Cafeteria Catholics

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/cafeteria-catholics


I often write in order to sort something out in my own mind. Bringing what's tumbling around in my head in an irritating way to the page can bring clarity. So I hope it to be with this issue of "cafeteria Catholics". What does this mean? It is typically used as a derogatory term for those who claim to be Catholic yet do not believe or practice everything the Church teaches. Right away, the use of this term toward others puts one into a "holier than thou" position, which brings about the sin of pride. The remedy to pride is humility. That's why I liked the "Cafeteria Catholics" article from U.S. Catholic linked above. It encouraged in me the impulse to lighten up, to not take myself so seriously, and to detach from the scrupulousness I have been witnessing among certain Catholics and have noticed in myself.

It is understandable that as a recent convert to Catholicism, I would be disturbed by the memory of statements made by RCIA staff members that they do not believe everything the Church teaches, and especially by the claim of one of them that neither does our priest. Maybe people in a leadership position would serve newcomers to the faith best if they did not openly express their doubts. Then again, maybe knowing that even devout Catholics can have a crisis of faith, or experience periods of questioning certain teachings, provides an important role model. It is human, and a natural part of the faith journey, to go through various stages of maturity. I do think that if a leader does express disbelief that he or she should do so with caution, and with a specific explanation given and particular purpose for sharing it.

The priest who authored the article speaks a lot about the diversity of Church members. This makes me think of something my grandpa once said: "Everyone sitting in church believes a little bit differently. The important thing is that we go."  I think that stuck with me because of its simple but profound truth. Everyone sitting in Mass is there to worship God to the best of his or her ability, and no one does it perfectly. They are there to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, whether or not they have a complete understanding of, or belief in, the Church's teachings. One parishioner may have theologically or historically valid reasons in mind for why she thinks the Church should allow the ordination of women. Another might be struggling with why the Church thinks contraception is intrinsically evil and may not entirely agree.

When the priest in the article talks about the teaching of transubstantiation being a difficult one for answering a definitive "yes" or "no" in regard to belief, he comes across as potentially heretical. Yet I think he is trying to say that he believes in the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine, but that how this miracle takes place could be explained and understood in a number of ways. In the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6: 47-59, in tandem with the events of the Last Supper in the synoptic Gospels, the truth of what the Church calls transubstantiation is clear.

Jesus talks graphically about the necessity of eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, and at the Last Supper he establishes the sacrament of Communion, which explicates how exactly we will be able to partake of his body and blood. But this is still a great mystery of the faith, and theologians have used various metaphors for how the bread and wine still looks and tastes the same but has somehow become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, which he gives us for spiritual nourishment and to conform us to himself in one Mystical Body. Transubstantiation is the official Church teaching, but that does not exclude other notions of the Real Presence, as long as they do not conflict with Church doctrine. Being overly scrupulous can have the effect of taking the awe and beauty out of the great Mystery of Faith.

When it comes to faith, not everyone has to be in the same place, on the same page. Faith is a state of being which lives, breathes, and grows. It can even have its dark nights of the soul. The key here is that we don't judge one another's spiritual path. That we seek to understand another person's view, find the common ground, and engage in compassionate, meaningful dialogue. Yes, I believe everything the Church teaches and submit to her authority in matters of faith and morals. At the same time, I endeavor toward a faith that is personal, that is unique to me.

For example, I believe in the Trinity, the teaching established by the authority of the Catholic Church that there is one God in three divine persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is Church dogma, which all of the faithful are compelled to believe. My personal theology is that in the relationship of the three persons of the Trinity there exists a "feminine" dimension, though of course God is pure spirit, neither male nor female. That God contains the perfection of the qualities of both a father and a mother is official Church teaching. The way I understand the feminine principle of the Trinity doesn't contradict Church doctrine as far as I am aware.

Basically I believe that the biblical character of Wisdom reveals the feminine nature of God, and most expressly the bridal-maternal qualities of the Holy Spirit. It is also Church teaching that the Virgin Mary is the "dwelling" of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, I perceive that Mary is a personal manifestation and especial sanctuary of Wisdom. There have been and are orthodox Catholics who believe in a similar way, such as Thomas Merton and St. Maximilian Kolbe, while there are others who decidedly don't.

The Church does not demand a blind obedience to her doctrines. She does, in fact, encourage intellectual discernment in regard to religious beliefs and the application of the informed conscience in moral considerations.

