Poker in Heaven: God Upps the Ante
Continuing a train of thought from the previous entry . . .
I suppose Holy Terror is simply one of the tools in the Divine Arsenal. . . or just another card in His hand. One more way to challenge us. And like all things, the hardest challenges are those we'd rather avoid.
I'm thinking of my own boomerang relationship with the Church. . .there are some people that I used to associate with who held dissent to be a Virtue. In many ways, the more things you dissented from while still calling yourself a Catholic, the better a person you were. Mary, Mary, quite contrary. . .
On the other hand, there are those who hold that to be a Catholic, you have to agree 100% with every-friggin'-thing the Church says.
In my opinion, both stances are equally brain-dead.
[I'm sure you can understand why I, of all people, associated with the former more than the latter. I think my little differences of opinion pretty well known. There are three of them. Well, three and a half. . . ]
Each is happily secure and confident in its way, and each lacks any challenge. One calls for a denial of anything that doesn't conform to what I want, the other calls for you to stop any sort of independent thought. The one doesn't make us grow as we need to, and the other won't allow it.
But in a balance, where there is overall agreement, but a very few non-agreements--here there is a delightful, creative tension. Here, one learns the discipline of tradition without stifling the intellect. When one submits to what they don't really like, then the few places there are true disagreements become clearer. In fact, for all three of my disagreements, I can say that I do not agree--but, I can understand and accept. Mind you, it has taken. . . years to get here. First, I had to become a God-forsaken Liberal to learn what I had disagreements with, and then, Heaven help me, I started to become a (relatively) Rabid Conservative tired of all the self-indulgence in my former associates. Good Lord, I can bitch about post-Vatican II music with the best of them (Palestrina all the way, baby!), and nothing makes me happier than a bit of St. Bernard of Clairvaux as a chaser to the latest Harry Potter. But each movement was a challenge. In my God-Forsaken Liberal days, I swore I would never become one of those "mean, tyrannical, authoritarian conservatives."
I was wrong.
Our disagreements are not just challenges for them-- they must be challenges for us. I have, at long last, come to terms with the pain of the vocation I was not allowed to answer. I took a different road, and I would not change that now. I was given that vocation as a safeguard, I think, a way to keep me hungering after the Holy Spirit even while traveling through the Esoteric Wastes. Had I been allowed to follow that vocation, I would have missed so many precious things. And now, I can say "Look, I understand the ban. I don't agree with it, so much, but I understand and can accept it."
And, too, I think you must have at least one quibble, even if it's just that you don't like the shade of purple used during Lent. I say this because the Church, while striving for perfection, is made up of fallible men, so until Jesus comes back, there will always be something that's not perfect. If you agree with every single thing 100%. . . you are taking the Church to be perfect as is, and this skirts awfully close to idolatry.
These thoughts come because of the recent hoopla over the Pope allowing people to use the old Latin, Tridentine Mass instead of the more contemporary version. Apparently, some people think this heralds the end of the world or, failing that, a complete negation of Vatican II. Puh-leeze. What do they have to worry when he's merely allowing the option for those who want it. If you don't want Latin--> go to another Mass. Du~uh. They react like this because the very idea that there are those who like the old school better threatens their assumptions about what Mass is, or supposed to be. They are overreacting, because they are being presented a challenge that they don't like.
Catholics should be able to count their differences of opinion on one hand. More than that, I think, and there are serious questions to be asked. But if you've got five or less, I'd say that that should be ok. Of course, with these differences, the attitude should always be "I don't understand this teaching as it's been presented, it seems unjust/ insane/ etc. . . I would like to come to understanding" and not "You are wrong, I am right, the Church must change to fit my ideas!" [Likewise, rabid Conservatives who answer all things with the standard "Because the Church says so!" really need to get out more. . .]
Yes, sometimes change is needed. But more often it is we who must change, not the whole rest of the church. And that's the challenge. We should never be completely satisfied and comfortable with the hand we hold-- as soon as we smile in smug satisfaction, God will raise us two red chips, and worse, He'll smile right back.
