Catholic ex-JW's? Interpretation Questions for You.

by bavman 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  StAnn

  I just saw your comments ST ANN. Thanks for those as well. Could you read some of my last comments and tell me what you think your church would say? Also, for you, why do you want to be Catholic?

  I don't have time tonight to answer all of the points you brought up in your response to Tom. However, I would like to respond to your question, why do I want to be Catholic. After leaving the JWs, I was agnostic for years. Then I began feeling a real pull towards christianity. I finally chose Catholicism because, simply, I wanted to be in the Church that Jesus started. No imitations. After being raised in a man-made church, i.e., WTS, I didn't want to risk being misled by some megalomaniac again. The Catholic Church is the first and richest of all the christian traditions. I'm greedy. I want it all, not just what little bit each denomination has chosen to take and run with and make a big deal out of. If you want everything God wants to give you, the only place to get it all is in the Catholic Church.
• 

  bavman

  After leaving the JWs, I was agnostic for years. Then I began feeling a real pull towards christianity. I finally chose Catholicism because, simply, I wanted to be in the Church that Jesus started. No imitations. After being raised in a man-made church, i.e., WTS, I didn't want to risk being misled by some megalomaniac again. The Catholic Church is the first and richest of all the christian traditions. I'm greedy. I want it all, not just what little bit each denomination has chosen to take and run with and make a big deal out of. If you want everything God wants to give you, the only place to get it all is in the Catholic Church.

  Thanks for that. I find this interesting. In a good way too.
• 

  bavman

  Hi Bavman,

  Some scriptures are metaphorical in Catholicism, and open to a variety of individual beliefs. For example, I do not take the Flood of Noah literally, but allegorically, or based on a smaller real event.

  Evolution is open to interpretation. As a person of science, I accept the fact of evolution, and embrace it as God's tool to create the human species. Once the species developed to its full potential, then I believe that God gave Adam and Eve immortal souls. This vies can also embrace the events with Adam over 4,000 years ago. If you look at Genesis, note that God "formed" man or "made" man from the dust of the ground, suggesting a possible process or formation.

  I defer the other issues to a second response, as I have to run soon.

  Jim W.

  HI Jim, thanks for your response as well. I can see your points.
• 

  bavman

  ambiguity is the key word to me -

  Thanks Nark. I can see that here as well.
• 

  StAnn

  How are people dealt with who commit a sin like say, commit adultery (from your example above) but want to change, perhaps they have been damaged by abuse or so forth? Also, what happens to those who come foward with abuse allegations?

  I have a few moments here, thought I'd continue the conversation. First: Church is for sinners. Baptism is, in part, for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, you have to be a sinner to qualify to be baptized. Everyone in Church is a sinner. All sin is sin against God and damages our relationship with Him. The idea is that, through proper spiritual development, we will become more and more resistant to sin and grow closer and closer to God and less likely to sin, as we don't want to hurt Him. So, first, sin is dealt with during confession. It's one thing to know, deep inside, that you've committed a serious sin. It's quite another thing to actually admit it out loud. In confession, you actually have to own up to the sins you've committted. You don't have to get into detail but you do have to admit them. The priest will then ask you what led up to that sin to try to determine what areas you need to work on. (Remember, priests go to confession too, so they don't expect you to be sinless.) Generally, the priest will recommend specific religious practices that are geared toward drawing you closer to God and, of course, will ask that you desist from your sinful conduct. You will be asked to pray the rosary, spend time in Church in prayer other than during Mass, say prayers immediately upon rising in the morning, etc., things that will help ground you and fortify you to face the temptations of the day. Priests do not "punish" you for your sins! The goal is to make sure you're aware of your sins, aware of how you got into that situation, and build you up so that you can avoid the occasion of sin in the future. As Tom said, even if you're excommunicated, you're not thrown out of the parish. You're simply told that you can't take communion. For a Catholic, not being able to take communion is horrific.

  I have confessed to my priest that I have problems with anger. In addition to prayer and spiritual readings, he suggested I might wish to seek counseling to deal with my anger.

