« Episcopalians, continued | Main | Books, books, books »
March 27, 2007
Related..
...to the post following this one.
A subject that comes up in the Catholic blogosphere a lot runs sort of like this:
A. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one, true Church of Jesus Christ.
B. The Roman Catholic Church botches things up more or less continually.
C. So, how can the Roman Catholic Church be the one, true Church of Jesus Christ?
The most recent spurt of discussions along this line occurred a couple of weeks ago, inspired by a post originally at the Pertinaceous Papist about "false advertising" and such in re/converts and the Catholic Church. A good place to check in on that discussion is at the Intentional Disciples blog post here.
The discussion usually revolves around issues of liturgy, catechesis and evangelization. As people articulate it, it goes deeper than "bad liturgy." The question, as I've come to understand it, really comes down to this:
People complain that you have an "ideal" Catholic Church that is constituted in the deep rich Tradition of Catholicism. But hardly any of that is visible in the experience of the average Catholic parish today. Liturgies do not reflect the mind (not to speak of the liturgical law) of the Church, catechesis only scratches the surface and homilies..well...why do they even bother to go to seminary?
The problem is particulary acute for those who have "read" their way into the Church. It's been articulated over and over again. You can find an articulation of this in a 1999 article in First Things by former Lutheran minister Jennifer Ferrara called Becoming Catholic: Making It Hard. Coming from the music-rich Lutheran background, that's the focus:
The answer finally came after I resolved to speak to a visiting priest at the church where I attend daily Mass. I told him I was a Lutheran pastor who wanted to become Roman Catholic but couldn’t find a place to worship. Did he know of a traditional parish without guitar music? He looked at me as if I resided on another planet. "Can I ask you something?" he asked. "Why do you want to become Catholic?" He asked the question in a tone that suggested, Why would you want to do a thing like that? I mumbled something about the problems in the ELCA and my belief that the Catholic Church is the fullest, most rightly ordered manifestation of the Church on earth. "Oh," he replied. "In that case you want to go to Holy Rosary. It’s an Italian parish with a beautiful sanctuary and traditional music and liturgy."
I have attended Holy Rosary ever since. There are no guitars or missalettes. The organist and choir are first rate; the organist even plays Bach and the choir often sings in Latin. More importantly, the parishioners have an attitude of quiet piety and profound reverence for the liturgy that is quite moving. They observe the muscular prayers of kneeling, genuflecting, and crossing themselves. The monsignor never begins Mass with "good morning," offers no explanations, does the Canon with great dignity and reverence. Unlike other parishes I have attended, Holy Rosary offers a seemingly endless variety of distinctively Catholic devotions—prayer hours, rosaries, novenas, Fatima devotions, Divine Mercy Masses, and nocturnal adorations. I feel I have entered a world with endless layers of meaning with the mystery of Christ in the Eucharist at its center. Here at last the Truth has become manifest. Maybe I am not part of a Protestant–type church family, but I am part of something far bigger and more important—the community that traces its history back to the apostles and their living testimony of the Risen Christ. On Corpus Christi Sunday, I was received into full communion with that cloud of witnesses.
I do believe the pastoral problem is not one to be ignored. The transition of converts into the Catholic Church can be painful in a way that extends beyond the difficulty so many parishes have in communicating and expressing, in word, sign and ministry, the fullness of the Faith. Many former Protestants, active in their former church communities, have a difficult time finding a similar sense of fellowship and interest in evangelization in a Catholic parish.
All of that is by way of introduction to a comment hidden away on another blog. The comment is by the blogger - Fr. Al Kimel - but it is buried in the comments and was so good I thought it was worth sharing. It's #13 on this post:
#11: Adam, it is not just the poor worship. The poor worship has a cause, and the cause is ineffective, poor, or misleading catechesis. And, for me, still, this calls into question the proposition that “this is THE church”. If this is THE church, shouldn’t it do better at making Christians, out of both unchurched adults and little children?
The simple answer to your question is, yes. Yes, the Catholic Church should do better at making Christians, it should do better at evangelizing, it should do better at catechizing, it should do better at preaching the gospel, it should do better at worshipping God, it should do better in serving the poor and the oppressed, it should do better in every aspect of its life and ministry.
