A recent article in "Our Sunday Visitor" described a Pew Research study on why Catholics leave the Church. They were given the following reasons:
No longer believe: 48%
Spiritual needs not met: 67%
Lost interest: 66%
Dissatisfaction with atmosphere: 47%
Too formal: 36%
Too ritualistic: 38%
Music not enjoyable: 36%
Too many money requests: 56%
So I thought I would examine the views of people who actually attend mass every Sunday. They reported:
No longer believe: 48%Spiritual needs not met: 67%
Lost interest: 66%Dissatisfaction with atmosphere: 47%
Too formal: 36%
Too ritualistic: 38%
Music not enjoyable: 36%
Too many money requests: 56%
Actually I expected higher numbers on the music thing...
The video in my previous blog post referred to a statement from the following video, "Penn Jillette gets a gift of a bible". In the video Jillette, an avowed atheist, is confronted by a man who gives him a religious booklet, and he (Penn Jillette) says [emphasis mine]:
If you believe that there's a heaven and a hell, and you could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life, or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward - and atheists who think that people shouldn't proselytize, just leave me alone keep your religion to yourself - how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?
If I believed that a truck was coming towards you and you didn't believe it, and the truck was bearing down on you; there's a certain point where I tackle you, and this is more important than that.
On May 18, 2011 I met Bill. I was praying the rosary with some others in front of an abortion clinic. Bill parked his car across the street and walked over to our side. He saw our rosary beads and asked if we were Catholic. He then proceeded to tell us that we were damned to hell, that our priests were all pedophiles, that we worshiped idols, and other interesting facts.
I walked over to him and started defending the faith. The conversation became heated, and for about 10 minutes he and I shouted in each other's faces. After a while we got tired of yelling. I told him I'd listen to him without interruption or contradiction for as long as he liked if he would do the same.
He told me he was an altar boy, and wanted to be a priest, but his mother stopped him, because had he stayed in Catholic institutions he knows he would have been repeatedly raped. He told me that I worshiped my rosary without knowing it. he told me that priests are evil, and contrary to the Bible, which is the sole word of God. He told me that all churches were evil, and that Satan had entered into the church. And he told me I had only a few days to live, because the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. But most of all, he sincerely thanked me for listening.
In turn I told him that priests who break their vow of celibacy are not living what the Church teaches, that he can't know what would have happened, that I use my rosary as a counting aid so I can concentrate on my prayer, that priests are all over the Bible (remember Caiaphas?). I agreed about Satan, and told him the Pope had said something similar and that we must understand that we (he and I) are not enemies, but our common enemy is Satan. And I told him that I thought he was wrong about the world ending.
Bill remained unconvinced, but we spoke calmly and respectfully to each other after that. I explained to him that the reason why I defended my faith so vigorously wasn't because I hated him but because I wanted to see him in heaven. God wills all men be saved, and so it is important to me that he hear the truth in order to have that option.
In the end, we hugged and parted friends, although still disagreeing on many thing. I made Bill and offer (that still stands); if the world didn't end on May 21, to come back one Wednesday and we'd have lunch together and talk more. In the meantime, I said I'd pray for him. Bill replied that if he wasn't taken up one May 21 he'd know he wasn't saved and there wouldn't be any more point to life.
I prayed hard for Bill. When he didn't show up the next Wednesday, I prayed harder, hoping that he hadn't done anything rash when he wasn't taken up. I kept this up for weeks, and carried a Bible with me wherever I went, so that if I met Bill, I could show him some passages.
I never did meet Bill again. As you can see by this blog post, I still think about Bill, and still pray for him. I pray for you too, dear reader, and ask that you pray for Bill, and for me. And Bill, if somehow you read this blog post, come on back. Lunch is on me.
A few weeks ago at the death mill I was verbally assaulted. Not by one of the customers or staff, or by a pro-death passerby, but by another pro-lifer. The subject of the assault was that I was an idol worshiper (aka Catholic). Apparently I worship statues, my rosary beads, and my scapular. After a five minute dress down, and being told that I was "disgusting" the accuser told me that she used to be a Catholic (as if I couldn't have guessed) until she learned to be a Christian. She told me she learned that her scapular couldn't save her, and her rosary couldn't save her and her statues couldn't save her - her Bible saved her.
Now, I understand how all these things can be used in a superstitious manner (and apparently were by this woman), but I can assure you that I don't worship anyone but God. A statue is a statue and the only use I have for it is to remind me of the men and women who have set an example for me of how to live. My rosary beads do nothing for me but mark the number of prayers I am saying so I can use my meager brain power to contemplate the life of Christ. My scapular is non-existent because I don't have one.
