On Being Catholic

[jackofallgeeks]

Quiet today...
I mentioned a couple days ago that This Guy was going to throw me into a rage. Thinking about it now, I don't like that I got as angry as I did -- I don't like ever getting angry, least of all to a point where I might lose control -- but some things just really get under my skin.

I am Roman Catholic. I have a reputation for my religious convictions, and to nearly everyone who knows me it's anything but a secret. I'm generally a very tolerant person, which some people seemed surprised at given my religious affiliation; I won't go into that little barb, at least not at the moment. Suffice it to say that I may disagree with what you believe or how you behave or the priorities you have in life, I may often give you my opinion on the topic, and I'm quick to offer my own advise on how one should conduct oneself -- but in the end, I'm generally respectful of the choices one makes for themselves, so long as they understand my position on it and are respectful to me.

One thing that I can not abide though, and is a particular which very well may speak to a greater universal, is people who claim to be Catholic but really are not. And it should be a pretty obvious thing as to why -- one doesn't say one is a vegan and regularly eat sirloin steaks and scrambled eggs. One doesn't say they're for animal rights and then routinely kick their dog. One doesn't speak out against bullying, only to turn around and be the bully. It's hypocrisy -- if you are not of a given class, do not claim to be so.

But this goes even beyond simple hypocrisy. Catholics are notorious for not knowing their faith. And in great part, I think we're very bad, generally, in training our children and teaching them exactly what it means when they say they're a Catholic. I was disappointed when, at age 16, I went through a Confirmation course which did nothing at all for me or the other confirmandi, and further disappointed with the other students lack of caring at all. They went through the motions when appropriate, but it didn't mean anything to them. That was when I decided I would be better than that, that I would study the faith and be sure I knew what I was committing myself to, and that I wouldn't be just another ignorant Catholic.

People like this guy and many of the students in my Confirmation class give the rest of us Catholics a bad name -- and we don't need their help, because many people already have misgivings about the Church as it is. You can't say "I'm a Catholic, but some of the basic teachings are wrong." You can't do that. And it pisses me off when people try. I have FAR more respect for someone who can, even after being raised from birth as Catholic, admit that they do not believe and thus are no longer Catholic. At least they're being honest with themselves and others, and they aren't trying to twist things to their liking. I wish them luck in their search for truth, even if I think they've just left it, because at least they're searching. I can't stand the other sort of person, because they aren't searching, they're posing as something they're not, and disgracing the rest of us for it.

I'm afraid I haven't been very articulate about what pisses me off here. If you're not Catholic, don't claim to be one. If you don't believe the doctrines, or the Pope's teachings, or what-have-you about the faith -- first, I would suggest you study up on it, and learn not just the Whats of the faith, but the Whys as well. If that doesn't work, find something else that does, but don't pretend like you can cut and paste the faith to be whatever makes you comfortable. That's not Catholicism.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying, but you might want to make a distinction between folks who are just incompetent believers, and folks who may disagree about what it means to be Catholic.

Here's what I have in mind. One of my colleagues in the Philosophy Dept. here was a Sister of Mercy (she'd gotten a Master's in Philosophy from CUA years ago, taught for a while, and then decided she'd come back and get the Ph.D.). I'd have no hesitation calling her a Catholic, despite the fact that she though the Pope was wrong to condemn contraception, and that women should be allowed to be priests. It wasn't simply that she didn't agree with him on the morality of the issues, she thought that the bans violated the spirit of Catholicism in various ways - and could give you greatly detailed doctrinal arguments (which I can't, alas, reproduce off the top of my head) for her position. Whatever you think of the merit of her arguments, I think it would be contentious to simply dismiss her as 'not a Catholic.'

The point goes similarly for almost any label or faction - Antonin Scalia and I apparently have grave disagreements about what "democracy" involves, but (assuming both of us are sincere, for the moment), it would be exaggerating for me to say that Scalia wasn't 'really' committed to democracy (as he understands it).

All that said, having read this guy's comments, I think it's safe to put him in the camp of those who just don't know what the hell they're talking about, rather than those with a divergent understanding of Catholicism.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

At the first line I wanted to say, "no, I still think I hold my possition." But you make a good point with the Sister of Mercy -- the the case where a well-learned person gives a reasonable argument, I agree -- you can't simply dismiss them. However, being that there is a set system of beliefs and morals associated with Catholicism, and thus a single this which ismply Is Catholicism, even in this case it would just be a matter of intelligent discussion and debate to decide whether she was or was not Catholic.

