Parents and Children with Differing Religious Views

Parents Forum
21

<p>TheDad It doesn't surprise me that an angry former nun would think that way. (Her status as a "former teacher of theology" doesn't impress me at all since most were so misininformed themselves, evidenced by the way they mischaracterized Vat II) </p>

<p>Many nuns (former and current) are singularly focused on the "unfairness" of an all-male priesthood. The Church cannot change that; the Church did not institute the priesthood. The Church is the "bride" of Christ (a feminine image) and the priest (in persona christi) is the "groom". The image is male/female marriage. The image of female/female marriage would not work - obviously. </p>

<p>The angry nuns and other such women need to realize that the most important goal is not for anyone to become a priest, the most important goal should be is to become a saint and live eternally with God in heaven. (The priesthood is NOT a free ticket to heaven!!!)</p>

<p>The Church is the most pro-woman institution on earth and I have proved such time and time again. When Ortho Novo announed in the 60's that is was prepared to mass market "the pill", Pope Paul VI predicted that if birth control became widely used, women would be "used" as sex objects (the objectification of women), women & children would be abused and abandoned more frequently; divorce rate would sky-rocket; pre-marital sex would greatly increase, out-of-wedlock births would increase, and abortion would become accepted (it was illegal at the time and yes, the acceptance of birth control ALWAYS leads to the acceptance of abortion - got to take care of the oopses from birth control failures!!!). Gee, what a surprise, it all came true. How did Pope Paul VI know this? He knows how men are (and yes, single men between 18-30 are BY FAR the largest pro-abortion age group there is- what a surprise!!!!) The Church has always known that a woman's sexuality must be respected.</p>

<p>Frankly as a woman and as a extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, I am VERY much against the idea of girl altar servers. The more girls that become altar servers, the less boys are willing to do it (and altar serving is a great place for boys to begin considering if they have a vocation to the priesthood!) At our last Confirmation, with the bishop (obviously), we had only girl altar servers -- what a shame. What a wonderful opportunity it would have been for some potential priests to be serving at the altar with the bishop. </p>

<p>Our (liberal) pastor has recently acknowledged that he has a hard time getting boys past age 11 to serve as altar servers. That was never a problem when altar servers were all male. Don't be surprised if this pope returns the Church to that rule. His protege, Father Fessio, has been campaigning to end female altar servers (except at all-girls schools) for years. By the way, as it is now, no priest can be made to have female altar servers at his own Masses. Any priest at any time can refuse to have girls (Fr. Fessio has always refused to have girls.)</p>

<p>I could go on and on, giving examples after examples which prove the Church's almost unilateral support for women. If you would like more, I suggest that you read Harvard Law Professor Mary Glendon's many, many writings which support everything I wrote above and more.... She's done her homework; no one can adequately argue with her.</p>

22

<p>I don't necessarily disagree with everything you've said, but I think some of it can be used to argue the exact opposite point.</p>

<p>I also think we're hijacking the OP's thread here. Her problem is important, so let's return to it, okay?</p>

23

<p>We all look out onto the world politically. It’s a busy world. </p>

<p>The mind is distracted by the explosive and brilliant things that animate the blinking and anxious eye. The most wonderful things--love, compassion, charity--will all patiently wait on a subtle vision, a subdued light and a spiritual, contemplative and downcast eye. </p>

<p>The “poor in spirit” do not simply react to the ephemera of the spiritual world (spiritus mundi), as we commonly do with our jacked-up political impulses; here, in the spiritual world, we make ourselves uncomfortable in our silence, disturbed in turning away from our aggressive impulses and humble in our expectations: The self diminishes when openly confronted by other-worldly grandeur. </p>

<p>Those who feel and see it cannot, as a rule, explain it. Lao Tzu once commented that those who know remain quiet, and those who do not have nothing to report; if not, by now, certainly everyone would have told their brother and we would all know. </p>

<p>So, as a consequence, we often plod down the path of least resistance; that is, we see things with our political eyes and think with our political minds…the heart beats to the heavy political pulse and our aggressive impulses guide our thoughts and actions like dance steps. </p>

