Maybe not the representative, but certainly a representative. I'm not Catholic (no, really cosmic, do tell!). Actually, I have nothing but good memories of my personal , albeit, limited interactions with the Catholic Church ranging from my attendance of Stan J's catechism classes when I was 6 to my best friend's dad's funeral where I was a pall-bearer.
My personal philosophical orientation is not what I'd call religious, but maybe reverent. It is naturalism with animistic elements. Of the conventional philosophies, it is most like Tibetan Buddhism. With some Zen and pagan elements. Kind of a hodge-podge of what seems to be true. True to me, that is.
I used to be an agnostic with moderately strong atheistic leanings, but have evolved into a softer form of agnostic that leans toward the possibility of directed acts of will by mechanisms unknown and unseen. No, I do not accept members... so, it is not a cult, though I've found at least a couple of other humans who have come to similar conclusions.
I agree the RC church is highly bureaucratic and seems to evolved into something so impersonal and organizational, that it surprises me when people do find personal things in it to embrace. The whole organization of the Catholic Church being derived from the structure of the Roman Empire is as surprising to me as some black social organization taking on the organizational structure of the KKK. A system like the Unitarians and Presbyterians use makes more sense to me.
I find that structure simultaneously appalling and amazing. How on Earth can something as deeply personal and derivative of self as one's ontological and epistemological foundations be derived from such a system?
That it apparently works for millions is undeniable. But how it can work for them, well that I guess is the miracle. The whole process of beatification, as one example, is incomprehensible to me and seems to be in opposition to scriptural prohibitions of false idols. Since I'm not Fundamentalist (Greg McRitchie might be able to offer his view here), I don't have a strong opinion on this point, but it does seem like a valid objection. Further the very process is like having Congress decide what is a miracle and who should be awarded cultus standing.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic
doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As
was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Contra
Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly
so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have
earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly
fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics
honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The
worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of
dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of
hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her
greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
After going through such a process, it is amazing that any mystery can be left for people to embrace. More often than not, it seems to be the "back-door" to allowing pagan Gods to be accepted with a wink, especially in the cases of the Andean, Mayans and North American indigenous peoples.
Well, as long as the system works for you. My only objection to any religion (most of which appear to be uniformly baseless) is that the adherents of the well organized ones tend to want to organize politically and assert their policies and beliefs on others, if not directly, then indirectly. If that doesn't describe you, then I'm glad and relieved. |