Note that she didn't even mention Eucharistic Adoration, which to a protestant actually is idol worship, and is a great way for me to slip in a reference to "Lift the City" into this blog post.
But that isn't really what I wanted to blog about. While I was listening to this woman's tirade, it struck me that while I am saved by Jesus, this woman claims she is saved by her Bible. I believe if pressed she would say that she didn't mean that literally, that she is saved by Jesus Christ, but I think her words are a Freudian slip. While she and other "Bible Christians" accuse us Catholics of worshiping idols, I would claim the finger points both ways (and more truly in their direction).
One theme in the bible is that "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8:3, Matthew 4:4) The Bible Christian twists this to mean that the Bible is king, but I think it means just the opposite. We are told in scripture that the bible does not contain every word or action of God (John 21:25). St. Paul reminds us in 2 Thessalonians to listen to what we've been taught, both orally and in writing (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And in Matthew we are told to take our conflicts to the church as the last word (Matthew 18:17). The bible should not be the last word. Christ tells us that is reserved for the church.
And to me that makes perfect sense. A book is a book. It has no meaning without human interpretation. If that human interpreter isn't divinely protected from fault, then the bible itself is not protected from fault. In other words, God doesn't deal in print, He deals with people. And it is the Bible Christian, not the Catholic, who has elevated a book to be superior to the authority appointed by Christ, and so is worshiping an idol - a paper idol - over the true Word.
The other day I was speaking with an "ex-Catholic" friend about faith. There were a number of things we discussed, which I will blog about as time goes by, but one thing was his statement that he can't believe in Catholicism because the Pope doesn't. According to him (and others), if the Pope really believed in Catholicism he would sell all the billions of dollars of art work, all the buildings and land, etc. and give all the money to the poor and ed world hunger once and for all.
There are two aspects of this logic that are mistaken. First off, the notion that "I would believe in 'X' if you did 'Y'" when you know darn well the person isn't going to do "y" is simply making an excuse. If you believe you believe. If you don't you don't. If someone else's actions affect your entire world view, you have a seriously fragile world view, and it will just as easily change next week when someone else does something else. Either an argument is logical or it isn't. The actions of the person who tells you about it doesn't make it any more or less compelling. So right away there is a barrier of insincerity in the question.
Secondly, there are number of reasons for the Pope not selling all the art work and giving the money away and ending world hunger. Before going over them, let's make an analogy. If he cares about poor people, why doesn't the president of the United Stated sell all the monuments and art work and stuff in the Smithsonian, and all the buildings in Washington and give the money to the poor and end hunger and provide health care, etc. for all Americans. Same issues, pretty much.
First off, those things are not the president's (Pope's) to do with as he pleases. They belong to the country (world) and many of them serve good uses, like the stuff the in the Smithsonian (name your favorite place here) that is used for teaching.
Secondly, how effectively could the US (Vatican) conduct its business with no buildings, no staff, no way to communicate or educate? A certain amount of money, and yes, even grandeur is needed to be a "player" in this world.
Lastly, and sadly, all the money in the world would not end world hunger. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away (and often exacerbates it). Let's say you did sell everything off and wanted to use the money to feed the hungry. You'd be getting that money from the very rich, and then turning around and giving it back to buy food. the glut of art work on the market place would make it worthless, and the demand for food would drive food prices up so that you'd wind up doing nothing except lining the pockets of speculators. In a day, or a month, or a year, the food would be gone, the rich would still be rich, and the hungry would be hungry again.
Ultimately the problem of the poor and hungry is caused by the attitudes and actions of billions of people, and cannot be solved by a single act by a single individual, or even a single country. The solution is an economy based not on greed or personal gain, but on justice and charity.
Which brings us to Benedict XVI's recent encyclical, "Caritas in Veritae", or "Charity in Truth." Of course I've only read the first couple of pages (it is quite long), but I have read the blogs and heard others analysis who have read it. No, I'm not being hypocritical, I have started reading it and have preordered the book. I just haven't had time yet to spend reading it online, the only form in which I have access to it right now (and I hate reading things online - as you know I prefer books).
In Caritas in Veritae Pope Benedict XVI discusses how in order to have an economy that is just and vital it must be grounded in respect for human beings. It doesn't describe economic practice, more economic philosophy.
For years I've heard people complaining that the Pope can't tell them anything about sex because he is a virgin. The same people complain that the Pope is one of the richest men in the world. So now that he's talking about money, do you think they'll listen?
Posts
