Over the summer, Doodle attended the child development center at our parish 3 days/week from 9-2:30. She was in a class with 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's, in a Montessori-like environment. After a while, I started noticing something. . . Doodle would occasionally tell me about Jesus. "That's Jesus!" with a nod and wide, knowing eyes, pointing, usually I think, to a crucifix. Sometimes she would say, "A Jesus. A God." ("A" or "ah" approximating "it's" or "that's" until recently.) A day or two ago, she found a reproduction of an antique print of the Last Supper. Jesus is holding up bread, in the shape of the Host, representing the institution of the Eucharist. "Who's this?" Doodle asks. "Jesus," I reply. "Yes, Jesus," she says with certainty, nodding. She then proceeds to ask about the apostles, who occupy the edges of the image, though with less interest.
This evening, we got pizza from Papa John's. The franchise we ordered from, for pick-up, was a scant block away from the priests' residence, not two blocks from the church that is the student parish for the university and community college in the area. As we were waiting 5 min. before going in to check on the pizza order, the church bells rang. Doodle perked up, eyes wide, and said, "Listen!" Then she said something through her pacifier that sounded kind of like "God." I wasn't sure, but I started telling my husband about the influence of the church preschool. Then she said again, with excitement, "God! God!" So I asked, "God?" "Yes!" As my husband turned the car around to pull alongside the pizza place, she caught sight of the church (where she and Chiclette were baptized--and me, too!--and my son in the chapel, which is also where we were married. . . so many Sacraments, so many memories!). "There it is!" she said, pointing. "God!" Why yes, yes it is! :)
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Why is "Religious" a Dirty Word?
You see it paired with nasty words like "ideologue" and "conservative," it is not a far reach from there to "extremism" and "theocracy." All who are religious oppose sex ed, endorse book burning (at least metaphorically), probably endorse heterosexual monogamy, or at least pay lip service to it, support the NRA and the death penalty, and want to impose their backward morality on other people's bodies. I think I forgot to mention stupid or ignorant, generally opposed to science and rational thought more generally.
This pretty much sums me up--don'tcha know--so I'm not really qualified to judge the alternative. I just know that they're much, much better than me. Every now & then, you'll hear about someone who claims to be religious and yet still opposes war--another thing religious people don't do--or agrees that permitting abortion is okay. That puts them in the "decidedly not wacky" category.
I'll admit to looking down on Evangelical Christians in my own elitist way, particularly in the past, but lately I feel like I can understand and accept them more in theory, although theoretically I am not an understanding and accepting person. I still shudder at the more touchy-feely types. And I'm still put off by those who declare their love for Jesus above all things in classroom introductions. But they're simultaneously witnessing and being counter-cultural, and who can argue with that?
Anyway, I don't like cultish behavior any more than the next guy, but it really bothers me when just acknowledging that religion plays a significant role in one's behavior, philosophy, politics is enough to invoke scorn, derision, disgust, mockery and, finally, fear. What are they all afraid of? That at the end of the day, those moronic religious (Christian) types might be. . . *gasp, shudder* . . . right about something?
I've been there, my friend.
This pretty much sums me up--don'tcha know--so I'm not really qualified to judge the alternative. I just know that they're much, much better than me. Every now & then, you'll hear about someone who claims to be religious and yet still opposes war--another thing religious people don't do--or agrees that permitting abortion is okay. That puts them in the "decidedly not wacky" category.
I'll admit to looking down on Evangelical Christians in my own elitist way, particularly in the past, but lately I feel like I can understand and accept them more in theory, although theoretically I am not an understanding and accepting person. I still shudder at the more touchy-feely types. And I'm still put off by those who declare their love for Jesus above all things in classroom introductions. But they're simultaneously witnessing and being counter-cultural, and who can argue with that?
Anyway, I don't like cultish behavior any more than the next guy, but it really bothers me when just acknowledging that religion plays a significant role in one's behavior, philosophy, politics is enough to invoke scorn, derision, disgust, mockery and, finally, fear. What are they all afraid of? That at the end of the day, those moronic religious (Christian) types might be. . . *gasp, shudder* . . . right about something?