However, if the Church was doing better in all of these areas, or even just the one you have mentioned, would you be persuaded that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, as she claims to be? Of course not! Because performance neither proves nor disproves the claims of the Catholic Church. Ironically, your objection to the Catholic Church—viz., her poor, even sinful performance—is grounded in a works-righteousness understanding of the gospel. You are demanding that the Catholic Church justify herself as the Body of Christ by her works! But the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ only by grace and election!
Are you willing to apply the same criterion of performance to individual believers, to yourself? Are you willing to prove your regeneration in the Spirit by your works, by how well you are living the Christian faith, by how effectively you are proclaiming the gospel in word and deed? Jim, are you not in fact judging the Catholic Church by a standard you would never apply to yourself? What would you say to the nonbeliever who declares that Christianity cannot be true because there are so many bad Christians?
But your criterion of performance also fails for other reasons. For one thing, you are judging the Catholic Church on the basis of her performance in one geographical area in one period of time. But she has no doubt performed better (whether it be at catechesis or evangelism or whatever) in other places and in other times. Why not judge the Catholic Church at her best? Why not judge the Catholic Church by her saints?
But would you be persuaded even then?
Update:
I forgot to note that Fr. Kimel commented again on the thread, and this, too, is worth a quote:
Jim, for 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and making disciples. How many saints must the Catholic Church produce to convince you? How many martyrs must lay down their lives? How many nations must she evangelize? How many churches must she build? How many baptisms must she administer? How many penitents must she absolve? How many Masses must she celebrate? How many religious orders must she establish? How many hospitals and schools must she found? How many hungry persons must she feed? How many homeless must she house? How many kings and despots must she confront in the name of Christ? And who stands today, pray tell me, more firmly and courageously against the culture of death, abortion, and sexual immorality than the Catholic Church?
If you insist on judging the Catholic Church by her works, then by all means do so, but do so across all categories of mission and ministry. Do not judge her just by your parish church in the year A.D. 2007 but judge her by her remarkable and glorious history that reaches back to the Apostles of Christ.
Yet are you truly in a position to judge her sanctity and sins, good works and failures? Why do you see only her weaknesses and not her strengths, her defeats and not her victories?
There's more - interesting commentary on the difficulty of maintaining the fervor of church communities after the first generation. And yes, this post is dealing with a least two different issues, maybe more. But I thought Fr. Kimel's words were worth pondering for all of us..
And pray for those coming into the Church in a couple of weeks..pray for them and make them feel welcome!
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I worship in a parish in suburban Boston. We are truly blessed with deeply spiritual and intelligent homilies. Our pastor has two doctorates, and we have regular visiting associates who are professors at Weston Jesuit School of Theology and St. John's Seminary.
We are also a mixed bag in terms of liberalism and conservatism so that many different kinds of people have found a home here. In terms of music, we have a great team of professionals who mix in some of the great Classics along with a smattering of Haugen/Hass. This is truly one of the best Catholic parishes I have ever seen.
Yet we just emerged from a grueling 3-year battle with our Archdiocese to avoid supression. If it had not been for the efforts and talents of some really smart and dedicated laypeople who educated themselves in Canon Law and produced a credible case that could have been taken to the Vatican, we would have closed in November of 2004 (alright, the true credit belongs to the Spirit, but these folks were certainly his agents).
We have two Catachumens this year. As they come into our community, they can plainly see the best the Church has to offer, right alongside the worst.
Posted by: Rebel With a First Cause at Mar 27, 2007 9:54:44 AM
Pope John Paul 2 once said something like the Catholic church was breathing with only one lung without the riches of the Orthodox tradition. Could it be that those in the Protestant churches also have gifts and riches that the Catholic church needs, and we are weakened without them? For example, Scott Hahn brought the riches of his Protestant tradition into the Catholic church, and linked them with the older tradition, enriching us all.
Posted by: austin at Mar 27, 2007 10:51:28 AM
Yeah. OK. The church does botch things up. Jesus did a huge botch-up job by selecting Judas Iscariot as one of the apostles, didn't HE ?
I'll have to get that book,The Catholic Mystique. Maybe it'll help my wife, a weak in faith Episcopalian.
Posted by: Ed at Mar 27, 2007 10:52:02 AM
What insight from Fr. Kimel. There's real beauty in such an airtight argument.