<p>Eckie, </p>

<p>As best as I can understand from your post, your problems are political. What’s worse is that the societal pressures and politics of community and family will ultimately, given free reign, express themselves ideologically (anent TheDad’s example of his nun/sister). This is unfortunate because it ultimately sets up a false dichotomy. You will be forced to judge and interpret the spiritual and divine by the mundane and political. Man becomes the measure of god.</p>

<p>I would humbly suggest attending your spiritual services alone, perhaps at a mass you would normally not attend. Ignore the people there and observe them only to the degree that you are capable of seeing the spirit, rather than the form. Go within…don’t live it all out on your sleeve: there are no adequate slogans here, political fashions, be they positive or negative, by your standards, aren’t up to the task. Look through the forms to what they express, into the essence of your belief, your soul and your deep goodness. Follow the dimly lighted paths of the spirit, not the incandescent lights of the street. </p>

<p>It may be that your spiritual expression will be understood elsewhere, or maybe, for a time, not at all, but you will have at least followed the path well trodden by those that have preceded you—you are not the first to walk there, there are many footprints in that soft soil ...they lead away from the world and into the unknown. As the 14th cent Persian poet, Shabistari, once confessed to an intemperate world, </p>

<p>“Contemplate your origin and observe the universe within you…whatever the stars possess, wherever, whatever, it is all found in you—you are the kernel in this shell of a universe, know yourself: it is you, you are the spirit of the universe.”</p>

<p>God Bless.</p>

24

<p>JLauer, my s-i-l wouldn't fall into the "angry nun" category. She's one of the steadiest and most cereberal people I know. She was president of a leading Catholic girls high school and is now CFO of a leading prep school in Seattle. Your condescension is very nice, but she has a degree is in Theology and if you were to debate her, I'd plunk my money down on her.</p>

<p>Fwiw, she never was "angry that she couldn't be a priest," though she was extremely proud of one of her high school classes, when the bishop was visiting and asked how many sacraments there were, one of the young ladies immediately said, "Seven for you, six for us." [Yeah, folks, my whole extended family, on both sides, has a lot of mouthy women in them...I suspect it's less surprising in that context that my D wound up at Smith.] The bishop, to his credit, said, "I never thought about it that way before" and was very thoughtful when he talked to my s-i-l afterwards.</p>

<p>Your long fourth paragraph is simply irrelevant to the status of women in the church and the bit about girl altar servers is a red herring too, because that wouldn't affect the attitudes of our age-peers. In our parish, five of the six parish councils are headed by women (TheMom is chair of the Liturgy Committee) and more than sixty percent of the council members are women. At last week's 9:30 Mass, I took count and the female-male count of Eucharistic ministers and sacristans was 13-2. For that Mass, at least the lector was male. </p>

<p>Finally, "the image of Christ" referred to is the spiritual image of Christ, not the physical. It's a shame that John Paul I, whose writings about the "feminine image of God," did not have the time for his thinking to mature as Pope.</p>

<p>The Church is not static, even though it moves at a glacial pace. It has evolved over the centuries, in directions both good and not so good. On the plus side, the Inquisition died out (well, at least the horrible manifestation did...its successor agency is alive and well in the Vatican), Gailileo has been forgiven, and Jews are no longer blamed for the death of Christ, and Vatican II was a brilliant light that can't be shuttered, no matter how much some people would like to try. To assume that the Church of the 1950's America--something some people seem to long to return to--is "it," static and unchanging, world without end, is simply wrong.</p>

25

<p>Eckie, you asked for advice and I am, perhaps foolishly, going to offer my reaction. I empathize because I have been through a similar thing --13 (counting K) years of Catholic school, during most of which I was devout, and then "losing" my faith/becoming an agnostic as a young adult. </p>

<p>I am now the parent of two kids being raised Catholic, however, as my dear H (ironically, a public school kid) never "strayed." </p>

<p>My D is now 22. She was observant all her years at home as well as on-and-off her first year of college. When we visit her at college she attends mass with my H and son. When she is home she joins them for mass as well. She does this purely out of respect for my H's feelings. </p>

<p>My H respects me enough that although he is disappointed that I do not attend church with the family, he accepts my decision, including when we were having the kids go through certain religious ceremonies/education and he got some flack from one priest for having a "lapsed" wife. His response was one of the moments in which I was proudest of him. </p>

