This paper was originally going to be fairly straightforward. I had
in my childhood received extensive exposure to the Catholic Church, in
spite of being raised Protestant. As I'd grown older, I'd come to
question many of the articles of faith I'd been taught, both Catholic
and Protestant, and I'd researched the early Christian church in an
attempt to better understand certain deeply held beliefs of the modern
Christian churches. This had led to my growing personal disillusionment
with Christianity and Catholicism in particular, mostly due to the
rather patriarchal attitudes about women it proudly claimed. However,
there was still a puzzling question in my mind: if Christianity was so
patriarchal and so dismissively oppressive towards women - why did women
stay in the Christian faith? What did they see in it? Were they missing
the message it was dinning into everyone's heads about how inferior
women were? Or was I just smarter, or more clear-sighted?
As can be seen by the above, I had a fairly straightforward
conception of my own correctness right from the start of this project.
This can be further demonstrated by my attempts at "objectivity" and
"scientific detachment" as I planned out how I would gather information.
I would confine myself to the Catholic religion as it was, to my way of
thinking, far more clearly patriarchal and monolithic than
Protestantism. As far as the form the study would take, I quote from my
mid-term prospectus:
I shall be talking to about six women. Hopefully I can
find three that are still Catholic and three that have left the church.
Once I have done so, I will apply a contrast and comparison to their
approaches and responses to see what, if any, similarities and
differences there are amongst them. Perhaps this will show some
interesting commonalties or themes amongst the religious approaches the
women take towards life. ... I will be trying to keep from influencing
the women I'm speaking with. It is their views I'm interested in
portraying, after all, not my own.
Needless to say, this light-hearted certainty on my part did not
stand up to my meeting with reality. About the only thing I can say in
my own defense is that I managed (through some fortunate accident) to
keep my own prejudices from showing too strongly in my questionnaire,
which ended up, in my opinion, as a fairly good list of questions
(see Appendix A).
My a priori beliefs were challenged at every point. I
arrogantly expected a certain straightforwardness or simplicity in the
answers I would get, and I naively assumed that once one had 'come to
one's senses' in regards to the patriarchal homogeneity of the Catholic
church, so to speak, one would leave and never look back. And yet as
soon as I started talking to real individuals, I immediately started
learning things I'd not known and never suspected. One woman had left
the Catholic church, but then returned to it later in life - and she
knew things about the Church I'd not been taught. One woman pointed out
that the Catholic church not only wasn't monolithic, but couldn't be,
due to its world-spanning size. One woman viewed Catholicism more as a
mode of living one's day-to-day life (similar to how Judaism is
occasionally viewed) rather than as a religion demanding slavish and
faithful adherence. One woman considered herself a practicing Catholic,
but believed she had the religious duty to pick and chose what was the
best and most correct way in which to live, rather than letting the
Catholic church decide her conscience for her.
The actual face-to-face interviews were startling also. I'd intended
to keep pretty much silent, and let the person I was interviewing do
most of the talking as they answered the list of questions I handed
them. However, I quickly realized that this was not going to work.
Indeed, the very first person I taped wanted to find out what I thought
as well as tell me what she thought. Furthermore, all three taped
interviews started out with the speaker wanting to tell me a personal
story, incident or belief that had strongly shaped them in their
religious growth. One of them brought several books that had been
influential in her life to the interview with her, and I found it
fascinating and personally eye-opening that while she considered herself
a Catholic, she could also find inspiration in (as a single example) the
Tao te Ching.
Ultimately, all of the taped interviews became long, rambling, mutual
discussions, where the questionnaire became more of a suggestion than a
guideline. The questionnaires themselves were cheerfully dissected on
occasion, with one correspondent curiously wanting to know what had
inspired me to ask some of these questions, and several others who had
left the Catholic Church deciding to answer the questions for
still-practicing Catholics, mostly because they thought it would be
interesting. Finally, I was personally touched to have about half my
respondents actually thank me for giving them the opportunity to be a
part of my research, since they'd very much enjoyed having the chance to
think their religious beliefs through for themselves.
As can be seen in just this small selection of incidents, the real
and individual variations I was shown exploded my initial expectations
of homogeneity and lack of thought necessary to be a participant in the
Catholic Church. Therefore, with a somewhat shamefaced admission of my
own initial prejudices going into the study, I'd like to explore a
little more fully some of those assumptions, and how they were
overturned by my research. In conclusion I'd like to review (hopefully a
little more clear-sightedly this time) my personal beliefs on women and
spirituality, as informed by my respondents.