I have a question, though. While many people rightfully bemoan the lack of fellowship, etc. many of our RCIA candidates initially appreciated the anonymity that the Church affords. Many of them have come from small, Protestant congregations where it was impossible to be inconspicuous, or were self-conscious because they had no church background. They could slink into a back pew and "watch" for a while until they feel more comfortable. Has anyone else encountered this?
I guess that the answer is to offer genuine fellowship when that's what someone is looking for, but be careful not to be intrusive for those who prefer some "space". It can be a tricky balance.
Posted by: Cathleen at Mar 27, 2007 11:14:18 AM
On "a place to worship" and finding too much of the Catholic Church to be dissatisfying --
There is a crisis in the Church and there is a crisis of love in the world, and the two stem from the same problem.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the real and ultimate problem is not the Church or her many fallible and sinful members who do irritating things like create and promote atrocious art, architecture, music, and liturgy. Perhaps, just perhaps, the real and ultimate problem is a basic lack of humility from parishioners. If the Mass and other aspects of the Church are unsatisfying and aggravating, perhaps we should stop putting our own personal wants and desires first -- perhaps we should not be turned inward and concerned about making me happy, and satisfying me, but should instead be turned outward and more giving to fellow parishioners and the Bride of Christ. We should empty ourselves. In short, maybe we should love the Church -- truly and unconditionally love the Church.
If we emptied ourselves more, turned outward instead of inward, and stopped concerning ourselves with pleasing our own personal preferences in music, prayer, and liturgy, then the perceived ugliness which is only a reflection of ourselves would fade and we could begin to see the immense and indescribable beauty that is the Church. And by being more unconditionally and selflessly loving, and being less unfaithful and adulterous, we would finally quit complaining about how awful and a piece of junk the Church is.
Posted by: Bender at Mar 27, 2007 11:23:22 AM
So, how can the Roman Catholic Church be the one, true Church of Jesus Christ?
Answer: Because, despite everything, it’s still here. And global. And unified under one head.
Sorry, this is long, and I should be studying, but it’s very personal to me. As a convert, I’ve struggled with some of these same issues. Again and again I’ve come to the same conclusion: the Catholic world is not like the Protestant world. The Protestant world is countless thousands of denominations where people sort themselves out into churches they like, that suit their taste. Or they just found their own, and do it their way.
Catholics don’t have that option. We really are one, big, worldwide Church, and we have no choice but to learn to live together and love each other with all our differences, weaknesses, faults, and flaws. That includes the differences and faults of our pastors and music directors. It’s a great leveler – and a great way to get our own unholy personal preferences ground out of us.
Without sounding too corny, to paraphrase someone else in history: The question for me as a Catholic is not “what can my parish do for me,” but “what can I do for my parish.” If we really believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, then the parish is too. If the parish is suffering, then Christ is suffering. Criticizing the parish for its shortcomings, then, is criticizing Christ.
Yes, the Church is clear in her liturgy documents, and yes, they do need to be implemented, not ignored. But standing with our arms folded during mass, refusing to sing, will that really help? I’m struck by the fact that the writer of the story is a former Lutheran pastor with knowledge of music. Did she ever offer to help? Or did she just continue to shop, until she finally found a parish that did music the way she liked it? That is the Protestant way. That is also the consumer way.
It’s a lesson I’ve been slow to learn. I did, and do, plenty of judging. I’ve parish-shopped. But really we should be praying, offering our gifts to the parish, offering to help – not sitting back waiting for someone else to do it, or leaving if they don’t. Loving the parish and the people in it regardless of how bad the music or how brightly lit and empty the sanctuary. Offering up our suffering on behalf of the parish, the pastor, the off-key cantor. We’re not here for ourselves. We’re here for others, to serve, and to love.
Beautiful music, art, and architecture help, and are called for. But the people are more important. Christ didn’t die for music and art. He died for souls.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 27, 2007 11:29:41 AM
Sigh.
There are ways to find "fellowship" or "community" within Catholicism in any diocese if you truly do want to find it. It's there -- you just have to push a bit more in a Catholic parish. I am a born and bread Catholic but that small group "fellowship" element was rooted in me by a high school group within a Protestant church yeeears ago. I value Bible Study and Lenten "sharing" groups. I value meals in my home with others who share my faith. I have been seeking it out for many years now... but you do need to seek it out. It is *not* automatic at a Parish.