I've been there, my friend.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Words: "Conversion"
Well, it's happened. Someone has made me think! ;) Blogging around this afternoon--something I have neglected this week--I discovered this post by Entropy on the subject of being a "Cradle Catholic" vs. a Convert. Now, this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, so I couldn't help adding my $0.02. I think it becomes a particularly relevant question to Catholic converts, or should, whether converting is "better," somehow, than being raised in the Faith, since practicing Catholicism involves choosing Catholicism for one's children, which is not something that can be said of most Christian churches, and which is in contrast to the experience of some (many?) coverts to Catholicism. In particular, the churches I was exposed to as a child required a personal conversion experience, and in fact, many tried ("revival"-style) to induce a conversion experience (in the manner of Langston Hughes' "Salvation," which has always been a favorite short story of mine). So I was "touched by Jesus" several times when visiting weird youth-groups with friends, only to realize when I returned home that what I mistook for "repentance" was actually guilt for some minor or imagined teenage transgression, and that I had been duped into feeling something that was not, in fact, genuine. Over the years, one of my issues with the churches I had attended (the more mainstream ones, that is) was this emphasis on the Ultimate Conversion Experience--that is, the moment of Being Saved. It struck me as being so intangible as to be unreliable, first of all (child of reason that I was), and second, so wrapped up in emotion as to be, to my mind, distasteful. (I've said before that I've had to gradually "grow into" spirituality, in part because I had been warm & fuzzied to death over the years. . .) I wondered how one recognized the One Moment, what happened if one lapsed (this from observing the "Saved" around me, or the hairdresser who declared her son to be "Saved" anew every time he came back home needing money), and any number of other things. I believe I understand things a bit better now, but suffice it to say that I was skeptical, and rejected the whole concept out of hand. I came to wonder if not everyone was capable of the Ultimate Conversion Experience, so when I was looking for a conversion experience, I looked to reason rather than the lightening bolts I was told to expect. (Is it any wonder I liked the Hughes story?)
Now, this is not to say that my conversion experience, when it came, was not recognizable as something unique and momentous, and suffused with emotion, but that's not where I'm going with this. Rather, I want to think about the difference in the way "conversion" is represented within Catholicism. Certainly, "conversion" is the act of becoming Catholic--or Christian, if one is not Catholic. It involves Baptism if one is not Baptized already, and in Catholicism, it involves the acts of receiving the other Sacraments of Initiation--First Communion, First Reconciliation (if one is already Baptized) and Confirmation. But I was surprised to find, within Catholicism, a discourse of conversion that went beyond initiation into the membership of the Faith--something beyond that first acceptance--of the individual by the Church and of the Church by the individual. During Lent in particular, there was a discourse of "turning away," of "converting"--turning one's mind and actions away from sin and toward God. Those Catholics who had turned away from the Church, but returned were described as having "conversion experiences" (though they were not called "converts"), and even those who had never left the Church were sometimes referred to as having a conversion of mind, heart, spirit, etc., sometimes to a new acceptance or a closer understanding of Church doctrine. In addition, the Eucharist is a means toward our continual conversion. I found comfort in this expanded definition of "conversion" which placed emphasis on a continual affirmation of faith rather than a one-time faith event that was supposed to sustain the love of God and the will to remain relatively sinless. It placed more responsibility on the individual and acknowledged the individual's weakness simultaneously. It also somewhat modified my understanding of what "conversion" means.
Thinking about Entropy's post, then, my initial response addressed the question of what I gained from being a convert, and what I thought my children stood to gain from being raised Catholic rather than being allowed to convert later, in the manner of many Protestant denominations, which teach that Baptism should follow the individual conversion experience rather than being chosen by the parents. I did value my choice, but this was from the perspective of rejecting organized religion (int he form of all Christian churches). However, I do think that even had I been raised Catholic (as I "should" have been, given that my parents were Catholic and were married in the Catholic Church), I would have rebelled at some point. But perhaps I would have had a better vantage point for converting, that is, for turning back. I still would have had the ability to "claim" my faith, and perhaps (ideally) I would have had a better idea of what I stood to gain or lose. Who knows? But this is my point: that what we really mean by "converting" when we talk about the Ultimate Conversion Experience (or even Being Saved) is the act of Claiming one's faith. And though Catholics are Baptized at birth, all Catholics have various opportunities to claim our Faith. Inevitably, it is (or should be) an act of will to convert--to claim one's faith; however, everyone should at some point exercise their own will in choosing their faith, even to choose the faith that they were given from birth by their parents.