"The Catholic Church Is Static And Monolithic"
This is quite possibly the wildest (and most personally embarrassing)
assumption I started out with... and the most easily shattered. Logic
alone should have told me this was an impossible situation. As one
correspondent pointed out:
I think what disturbs me the most is that, on the whole,
Catholicism is not a disagreeable religion. It is when the members of
the Church and Catholic communities make their own narrow-minded,
intolerant, non-loving interpretations of God's will and Jesus'
teachings that I grow angry.
Obviously for this situation to be considered unpleasant and
non-normative, the opposite must also exist. The reality of oppositional
situations, based on individual interpretations, within one organization
(the Church) demonstrates to me the Church's non-static and
heterogeneous nature. Individuals come and go; thus with the passage of
time there will be changes. Opposites suggest disagreements; where there
is disagreement monolithy is disputed.
Another example of changes possible due to individuals concerns
something another correspondent related. Apparently her church's youth
group was 'something your parents sent you to, or you were forced to go
to.' Then a new youth leader was assigned to her church, and suddenly
the youth group dynamic changed; it became vital and interesting, a
meeting worth going to. Individual passages from the Bible would be read
and discussed and pondered over, as deeper meanings and understandings
were sought. Questions were not only asked but welcomed... and if the
youth leader didn't know the answers they would go ask the priest. The
priest couldn't always answer the questions, but tended to fall back on
a view of God as merciful, and as the Bible as written by fallible (if
divinely inspired) men. Thus, simply by changing youth leaders, a new
perspective on religion is introduced. How could the Catholic Church be
a static entity with such changes possible within it?
Indeed, the very first person I interviewed was very well educated on
the ever-changing history of the Church. Through her I learned the
doctrine of the Pope's infallibility dates only from 1870. She also
informed me that the Catholic Church already had married clergy.
Protestant priests are allowed to marry; in a particular sect of
Protestantism there are sometimes conversions to Catholicism. Those
married priests are allowed to keep their wives after conversion. As my
respondent put it, she believes the rules on clerical celibacy will be
lifted in her lifetime. She spoke approvingly of Vatican Two, and her
hopes that these much needed changes would slowly continue to percolate
throughout the Church. She also knew there had been a time when women
taught in the early Church as co-equal apostles with the men. She was
guardedly optimistic about the possibility of women one day again being
recognized as clergy-members. She does not believe it will happen in her
lifetime... but perhaps in the next generation.
Talking with this respondent revealed to me a Catholic Church that is
slow to change, due to its traditionalist leanings and its somewhat
reclusive leadership... but she did not see a Church that was frozen in
time, or metaphorically engraved in stone. To her the Church will change
because it must... in order to keep up with and continue to be of use to
its constituency.
Another respondent put the situation regarding the homogeneity of
the Catholic Church into a very clear light for me; her comment was,
"The Catholic Church is a fable." She went on to explain this by
noting the very size of the Catholic Church, and its cross-cultural
reach. Obviously the Catholic response to the problems facing a Polish
peasant woman is going to be radically different to the response given
to an American middle class woman. As another respondent wrote:
In the United States, I think Catholic women have it
pretty good, especially in recent years. Although one line is preached
from the pulpit, in reality many American priests are very sympathetic
to women and women's issues. I think this is less true in Europe, and
totally reversed from the situation in third world countries.
Her final statement on this issue was pragmatically eye-opening for
me: "This is probably the case for all faiths."
Indeed, as one respondent observed, in America alone there is a wide
variety of responses as to how the Church should be maintained. As an
example, whether there are exclusively male, or male and female
alter-boys (alter-persons?) depended on the views of the individual
priests and bishops. The priests themselves demonstrate a wide variety
of attitudes on how to most properly perform their duties and roles. One
respondent mentioned that her priest had taken a vow of poverty. He
tended towards rather ragged and well-used attire as a consequence,
although recently he'd been gifted with a large amount of clothing from
his congregation. Apparently they'd decided he shouldn't look so shabby
anymore. Another respondent related what I found a rather sad story:
My parents were very devout before they got married. My
father was divorced from a wife who left him (he was married very young)
and wanted to get an annulment for [his] marriage to my mom to be part
of the church. The priest asked my parents for a couple hundred dollars
for "paperwork" for the annulment, and they did not have the money. To
this day, my mother, as well as my father, can not partake officially in
the catholic church and it all boils down to money. They are not allowed
to have the eucharist
[sic].
