The title of this post is from Matthew 28:17. It is part of the Gospel passage for Pentecost this year:
The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
That line, "they worshiped, but they doubted" has haunted me for some time. I think it describes many members of the church: we worship in the midst of our doubts. We have faith, but we also try to work through difficulties.
Over the years Anne has written, quite movingly, about her faith journey. Clearly, she has struggled with questions and doubts. In a recent comment, she contrasted herself with some of others here, including me, who haven't left. She characterized us as "true believers".
I will take that as a compliment :-) (And I don't think Anne meant it maliciously.) But I do want to note that I have questions, difficulties and doubts, too. For whatever reasons, I have never seriously considered "leaving" the church. But my faith life has waxed and waned.
It may actually be that I have some difficulties to deal with from which many laypersons are personally shielded. I'm referring the reality of being plugged in (at the lowest level!) to the church's clerical hierarchy. It's similar to working for a large company or (I am guessing - I have never done this) for a government body: various aspects of one's daily life are impacted by decisions and policies of leaders who are high and distant from where I "live" all day.
There are people in the church and in the world who "lean in" to their institutional Catholic identity. They love everything about the church, including the institution, the men in high offices, all of the frou-frou-y vestments, and so on. They consider it big and important news when Fr. StudiedInRome is appointed as the auxiliary bishop of Keokuk. I don't usually *dis*like those things, but they aren't really a turn-on for me, either. When I was ordained, I promised to serve the Archbishop of Chicago, and I really do try to keep that promise, just as most of us really do try to keep our baptismal and marital promises.
I guess Catholicism works for me in various ways: I'm comfortable in the sub-culture; and I happen to have some skills and talents for certain liturgical ministries, so I get a lot of satisfaction from serving those ways. The church also has "stretched" me, such as through my involvement with food pantry and similar ministries. And I'm a people person for whom standing in the narthex after mass and talking with parishioners on their way out of church is one of the high points of the week.
Most important for me, by far: the church has been a good conduit to foster my relationship with Jesus, Mary and the saints.
All of which is to say: for me, and as a whole, being a Catholic hasn't been a problem. I try not to ignore the problems. And I can't answer every objection. And I try to be sympathetic to those who have been compelled to leave. But I've stayed so far, and I expect that to continue.
I don't think there's a one of us who hasn't had doubts at times. I think of that line of Peter's, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" If sometimes I might feel like I don't fit in, I don't think I would fit in better anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right about dealing with some stuff that laypeople don't have to. I am fortunately a lay person; my husband seems to be pretty comfortable with being plugged in at a low level to the church's clerical hierarchy. I am less comfortable with how they seem to see a lot of things in a binary black and white way. I see shades of gray more. I pretty much color within the lines, but am glad that I don't have an oath of obedience. But for the most part Catholicism has always worked for me.
Worship in the form of the Divine Office has been the center of my life since about the eighth grade when I discovered the Short Breviary for women religious. I soon graduated to Full Roman Breviary in English. During college at the time of Vatican II, my friends and I sang Latin vespers with the choir monks, and English vespers with the brothers.
ReplyDeleteThe anthropologist who taught a summer course on childhood and society remarked upon the ritual creativity of the Native American Population he had studied, attributing it the early exposure of children to the singing and dancing around their campfires. I decided that I was well on my way to being a liturgical creative celebrant of the Divine Office. Over the years that has evolved in complex ways with my knowledge of many liturgical traditions and large collection of liturgical music. I don’t think of myself of praying something outside of myself or outside of the people of God but rather celebrating who I am with all the resources that history has made available. So, I cannot leave who am I.
While I could celebrate the Hours as an Orthodox or Anglican, I remain faithful to the Roman Catholic tradition largely because of my experience of the great spiritualities of religious orders: the hermit life as practiced by Merton and the early desert solitaries, the community life of Benedictines, and the service to others of the Jesuits. All of these have helped to enrich my life at various times and place.
I would say that I am a cosmopolitan rather than a local (parochial) Catholic. That distinction comes for the study of academia which has found researchers identity with their professional communities while teachers identify with their institution and its students.
Alt this does not mean that I have been free from conflicts with the clergy and our parishes. Quite the contrary those are long standing, deep and constant. Fortunately, I now have a pope who once like myself a Jesuit novice. I am one of the few Catholics who understand him through those two years of shared experience. For me he has given a label “clericalism” for all the negative things that I have experience from the clergy and Catholic institutions.
Jim - In a recent comment, she contrasted herself with some of others here, including me, who haven't left. She characterized us as "true believers". I will take that as a compliment :-) (And I don't think Anne meant it maliciously.)
ReplyDeleteIt’s neither meant maliciously nor as a compliment. It’s just an observation. You frequently respond to questions raised about some Church doctrines with “The Church teaches…”. without giving any opinion as to whether or not you agree with the teaching. It’s stated in a way that seems to close the door on any dissent. You don’t share any doubts or struggles and seem to simply accept whatever the Church teaches. Katherine doesn’t repeat the mantra about the “Church teaches..”, but she doesn’t seem to have any doubts about any of it. Nor does Stanley. My concerns are pretty much all related to to teachings - doctrine, not to liturgy or music styles, etc.
