cms@dragon.uucp (08/16/90)
After reading more complaints about the sacrifice of the Mass on this forum, and other complaints, I was beginning to despair of ever explaining the Catholic religion to Protestants. I can suggest that you read "The Catholic Religion," an explanation of Anglican Catholic beliefs, but few Protestants will probably read it, let alone Catholic catechisms, Vatican II, or other explanations of Catholic beliefs and practices that far exceed my own. However, instead of responding to Protestants on this issue, I've decided to respond to Catholics instead (Roman, Anglican, and Eastern). I suggest that you read a good book called "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians'" by Karl Keating. It is put out by the Ignatius Press. I'm not suggesting all those who question Catholic beliefs and practices are fundamentalists, but this book is a practical guide detailing how to respond to common attacks on the Catholic religion. One section asks: Has this ever happened to you? Someone walks up to you and asks, "Have you been saved?" They don't care what you're answer is if they know you're Catholic (again, not always true, but often) and proceed to quote the Bible at you before you can get a word in edgewise. You know things are being taken out of context, but you're not exactly sure how. Snappy responses come to you later, but they fail to come out of your mouth when you need them. Most unfortunately, you try to explain Catholic beliefs on your own, get it wrong, or not exactly right, and fall into their trap, since you've just confirmed that "all Catholics believe this wrong thing." You didn't handle the situation well and you know it and the Fundamentalists has won the argument (worse, if in the presence of others), you know he was wrong, but nothing came out right. How to prevent this from happening in the future? How to become a Catholic apologist? Tools of the trade: Get to you know your Bible, read it, get comfortable with it, until walking through Jerusalem with Jesus is just as comfortable as walking through your own back yard. Learn how to argue without antagonizing your opponents or talking beyond their ability to comprehend; both will get you nowhere. After deepening your knowledge of Catholicism, learn Fundamentalism. (This book will help you do both.) Begin your apologetics work with prayer -- you will accomplish nothing without a good prayer life, a good relationship with Jesus Christ, since "instructing the ignorant" will get you nowhere unless you put everything in God's hands including your studies, your discussions, your frustrations, feelings of enlightenment, and successes. Fundamentalists didn't become evangelists overnight -- they had to work at it too. Pray for your apostolate by meditating on Scripture passages, not simply for this work, but for your own spiritual health; in fact, meditating on Scripture passages is good in and of itself and for no other reason than that. Remember, if the only thing that gets you to open the Bible is irritation at anti-Catholic slander, go back to square one. Get a good Bible; there are several good Catholic versions. To be conversant with Fundamentalists, however, it would also be a good idea to get a King James (mentioning that the KJ New Testament was based on the Douay is useful) since Fundamentalists often use it -- some not even realizing it's a translation but believing it is the original -- and discussions are often easier if their wording can be compared with more modern translations (confusions often arise from misunderstandings of 17th century lingo). Next, familiarize yourself with Fundamentalist especially anti-Catholic literature. Take especial note of the topics that are emphasized by them: the Bible as the sole rule of faith, justification by faith alone, the "idolatry of the Mass", "worship" of Mary and the saints, "Catholic inventions," etc. Learn to pinpoint weakness in their arguments. You'll probably notice immediately how anti-Catholic materials are skewed, but makes notes anyway, just to help you remember. Have you ever found yourself saying, "I know it's wrong, but I can't remember why," because they'll be happy to boondoggle you with more distortions. The appendix of this book gives names and addresses of various anti-Catholic organizations; write them and ask for their literature. Once you understand your own faith, their arguments against your faith, you'll be ready to engage in friendly arguments. Don't think it is uncharitable to argue. If you don't, many Fundamentalists will walk away convinced they were right all along. Take a stand in the interests of peace: the more Fundamentalists realize the frequent weaknesses of their positions, the less anti-Catholic rhetoric we'll have to put up with in the future. Also, don't assume everything they say is false, or that there aren't some legitimate differences between Protestants and Catholics; just be on the look-out for unwarranted assumptions and erroneous conclusions. Also, many Fundamentalists are surprised when Catholics argue back -- they don't expect it. (Personal experience: A Jehovah's Witness, who tried to explain that the Trinity was invalid because the word didn't appear in the New Testament, was surprised when I pointed out John 1:1 and other verses to her; she walked away unsure of her position, remarking that a Catholic had never actually taken the time to read the Bible from their point of view to her before.) As you become more comfortable dealing with Fundamentalists, you'll begin to appreciate how limited their repertois of accusations really is. Don't confuse them with "professional anti-Catholics" whose rhetoric never ends, which is expected of people who make their livings attacking Catholics. Most fundamentalists, even those trained for small-scale anti-Catholic work, have done much less Catholic reading than you may think. Furthermore, since most of them assume that "Catholics don't (or aren't allowed) to read the Bible," and know little about their own faith, fundamentalists expect you to be a pushover, hence their surprise when you argue back intelligently. They're