Yes, I know. ;-) But I'm not sure if I understand exactly what being Catholic means to you. And I get a sense that you think I know nothing about Catholicism or Christianity, when in fact those have been strong influences in my life and spiritual path. My experience with Catholicism is that most American (or at least Minnesotan) Catholics are fairly fluid with their faith: They see the underlying "faith and values" aspect as more important than specific religious or denominational identity, and they are very oriented towards an ecumenical and interfaith approach to religion and spirituality. It's a sense of, "This particular church is how I express my spirituality, my social and ethical conscience, my connection to the Divine, but we all have that connection in common, regardless of the form in which we each express it."
In addition, there are many ways of being Catholic, and many ways of being Christian, so it's hard for me to understand your particular expression of faith based on those broad labels. My own experience of Catholicism has been with the fairly "mainline," moderate-to-liberal wing of it. Catholics become Lutherans, Lutherans become Catholics, Catholics and Lutherans become Methodists or Episcopalians or Unitarians, and it's all good. The parish I attended for a couple of years in the early 2000's had a very liberal Christology, recommending books by John Dominic Crossan, for example.
I thought, based on a few things you've said in other discussions, that you came from a fairly liberal background, but maybe that's just your political leanings? Are you closer to what I would consider an "evangelical Catholic," one who feels more affinity with evangelical Christians than with mainline/liberal Christians?
I guess you don't understand how outrageous and infuriating it is to see symbols and messages so dear and meaningful to me so dreadfully distorted.
I guess I understood your objection to be mainly on ethical grounds, on the values or lack thereof expressed by the characters and the confusion of who was "good" and who was "not good," rather than on the level of symbolism and overt Christian theology. That you were offended by the books, I understood. My own reaction to things like the "holy family" tableau of the Potters was more to roll my eyes at the heavy-handed and sudden intrusion of overtly Christian symbolism--not to mention seeing the analogy between the two families as ridiculously inappropriate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Continued...
Date: 2008-08-15 09:56 pm (UTC)Yes, I know. ;-) But I'm not sure if I understand exactly what being Catholic means to you. And I get a sense that you think I know nothing about Catholicism or Christianity, when in fact those have been strong influences in my life and spiritual path. My experience with Catholicism is that most American (or at least Minnesotan) Catholics are fairly fluid with their faith: They see the underlying "faith and values" aspect as more important than specific religious or denominational identity, and they are very oriented towards an ecumenical and interfaith approach to religion and spirituality. It's a sense of, "This particular church is how I express my spirituality, my social and ethical conscience, my connection to the Divine, but we all have that connection in common, regardless of the form in which we each express it."
In addition, there are many ways of being Catholic, and many ways of being Christian, so it's hard for me to understand your particular expression of faith based on those broad labels. My own experience of Catholicism has been with the fairly "mainline," moderate-to-liberal wing of it. Catholics become Lutherans, Lutherans become Catholics, Catholics and Lutherans become Methodists or Episcopalians or Unitarians, and it's all good. The parish I attended for a couple of years in the early 2000's had a very liberal Christology, recommending books by John Dominic Crossan, for example.
I thought, based on a few things you've said in other discussions, that you came from a fairly liberal background, but maybe that's just your political leanings? Are you closer to what I would consider an "evangelical Catholic," one who feels more affinity with evangelical Christians than with mainline/liberal Christians?
I guess you don't understand how outrageous and infuriating it is to see symbols and messages so dear and meaningful to me so dreadfully distorted.
I guess I understood your objection to be mainly on ethical grounds, on the values or lack thereof expressed by the characters and the confusion of who was "good" and who was "not good," rather than on the level of symbolism and overt Christian theology. That you were offended by the books, I understood. My own reaction to things like the "holy family" tableau of the Potters was more to roll my eyes at the heavy-handed and sudden intrusion of overtly Christian symbolism--not to mention seeing the analogy between the two families as ridiculously inappropriate.
(one more...)