<p>(Actually, my D was christened in a non-Catholic church but the Catholic church accepts all christenings, and my S was christened at a home ceremony by a family priest friend who was at the time head of the theology dept at a major Catholic university. So they shouldn't end up in "limbo," anyway. ;))</p>

<p>I respect my H enough that I have never undermined his religious work with our kids and others. (He has taught in our congregation's religious ed program and he and the kids serve as family ushers.) Basically, I told our kids,"Dad's in charge of religion." I'd bring the kids back and forth to CCD and even did any other parental support things that did not involve explicitly promoting the faith. He cared about this. I didn't. </p>

<p>Your family seems to care deeply about this issue. Can you deal with attending church at least as a family obligation/tradition until you have a home of your own? I admit I no longer do this myself, but I am long away from my birth home and have worked things out with my H. </p>

<p>I am a major proponent of kids deciding on their religion for themselves. But the truth is that most people end up following the religion of their parents. </p>

<p>I think if you can say to yourself, "At some point in the near future my lifestyle/choices will be entirely my decision," that you can deal with the next few years.</p>

26

<p>TheDad.... Don't hold your breath and wait for the church "to change". Customs can change (eating meat on Friday, married priesthood, colors for liturgies), but doctrines can't. </p>

<p>I'm glad that you like your female relatives to be "strong", why don't you try extending that appreciation to non-related strong women who hold differing views (no, those women are condescending.) And, by the way, most men can only receive 6 sacraments, too. And I'm sure that bishop that your daughter spoke to was only able to receive 6.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Honor your father and mother, offer it up--when you look back on it, you'll be glad you made this small sacrifice to keep peace with your parents--that's a way of loving your--very closest--neighbors

[/quote]
here's the rub to this thought ... what is a small sacrifice to some is a huge sacrifice to others.</p>

<p>When I was 25 I went through a great excercise where we had to rank order about 20 values ... all of which were great (family first, world peace, help others, don't steal, etc) ... but we had to rank them. What does this have to with this string.</p>

<p>My list #1 = Be honest and #2 = Family ... #1 and #2 on a list of 20 values or so ... but honesty was #1. </p>

<p>I had my Mom do this excercise ... and #1 = Family and #2 = Honesty ... same top 2 out of 20 or so values but a different order.</p>

<p>Now go back to the OP's issue ... to my Mom, for whom family comes first, I should have gone to church for my family. To me going to church was hypocritical and violating my #1 value ... much more than a small sacrifice.</p>

<p>My Mom and I have very similar value systems ... but not exact matches ... and this is a case where the differences set us up for a tough situation ... because there is no good way to take care of bopth people's #1 value.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
The Church is the most pro-woman institution on earth and I have proved such time and time again.

[/quote]
I'm guessing this is one of the cases where you believe there is an absolute truth in the world. I do not want to hijack this thread or get into a religious argument ... but do want to add ... please do no take my silence on these topics as agreement. There are plenty of other places to discuss these "truths" that are more appropriate than this string.</p>

29

<p>A playful exercise.</p>

<p>But, I believe, the nature of the question guides the answer. Who could argue, logically, that without honesty preceding the other “values” the other values will be of no moral consequence.</p>

<p>That one must be honest must be assumed. For instance, if I ask my mother, ‘mom, do you love me,’ I begin with the assumption that her answer will be truthful and honest…even more I know the answer in advance and am simply looking for a public affirmation. On the other hand, if you mean to suggest that one should always be honest, with no regard to other values, for instance telling someone that they look particularly fat or ugly today, I don’t believe that such honesty, in this context, is a virtue.</p>

<p>So, the first form of honesty is a precondition to any question and answer, that is, is your answer truthful, and the second form can only be understood as somehow detached from all other virtues, in order to be applied.</p>

<p>The op’s question is far too subtle and sophisticated to be addressed by any of these two common forms of honesty. </p>

<p>As faith is concerned, there will be a variability in “honesty,” when asked, for instance, “do you know that god exists,” or “do you know that your religion has the absolute truth,” that is because faith is based on individual expectations that are always perceived in a flux of individual circumstance; different degrees of “truth” or “faith” according to the circumstances of an individual life and an individual moment. </p>