A third correspondent mentioned how, subsequent to a suicide attempt,
she sought some emotional and spiritual guidance from a Catholic
clergyman that had been in to visit her in the hospital. He refused to
see her; his justification in the message she was given was that he did
not have the time for her now that she was out of intensive care.
In these examples we see both attempts to be more Christ-like, and a
distressing spiritual poverty on the part of three separate members of
the Catholic clergy. How then could such an over-arching organization
claim or be assigned the status of monolithy?
"To Be A Catholic You Must Unquestioningly Accept The Dogma"
Dogma: "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith
or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a
church." --fr. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th
ed.)
This second assumption I made based on several other things I
believed. Firstly, I did not feel a priest was necessary to commune with
the deific, whom- or what-ever it might be. Secondly, I did not believe
the Catholic Church teaching I'd read which stated women were in essence
second class citizens in the eyes of God (if their status could be
considered even that high). I concluded therefore that someone who
believed this must have been taught it from childhood and blindly
accepted it, on faith. Thus my above assumption can be broken down into
two subcategories of prejudice that should be dealt with as separate
issues.
"You cannot think for yourself if you are a Catholic"
I found it very hard to type the above statement in... yet honesty
compels me to do so. Much though it embarrasses me to admit it, there
was an aspect of this viewpoint in my attitudes on women who remained in
the Catholic Church. I could not have been more wrong. As one
correspondent noted when asked how she saw her job as a spiritual
leader/practitioner:
To look at teachings presented to me and try to make the
best out of them that I can. I don't have to agree with everything, but
I do have to listen on the off chance that there may be very valid
reasons for what is being taught.
She later noted:
The rules were made by humans, and humans are fallible,
even if they claim to be divinely inspired. Once it passes through a
human filter, you have to take into account that person's background as
well as the history of the culture/institution promoting the teaching.
These are not the words of someone who refuses to think. Most
hearteningly, the opinion expressed is not unique. Again and again I was
told that self-reflection was a necessary and integral part of true
Catholicism and real faith. Over and over I found that for Catholic
women the issue of blind faith simply was not relevant and did not
arise.
"Good" is defined in my own terms. It is based on some
Catholic teachings, but does not follow all of the teachings. The task
is to pick what you believe in, and then follow through with those
beliefs. ... My philosophy is that if I follow through with my beliefs
(whatever God there is) will appreciate and accept that. I pick and
choose what I want to believe in. I have faith that it's okay to do
that. It's the breaking of my own stated beliefs that would cause
problems. ... If I do something that [is] against the church's
teachings, but [the teaching is one] I don't actually believe in, then I
don't think it's in error and don't feel wrong about it. ... Find the
parts that you can believe in and follow through.
And again, when asked about her spiritual job, another correspondent
noted, "I see my spiritual responsibility as helping others, being
supportive, offering advice, helping complete a job. Being there when
they need help." She says nothing about unquestioning faith. Indeed,
when asked if the dogma of the spiritual leaders of the Church should be
followed, she wrote,
I think the teachings of Jesus need to be read first and
then the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas, Paul, the popes, etc. considered
hand in hand with what Jesus taught. Weigh them and judge their worth.
See how they interact with what Jesus taught. ... I don't agree with the
Catholic ruling on birth control or women as priest etc. I think that
God must get frustrated with us sometimes that we can be such poor
listeners and we forget that most basic tenets of treating each other
with love and equality
[sic].
Her writings clearly demonstrated her commitment to careful, critical
consideration of one's religious beliefs and actions. I suspect she,
like another of my correspondents, sees Catholicism to be as much a way
of living and treating those around you, as a religion. As she later
noted:
[T]here are people you meet in life and you realize that
they are some of the truly good-hearted people. Those who just help out
no matter what. They are always there. And when you get to know them,
you just think, they care. That is what I remember the most about
growing up in the Catholic faith is meeting those people along the way
who really wanted to help people. ... I have seen women who are very
strong in my faith leading lives that I would like to emulate. ... who
set such a strong example that I think everyone tries to emulate or at
least capture a small part of their energy and apply it toward life
[sic].
