symptomatic of my life in the modern age of only being willing to digest what is short, succinct and clear; no room to delve into the squishy ambiguities of secular life vs. the seeming moral absolutes set down by institutional religion.
If you're a person of faith and Internet-savvy, you've probably seen this video.
Click to viewBeing the liberal Catholic that I am, I have several people on my Facebook stream who have either shared this (how I found it) and those who've posted response videos extolling the value of the church. But so far, the conversation has been entirely academic for me, in the contexts of current societal standards, vis-a-vis the wrongs and evils that organized religion has committed in the name of its authority and devotion to its mission. Now, the pendulum has swung back and it's giving me pause to really question my beliefs. The swing-back is this video:
Surprisingly, the cause for my introspection is not actually this back-and-forth on the social media circuit. It was actually when the local priest was a guest on EWTN Live last week. He spoke on the mission work that the church does here. In all honesty, the mission here has been ongoing since my great-grandfather was baptized into the church, causing a long line of Native Catholic families, of which, I am a part.
The thing that got me thinking was the first five minutes of the show. Let me say that I understand the reason for this interview on EWTN: to illustrate the purpose of the church's mission work and basically ask the Catholic public-at-large to support it through financial contributions. If you're going to watch the whole thing, I will say that my reservation is not in as dire straits as most Americans are led to believe, it's simply that we lack access to the basic tools that enable large population-bases to thrive; go to any other rural part of America and you'll probably find the same story. I will, however, grant that alcohol and drug abuse is a problem for a culture that didn't have a developed tolerance to the pattern of behavior that can cause abuse.
In any case, the first five minutes basically left me with a sense of alienation. As I said, yes, there was a specific purpose for that interview and I will grant that. However, as I said, my great-grandfather was baptized into the faith as a young man, as was his daughter and so, her husband converted from Episcopalianism to marry her and thus, my mother and her sisters were Catholic. And therefore, I am Catholic. But even with that history of devotion to the faith, I felt that I and the other legacy Catholic families here were being painted with the broad brush of being newly-converted and saved.
This train of thought reminded me of two things: regardless of how long one's family has been in the faith, one should always strive to evangelize oneself on a regular basis; and that even though I do come from a (mostly) Catholic tradition, I can't really speak to the actual teachings of Christ.
And so, I realized the pattern of behavior that I adopted: saying I'm a follower of Christ's teachings, eschewing the Old Testament (since, as I was taught, Christ's law abolishes our strict adherence to Mosaic law) and the opinions of the apostles, outlines in the Epistles. But, since I can barely make it through the first three Beatitudes before the self-doubt comes through, I called bullshit on myself and set myself a challenge: read the Gospels.
If I really think of myself a Christian foundationalist, espousing only what Christ taught, I should really bother to give a shit what Christ taught. But then for added measure after I finish the Gospels, I will read the Epistles to decide if I can hold myself to apostleship as outlined there. Which, may cause more self-doubt, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
The biggest question, though, is that when it's all read and processed and digested, what if I still can't agree with my Catholicism, much less Christianity? I mean, one of the things that keeps me as a person of faith is my willingness to suspend disbelief of my reason. But see, that's also polarizing the two as well, as if they operate independently of each other. In the past, I have been able to use them to resolve questions of science and faith through the existence of the soul or the afterlife -- academically resolve anyway, I do still carry doubts in my faith -- as well as being both pro-choice and pro-life.
So, if I can't find a resolution, what then? I have already been baptized and confirmed, my soul is claimed. Does that mean I get the automatic free pass to heaven? Does that mean more is expected of me as a follower of Christ and the consequence is damnation?
All very good questions that I intend to explore as I read the New Testament in its entirety. For the record, I've already read the first seven chapters of Matthew and I am thankful to the Vatican for providing such scholarly footnotes which, provide less comfort to the confusion.
Adventure awaits!