<p>And yet, truth is truth, no matter the current personal relationship to it—it is understood, as is the answer a mother will give her daughter when asking “mom, do you love me.” Moments in time and circumstance will affect the faith in the longed for answer, even when the answer is a constant. Love and faith share this peculiar metaphysic. </p>

<p>It is at times felt more passionately, and honestly than at other times. Yet, it is always a form of love. Faith is faith, truth is truth, even when being questioned or challenged by personal and political circumstances. Our specific relationship to truth and faith is all that is in question in as much as we can rationally employ either virtue.</p>

<p>Eckie, in the op suggests that s/he still sees truth in religion (all religions) and has a good relationship with god (the focus of all religions). Certainly “her/his” religion will fit snuggly under the umbrella of “all” religions; moreover, s/he claims a “good” relationship with god. </p>

<p>To that effect,
Rumi once told the story of a man who was a spiritual window-shopper. This person would go from store to store, touching, holding, looking but never actually committing to purchasing anything. Rumi, tells this universal malcontent, make a decision, buy something, if for no other reason than to be a part of the exchange, the commerce of humankind. Commit to something, do something crazy, like Noah…and don’t care what anyone thinks. </p>

<p>The goal is the divine, the vehicle that takes you there is a matter of human circumstance...they will pretty much all work for a sincere heart...I believe.</p>

<p>That’s my two cents to Eckie.</p>

30

<p>I am new here but I wanted to say I think most Catholics have issues with the way things are going these days.</p>

<p>I would continue going to church and make your last days at home happy. </p>

<p>Ask yourself, what do you want to see when you look back at this time in your life.</p>

<p>Respect your parents wishes. I think that is one of the hardest things we do as children. It is still hard even at 40.</p>

31

<p>JLauer, one should not confuse doctrine with practice. There is nothing in any of my positions that is contrary to the Nicene Creed, for instance. Exercise of the Catholic faith relies upon scripture, tradition, and reason; by the third and by discerning evolving interpretation of the first, the Church changes over time.</p>

<p>Vatican II was a startling revolution concerning the role of the laity in the Church: from the Mass being said in the vernacular, to the priest facing the congregation instead of saying the Mass with his back to the congregation, and even unto the general practice of Communion being received under both species, the role of the laity changed from being passive observers to active co-participants within the Mass and by extension the Church. Cf., the evolution in the role of the Host, when at one time it was reserved for the priests only, something that the riff-raff...excuse me, I mean the laity...observed/adored only from afar. </p>

<p>As for the number of sacraments, the bishop was born with all seven available to him, the girls in the class only the six. And theoretically the bishop could receive the seventh if he were to leave the priesthood, a highly unlikely hypothetical I grant you. </p>

<p>If you are concerned with the number of vocations, as many are, the Vatican has but to take two steps to increase the number of candidates for the priesthood. I'm betting that within the life of the next three Popes, they'll do at least one of them.

[quote]
why don't you try extending that appreciation to non-related strong women who hold differing views

[/quote]
Why, JLauer, I'm surprised at you. I was merely offering the non-judgmental "correction" of which you are so laudatory in your post #13. Given those stances, I acceded to your own sense of process. First, your skepticism about my sister in-law's formal training and capacity in theology <em>was</em> condescending; you have no basis from which to bring such an attitude. Secondly, the fourth paragraph of your post #21 makes assertions in support of your beliefs, which would have been satisfactory had you been content to stay with that. But, no, you offer them as "proof" and that will not do. What is "proof" to you is regarded by me, mine, and many as nothing but tedious twaddle in justification of a current practices. [Btw, was Galileo wrong until the Church rescinded its judgment and then he became right or was Galileo right all along an the church in error that took more than three centuries to correct?] Cite as you do for belief and I'll probably shrug. Cite as you do for "proof" and I'll take issue.</p>

<p>Oh, and as another retro-note, my foster mother, who <em>is</em> an Episcopalian priest (finally retiring this year) and thus suffers no priest-envy as you allege that the women of my wife's family suffered, has veritably the same issues with Rome that my wife's family does. Unlike TheMom and my s-i-l, the other women in the family have made their statements with their feet, leaving the active Church. It's very sad. The nun who happened to be one of my prime catechists and who was instrumental in forming my conscience said it's much better to work from within. She's dead now but I still agree with her; I often wish that I could consult with her.</p>