Now, this is not to say that my conversion experience, when it came, was not recognizable as something unique and momentous, and suffused with emotion, but that's not where I'm going with this. Rather, I want to think about the difference in the way "conversion" is represented within Catholicism. Certainly, "conversion" is the act of becoming Catholic--or Christian, if one is not Catholic. It involves Baptism if one is not Baptized already, and in Catholicism, it involves the acts of receiving the other Sacraments of Initiation--First Communion, First Reconciliation (if one is already Baptized) and Confirmation. But I was surprised to find, within Catholicism, a discourse of conversion that went beyond initiation into the membership of the Faith--something beyond that first acceptance--of the individual by the Church and of the Church by the individual. During Lent in particular, there was a discourse of "turning away," of "converting"--turning one's mind and actions away from sin and toward God. Those Catholics who had turned away from the Church, but returned were described as having "conversion experiences" (though they were not called "converts"), and even those who had never left the Church were sometimes referred to as having a conversion of mind, heart, spirit, etc., sometimes to a new acceptance or a closer understanding of Church doctrine. In addition, the Eucharist is a means toward our continual conversion. I found comfort in this expanded definition of "conversion" which placed emphasis on a continual affirmation of faith rather than a one-time faith event that was supposed to sustain the love of God and the will to remain relatively sinless. It placed more responsibility on the individual and acknowledged the individual's weakness simultaneously. It also somewhat modified my understanding of what "conversion" means.
Thinking about Entropy's post, then, my initial response addressed the question of what I gained from being a convert, and what I thought my children stood to gain from being raised Catholic rather than being allowed to convert later, in the manner of many Protestant denominations, which teach that Baptism should follow the individual conversion experience rather than being chosen by the parents. I did value my choice, but this was from the perspective of rejecting organized religion (int he form of all Christian churches). However, I do think that even had I been raised Catholic (as I "should" have been, given that my parents were Catholic and were married in the Catholic Church), I would have rebelled at some point. But perhaps I would have had a better vantage point for converting, that is, for turning back. I still would have had the ability to "claim" my faith, and perhaps (ideally) I would have had a better idea of what I stood to gain or lose. Who knows? But this is my point: that what we really mean by "converting" when we talk about the Ultimate Conversion Experience (or even Being Saved) is the act of Claiming one's faith. And though Catholics are Baptized at birth, all Catholics have various opportunities to claim our Faith. Inevitably, it is (or should be) an act of will to convert--to claim one's faith; however, everyone should at some point exercise their own will in choosing their faith, even to choose the faith that they were given from birth by their parents.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Horrible Stories in the News and other thoughts. . .
I don't read the news. I don't watch the news. Everything I need to know about the world generally filters down to me accidentally, or through my husband. I choose my blogs carefully, and the ones that report news of any sort generally have a particular slant, avoiding the more sensationalist and horrible stories. They report the kind of stories that allow for a healthy amount of thought about the current state of society with just a hint of righteous indignation. And they almost always avoid graphic descriptions--even when discussing the recent rulings on partial-birth abortion. I unfortunately was given the descriptions, which haunted me for days, but that's the problem with such a topic--it's bound to filter down. As it is, when I was many years younger--perhaps in high school--I saw something on a local PBS (or possibly religious--Catholic) channel in New Orleans with an elderly woman (perhaps a nun) describing the process. The Supreme Court verdict evidently gave even more detail.
The reason I avoid the general news sites that my husband frequents is the phenomenon I've mentioned before that causes me to visualize--willingly or unwillingly--horrible, painful scenes of graphic violence. Some examples--a case in Beaumont that was proclaimed from billboards in which a woman was raped and strangled by her (ex?) husband, a politician; terrorist executions; you get the idea. Something in me wants to imagine the unimaginable motive of the attacker and to feel the pain of the victim. Sometimes I even wish that the images could/would be shown on TV to prevent my imagination from recreating endless possible scenarios.