And yet, in the last few years, I have begun to appreciate more those folks who I call "just show up" Catholics. I mean, why do they do this? They just keep coming! I believe it's because they are fed by the Eucharist and that is enough for them. And I am encouraged by them and I learn from these (and Sherry W. might get mad at me) seemingly "unintentional disciples" who are just as Catholic as I!
Posted by: Brigid at Mar 27, 2007 11:38:57 AM
I always think about Peter the Rock: Christ built His church upon him, but sometimes he was as dumb as a rock. The Church hasn't changed much because it's full of solid people and screw-ups, too.
Posted by: MissJean at Mar 27, 2007 11:42:02 AM
Ms. Ferrara's comments demonstrate, to me, a type of snobbery that I detect all too often in adult-converts/reverts.
She views the fact that "The monsignor never begins Mass with 'good morning', offers no explanations" is a good thing, or somehow particularly evidences orthodoxy?
It seems like there are two types of Protestants: those that criticize the Catholic Church for being just "smells and bells", and those who convert and criticize the Church for not have enough "smells and bells".
And if Ms. Ferrara refuses to believe that parishes that have, gasp, guitars and missalettes, are not "part of something far bigger and more important—the community that traces its history back to the apostles and their living testimony of the Risen Christ.", then I think her formation was somewhat lacking and superficial.
Posted by: ajesquire at Mar 27, 2007 11:58:37 AM
I don't think it's just RCIA candidates who might welcome the "anonymity" of Catholic churches. A lot of us cradle Catholics would be alarmed if people started talking to us after Mass. ;-)
Or is that just a Canadian thing?
Posted by: Eileen R at Mar 27, 2007 12:01:31 PM
Cathleen,
I was one of the "back pew slinkers." I tried it in Protestant churches but inevitably got "caught" and dragged into situations I wanted to avoid. Then every week you would have to make small talk instead of praying.
My perspective is, if everyone notices you are new, doesn't that imply that they are paying attention to the people around them more than to the service? In a Catholic church, everyone just assumes you're Catholic and come every week and everyone focuses on the liturgy instead of each other. Yay!
Posted by: Brian at Mar 27, 2007 12:06:18 PM
Cathleen,
My Anglican/Episcopalian wife has often remarked about the lack of "fellowship" at Catholic churches we've attended. I must admit that I was somewhat annoyed and felt on the defensive because of these remarks. I couldn't really articulate why "fellowship" was irrelevant - to a large degree - in any given Catholic church. I gradually realized that the lack of fellowship was due to the seriousness and mystery which surrounds the Eucharist itself. Let's leave out the often execrable music and litugical inanities of the Mass. Fellowship, though a positive thing, seems pale in comparison to the Eucharist, doesn't it ? I think fellowship has assumed such proportions in Protestant denominations because the service observes merely a "memorial" or "symbol" of Christ's passion. Flannery O'Connor had it right - "If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it". Viewing the Eucharist as merely a symbol necessarily forces fellowship to a higher prominence.
Posted by: Ed at Mar 27, 2007 12:18:33 PM
Cathleen -
I'm one of those converts who loves the anonymity, at least at this early point in my life as a Catholic (almost, come Easter Vigil). I've always felt stifled in evangelical churches (and I've never attended a small church). It always felt as though fellowship and being "plugged in" was an obligation, in large part because what passes as fellowship in many evangelical churches is oriented towards gregarious, extroverted people, not introverts like myself. It was impossible for me to fit in without forcing myself to act in ways that were completely foreign to my personality. So yea, I'm really enjoying the fact that we have time to ease in to our church, and we can participate in community life as much or as little as we feel is best, and in ways that cater better to our personalities.
Posted by: Tope at Mar 27, 2007 12:20:57 PM
The problem being, of course, that many of us are not "people persons", and have no clue what most people want. (And a lot of people persons have no clue what introverts want, for that matter.) Personally, I have a lot of trouble recognizing _anybody_ except the closest friends and family, so it'd be almost impossible for me to recognize a stranger, as opposed to "someone looking for a seat or the rest of the family".
Fortunately, the little old ladies of my parish know _everyone_ and maintain a vast intelligence network, as well as being not particularly hesitant to introduce themselves. The ushers also seem to know everyone. But how you can develop this kind of human resource in a parish that's not a neighborhood one of some description, I don't know. Though I guess you have to start sometime.
