Well you know I don't have a problem with that in and of itself, necessarily. From where I stand, the Church certainly doesn't need members who either feel forced to be there or who just plain don't believe; the days of conversion by force are long over with and I think the Church would agree that "being Roman Catholic" is based on intellectual assent to the teachings of the Church and not on any amount of ceremony one participates in.
And actually, I'm glad that in some way, you seem to have come around on something oft-disagreed on between you and I: that there's no point in having a religion if you don't actually believe it's true.
All the same, I am a little disturbed by the proximity of this decision to your very Catholic wedding.
Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons for the close proximity between the decision and the wedding:
1. The wedding marked a fundamental change in my family identity. Before the wedding, my 'immediate family' consisted of me, my parents, and my brothers; after the wedding, my 'immediate family' now consists of Colleen and me (and the dogs). The same change happened for Colleen. We are now the decision-makers for our family. We have perpetuated the Catholic lifestyle that our parents' taught us to the extent it would be fair for our parents to ask us to do so. In finally putting to rest our sense of obligation to our parents and in assuming full responsibility for the new family we have founded, we must also determine our family's mission and how it will engage the world. Our values, beliefs, and ideals differ from those of the Catholic Church in ways that are simply irreconcilable.
2. The marriage preparation program that the Catholic Church requires engaged couples to complete made it explicit to us that the Church has a very definite agenda for Catholic families. We would really be putting our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes to try to ignore this agenda, and it is an agenda very much at odds with our own convictions. I disagree with the Church's teachings on the primacy of procreation and I believe that the Church essentially advocates for the subjugation of women.
I'm more or less following you through number 1. Then again, the "irreconcilable" bit at the end has never bothered you before. Why all of a sudden?
As for number 2, why go through with it--and make vows in public--if you realized during the preparation that it would force you to ignore the "agenda"? Is family pressure really such that your own convictions take second fiddle? That you have to stand in front of your friends and family and make vows you honestly have no intention of keeping?
For the record, I don't believe the Church teaches "primacy" of procreation--I tend to believe that "be fruitful and multiply" is on about equal footing with "the two shall become one flesh."
Your final clause, offered here with no further explanation, is probably something I need to hear more about before I can respond to it--although I'd be fascinated to hear Dorothy Day's or Mother Theresa's response. If it has to do with the male only priesthood, I've already got a dozen canned arguments ready to go.
Posts
Well you know I don't have a problem with that in and of itself, necessarily. From where I stand, the Church certainly doesn't need members who either feel forced to be there or who just plain don't believe; the days of conversion by force are long over with and I think the Church would agree that "being Roman Catholic" is based on intellectual assent to the teachings of the Church and not on any amount of ceremony one participates in.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually, I'm glad that in some way, you seem to have come around on something oft-disagreed on between you and I: that there's no point in having a religion if you don't actually believe it's true.
All the same, I am a little disturbed by the proximity of this decision to your very Catholic wedding.
Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons for the close proximity between the decision and the wedding:
ReplyDelete1. The wedding marked a fundamental change in my family identity. Before the wedding, my 'immediate family' consisted of me, my parents, and my brothers; after the wedding, my 'immediate family' now consists of Colleen and me (and the dogs). The same change happened for Colleen. We are now the decision-makers for our family. We have perpetuated the Catholic lifestyle that our parents' taught us to the extent it would be fair for our parents to ask us to do so. In finally putting to rest our sense of obligation to our parents and in assuming full responsibility for the new family we have founded, we must also determine our family's mission and how it will engage the world. Our values, beliefs, and ideals differ from those of the Catholic Church in ways that are simply irreconcilable.
2. The marriage preparation program that the Catholic Church requires engaged couples to complete made it explicit to us that the Church has a very definite agenda for Catholic families. We would really be putting our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes to try to ignore this agenda, and it is an agenda very much at odds with our own convictions. I disagree with the Church's teachings on the primacy of procreation and I believe that the Church essentially advocates for the subjugation of women.
I'm more or less following you through number 1. Then again, the "irreconcilable" bit at the end has never bothered you before. Why all of a sudden?
ReplyDeleteAs for number 2, why go through with it--and make vows in public--if you realized during the preparation that it would force you to ignore the "agenda"? Is family pressure really such that your own convictions take second fiddle? That you have to stand in front of your friends and family and make vows you honestly have no intention of keeping?
For the record, I don't believe the Church teaches "primacy" of procreation--I tend to believe that "be fruitful and multiply" is on about equal footing with "the two shall become one flesh."
Your final clause, offered here with no further explanation, is probably something I need to hear more about before I can respond to it--although I'd be fascinated to hear Dorothy Day's or Mother Theresa's response. If it has to do with the male only priesthood, I've already got a dozen canned arguments ready to go.