So recently, I have been subjected to the news because the internet provider at the apartment complex, which requires login through a browser, feels the need to give the customer a list of all the day's (hour's) top news stories. The bland ones--prosecutors disbarred & whatnot--are not a risk to me. But others. . . well. . . Stories in the news about sex are nothing new, and there is a new case of statutory rape--generally female teachers and male students, or young girls (or boys) having rendez-vous with much older (usually male) internet predators--every day. Now, I have some issues with statutory rape. While clearly I hope that my children make better decisions, and there are some cases in which the exploitation and coercion--the inequality of the power distribution in the situation--are clear-cut--other cases are less so. I was 16 when I started college. My "peers" were much older. While I did not make all of the right decisions, I do believe I was within my rights to act as an adult (albeit a misinformed adult)--after all, I was in college. My decision-making skills and maturity were equal to any 18-year-old. And I do believe there is a difference between seduction--even involving deception (it happens every day among adults) and the kind of power dynamic (although there is an unequal power dynamic in most seduction situations among "equals"--everyone is different in life experience and situation) that should be classified as statutory rape. Again, it is not what I would wish for my young teenager, but while I would regard a sexual relationship between, say, a 16-year-old and a 21-year-old (as long as no coersion was involved) as a serious misjudgment, a mistake, an immoral act--and I hope to give my children good grounds to which to judge all of these things!!--I would not necessarily pursue it as "statutory rape." I hope that, by teaching my children about sexuality--that it is not something to be indulged in when they feel the "time is right," that "being true to oneself" (or what seems "true to oneself" at the time) is not enough, that whether or not you think at the time that you will have regrets, the time will come when you do (and I'm not talking about the risks of pregnancy and STDs, but the misplaced trust, feelings of betrayal, knowledge of having been used)--that I will avoid this issue--and my children will avoid these situations--altogether. Many of the news stories involving underage teens and adults are the sort that raise eyebrows--it's why they're in the news--and suggest exploitation by someone in a superior position of authority or power, but they don't affect me like the stories I've seen lately.
The litany of crimes appearing this week just seem much more disturbing: 700 busted in pedophile ring investigation--31 children recovered, some only a few months old!!, internet sites offering child molestation on demand!!, pregnant woman missing in Ohio amidst cryptic and chilling remarks from her 2-year-old son, a woman drawing up a contract to ensure that her boyfriend has sexual access to her 15-year-old daughter while the mother recovers from abdominal surgery!! (as if any man is THAT worth keeping!!). . . And then, by following a link about the death penalty in some states for child rape, I found more. That's the problem with linked text--it draws you in and you get lost in the labyrinth of horrific stories. The first, for me, was the worst. It was awful to look at my sweet daughter and imagine the crimes committed against those like her. Not that I didn't know it happened, but the scale of this story just made me consider it differently. And the thought of infants!! It has been too much for me. It's gotten better, and I'm trying not to think about the missing woman in Ohio. Did you know that more pregnant women die from homicide than any other cause? Rather convenient that the people who want to kill the woman to take their babies can now choose gender (I'm still a little ambivalent about the ultrasound gender thing, though I am glad to know in my case). (Not even mentioning the cases when the killer is the father.) I find it both comforting and horrifying that most of the cases of child sexual abuse involve someone the child knows--at least for my children's sake. But I guess we all feel confident that those we know will be innocent of such intentions. And I do harbor the belief--illusion?--that I am very careful with my children--not leaving them alone in resort hotel rooms while on vacation in foreign countries, for example. This does not mean that I do not pity the parents, but I do question their judgment.
I'm not sure I believe that these are problems unique to our moment in history, just problems that have been exacerbated by technology. We can now hear of such things instantly. Technology facilitates the crime. Our scope is larger because our news is global. But I do believe that most horrific acts were historically confined more to (channeled into) acts of war--albeit acts committed against civilians. And that many of the criminals would have been too busy trying to survive--to find food and sustain themselves--to allow the leisure to indulge in their perversions. This may be true for any lesser, non-criminal perversions (I use the term very loosely) that any one of us may harbor. However, I do believe that the decline of the patriarchal horror--organized religion--has something to do with all of this also. When people believed in objective morality, this at least provided some kind of deterrent to some (though not all). And when everyone was Catholic, in particular, one knew when one stood in relation to morality--quite different from the church- or pastor-of-the-hour. I believe that it is currently possible to find a sect to accommodate any inclination one might have. One wonders about the sincerity of those who seek this kind of justification. Pre-Christian peoples who did horrific things were, at least, sincere in their beliefs--or well, we hope so.
The reason I avoid the general news sites that my husband frequents is the phenomenon I've mentioned before that causes me to visualize--willingly or unwillingly--horrible, painful scenes of graphic violence. Some examples--a case in Beaumont that was proclaimed from billboards in which a woman was raped and strangled by her (ex?) husband, a politician; terrorist executions; you get the idea. Something in me wants to imagine the unimaginable motive of the attacker and to feel the pain of the victim. Sometimes I even wish that the images could/would be shown on TV to prevent my imagination from recreating endless possible scenarios.