If someone makes an effort to be friendly, though, I think most people of goodwill will appreciate even the clumsiest attempts. People who are looking for something to get upset about, OTOH, will nearly always find it.
Posted by: Maureen at Mar 27, 2007 12:21:23 PM
Aimee:
If you note, Jennifer's article concerns her life before she actually converted, when she was still a Lutheran pastor, when she was trying to figure a lot of things out. It wouldn't exactly be the proper thing for the seeking Lutheran Pastor to take over music ministry in the Catholic parish.
Would it?
Further...the Catholic world is littered with the figurative corpses of people who have tried to participate in parish life, but been turned away because they are "too rigid" or "not Vatican II enough" etc...
Posted by: Liz at Mar 27, 2007 12:33:54 PM
"But standing with our arms folded during mass, refusing to sing, will that really help? I’m struck by the fact that the writer of the story is a former Lutheran pastor with knowledge of music. Did she ever offer to help? Or did she just continue to shop, until she finally found a parish that did music the way she liked it? That is the Protestant way. That is also the consumer way."
I've really got to defend Jennifer Ferrara here. I respect the glow of Aimee's conversion but she really has no idea of the place of music in Lutheran worship. Lutheran hymns are acknowledged worldwide as some of the finest Christian music ever produced. These hymns are not just "aesthetic" in nature, but they teach, catechize and sing theology. It is very, very difficult to sing the awful songs at the average Catholic Mass when one is accustomed to the beauty of Lutheran hymnody (even one as august as Father Richard John Neuhaus admits he still misses the music of his former Lutheran environment).
The current poor state of Catholic worship is evidenced in the rate of recidivism of converts.
It greatly discourages me that I am still struggling with the same issues that I struggled with ten years ago when I converted and I very much relate to what Ferrara wrote. As she is a former minister and knowing how highly Lutherans value the education of the laity I think it is very presumptious of Aimee to write what she wrote about Ferrara.
Posted by: Christine at Mar 27, 2007 12:35:04 PM
The best proof of the Holy Spirit is that the greatest stumbling block to The Church is The Church.
The Church has an incredible history of messing things up. Yet people still join. In great numbers!
When I was received into The Church last Easter, I knew what I was getting into. I knew I was entering an atmosphere of jangly guitars, feel-good theology from the pulpit, breath-taking ignorance from the pews, and more than a bit of narcissism on both ends. Yet, here we are. :) Going strong.
The particular struggles and valid criticisms of The Church today will change to different struggles and valid criticisms tomorrow. It will always be filled with not just sin and corruption, but ridiculousness.
The greatest stumbling block to The Church will always be The Church. Yet The Church will be around tomorrow, as long as the Holy Spirit is. Going strong.
Posted by: Nate Metzger at Mar 27, 2007 12:36:42 PM
Liz:
I read the whole article before I wrote my piece, and at appears to me that she is speaking not only of her point of view prior to her conversion, but also of her current point of view.
If we insist on attending only a certain type of parish, as this writer indicates she has (and as I confess I have in the past, though I try to be less rigid now), I wonder how well we really grasp what it means to be a member of the truly Catholic Church, worldwide, in heaven, on earth, in purgatory, throughout history?
Music is very important in worship - and I speak as a former music director who worked hard, against a lot of resistance, to follow the guidelines of Vatican II on liturgy - but I don’t think we should mistake the outward forms alone for the worship, or for the Church, itself.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 27, 2007 1:01:29 PM
"If we emptied ourselves more, turned outward instead of inward, and stopped concerning ourselves with pleasing our own personal preferences in music, prayer, and liturgy..."
It's a both/and situation in many regards.
We do need to empty ourselves, and we must keep things in perspective. Keeping the divine half of the Church in mind will significantly help in that regard.
At the same time, resist the temptation to think that therefore questions about the liturgy, sacred music, etc. are just asides or ultimately "subjectives" that we should focus less upon.
This is a seamless garment sort of issue, and while one should maintain their Faith in the Church through all, at the same time we don't diminuish the importance of such matters. The Church doesn't, the Pope doesn't so why should we?
There is a balance to be struck, but its a balance which finds the importance of these issues, just like doctrinal issues (the two are fundamentally related incidentally) since we're ultimately discussing four things:
1) the worship of God
2) the stirring our souls (and others) to sanctification
3) the catechetical dimension of the liturgy
4) the evangelical power of the liturgy
All very important things.