  Regarding abuse allegations, I'm assuming you're referring to the sexual abuse scandal? As you know, the Church dropped the ball on that one. The protocol now is that, if someone alleges abuse against a priest or religious, the alleged abuser is supposed to be removed from any duty where they would have access to others to abuse while the charge is being investigated. The Church also should provide professional counseling for you to help you cope with what's happened. In my archdiocese, we had a priest who was accused about three years ago. He was immediately removed from his parish that very week. The young man who alleged the abuse was immediately given counseling and the support of the entire parish. It was devastating because people had known the priest for years and would never have guessed he was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Also, the boy had grown up in the parish and was well-loved. We're all very sensitive to the fact that people's lives can be ruined by abuse, so the ones alleging abuse are treated with lots of love and compassion and caring, if we know who they are. Sometimes they choose to remain anonymous.
• 

  bavman

  Thanks StAnn. I like your answers. One other question for you because I saw you commented on another thread that you originally went to an Episcopalian church. Why did you decide to leave there and go to the Catholic church instead? I hope that is not too personal but I ask because I am actually thinking about going to an Episcopal church this weekend and I did go to one a year or so ago. Also, I have enjoyed some Episcopalian/Anglican writers.
• 

  StAnn

  One other question for you because I saw you commented on another thread that you originally went to an Episcopalian church. Why did you decide to leave there and go to the Catholic church instead?

  My attraction to the Episcopal Church was that (a) I loved C. S. Lewis and (b) I could worship like a Catholic without actually being Catholic! I didn't want to upset my mother unduly. Not being a JW was bad enough but being a Catholic was the worst thing I could have done in her eyes.

  I like the Episcopal Church because of all of their focus on social justice. They do liturgy and music beautifully. However, I asked my bishop about the eucharist: is it really the body and blood of Christ or just a symbol? She told me that the ECUSA wouldn't define it one way or the other; it was whatever the believer wanted it to be.

  That really bothered me. I thought that was too big a subject to be left to private interpretation. As I began to look more closely at their beliefs, I saw that a strong sense of relativism had crept into their beliefs. I don't believe that C. S. Lewis would recognize the Anglican Church of today.

  I came across some writings about contraception. It had never been an issue to me. Then I discovered that all of the christian religions believed that contraception was immoral and a sin until the Episcopal Church's Lambeth Conference around 1930 decided to allow it. (The Conference had unequivocably condemned contraception in 1908 and 1920!) The other mainstream christian religions slowly followed suit. However, the Catholic Church never changed its teaching on contraception. I wondered why this was. When I spoke with a Catholic priest about it and brought up all of the arguments for contraception and asked why the Church didn't "modernize" its thinking on contraception, among other things, he told me that the Catholic Church doesn't make the rules; God makes the rules. The Church does not believe it has the authority to change the rules, regardless of popular opinion. To live in a modern age and find a church that said its beliefs were unchangeable because God had determined their beliefs really surprised me, in a very pleasant way. Most churches I know are willing to change rules on divorce, contraception, whatever, to ensure their members don't leave. The more I dug, the more I discovered that the Church was right about contraception. I appreciated their integrity.

  This priest recommended I read G. K. Chesterton. I think it was What's Wrong with the World or it might have been Brave New Family. Chesterton was another Anglican who converted to Catholicism and made quite a few statements about contraception that seem to be prophetic in hindsight. Once you read Chesterton re: contraception, you can't go back.

  It goes back to what I said previously. I want everything God wants to give me. The Episcopal Church, while beautiful, doesn't have the seven sacraments and doesn't believe itself that it has the true eucharist (per my bishop). Also, let's face it, the Anglican Church came about because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the pope wouldn't let him. Once again, it was close to Catholicism but was just an imitation, based upon the needs and whims of one man (Henry VIII). I know Henry VIII felt he needed a male heir but that's not a resounding reason for me to reject the Catholic Church. (Did you know Henry VIII wanted to be a Catholic priest and received the title "Defender of the Faith" from the pope?) The reality is that the Anglican Church was a shoot of the Catholic Church that splintered off for political reasons and has slowly but surely evolved into an entirely different institution. Once it became clear to me that the Episcopal Church had not remained orthodox to christian teaching but was much more interested in being a civic organization working toward social justice, I quit going. This whole process took about ten years.