I actually envy the true believers. Life was much easier for me when I was still pretty much a true believer. But I think that my non- acceptance of a few teachings means I can’t stay even though I too feel comfortable with the culture, traditions, heritage etc - and with the richness - the depth and breadth - of the intellectual tradition of Catholicism. But since I simply don’t believe at all certain teachings, and believe that some cause harm, I don’t think it’s right to stay.
Anne, I do believe that people have to do what they have to do, the primacy of conscience.
DeleteI'm not a cafeteria Catholic, but I know which hills I'm willing to die on. And which hills aren't worth it to me.
I am sorry if I come across as insufferable when I offer the church's magisterial teaching. When I do so, it's simply to establish a baseline, which I hope can be helpful for the discussion. I don't mean to imply that it's what *I* believe. On the other hand, there is often a lot of wisdom standing behind what the church believes, and I don't lightly dismiss it, either.
DeleteFWIW: there are days when it seems very easy to believe that God exists; and there are days when it seem easy to believe he doesn't.
There are some aspects of church social teaching which I find easy to accept, and some which I still haven't reconciled myself to.
Anne says
ReplyDeleteMy concerns are pretty much all related to teachings - doctrine, not to liturgy or music styles, etc. I actually envy the true believers. Life was much easier for me when I was still pretty much a true believer.
But I think that my non- acceptance of a few teachings means I can’t stay even though I too feel comfortable with the culture, traditions, heritage etc - and with the richness - the depth and breadth - of the intellectual tradition of Catholicism.
Is religion essentially a set of beliefs or is it a lifestyle a way of living that touches many aspects of one’s life? Is a spirituality as set of practices or a lifestyle that touches many aspects of one’s life?
In the history of Christianity and Catholicism the clerics have loved to define religion as a set of beliefs and those who do not adhere to their favorite beliefs as heretics of schismatics. For me to allow such people to define Christianity or Catholicism in this way is basically to participate in clericalism. Clericalism makes idols of clerics and beliefs. Their gods should not be adored.
Just as one can reduce religion to beliefs, one can reduce it to spirituality, as set of practices not related to the rest of one’s life, e.g., going to church on Christmas and Easter, or even weekly.
Christianity and Catholicism is at its best when beliefs and practices are related to one’s daily life. Most people practice Christianity and Catholicism as a spirituality, a subset of beliefs and practices that are related to the totality of their lives. As Gutierrez says, “spirituality is where the love of God and love or neighbor intertwine in daily life.”
Therefore, diversity is built into Christianity and Catholicism. Spiritual pride is a great temptation for true believers and true practitioners, namely, to set themselves up as little gods rather than to live of children of God in love and respect for all God’s children. Any time we set ourselves up as better than rather merely different from even others, even true believers, we run the risk of becoming spiritually proud.
Anne failed number me among the true believers on this blog. I do not regard myself as spiritually superior to true believers; I just have a different spirituality and I see everyone on this blog, including Anne, as having different spiritualities from myself and each other. That is one reason why this is such a great blog.
Jack, thanks for those reflections, and good point about all of us having different spiritualities.
DeleteJack, I didn’t include you as a “ true believer” because I see you as being on a spiritual path that, while formed and grounded in institutional religion, in Catholicism, leans more to the spirituality side than the religious side of spiritual/religious. The true believers’ spiritual journeys seem to lean to the religious side of the balance.
DeleteI see leaning to the religious side of the fulcrum as being more involved with developing the relationship with the Creator via formal religious practices, beliefs, rituals, moral codes, and rote prayers handed down by an institution than through individual study, reflection, and prayer. For me, “the” prayer is silence - more listening, more reflection, than talking or participation in large group prayer. For you, “the” prayer is the Divine Office. For Jim, Katherine, and Stanley, “the” prayer and spiritual journey lies in following pretty closely the path defined by the Catholic Church, the formal, structured religion, especially the Sunday mass, and accepting pretty much everything the Church teaches - not just about God, but about itself.
Jim’s main concerns seem mostly the kinds of everyday type of political problems - friction - with differences in political opinions among members of the congregation, and in dealing with church politics/hierarchy especially. He was quite willing to swear an oath of obedience to a man, a human being. I could never do that. He indicates some discomfort with the church’s social justice teachings. I would love to hear more about that as I consider those teachings, and Pope Francis’s focus on those teachings as the only things that might lure me back into Catholic pews.
The teachings that were “the hills I chose to die on” ( as Katherine put it) - leave the institution - are all related to one teaching that is at the heart of the church’s clericalism - that ordination creates a class of Catholic Christians who are ontologically superior to all other Catholics and Christians. This teaching has led to others that have resulted in tangible harm to the “inferior” Catholics - the laity. Those harmful teachings mostly impact women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, the divorced and remarried, and, via the teaching on birth control, the majority of married couples, even though most couples now totally ignore that teaching, so it causes less direct harm to couples and families than it did in previous generations. I could be a cafeteria Catholic in good conscience until I started reflecting on the enormous harm to people due to clericalism, which eventually led me to see how the teaching of the ontological superiority of the ordained was the main source of all of it. I can’t change that teaching. I doubt that the men who are able to will ever change it because it would not be to their personal advantage to do so. They live lives of enormous privilege and power and few would have the humility to give it up.