Posted by: Shawn at Mar 27, 2007 1:11:17 PM
Bender said:
"If we emptied ourselves more, turned outward instead of inward, and stopped concerning ourselves with pleasing our own personal preferences in music, prayer, and liturgy, then the perceived ugliness which is only a reflection of ourselves would fade and we could begin to see the immense and indescribable beauty that is the Church."
OK, I understand the point. But I am sorry - I am an unreconstructed Aristotelian/Thomist/von Balthasarian and I do not for a minute believe that the ugliness is merely "perceived" or is "a reflection of myself." There REALLY IS such a thing as transcedent beauty. There really is splendor, and the psychobabble-cum-German-Idealism view that ugly music or architecture is merely a projection of my own mind is quite simply a non-Catholic position.
The other day I was forced to listen to a 12-minute solo of a breathy, sexy, ballad singer singing a torch love song DURING COMMUNION!!!! Of course, the "lover" was Jesus (this is the "Jesus-is-my-boyfriend" school of songwriting) and it was so mind-boggling inappropriate - the heavy breathing would be ok for an anonymous porn phone call, but NEVER during Mass --- and I don't even want to TELL you the words.
The next song - a Haas favorite - was a Disney-like Broadway tune, and a miserbaly wretched one at that. Believe me - I am a sinner; I do not judge others; I accept the suffering of revoltingly bad - and I mean OBJECTIVELY BAD - music as sharing in the suffering of Christ.
But c'mon. Why is it always the truly bad and truly ugly that are forced down our throats? We believe in the growth and sanctification of the soul, the ethical growth of the person, even in getting healthier by eating right. Doing vice makes you vicious; eating wrongly makes you fat and sick; sinning darkens the soul; and repeatedly being forced to listen to bad music hurts your aesthetic sense so badly that you think anyone who calls it what it is - "ugly" - is merely projecting!
My point is, why not TRAIN people to love beauty - beautiful art, beautiful music - as we train them to love the good?
And if you want to argue that beautiful music is JUST a matter of "personal taste," then you are the first person who needs to sign up for a class!
Posted by: mr at Mar 27, 2007 1:18:07 PM
The "hand-selected-by-God" original apostolic episcopacy:
+ Judas Issssscariot (That's with a "Boo!" and a "Hiss!")
+ Pope Peter I (Good Friday's Cursing Triplex "Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire!")
+ Ten other runaway cowards in hiding for the duration of the Paschal Triduum
Think you can do better than God the Eternal Son?
====
After the suicide of Judas, Pope Peter I kicks off apostolic succession by directing the remaining apostolic bishops to find a replacement: Matthias.
Under the direction of the restored twelve-- who are Hebrews-- the entire infant Church perpetrates a scandal in the form of ethnic prejudice: in distributing goods for the poor, the Church ignores the Greek Christians. Acts 6.
====
The Church is the Bride of Christ, and he's in a bad marriage. Despite that fact, there are and always have been many shining examples of generous fidelity to Christ among the members of the Church.
"Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the words of everlasting life."
Posted by: Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. at Mar 27, 2007 1:22:55 PM
/i/When I was received into The Church last Easter, I knew what I was getting into. I knew I was entering an atmosphere of jangly guitars, feel-good theology from the pulpit, breath-taking ignorance from the pews, and more than a bit of narcissism on both ends. Yet, here we are. :) Going strong./i/
Yes, exactly. My experience mirrors Nate's. I am one of those people who "read their way in" to the Church. The first time someone asked me seriously why I wanted to be Catholic, I repsonded that it was because I believed everything the Church taught and that it was the Church founded by the Apostles.
This was an unsatisfactory answer for the questioner, who said he couldn't understand something like that. For him, choosing to join a church depended on one's emotional response to the service and music and a feeling of belonging.
So I replied, "Well, I like having the rules laid out for me and clear authority figures." This satisfied him because I was now saying the Catholic church just happened to meet my personal tastes! I meant it mostly tongue in cheek.
Anyway, I read my way from my Presbyterian-evangelical background into the church, but I knew going in that most Catholic churches were not going to meet my ideal. This is something I struggle with daily as I've moved from a on-the-cusp-of-orthodoxy parish to a new town.