I suppose Holy Terror is simply one of the tools in the Divine Arsenal. . . or just another card in His hand. One more way to challenge us. And like all things, the hardest challenges are those we'd rather avoid.
I'm thinking of my own boomerang relationship with the Church. . .there are some people that I used to associate with who held dissent to be a Virtue. In many ways, the more things you dissented from while still calling yourself a Catholic, the better a person you were. Mary, Mary, quite contrary. . .
On the other hand, there are those who hold that to be a Catholic, you have to agree 100% with every-friggin'-thing the Church says.
In my opinion, both stances are equally brain-dead.
[I'm sure you can understand why I, of all people, associated with the former more than the latter. I think my little differences of opinion pretty well known. There are three of them. Well, three and a half. . . ]
Each is happily secure and confident in its way, and each lacks any challenge. One calls for a denial of anything that doesn't conform to what I want, the other calls for you to stop any sort of independent thought. The one doesn't make us grow as we need to, and the other won't allow it.
But in a balance, where there is overall agreement, but a very few non-agreements--here there is a delightful, creative tension. Here, one learns the discipline of tradition without stifling the intellect. When one submits to what they don't really like, then the few places there are true disagreements become clearer. In fact, for all three of my disagreements, I can say that I do not agree--but, I can understand and accept. Mind you, it has taken. . . years to get here. First, I had to become a God-forsaken Liberal to learn what I had disagreements with, and then, Heaven help me, I started to become a (relatively) Rabid Conservative tired of all the self-indulgence in my former associates. Good Lord, I can bitch about post-Vatican II music with the best of them (Palestrina all the way, baby!), and nothing makes me happier than a bit of St. Bernard of Clairvaux as a chaser to the latest Harry Potter. But each movement was a challenge. In my God-Forsaken Liberal days, I swore I would never become one of those "mean, tyrannical, authoritarian conservatives."
I was wrong.
Our disagreements are not just challenges for them-- they must be challenges for us. I have, at long last, come to terms with the pain of the vocation I was not allowed to answer. I took a different road, and I would not change that now. I was given that vocation as a safeguard, I think, a way to keep me hungering after the Holy Spirit even while traveling through the Esoteric Wastes. Had I been allowed to follow that vocation, I would have missed so many precious things. And now, I can say "Look, I understand the ban. I don't agree with it, so much, but I understand and can accept it."
And, too, I think you must have at least one quibble, even if it's just that you don't like the shade of purple used during Lent. I say this because the Church, while striving for perfection, is made up of fallible men, so until Jesus comes back, there will always be something that's not perfect. If you agree with every single thing 100%. . . you are taking the Church to be perfect as is, and this skirts awfully close to idolatry.
These thoughts come because of the recent hoopla over the Pope allowing people to use the old Latin, Tridentine Mass instead of the more contemporary version. Apparently, some people think this heralds the end of the world or, failing that, a complete negation of Vatican II. Puh-leeze. What do they have to worry when he's merely allowing the option for those who want it. If you don't want Latin--> go to another Mass. Du~uh. They react like this because the very idea that there are those who like the old school better threatens their assumptions about what Mass is, or supposed to be. They are overreacting, because they are being presented a challenge that they don't like.
Catholics should be able to count their differences of opinion on one hand. More than that, I think, and there are serious questions to be asked. But if you've got five or less, I'd say that that should be ok. Of course, with these differences, the attitude should always be "I don't understand this teaching as it's been presented, it seems unjust/ insane/ etc. . . I would like to come to understanding" and not "You are wrong, I am right, the Church must change to fit my ideas!" [Likewise, rabid Conservatives who answer all things with the standard "Because the Church says so!" really need to get out more. . .]
Yes, sometimes change is needed. But more often it is we who must change, not the whole rest of the church. And that's the challenge. We should never be completely satisfied and comfortable with the hand we hold-- as soon as we smile in smug satisfaction, God will raise us two red chips, and worse, He'll smile right back.