not only disturbed at hearing intelligent replies to their accusations, they tend to stumble when you ask them pointed questions about fundamentalism. They'll often retreat by saying, "I have to check with my pastor." There's nothing wrong with that; maybe if their pastor hears your arguments described, he'll become less anti-Catholic himself; perhaps not likely but there's always hope. If you find yourself on the winning side of an argument, *don't gloat*! It only alienates them. You can "win" but make them so angry they retreat further from the Church. Only argue to explain not to win. Be compassionate on them; they think they're doing the right thing. Instead, try to be a good missionary, which is what a good Catholic apologist really is. Don't lose your temper, wave your arms, shout; if you take offense at being called a pagan or blasphemous or stupid when explaining Catholic doctrines, find another way to occupy your time, this kind of work isn't for you. Again, few fundamentalists act out of actual malice; they actually believe what they are doing is right even if they are misinformed. The fault isn't really theirs if they believe the misguided sources they've been given by their own church; one doesn't expect one's church to sell them false dogma. Hatred against the Church must not be counteracted with hatred on behalf the Church; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind; argue against fundamentalism in charity. Remember, the first time you were cornered with Biblical verses you weren't familiar with, you almost panicked, and said the wrong things. Now that you know the Bible better, don't imitate them by slinging Bible verses left and right; you were unconvinced by this tactic so it's doubtful others will be, although fundamentalists are often surprised to hear a Catholic quote the Bible. Cite verses in context and explain them; don't just cite the verse since the fundamentalists have their own pat interpretations which is all they hear without further explanation. Don't be afraid to quote the Bible, however, just make your points. For example, a common tactic is to say that "rock" signifies God in the Bible and thus could not apply to Peter; just quietly read Matthew 16:18 itself and show how the whole point of the verse is that Peter is being given a title usually reserved for God -- and what did *that* signify? As mentioned earlier, a common tactic is, "Are you saved?" or "The most important thing is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; do you have one?" Saying Mary led to Jesus can be catastrophic if fundamentalists ask you how -- simply explaining how prayer works is a good step. If Mary can't lead you to Jesus, then neither can a fundamentalist :-). Despite their ability to quote the Bible, if you quote the Bible to them, they decide to ask their pastors instead of studying the Bible themselves, something, you should point out, Catholics are often accused of doing far too often. In other words, Catholics are often accused of letting the Church interpret the Bible for them; challenge them to read the Bible for themselves instead of asking their Church to interpret it for them. For many fundamentalists, their pastor is their pope. Thus, some fundamentalists are often more familiar with their pastor's positions than they are with other fundamentalists beliefs, a fact you can use to your advantage. Don't forget to mention that the Church formed the Bible; the Bible did not form the Church. Before the Bible was established, the Church taught the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and the Church eventually established which books correctly taught that faith. Thus, the early Church Fathers are an importance source in understanding what the Bible means and what it was originally intended to mean. Fundamentalists may say: "Let begin by admitting that the Bible is the sole rule of faith." This translates into: "Let's begin by admitting that the Church has no authoritative role; all answers to religious questions are in Scripture alone." Don't agree, it isn't true. Ask your opponent to prove that the Bible was intended to be the sole rule of faith; he won't be able to since the Bible itself makes no such claim rather calling itself "profitable" for salvation, but you need to read the Bible to be able to cite the right verses. For example, Scripture alone does not say that Scripture alone contains all the things that were taught as true by the Church (such as purgatory, for instance). How you can use fundamentalists knowledge of the Bible but lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine to your advantage is important -- they often know little Church history, less theology, and have never seen a catechism (not even the Lord's Catechism, at least in that format). Point out that if early Christians writers, who were sometimes taught by the Apostles or those close to the Apostles, took a sacrificial priesthood for granted without even arguing the point, this is a powerful argument on your side. If writers living a few generations after Christ spoke of the Real Presence (which they did), this strongly favors Catholic interetations of John 6. Make an effort to show doctrines in conjunction with other related doctrines with which the fundamentalist may agree, customs in relation to doctrines, customs in relation to other customs, New Testament in relation to the Church, Church history as a witness of the Christian faith. Well, I could go on. I've hit a lot of the highlights. Instead of responding to more anti-Catholicism, I think I'll others ammunition to carry on the fight. I'm getting a little burned out on the issue. Get the book; don't wait for the movie. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (08/24/90)
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Cindy Smith's recent posting advising
Catholics on how to defend their faith against Fundamentalists. I would,
however, like to jump in and correct a few possible misunderstandings that
might arise from that posting. I suspect that these probably weren't
intentional on Cindy's part, but just to play it safe...