We do not all need to believe in exactly the same way. The notion that everyone should be the same is actually part of the heresy of modernism, which the U.S. seems especially prone toward, and from whence "political correctness" is derived. Perhaps most damaging is that our sins of pride and our rigid, judgmental scruples will be reflected in our children. We need to accept our differences, even if we strongly disagree. We must try to see Christ in every face; but I'm not there yet, and that's okay. I just need to do my best to follow our Lord. And that's all we can ask of one another. If we truly need to correct a brother or sister in a matter of grave importance, let us do so with humility and lovingkindness.

Belief.

Upon pondering the vocation of the contemplative mother, it seems that the subject of belief is a natural place to start. As Catholics, it is our duty to know our faith. Here is the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand
of God the Father Almighty; from there he shall
come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.

I typed that from memory. I prefer this over the Nicene Creed, because it is much shorter and easier to memorize. The Apostles' Creed is also recited at the beginning of the Rosary. Either creed is a simple statement of faith from which all of the Church's teachings flow.

Recently I have been looking for a definite answer to the question, Must we believe everything the Church teaches? Certain experiences I had in RCIA were nagging at the back of my mind, perhaps because I was aware this fall of the beginning of the new class of students interested in becoming Catholic. I had heard from a couple of staff members the statement, "I don't believe everything the Church teaches." This was even said of our priest, but he never said such a thing himself. I did take the question to another priest, because I was concerned about what seemed to be a case of the "cafeteria Catholic", who picks and chooses which teachings he will follow from the buffet. To my surprise, I was assured that there aren't that many teachings that we must believe, so in that respect it would be okay to be a cafeteria Catholic!

Still not satisfied, I sought clarification from our priest on the particular point of birth control, and from the RCIA director regarding the general statements made about not believing everything the Church teaches. I was assured that the program was completely in line with the Church's Magisterium. Some small "t" traditions, which are changeable by the Church to best serve the current needs of the laity at whatever point in history we are at, were cited. Also referred to were the "levels of faith" that one may progress through on one's faith journey, with the result at higher levels of a lesser need for rules and regulations. I was left wondering if the only teachings which Catholics are absolutely required to believe are those items labeled as definitive dogma.

Through this whole experience I felt like I wasn't being given a straight answer. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit will often help us get to the truth in an indirect way, through what is sometimes called synchronicity. In other words, there are no coincidences. Everything is connected, and sometimes we see with uncommon clarity a solution to a problem, or we are led in a particular direction, by a series of events or encounters with people. This is what happened in this case.

I called another homeschooling mother whose child was visiting at my house to get directions to bring her child home. One landmark given was a Catholic church the location of which I had not previously known. I told her how happy I was that I would now know how to get there, so I could visit that church for Mass. It turned out that the other mother had grown up Catholic and was even confirmed, but she is now Protestant. As you can imagine, this conversation was very interesting, and she asked me an unexpected question. Very simply, "Do you believe all of it?" For a brief moment it seemed like a funny question. After all, why would I have converted if I didn't believe everything the Church teaches? So my answer was, without reservation, "Yes".

The subject of the transubstantiation of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ came up, and I shared that it was the Bible that actually led me to believe this was true. I cited the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. I think that this was the first time since I've become Catholic that I have been a witness of my faith to a non-Catholic. I am certain that it was the Holy Spirit, speaking through my friend, who was asking me point blank, "Woman, do you believe?" Wow, what an amazing experience!

Sure, there are those things about which the Church allows varying opinions. And certainly our faith will deepen, our understanding will grow, and we will have doubts along the way. But even if we don't understand or fully agree with an official teaching, as Catholics we are bound to accept the authority of the Church. Must we believe everything she teaches? The answer is yes. It isn't a question of some arbitrary "levels" of faith, which by the way, is not a teaching of the Church. It's a matter of obedience to Christ through obedience to his Church. Is this the Church which Jesus built upon the rock named Peter--to whom he gave the keys to the Kingdom--against which he said the gates of hell would not prevail (Matt. 16:18)? Is this indeed the Church that Jesus called "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15), to which any disputes about the Christian faith must be taken?

When I came to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded, the Church which traces its history (and it is a matter of history) back to the 12 apostles, then there was no other Church to which I could belong. And if I can't answer, Yes, I believe everything she teaches, then I know I've got some serious soul searching to do.

St. Peter

Blogsense & Getting Personal

I visited with a priest today to make up a class I missed during RCIA on morals and conscience formation. I told him the difficulties I've had as a blog writer and the occasional negative feedback I have received. Despite my best intentions, sometimes people are offended, whether or not the post in question has anything to do with them. I have written two other posts directly related to the process of writing and maintaining a blog:  Blog Purpose and the Personal Essay (Nov. 9, 2011) and Blog Management & Comment Policy (Apr. 23, 2012). While I don't want to rehash old ground, I think a refresher on this topic would be helpful to readers. So please read the other posts first if you want the full picture.