That is, unlike with Democracy, there isn't really a "Catholicism as one understands it," but a generally cut-and-dry Catholic or Not-Catholic. That being said, it would probably be really interesting to have a discussion with her on the topic.

But, yeah, I'll concede you the point that there is a distinction to be made, but it's irrelevant in this case, I think.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Ah, good point. You're right - there are at least two ways of understanding more reasonable disputes:

• Being Catholic (or whatever) requires assent to some one specific set of committments/beliefs; but, there is room for discussion about what those beliefs are. Or,
  
• There are a number of more-or-less valid ways of being Catholic/understanding what it is to be Catholic
  
  I should have been more careful, and not implied that the second was the way to go (incidentally, I don't think that there are right and wrong ways to understand 'democracy,' too, so I guess I'm more in the first camp than I may have sounded). My point was more that, even if the first is the case (there is only one way to be Catholic, but reasonable people disagree about what that is), it's not *necessarily* hypocritical, disingenuous, or ignorant (though it may be incorrect) for someone to consider herself Catholic even if she disagrees with some belief you think is central to Catholicism.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Ack. That should have been "I do think there are right and wrong ways to understand 'democracy.'"

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

The edit below noted.

I think, though, that I would generally discount the second way. That is, as your example, Scalia may have been dedicated to his beliefs, but it would not have been Democracy. I can't think of any class set that would allow the second potentiality.

But yes, even in the first case, there is possibility for reasonable disagreement, and one should not be cast out of hand without having their argument tested. However, even in this case, an argument, and hence position, is either correct or erroneous, and thus they either Are or Are Not, based on pre-set parameters of what Is.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Er, edit above. ^_^;;

[mmeubiquitous.livejournal.com]

I think you articulated it very well. And I agree entirely. I think some of it has to do with the implication that being Catholic doesn't really mean anything besides the label...that its enough to be "culturally catholic" without actually having to believe anything, or allow those beliefs to affect how you live your life. This is one of the reasons I got into moral theology in the first place...religion of any sort should not start and stop at the church door...it should actively affect how you live your life.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Allow those beliefs to affect how you live your life. ..religion of any sort should not start and stop at the church door...it should actively affect how you live your life.

This is another key point, though not wholly applicable in this situation as, ignorant or not, I can't say whether This Guy bases his liofe around what he does, in fact, believe.

[raen.livejournal.com]

It's hard to understand his rambles.
I have never seen so much piddle-paddle be passed off as what is supposed to be logical thought.
How exactly do you reply to someone you makes no sense what so ever?

Quite frankly, I think he labels his faith wrong. He may be Christian but he certainly isn't Catholic.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at. If he called himself a Christian, fine, I could live with that more than happily. A Christian need only believe, in very simplified terms, that Jesus was the Son of God, and the rest that follows from that. It's that he calls himself Catholic and presents such a bad example of one that bothers me.

And yeah, very hard to follow much of what he's trying to say.

[raen.livejournal.com]

It's the fact that he is basically calling an orange an apple in a sense. That's why he's hard to understand. When he attempts to rationalize it is when I started to laugh.
I can't believe you took him seriously enough to get your panties in a knot (~_^).

This is unrelated and you may not like it but I thought it while reading your rant.
When you start talking about how it angers that people who aren't Catholic tell others that they are... it sounded to me just like the punks calling other 'punks' posers in highschool.
I was waiting for the word 'poser' to appear somewhere in the text to be quite honest. :P

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Well, they're silk -- they knot easily.  :p

But yeah, actually, I felt like one of those Punks in highschool, too, which is why I felt I wasn't making myself clear. I almost did say he was 'posing.' -laughs-

[raen.livejournal.com]

That's cute.
:D

[starlight1184.livejournal.com]

"Cafeteria Catholics" as we fondly call them. They pick and choose. For a while I tried that... but you're right on many levels.
- Catholics do NOT train children well in their religion. I went to a so called Catholic school for 12 years of my life, and I maintain that I know VERY little about the actual workings of the faith I was raised in.

- Most people (MOST) are more than ready to admit that while they may consider themselves Catholic/Christian/whatever, that they don't really hold to it that well. For example, when people ask me, I tell them I was raised Catholic, my family is, but as far as I know I am not. Other people are just more than will to admit ignorance. Its just when you get pigheaded ignorant cocky people when things get icky.

- I don't have anything else to say. ;-)

merph

[amazonmink.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, being one of those Former Catholics who don't believe in the Church. But I think you make a good argument for anyone who is Christian, since Catholics are indeed Christian. There are certain sets of rules and guide lines. And it isn't simple hypocracy.
You're very eloquent for a computer geek.
:) Liz