First, a couple of general comments. What exactly does "fundamentalist"
mean? I looked it up in Webster's some months ago and found the
definitions to fall into basically two classes:
1) being part of an authoritarian church/religious group which
dictates 'truth' to its members
2) starting from the fundamentals of the faith
Those people who fit definition 1 usually fit 2 as well (or at least claim
to); however, there are also many (myself included) who fall under 2 but
not 1. Note that the "Fundamentalists" that Cindy refers to are of type 1;
I'll show a few examples of this later on.
cms@dragon.uucp writes:
> .... I'm not suggesting all those who question Catholic beliefs and
>practices are fundamentalists, but this book is a practical guide detailing how
>to respond to common attacks on the Catholic religion.
It should also be stressed that not all "fundamentalists" (or anyone else,
for that matter) will try to use the simplistic, uninformed attacks
described below.
> ...
> Tools of the trade: Get to you know your Bible, read it, get comfortable with
>it, until walking through Jerusalem with Jesus is just as comfortable as
>walking through your own back yard. Learn how to argue without antagonizing
>your opponents or talking beyond their ability to comprehend; both will get you
>nowhere. After deepening your knowledge of Catholicism, learn Fundamentalism.
>(This book will help you do both.) Begin your apologetics work with prayer --
>you will accomplish nothing without a good prayer life, a good relationship
>with Jesus Christ, since "instructing the ignorant" will get you nowhere unless
>you put everything in God's hands including your studies, your discussions,
>your frustrations, feelings of enlightenment, and successes. ...
Sounds like good advice. In fact I think for Protestants it would be good
to substitute "Protestant" for "Catholic" and "Catholic" for
"Fundamentalist", and take the advice as your own. (Well, roughly - it
doesn't exactly work in a few places, but you get the idea.)
The same is true of many other parts of her posting as well.
>
> Get a good Bible; there are several good Catholic versions. To be conversant
>with Fundamentalists, however, it would also be a good idea to get a King James
>(mentioning that the KJ New Testament was based on the Douay is useful) since
>Fundamentalists often use it -- some not even realizing it's a translation but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>believing it is the original -- ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ouch! I've never met anyone quite that ignorant, and I feel sorry for
those who have. Anyway, I think there's ample evidence from s.r.c
discussions that such ignorance is not widespread.
> ... Also,
>many Fundamentalists are surprised when Catholics argue back -- they don't
>expect it. (Personal experience: A Jehovah's Witness, who tried to explain
>that the Trinity was invalid ...)
Please do not infer from this paragraph that Jehovah's Witnesses are
typical Fundamentalists. True, there are similarities, but JW theology is
generally agreed to be non-orthodox.
> ... Despite their ability to quote
>the Bible, if you quote the Bible to them, they decide to ask their pastors
>instead of studying the Bible themselves, something, you should point out,
>Catholics are often accused of doing far too often.
True of some "fundamentalists," sadly, but not all. This is one of the
places where it's clear that def. 1 of "fundamentalist" is being used.
In summary, Cindy has given some good advice to the serious Catholic on how
to deal with the simplistic, misguided Fundamentalist. Be aware, however,
that there are serious and non-serious Catholics, serious and non-serious
fundamentalists, and so on. This posting is only part of the picture;
don't mistake it for the whole.
>Sincerely,
>Cindy Smith
>emory!dragon!cms
Grace and peace,
Charles Ferenbaugh
P.S. Cindy, you also wrote:
> ... I can suggest that you read "The Catholic
>Religion," an explanation of Anglican Catholic beliefs, but few Protestants
>will probably read it...