  I tried really hard not to be Catholic. I attended the Episcopal Church and then the Lutheran Church. After reading everything my Lutheran pastor gave me to read, I thought, "What's left to protest?" I couldn't find any questions or rifts that hadn't been sufficiently answered in the Catholic Church. I just couldn't stand it anymore. I could see no reason not to be Catholic. Family be damned, I had to be Catholic.

  I talked with my husband about the fact that, in my musical evolution, my tastes have become more sophisticated to the point that now I can only tolerate classical music and jazz. My spiritual needs have become deeper and more complex to the point that now only the Catholic Church is deep enough and rich enough to fulfill them.

  One of the things I've told my husband is that, as a JW, the theology is a mile wide and an inch deep. You can really, really know the faith relatively easily because it's so shallow. As a Catholic, with 2,000 years of serious scholarly writings to wade through, I fear I'll die without ever really knowing a tenth of all the Church has available to teach me!
• 

  bavman

  Interesting comments. I have not read Lewis yet (other than several of the Narnia chronicles...lol) but I do plan to. I also have not read Chesterton but I am sure someday I will.

  I talked with my husband about the fact that, in my musical evolution, my tastes have become more sophisticated to the point that now I can only tolerate classical music and jazz. My spiritual needs have become deeper and more complex to the point that now only the Catholic Church is deep enough and rich enough to fulfill them.

  I liked this. It is interesting how are tastes change over time isn't it? Who would have thought I would even give the Catholic church a chance? Probably my biggest obstacle right now to Christianity is what I mentioned about the Jesus god/man myths.
• 

  StAnn

  Who would have thought I would even give the Catholic church a chance?

  Ha! I know that feeling!

  Probably my biggest obstacle right now to Christianity is what I mentioned about the Jesus god/man myths.

  I'll have to tackle that this weekend, as that's a little lengthy.

  One suggestion: read Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie. David Currie wrote this to explain to his family why he became Catholic. It gives excellent explanations for a lot of Catholic doctrines.
• 

  Tom Cabeen

  Bav,
  
  Here are some ideas for you. You wrote...
  
  From what you wrote above I believe you are basing a lot of your faith in the Catholic interpretation on teachings being handed down faithfully. Would that be a fair assessment? I know you have said you have read the Early Church Fathers writings quite a bit so I assume you use that as a basis for that belief. I personally have only read a little from those writings online. I have ordered the 'dictionary' you talked about that your friend published. Hopefully it will be of some help since the writings of the early church fathers seem to be quite extensive.
  
  Reading the early Christian writings is not necessary at all to become a Catholic. In fact, I don’t usually recommend it. It just happened to be the way I came to the Church. There are much faster ways to come to grips with Catholic teaching. But I was so anti-Catholic, I doubt I would have read the modern ones. I sort of “came in the back door.” One can read the Catechism or other materials without having to wade through the early Christian writings. But they are helpful if, like me, you needed reassurance that any of the core Catholic teachings were not just made up somewhere between the first century and today.
  
  Your answer seems to tell me you personally take the miracles literally. What about stories of others who had powers from the same time period such as Honi the Circle Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa?
  
  There is no doubt that many other people besides Jesus have done miracles. But Jesus’ miracles were unusual first in that they were exactly what had been predicted for the Jewish Messiah to do. And of course the greatest miracle was his own rising from the dead. But they also have meanings beyond the actual miracle itself. For example, his healing of a man born blind was remarkable, but it pointed to the greater miracle, healing spiritual blindness. Not only could the man see literally, he could "see" that Jesus was the Messiah, even when the Pharisees could not. An important part of Catholic theology is that things are often signs. They point to hidden truths.
  
  I would like to ask how you would explain the pagan myths having many of the same stories in them? I realize not every myth is exactly the same as the stories of Jesus but enough of them are the same to cause me trouble believing these things ever did actually take place.
  
  Catholics love myths. Probably the most well-known Catholic myth is the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. (Tolkein was a devout Catholic.) A myth is a story that deals with great issues. It is etiological, dealing with the causes of things rather than simple historical facts, like out of a newspaper. But this is not an issue that can be explored in a few sentences. A wonderful book that deals with the very issue you raise is G. K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". It was the book that influenced C. S. Lewis, an avowed but honest atheist, to become a Christian.
  