<p>As it happens, this thread came up when TheMom and I had dinner with my foster mother before the theater last night. Alas, the restaurant was to upscale to have any flies in the wall but some here would have found parts of the conversation illuminating. Makes me look quiet and compliant when she gets going, she does, though my s-i-l is the better theologian.</p>

<h1>Damn. My cover is blown. FS thinks that at other times she's been dueling with some irreligious or atheist/ignostic & ignorant liberal.</h1>

<p>Jyber, interfaith marriages can be difficult to make work. I bow to you for your approach. I don't think there's any one right to make things work but every effort should be made to find <em>some</em> way to make things work. Back in the day, when TheMom and I were guinea pig "newly married" couples for Engaged Encounter, it was an issue that came up a lot. I see it play out several different ways among people we know in our parish but usually decorum prevents me from asking, "So, how did you guys work this out anyway?"</p>

32

<p>While the sexual revolution hasn't exactly been phenomenal for women, life before then wasn't great, either. Women had the choice between abstaining entirely (in marriage) and having children constantly - being brood mares, if you will. Fantastic. Can you really imagine many men being happy with a wife who says, "Not tonight, honey; we'll do that when I hit menopause."??? Hello!</p>

<p>There are a host of social ills that accompanied pre-1960s socio-political thought. Despite the fact that those are no longer present, you cannot pretend that they do not exist. Women were forced to stay in marriages that were horrible - abuse, adultery, legalised rape (so-called "marital rape" being legal, as the woman "consented" to intercourse on demand when she took her marriage vows), control - you name it. </p>

<p>The sexual revolution is the epitome of unintended consequences. The Catholic Church's opposition to the entire scheme, however, is not "pro-woman;" it's a method of repression. Any pro-woman position would understand that contraception is vitally important in marriage - and something more reliable than the rhythm method should be used. But no - the Church wants women to have the 12-15 children they would bear as the result of not using birth control throughout their lives. Any pro-woman position would recognize that women are vitally important in families and would seek to involve them at every level of administration. The current lack of any sort of feminine perspective in the Church is downright disturbing - no man of any ranking is allowed to marry. No high-ranking Catholic official will ever be pregnant. That's pro-woman? None of those men will ever have to face the consequences of their stance. Should I even mention the evil perpetrated by Catholic priests in Massachusetts? Is that perhaps also are result of their backwards thinking on women?</p>

<p>The Church has a phenomenal opportunity to advocate for a sane, rational approach to feminism, contraception, and homosexuality. The Church could advocate for the elimination of the double standard regarding male and female sexuality - not by giving women permission to be just as raunchy as men, but by demanding high moral standards for male sexual behaviour. </p>

<p>The Church could encourage the use of contraception in marriage (asking that married couples only bring children into the world when they are prepared to be parents); for women with health problems associated with childbirth; for the women in Africa who are powerless to stop their husbands from cheating and therefore spreading STDs; and for women who need contraception for health issues, such as endometriosis or PCO. </p>

<p>The Church could reject its "domestic helpmate" status of women and instead ask that men be fathers and husbands, not just providers. </p>

<p>The Church could recognize that abuse and incest are very real - some perpetrated from within its own ranks - and work to eliminate it. </p>

<p>The fact that the Church could do any number of things to recognize women as people - but so refuses - is more indicative of its anti-female philosophy than the empty rationales for its positions. The pedastal that women are put on is inside of a cage. </p>

<p>Don't wonder why churches are closing, priests are hard to find, and nuns are almost nonexistent. Women bring their kids to church every Sunday.</p>

33

<p>Magnificent.</p>

34

<p>Thank you, TheDad, for your insightful contribution to this thread.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
Damn. My cover is blown. FS thinks that at other times she's been dueling with some irreligious or atheist/ignostic & ignorant liberal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not at all, pops. </p>

<p>My impression has been that you find yourself at cross-purposes. You have my deepest sympathy, not disapprobation. </p>