I've made good friends in the parish, but the majority are poorly catechized and the liturgy, music and parish activities reflect that. There are more orthodox parishes within 15 minutes drive, but.... I guess I feel called at this point to stay (at least for now) and help in whatever way I can to improve the situation. I think God made me to enjoy somewhat being the odd-one-out and not mind too much what others think.
Posted by: LeeAnn at Mar 27, 2007 1:41:00 PM
I find this unduly cynical:
But hardly any of that is visible in the experience of the average Catholic parish today. Liturgies do not reflect the mind (not to speak of the liturgical law) of the Church, catechesis only scratches the surface and homilies..well...why do they even bother to go to seminary?
It is not my experience, and I have a hard time believing that my parish is that exceptional. As with anything, you get out of Parish Life what you put into it. In my experience, and it has been all across the spectrum (immersed vs. causal), what I derive from my parish is a function of how deeply I seek. I have yet to find a Parish in my relocations that cannot meet my spritual needs to the degree I pursue them
From Amy: As the beginning of that paragraph indicates: "People complain that" - I was attemtping to characterize the nature of the complaints related to this issue as experessed in recent discussions at other blogs.
Posted by: rkf at Mar 27, 2007 1:43:35 PM
Think you can do better than God the Eternal Son?
Fr. Stephanos, you make me shout out loud with laughter!
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 27, 2007 1:51:14 PM
[I posted this comment over on Intentional Disciples, but I'll post it here too:]
My reactions to this conversation are so mixed that it'll take me some time (and probably eventually a book) to sort them all out.
I'm one of those who "read myself" into the Church. My first experience of a Catholic parish since I was confirmed has been - well, banal is the word that fits best, with (a few) punctuating experiences of beauty and grace and (more) horrifying affronts to my spirit.
I relate to what Jennifer Ferrara was seeking; I am a person who is built for spiritual experiences through beauty and art, and I'm always hungry for it. Am I sinning if I attempt to place myself in a space where I can experience that? In the midst of those who condemn others for "shopping" and knowing my own judgmental tendencies, I know I have to examine myself and make sure I'm obeying Christ and not just seeking my own desires in such things. But if a church in my town makes experiences of such beauty that feed my soul available to me, why can't I just go there? I confess that I sometimes resent being made to feel unworthy to receive these blessings from God because I should be "offering my suffering up to the Lord".
Well, without going into gory details, my suffering over the past nine years in my present parish has been considerable, and I've been offering it up. And we're leaving now, thanks very much, for a parish where the women's ministry leader doesn't volunteer for Planned Parenthood, they don't add inclusive language and "cool, fresh" interpolated responses to the "boring" Gospel readings, and I don't have to sing black gospel-styled Mass parts during Lent. Sue me.
And mr - I'm with you. The more Catholic theology I read, the more convinced I am that Beauty, like Truth, is objective and knowable, not a matter of taste. The fact that the beauty of Catholic art, music, liturgy, and architecture touched and called my soul to Christ was no accident of personality on my part.
(*Ahem. Sorry. I guess my feelings on that score are clearer than I thought.)
I've never considered leaving the Catholic Church again, because I worked very hard (mentally, socially) to get here, and I know that despite the casual liturgical abuses and the non-Catholics that the priest allows to take Communion and all the rest, Jesus faithfully shows up in my church, and feeds me. So I've survived (and I could survive indefinitely if we chose to stay in this parish), but only because He's there - not because of anything anyone else does or doesn't do.
On the issue of fellowship and Christian friendship, my feelings remain in an agitating blender. At Mass, I desperately want to fade into the woodwork and not have anyone focus on me - I'm there, and I always hope others are there, to meet God, and I find trying to strike up or continue friendships in the midst of Mass a distraction.
On the other hand, when walking out after Mass, we hardly know anyone (/hardly anyone knows us) and we're starving for people to just hang out with and talk about our Christian experience. Even with the folks we do know, that old Catholic "don't ask, don't tell" habit prevents the conversation from deepening to a satisfying level. If not for old college friends and other out-of-state close friends we keep in touch with, and St. Blog's, we'd perish from the loneliness.
I don't know what to do about that, except to keep trying to connect with people after Mass and at study groups and potlucks, etc. And to keep up with my treasured old friends - they're more precious to me now than they ever were.
Posted by: Kathleen Lundquist at Mar 27, 2007 2:26:14 PM