  Still, even if they didn't happen exactly as stated I see no reason to ignore them. I have read writings of Episcopalian writers (such as Marcus Borg) who make a great case for taking them metaphorically and I can still get benefit from that way of looking at it. Again I ask, would I be able to take some of those writings in a metaphorical way and still be Catholic?
  
  Of course. Rather than this or that, Catholics are more likely to view things as this and that. Many passages of Scripture have multiple meanings, on many levels. Since there are no dogmas regarding the interpretations of the parables, you are free to see any meaning in them that you want to. They are parables, after all, meant to communicate truths on many levels.
  
  What would these core dogmas be? Or where could I read about them?
  
  You can download a list of them here: holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc If you are the scholarly type, you can buy Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" It gives a lot more detail, and also defines some widely held teachings that are not dogmatic.
  
  Even being pretty much agnostic (although I am coming to more of a belief in God) myself I still try and follow teachings of Jesus and Ghandi, and Buddha...
  
  Catholic scholars, philosophers and mystics respect all the great teachers and gurus of the world. Unlike fundamentalists, Catholics believe that all people are God's children, not simply by reason of being descendants of one first human pair, but that God loves them all. He reveals truth to any who ask him. That is why the earliest Christians accepted some of the ideas first expressed by pagan philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. But they distinguish from among the various teachings of these philosphers those that fit properly with Christian teaching and those that do not. The OT does not talk about a separate soul, but Jesus did, and some of what Plato taught dovetails perfectly with what Jesus taught. So the early Christians used Platonic speech to communicate these ideas to Greeks and Romans who did not regard the Hebrew Scriptures to be authoritative at all. That is why Paul did not quote from the OT when he talked to the Greeks in Athens.
  
  How are people dealt with who commit a sin like say, commit adultery (from your example above) but want to change, perhaps they have been damaged by abuse or so forth? Also, what happens to those who come foward with abuse allegations?
  
  Every sin can be forgiven, period. The only requirement is that it be confessed to a priest and that the sinner be sincerely repentant (and there is no fooling God about that, of course). Priests are bound never to reveal something that has been confessed to them. The punishment for doing so is immediate permanent excommunication and defrocking. There are many stories about priests who had a criminal confess to them, and the priest has gone to prison rather than reveal the confession. Nor can a priest refuse absolution or make it conditional (like if you committed a murder, he could not say "First you must turn yourself in to the police, then I will grant absolution.") Priests can and will give you advice. They may and often do recommend that you get help, counseling or the like. But he can not make absolution conditional on your following his advice, nor can he reveal what you have told him in the confessional to anyone, ever.
  
  I do have a brother-in-law who is Catholic who believes in evolution and has a B.A. in Biology (so does his Dad who is a science teacher). He also takes the miracles of Jesus metaphorically but I am not sure if he tells his church this. Just curious, when you say Adam and Eve, do you mean that metaphorically or literally? So, would you say that Jesus taught the idea of a soul to his apostles who handed that teaching down and where does the bible say that? Or do the Early Church Fathers writings say that somewhere?
  
  Your brother in law can take them any way he wants to. Presumably, he would want them to be true at some level, but Catholics view truth very differently than do fundamentalists. A poem or a piece of art can be true in a very different way than court testimony at a murder trial.
  
  "Do not fear those who can kill the body but not the soul." Early Christians taught the immortality of the soul, widely and early, and there is no hint of anyone, anywhere, upset over the introduction of "new" doctrine. Just to show how significant that is, in the eleventh century, the Eastern and Western church split over whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, or from the Father only. That is how carefully they were watching the details of doctrine.
  
  Adam and Eve are to be viewed "historically", even if one believes that God used evolution to produce their bodies, over millions of years, then one fine day created a spiritual soul for a male and female, by which act they suddenly were made "in his image". Most Catholics do not try to fit events prior to Abraham into a time line, in keeping with the practice among the ancient peoples, who viewed truth about things like dates a bit differently from the way Greek-influenced Westerners do.
  
  Hope this is of help to you. Now I have to go to bed. :-)
  
  Tom