<p>Hard pressed, here on cc, to put your faith to positive purposes in your political and philosophical altercations and dust-ups, you must wonder, what’s a faithful libertine to do (an oxymoron if there ever was one—“faithful-libertine”). Maybe figure, a deferential nod to tradition weighs down the ole’ ‘round-house knock-down…anchors the pontifical fist with pig-iron…leadens offensive rhetorical maneuvers and taxes the liberal mind beyond common courtesy.</p>

<p>Never doubted for a minute that you were mired neck deep in religious dogma; only that you were a bit less forgiving of other people’s robust claims for mud-baths...swirling with roots, twigs and marl; that is, when in conflict with that sterile, cellophane dogma—liberalism, progress and all that. </p>

<p>You write too well to have missed the literary and spiritual cultus of tradition…without it, all we’d hear from the left on cc is the latest in milquetoast boilerplate, as often as not, hot off the press, cut and pasted…or the real literary currency of the left: the angry stream of consciousness much beloved by the great minds of the resenting class.</p>

<p>[by the way...nice posts hung up above...enjoyed and dually noted]</p>

36

<p>Wow, FS. Wonderfully written, but so error-ridden--and I think in this case it an ill use of my time to annotate the corrections--as to be redolent of what Sartre called "nothingness."</p>

37

<p>huh ?</p>

38

<p>Eckie- I was in the same place many years ago. As were most of my siblings. Going to weekly mass was not up for discussion in our house. I didn't attend Catholic school but my siblings and I were one of the few whose parents insisted on confession and CCD through senior year. I remember many a sunday morning where my Mom would be sleeping and we would try to be quiet in the hope she would sleep so late we didn't have to go to mass. It never happened. If we had some event on a sunday she would make us go to mass on Sat evening. I don't know if they still do that. While we dreaded going I did find that the mass is so routine that I was able to daydream and by rote sit, stand, kneal.
None of us 6 kids attended church in college. When we came home we did.
I questioned and explored different beliefs in college. After college I spent a semester living on a Kibbutz in Israel. When I married I converted to another religion.Which chicken that I was I did not confirm to my Mom till many years later. Though I made it clear that my Children would be raised as Jews. My Mom was upset but she came round to understand that even though it wasn't what she believed my children were getting some religion. She till her death felt concerned that my children weren't baptised. She actually became a baptist in her final years. And at her funeral her minister did take the opportunity to let us all know that my Mom's dying wish was for all of us to find God. But I give her credit for letting us live our lives as adults our way.
As much as I hated it growing up I appreciate it now. And I am glad that my Mom forced it on us. I also feel it made me a better Jew. It took me some adjusting to realize that most Jew's don't go to service's each week. My Catholic upbringing has made me push my husband to take some time each week to reflect on the sabbath. I more then many of the jewish parents in my town have pushed my kids to attend relgious school weekly and to participate in the youth group. What they decide to follow in their future will be their decision. I can hope they continue in the faith they were raised but I will try to let them know that whatever path they follow we will love them but as my Mom did for me.</p>

39

<p>I am a sophomore in college and I have had the same problem. I talked to my mom and gave her a list of why I disagree with Catholicism (my parents strictly follow Catholicism). She was fine with it, but she told me that I had to follow Catholicism until I'm no longer dependent on my parents. I still go to Catholic church, but I am exploring other denominations.</p>

40

<p>JLauer--Yikes! I think it is just such harshness that made my husband run away from the Catholic church just as fast as he could as soon as he left home. </p>

<p>Someone asked about raising children without a religion. We have done that with our kids 21 and 25. I am an agnostic and my husband is an atheist. We told them all along that we'd be glad to take them to churches to check things out, and we would encourage them to become any religion they chose. I told them about Jesus; we read the scripture Christmas story. I was honest with my kids that I missed the community of church, and I didn't necessarily think my H's and my choice was the best one. </p>

<p>Neither has shown any interest in church. I think that not making it a big issue is key. If either of our kids joined a church we would respect the choice. </p>

<p>I don't agree with browbeating kids for or against religon. Kids turn out to be so different from us in many ways. Neither of ours has shown any interest in my husband's or my occupation, so I don't think that they will necessarily have the same spiritual interests, either.</p>