Nobody is going to read this. We have no idea where to find it. :-)
Seriously, though, if you can provide more information on this book, or
others like it, I'm interested.cms@gatech.edu (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.24.04.25.58.1990.29692@athos.rutgers.edu>, crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: > In summary, Cindy has given some good advice to the serious Catholic on how > to deal with the simplistic, misguided Fundamentalist. Be aware, however, > that there are serious and non-serious Catholics, serious and non-serious > fundamentalists, and so on. This posting is only part of the picture; > don't mistake it for the whole. Charles, thank you for your kind posting. For the most part, I agree with what you said. The kind of fundamentalists I was talking about are indeed the kind who dare distribute anti-Catholic propoganda in front of a Roman Catholic church as people are departing after Mass. When I received some hate-material from a fundamentalist as a child, Monsignor said to the young, clean-shaven, well-dressed young man (white shirt and tie), paraphrased to the best of my memory, "We're not going to prevent you from distributing your materials, but please restrict the distribution of your propoganda to the adults." Very formal, with a wan smile. > Charles Ferenbaugh > > P.S. Cindy, you also wrote: > >> ... I can suggest that you read "The Catholic >>Religion," an explanation of Anglican Catholic beliefs, but few Protestants >>will probably read it... > > Nobody is going to read this. We have no idea where to find it. :-) > > Seriously, though, if you can provide more information on this book, or > others like it, I'm interested. "The Catholic Religion: A manual for instruction for members of the Anglican Communion," by Vernon Staley; revised by Brian Goodchild; foreward by the Bishop of Leicester. First published in 1893. Morehouse Barlow Co., Inc. Copyright 1961, 1983 by A.R. Mowbray & Co., Ltd. The forward is so well put I'll reproduce it: "This book remained in print for seventy years, but has not been available in new copies for the past twenty. Its long life ended when the Church of England began to be affected by the change of Christian climate that is most readily identified by the Second Vatican Council, but was in fact a much greater movement of response to contemporary history. "Now Staley's work can be seen in a different perspective of time and thought. Like all theologicaly compendiums (including St Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae) it proves too small for its purpose. The Christian Faith can no more be defined in a book than God can be contained in his Church; yet the new perspective makes this book's usefulness clearer. "Here we have a sober statement of Anglican orthodoxy. Though some of its details, some of its proccupations, are dated, it makes one point clear: the opposite of catholic is not protestant, but heretic. When Staley goes on to quote that 'every heresy is the intellectual vengeance of some supressed truth' we are assured that he was too wise to believe he could define the whole faith in a single volume. So we expect wisdom in him, and find much of it. March 1983 + Richard Leicester -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms [The original article did worry me a bit, because it might tend to cause Catholics to reject the more general Protestant position by confusing it with fundamentalism. There are a number of us who claim the Bible as our basic authority, but in a more flexible way than the fundamentalists. It might not be obvious to Catholic readers that many of the problems with the authority of Scripture pointed out in the article are not with the idea itself but with a particularly rigid concept of that authority. --clh]
heksterb@apple.com (Ben Hekster) (09/18/90)
My apologies for taking so long to post this, but I have been taking a course this week and consequently have not had enough time to do any significant posting. Almost two weeks ago I responded to a posting in which Cindy Smith (emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu) described a situation where an individual was prevented from distributing certain religious material to children by "the Monsignor": > The kind of fundamentalists I was talking about > are indeed the kind who dare distribute anti-Catholic propoganda in > front of a Roman Catholic church as people are departing after Mass. > When I received some hate-material from a fundamentalist as a child, > Monsignor said to the young, clean-shaven, well-dressed young man > (white shirt and tie), paraphrased to the best of my memory, "We're > not going to prevent you from distributing your materials, but please > restrict the distribution of your propoganda to the adults." Very > formal, with a wan smile. My response was: > But whatever for? Would that imply that non-adults are too impressionable > to be able to judge the validity of religious doctrine themselves? I had intended this rather simplistic question to be rhetorical, but I did not convey my meaning clearly. My reasoning was as follows: if children are not deemed qualified by this Roman-Catholic (or whatever the case may be) to appropriately judge the value of religious doctrine, how can this same person then in good conscience himself proceed to religiously `indoctrinate'? Or, in the larger question (and what I am really getting at), should parents force their children to adopt a particular religion while they are obviously not capable of judging its validity? It would seem to me more just if parents deferred spoon-feeding their children any particular religion until