The priest could relate to my blog writing conundrums, as he has had similar trouble with how people perceive him in a public forum. For example, he once told a joke about lawyers during a homily, and the mother of a lawyer was deeply offended. He never told a lawyer joke again! He did suggest that I keep writing. And now a story about him has appeared in my blog, though I haven't mentioned his name. This is the way it is. If you know me, or if I have read something you have written, or if you are a stranger in the grocery store that I encounter, you may find yourself as a character in this blog. This is where I write about my life, experiences, ideas, and views. It's a place where I reflect on issues, share information, and endeavor to provoke thought and to inspire. The literary genre I employ is the personal essay, which centers around a particular theme and extends from the personal to the universal.

Think about opinion pieces in newspapers, letters to the editor, life stories in magazines, and the content of advice columns. Sometimes real names are given, sometimes not. In any case, a person may read these things and recognize himself in the stories. The persons being written about are not typically consulted. Web pages and online magazines are no different. Even works of fiction contain the disclaimer that any similarity to real people is completely a coincidence; for the very reason that a writer, even of fiction, can only effectively write about something he knows. Fictional characters are drawn from real people, sometimes of a composite nature, but based in some way, shape, or form on nonfiction. In any art form, whether it be poem, painting, letter, novel, dance, or song, you can be sure that true life experiences are being expressed. You may not like how you look in the picture, but you may find your image on a gallery wall nevertheless. And it may or may not actually be you!

Country-pop singer Taylor Swift has a song called, "Dear John".  In a magazine interview, the writer told Taylor that John Mayer had publicly protested this song, which he claimed was about their relationship. Taylor's response? "How presumptuous!" This surprised me. I mean, his name is John, and she is singing about John. It must be about him, right? Then again, John is a common name, and she may have dated more than one. There is also the convention of a "Dear John letter", which stands for any romantic break up. I imagine that the song is likely both a reflection of a specific relationship and a ballad about heartbreak in general. It's about many boyfriends all at once, inspired most perhaps by the one named John (whether or not that is really his name). But most of all, it's about Taylor. That is the point often missed. 

This is also how it goes in a work of creative nonfiction, such as the personal essay. The specific becomes the general (or vice versa), one event triggers memories of others, and something new is born. Hopefully something poetic, sublime, gritty, honest, and real. I don't live in a vacuum. It isn't possible to write about my life without including the people that are in it, or have been a part of it. Considering that Organic Mothering has been viewed over 8,000 times, it is safe to say that most of my readers don't know me at all. But as long as someone is reading, I'll keep on writing.

Catholic Collage Unschooling

"The edge of unschooling is not a solid line. It will depend on the principles by which a family intends to live, and the philosophy of learning and parenting through which they see the world."
--Sandra Dodd

I am awake with stomach discomfort, so I am up early. Checking my email, I found this gem from Sandra Dodd's blog, Just Add Light and Stir. I must say, I really admire the brevity of her posts! They're daily meditations that say something meaningful in a small space. Another blog I recently found, Stories of an Unschooling Family, has also been key in helping me to assimilate this concept. Do you ever ask God for a sign? Last night for no apparent reason I went to one of my bookshelves and opened a journal that I began writing in March of 2009. At the top of the first page I read this:

Unschooling
Educating a child for life

??????????????

Four years ago I wrote this? My daughter was four years old, and we had decided not to send her to preschool, but to plan on homeschooling. I commented on the Montessori precept of "follow the child" and how it would gel nicely with John Holt's unschooling philosophy. And four years later I am just now coming back to this? I thought it was curious that since unschooling has come to the forefront of my mind, I have also been thinking more about the Montessori method and getting back to some of those principles. It is all coming together, and I think it's time to stop doubting and just trust the Holy Spirit in this. It's all well and good, and even necessary, to think through making such a change and evaluate all the angles, to use our God-given faculties of reason. But at some point comes the time to "leap, and the net will appear."


I also think it no coincidence that I will be entering into full communion with the Catholic Church at the end of this month. I will officially be a Catholic! This has been a long journey, and I already thought of myself as Catholic before beginning RCIA. I wrote a lot about my new religious path, and eventually I realized that after a certain amount of pondering, it is time to put the elements into practice. I think this is true in regard to unschooling. I have been reading and writing and talking about it. I have been testing the waters. Now it's time to jump in, or at least to wade out and really explore life away from the safe shore. So what do I want to call it? For now, Catholic Collage Unschooling. For me, this ties together the use of Charlotte Mason, Montessori, John Holt, and any other approach that is effective for my child with the teachings of the Church. There is truly no line between life, learning, and the Faith. If we believe, we can walk on water.