So recently, I have been subjected to the news because the internet provider at the apartment complex, which requires login through a browser, feels the need to give the customer a list of all the day's (hour's) top news stories. The bland ones--prosecutors disbarred & whatnot--are not a risk to me. But others. . . well. . . Stories in the news about sex are nothing new, and there is a new case of statutory rape--generally female teachers and male students, or young girls (or boys) having rendez-vous with much older (usually male) internet predators--every day. Now, I have some issues with statutory rape. While clearly I hope that my children make better decisions, and there are some cases in which the exploitation and coercion--the inequality of the power distribution in the situation--are clear-cut--other cases are less so. I was 16 when I started college. My "peers" were much older. While I did not make all of the right decisions, I do believe I was within my rights to act as an adult (albeit a misinformed adult)--after all, I was in college. My decision-making skills and maturity were equal to any 18-year-old. And I do believe there is a difference between seduction--even involving deception (it happens every day among adults) and the kind of power dynamic (although there is an unequal power dynamic in most seduction situations among "equals"--everyone is different in life experience and situation) that should be classified as statutory rape. Again, it is not what I would wish for my young teenager, but while I would regard a sexual relationship between, say, a 16-year-old and a 21-year-old (as long as no coersion was involved) as a serious misjudgment, a mistake, an immoral act--and I hope to give my children good grounds to which to judge all of these things!!--I would not necessarily pursue it as "statutory rape." I hope that, by teaching my children about sexuality--that it is not something to be indulged in when they feel the "time is right," that "being true to oneself" (or what seems "true to oneself" at the time) is not enough, that whether or not you think at the time that you will have regrets, the time will come when you do (and I'm not talking about the risks of pregnancy and STDs, but the misplaced trust, feelings of betrayal, knowledge of having been used)--that I will avoid this issue--and my children will avoid these situations--altogether. Many of the news stories involving underage teens and adults are the sort that raise eyebrows--it's why they're in the news--and suggest exploitation by someone in a superior position of authority or power, but they don't affect me like the stories I've seen lately.
The litany of crimes appearing this week just seem much more disturbing: 700 busted in pedophile ring investigation--31 children recovered, some only a few months old!!, internet sites offering child molestation on demand!!, pregnant woman missing in Ohio amidst cryptic and chilling remarks from her 2-year-old son, a woman drawing up a contract to ensure that her boyfriend has sexual access to her 15-year-old daughter while the mother recovers from abdominal surgery!! (as if any man is THAT worth keeping!!). . . And then, by following a link about the death penalty in some states for child rape, I found more. That's the problem with linked text--it draws you in and you get lost in the labyrinth of horrific stories. The first, for me, was the worst. It was awful to look at my sweet daughter and imagine the crimes committed against those like her. Not that I didn't know it happened, but the scale of this story just made me consider it differently. And the thought of infants!! It has been too much for me. It's gotten better, and I'm trying not to think about the missing woman in Ohio. Did you know that more pregnant women die from homicide than any other cause? Rather convenient that the people who want to kill the woman to take their babies can now choose gender (I'm still a little ambivalent about the ultrasound gender thing, though I am glad to know in my case). (Not even mentioning the cases when the killer is the father.) I find it both comforting and horrifying that most of the cases of child sexual abuse involve someone the child knows--at least for my children's sake. But I guess we all feel confident that those we know will be innocent of such intentions. And I do harbor the belief--illusion?--that I am very careful with my children--not leaving them alone in resort hotel rooms while on vacation in foreign countries, for example. This does not mean that I do not pity the parents, but I do question their judgment.
I'm not sure I believe that these are problems unique to our moment in history, just problems that have been exacerbated by technology. We can now hear of such things instantly. Technology facilitates the crime. Our scope is larger because our news is global. But I do believe that most horrific acts were historically confined more to (channeled into) acts of war--albeit acts committed against civilians. And that many of the criminals would have been too busy trying to survive--to find food and sustain themselves--to allow the leisure to indulge in their perversions. This may be true for any lesser, non-criminal perversions (I use the term very loosely) that any one of us may harbor. However, I do believe that the decline of the patriarchal horror--organized religion--has something to do with all of this also. When people believed in objective morality, this at least provided some kind of deterrent to some (though not all). And when everyone was Catholic, in particular, one knew when one stood in relation to morality--quite different from the church- or pastor-of-the-hour. I believe that it is currently possible to find a sect to accommodate any inclination one might have. One wonders about the sincerity of those who seek this kind of justification. Pre-Christian peoples who did horrific things were, at least, sincere in their beliefs--or well, we hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)