they were better equipped emotionally and intellectually to decide for themselves whether they wish to adopt any particular faith. Those who hold that these children are in any case free to choose any religion they like would seem to be proved wrong by the simple observation that children of religious parents have a very high probability of assuming that same religion the rest of their lives. This would not seem to corroborate the theory that these children have been significantly encouraged to apply a great amount of independent thought to the question of selecting a religion. In particular, Cindy Smith responded: > A thirteen year old child might be able to judge the validity of > religious doctrine himself; I'm not convinced a child is so smart at > ten. This is my point. Later, Cindy asks: > [would it] be acceptable for Catholic missionaries to distribute > to Baptist children coming out after Baptist morning service [...] [?] In my personal opinion, no. Religious material of any denomination should not be distributed to children. And also: > Do you think Baptist children adequately > understand their own theology such that they can judge the validity of > religious doctrine as expounded upon in Catholic literature? Again, in my opinion--no. Neither do I believe Baptist children particularly adequately understand their own theology such that they can judge the validity of Baptist doctrine. In another response to my question, Eric C. McClure (lionti@umaecs) wrote: > Of course they are! > Young children are pretty much unable to judge the validity of ANY doctrine > themselves. This, of course, brings up an interesting point. The poster exemplifies: > [...] my wife and daughter were out in the backyard (we > live in an apartment complex) a couple of weeks ago. They had brought out > a "picnic" lunch with a "juice-pack." While they were off playing, one of > the neighborhood kids stole the juice-pack. This upset our daughter alot, > but mainly it confused her. (Lots of questions about why anyone would > steal her juice-pack, didn't they know you are not supposed to steal, etc.) And it gets worse when her tricycle is stolen. As I would immediately affirm the parent's wish to teach his child ethics and morality, one might argue that there should subsequently be no valid ground for refraining from imparting religious instruction as well. However, I would think that morality and religion are very distinct in their self-evidence. That is, while few would say that it is right to steal, there is no such general consensus on adhering to any particular religion. Also, I would hold (although not to the extent that anarchists do) that Man has an innate ability to develop an ethic, as witnessed in this case where the child could not understand why anyone would want to steal, although obviously not everyone necessarily adheres to this standard (which is why we ourselves have developed legislature)--while religion implies that we relinquish our own power to sense what is just to a remote entity, or rather, an interpretation thereof. As an aside, it is interesting to me that Man's instinctive sense of ethics is still strong enough to cause someone who professes to follow a particular faith to modify this religion just enough so as to render it compatible with his own sense of morality. Then, finally, Charles Ferenbaugh (crf@tomato.princeton.edu) wrote: > Not necessarily. More likely, it meant that non-adults would not be able > to discern the fallacious arguments in the "propaganda". Also, my point exactly. Let me conclude by saying that I really do understand that most parents are trying to do the right thing by teaching their children morality and religion. However, I would hold that the two are separate, and it seems to me very odd that a person's religion should be based mainly on that of his or her parents, which itself is very dependent on geography. In case it was not obvious, I am not religious (and neither were my parents...) but I attended a Protestant high school (in the Netherlands), and frankly, I was rather dismayed by the carelessness with which many affirmed their `choice' of faith without being able to provide the least reasoning for its superiority over any other, or any at all. More apologies to the respondents, who deserve a less abbreviated response than I at the moment am able to provide. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Ben Hekster | "Sitting targets Installer dude | sitting praying AppleLink: heksterb | And God is saying Internet: heksterb@apple.com | nothing" BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | --Nothing, Depeche Mode [101] [I find it frightening that a parent might *not* want to pass on their ultimate values to their children. I'm afraid my own view of is somewhat more radical than yours. I believe Christianity is true, and that we have an obligation to pass on everything of truth that we can to our children. But although ultimately I believe truth has rights that error doesn't have, I realize this isn't a sort of argument one can use in interreligious discussions or discussions of public policy. I understand that non-Christian parents no doubt feel that their own beliefs are true, and should feel the same obligation to pass those beliefs on to their children. I would rather see that than see each generation have to start religion from scratch. It's exactly this failure to pass on faith that sentences the next generation to naive and probably extremist religions. If we don't pass on a balanced Christianity to our kids, those who adopt Christianity are likely not to have the sort of mature perspective that will allow them to resist various forms of easy answers. --clh]