I came across a somewhat odd website when I did a little googling about religion and spirituality. An unusual site, but I think that the author got quite a bit right in his explanation of the differences between spirituality and religion.
DeleteReligion commonly refers to an institution that has a set of organized practices and a structured belief system shared by …those who are members of the institution.… As a community …sharing the same beliefs, religion functions as an extremely supportive social network. It creates practical implications for everyday behaviors in adherence to the beliefs, rituals, and practices of the group. Members of a religion often also follow distinctive dress codes (especially religious leaders), moral codes, and actions that are mandated by a supernatural being…
A religious person is committed to following the guidelines set by his or her religion. He or she observes the rites and practices, such as regularly attending church services ….. Spirituality is about one's soul and inner self. Being spiritual involves holding one's personal set of beliefs and practices.… Each person's own definition of spirituality can vary throughout their lifetime, adapting to individual experiences through personal study and self-reflection….. Religion aims to build one's character. It shapes one's beliefs, attitudes, and actions by giving importance to the adherence of rules. This unites people who share a religion, as they share character traits and outlooks on life. … spirituality concentrates more on each person's individual soul….. a spiritual person’s set of beliefs evolves as they learn more through their personal study. …in religion, the belief system is usually predefined. … religion requires people to be obedient with their beliefs, keeping them fixed to scriptures or what is taught to them by religious leaders. Religion often discourages people from listening to their own instincts, and instead teaches people to accept…without questioning... spirituality teaches people to constantly listen to their inner voice … Spirituality urges people to break free from obedience or conformity in order to create their own path and journey in life. Because of this, someone who practices spirituality may continually change their beliefs throughout their life. Nothing is set in stone, so what one may find to be “right” or “wrong” today may change down the line with new life experiences
https://www.happierhuman.com/difference-religion-spirituality/
The author of the above does concede that one can be both spiritual AND religious, but also says that spirituality embraces a lot that isn’t at all related to religion.
DeleteThere is a big range I think - for many, their spiritual path lies mostly within formal institutional religion. For some they are more parallel, the spiritual path often grounded in a formal religion- as mine is - but branching out, leaving the prescribed path when the institutional demands become an obstacle more than a help on the spiritual path. The religious and spiritual paths often intersect, sometimes are congruent for a while, but those who lean to religion tend to stay on that path, only veering off it occasionally. Those who may describe themselves as SBNR are more inclined to follow their inner voice, even when it means stepping off the religious path where they began the journey, and so lean to the spiritual but not (or less) religious side.
I don't see religion and spirituality as being necessarily opposed to one another. I think I am a "both and" person. About the clergy being ontologically superior to others, I don't know that I buy that. They have the charism of ordination. We all have the charism of Baptism. Those of us who are married have the charism of the sacrament of matrimony. I do think Jesus chose some people to be leaders, such as Peter. And I accept that the Holy Spirit will guide those leaders. If they listen. Which they don't always. The Mass and the life of the sacraments are the most important part of the "religion" part of the church to me. But the spirituality part of prayer and contemplation are just as important. And all of this needs to work together to work together to influence how we live our lives and how we treat others.
DeleteWe were discussing a while ago about the various iterations of "new math" which have existed. One part of that that made sense to me was Venn diagrams. I visualize a lot of overlapping circles, of how religion, spirituality, an social teaching are not separate from one another.
Katherine, the ontological superiority of the ordained IS official Catholic teaching. Jim referred to our commitment via baptism. I don’t think that my baptism as an infant commits me to anything. I don’t believe that sacraments create an ontological change in our souls, so they are less important to me than to you. I see them as rituals that are followed as being part of the RC community. I don’t believe that they bring a superior grade of grace than God provides for all - no high octane grace!
DeleteI also think there is a lot of overlap, but also see that there is very often a difference between religion and spirituality, largely in how people prioritize. Different spiritual paths - you know what works for you. That’s what is important - intentionality in making the choice to follow the institutional path.
"...the ontological superiority of the ordained IS official Catholic teaching". That's one of those hills I don't care enough about to die on. I prefer the definition of charism for one's vocation, "... a grace of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of all and to the needs of the world." That's also in the catechism. So I guess in some sense I am a cafeteria Catholic.
DeleteVery few Catholics obsess about the stuff that bothers me. I have no quarrel with the reality that there are many, many different vocations, or charisms. But I don’t believe in the ontological superiority of ordained clergy, and I strongly believe that this teaching is at the root of clericalism and all the harm that clericalism causes.
DeleteBut in my experience, very few Catholics even know about the stuff that bothers me, such as the teaching about ontological superiority of some Catholics over others (superior to all the 99.9999999% who are THE church.) I’m very used to being the oddball, out of the mainstream of Catholicism. It’s fine that others prefer to stay in the (main) stream.
Katherine, I will add that many of the most spiritual people I have known have also been religious - like you.
Delete