lionti@ecs.umass.edu (09/20/90)
heksterb@apple.com (Ben Hekster) writes: >My response [to Cindy Smith's original post] was: >> But whatever for? Would that imply that non-adults are too impressionable >> to be able to judge the validity of religious doctrine themselves? >I had intended this rather simplistic question to be rhetorical, but I did not >convey my meaning clearly. My reasoning was as follows: if children are not >deemed qualified by this Roman-Catholic (or whatever the case may be) to >appropriately judge the value of religious doctrine, how can this same person >then in good conscience himself proceed to religiously `indoctrinate'? Or, >in the larger question (and what I am really getting at), should parents >force their children to adopt a particular religion while they are obviously >not capable of judging its validity? > More apologies to the respondents, who deserve a less abbreviated >response than I at the moment am able to provide. I appreciate Ben's followup comments. They help me to understand what his perspective is. A perspective, I must admit, that never occured to me. I must say that I tend, however, to agree with our illustrious moderator who writes: >[I find it frightening that a parent might *not* want to pass on their >ultimate values to their children. I'm afraid my own view of is >somewhat more radical than yours. I believe Christianity is true, and >that we have an obligation to pass on everything of truth that we can >to our children... --clh] I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. In fact, my perspective is somewhat unusual. I was raised a Roman Catholic. In college, I fell away from the church and became very interested in Buddhism, then Existentialism, then John-Paul Sartre and Atheism. (I almost got a minor in Philosophy). In college, I fell in love and got married to a Catholic. My wife tends toward a very personal approach to religion, and I certainly respected her views, and basically we agreed to disagree. Well, after we were married for 3.5 years, a miracle occured in my life. And it wasn't something that happened once which I could ignore or pretend didn't happen so I could just keep on with my life. It was recurring, and continues to this day, 3.5 years later. As you may have guessed, that miracle was my daughter. Now I hope this doesn't sound trite, because I experienced it as nothing less than a miracle. I knew that *I* couldn't create this life! Unfortunately, this didn't immediately make me see the truth about God's existence. But I believed that my daughter should be raised to believe in God, because I recognized that even without God's existence, the message to be good, etc. was a good one; and I wasn't absolutely convinced of my own views. Obviously I had a long way to go toward understanding "real" Christianity. Well, I had decided to raise my daughter as a Catholic (obviously my wife played an important role in all this, I'm just giving my perspective) but I recognized that hypocrasy on my part (i.e. if I didn't believe what I was trying to teach her) would be deadly. So, in my own clueless way I set out to *force* myself to believe in God. Again, my understanding of the movement of God's grace was nil. So I started going to Bible studies with a friend who is in (I found out later) an offshoot of the Boston Church of Christ. This group is a little "cultish" in their aggresive recruitment policies, and since I didn't know where they were coming from this confused me somewhat (as to why they were always SO aggresive), but I owe my friend alot, because it was through this group that I finally came to believe in God again. The BCC's aggresiveness made me uncomfortable and so I started going to a Bible study at the local Newman Center and attending a discussion group on the Vatican II documents, and reading books on Catholic theology from the Newman center library. Now I would say I am a full blown Roman Catholic, in fact I have just gone through lector training and soon will be going through "special minister of the Eucharist" training and so will be serving the Newman Center Church in those capacities. To bring this around to the original topic, I originally did all of this for my daughter, though now I see that my wife and daughter are in some way a special gift of grace from God to me. To not fully share this gift with my daughter would be to reject its value, which I cannot do. Thus, I _also_ find it very hard to understand the idea of not raising your children to believe as you do. The only case where I have heard of this approach is in mixed religion marriages. I do not, thankfully, have to deal with that problem. Well, sorry this is so long, I guess this was my way of introducing myself to the Net. Thanks for listening. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric C. McClure lionti@umaecs.bitnet Standard Disclaimer
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (09/25/90)
[I a discussion about whether it is appropriate to teach one's religion to children, I commented >I find it frightening that a parent might *not* want to pass on their >ultimate values to their children. I believe Christianity is true, and >that we have an obligation to pass on everything of truth that we can >to our children... --clh] Bravo!! Rarely have I heard it better said! (I really enjoyed the rest of your article, too, Eric!) I, personally, have a somewhat unorthodox view of evangelism, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned... I find the idea of ACTIVELY trying to displace someone else's existing faith (provided that that existing faith is benevolent) as morally repugnant. I truly believe that all benevolent faiths are equal in spiritual value, and that these faiths should all be given free opportunity to exist and grow (given that the growth is not at the expence of the other faiths). I would consider a Catholic trying to convert a contented buddhist as shameful, and vice versa (though I gather that Buddhists don't operate that way). As far as evangelism is concerned, I'm quite in love with the idea of evangelism by example. Should I show myself to be not only a Catholic, but a good, decent, caring person, I will have some effect on those people I encounter. If that effect is conversion, so be it. If the effect is that the person starts taking his/her own faith more to heart, more power to them! I refuse to believe that my heavenly Father wants me to tear away the beloved faiths of others; in reflection on that, I remember (not verbatim) a passage from C.S. Lewis's "The Last Battle" of the Chronicles of Narnia. A certain Telmarine (foes of Narnia who worship Tash, a horrific demon who opposes Aslan (i.e. Jesus)) talks with Aslan, telling him of his lifelong service to Tash, and how he kept himself virtuous and good in the name of Tash. Aslan replies that every good act and every promise kept in whatever name is actually done in Aslan's name, and that every evil act, even though it be done in the name of Aslan, is actually done in the name of Tash. This shows my own belief on the subject; if anyone of any religion dedicates his/her life to goodness and virtue, I firmly believe that he/she will be rewarded in the life to come. God does not judge by words or by lip service, but by the actions and intentions of each person. But... I still assert that children should grow with a faith of their own. Sociologists and Theists agree on the point that it is healthier to grow to maturity WITH a faith tha WITHOUT one... even should the child in question leave that faith later in life; at least the child will know how to handle any new faith that he'she decides to embrace later. Above that, I see no reason why that beginning faith shouldn't be the faith of the parents. The fact that other faiths are just as valid does not diminish the validity of the parental faith. And, as a child, one would most easily learn a faith that has close applications to one's family life. (Whew!) I'm a dangerous one to go off on a tangent...! Sorry for the length and the "blabbering!" -- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (09/25/90)
[Much of Ben's article in response to Cindy on bringing up children in their parents's church deleted for space] I wanted to address this response by the moderator in particular because it touches something close to my heart too. > > [I find it frightening that a parent might *not* want to pass on their > ultimate values to their children. I'm afraid my own view of is > somewhat more radical than yours. I believe Christianity is true, and > that we have an obligation to pass on everything of truth that we can > to our children. But although ultimately I believe truth has rights > > --clh] I want to agree with this to a point. The discussion was on children that attended church with their parents, which would include all the intricacies of formal ritual that children may not appreciate. What would lead children to offshoot non-orthodox is the continued hypocracy in the home quite apart from what the ideal they may be attempting to absorb by church instruction on Sunday. I would think that an example of patience, prayer, and loving kindness at home would go alot farther in the instruction and love of Jesus to the child than any amount of church attendance in the hopes the child picks up the Spirit by osmossis(sp?). Or maybe the two coupled together would be the ideal. How many parents drag little missy or jr. to church because it is their duty, yet carry on at home as any wordly manner would be the norm? I know people who smoke, drink occassionally, and such at home but have a very loving relationship witht their children(well, at least the father smokes and drinks beer), and their children are very well brought up in intelligence and respect. Although they do not belong to any one denomination, or the church:-), they are taught respect for our Lord, and Bible reading. I like this version of religious instruction better. barry olson
lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (09/25/90)
>>I had intended this rather simplistic question to be rhetorical, but I did not >>convey my meaning clearly. My reasoning was as follows: if children are not >>deemed qualified by this Roman-Catholic (or whatever the case may be) to >>appropriately judge the value of religious doctrine, how can this same person >>then in good conscience himself proceed to religiously `indoctrinate'? Or, >>in the larger question (and what I am really getting at), should parents >>force their children to adopt a particular religion while they are obviously >>not capable of judging its validity? If children are not taught the religion of their parents they will almost assuredly grow up non-religious. I have met a number of people whose parents let them "make up their own mind". Almost invariably they chose to be irreligious (although some came to some faith or other later in life). In _This is My God_ by Herman Wouk (Orthodox Jew), he argues that not raising your children to be religious is to do them a great disservice. It is far easier to give up religious practice and thought than it is to pick it up. Look at our culture--there are a lot more people who've left they faith they were brought up in than have chosen another faith. Dan -- --Dan