Indeed, it seems that to my correspondent thoughtful reflection
within one's religion is an integral part of true, Catholic faith, to
the extent that she notes a lack of faith as follows: "We have become a
nation eager to condemn, but loathe to act."
Thus I concluded my previous beliefs on blind faith and lack of
thought were not a necessary part of Catholicism, as I'd previously,
erroneously concluded. But what of other aspects of Catholicism? Was not
the Pope supposed to be the infallible Word of God made manifest on
Earth for our edification? Did not the Bible contain many verses that
demonstrated women's secondary status? How did my correspondents see the
"trappings" of Catholicism?
I was flabbergasted at my responses. Not a single respondent
claimed to believe in the infallibility of the Pope... and yet, before
I could mentally point and say 'aha!' I was again jarred out of my
complacent beliefs. Concerning the Pope, one correspondent thoughtfully
noted, "I consider the Pope a man who is focused on trying to hear
God's word. But sometimes I think that the sounds of the world threaten
to drown out God's voice." Concerning the Bible there was another
surprising comparability of belief amongst my various
correspondents:
"I believe the Bible is full of stories that impart
morals. It was written in a different time and has different tones than
it would today."
"I see it as a human expression of perhaps divine
influence, translated and retranslated many times and subject to
interpretation. [The religious teachings are] a matter of how things are
interpreted by whoever happens to have the most power at the
time..."
"I think that the Bible is the closest thing we have. ... for the most
part it is accurate to the spirit of God's words. ... but it must also
be interpreted. God is not a lawyer and didn't outline things in
500-page briefs. God framed things in concepts, man embellishes
[sic]."
Different correspondents phrased it slightly differently, of course,
but I believe they were all trying to express a similar theme.
It is true there are people in the Catholic Church who wish to be
told what to do and how to live their lives. However, there are
similarly behaving people in every religion I know of. One has only to
look at the recent suicides of the entire "Heaven's Gate" church to
realize this is not a characteristic unique to the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, whenever this sort of didactic attitude was presented as
dogma, I frequently found the women so dictated to simply left the
Church. If there was no answer to their questions and no interests in
their needs, they would seek elsewhere for enlightenment. As one
respondent noted:
Worship is definitely not a concept I'm comfortable with.
Or obeying. I like to question, to debate, to weigh issues and examine
all possibilities, and I feel that Catholicism really tries to restrict
free thought and "customization" of the religion. ... In Catholic
grammar school I would often ask questions about God, Jesus, the Ten
Commandments, the Bible, and the Church, and was always given the same
answer: that we are not to question, we are only to believe and obey.
How can I believe what I cannot understand? And how can I understand
when I cannot ask questions?
She later added,
I feel that the Catholic Church's teachings should be
construed as a set of moral and spiritual guidelines, not laws. The
teachings have not adapted to the changes in society as well as they
could have, and some are no longer applicable.
Indeed, all of my formerly Catholic respondents demonstrated this
need to question, to understand, rather than to simply blindly accept on
faith. Interestingly, they almost all ended up spending some time
exploring Wiccan beliefs... but again, before I could mentally point and
say 'aha!' to myself I discovered that even in this there were
individual variations for individual needs. One stayed strongly with
Wicca, while another seems to view it as more of a stepping stone on her
path of discovery:
I have taken on a very scientific view of religion and
have somehow incorporated that into Wicca. I see many of the things in
wicca as being metaphorical (i.e. God and Goddess) and I am not sure if
I believe in any sort of God. ... I feel that religion loses its hold on
me the more I grow intellectually
[sic].
Another considers herself a Catholic, but differentiates between a
"practicing" or religious Catholic, and what she does, which is
to live what are Catholic guidelines for a moral life even as she feels
more strongly drawn to Wiccan religious beliefs. One found even Wicca
too limiting, and preferred to come up with her own, personal moral
code;
I have dabbled in Wicca, but dropped that after a time
because I felt that strictly maintained ritualism was stressed more than
I felt was necessary. I guess I'm still shopping around. Or that I've
made up my own religion.
The common theme or attraction Wicca had for these women seemed to be
its tolerance... the acceptance of questions, as well as its
women-friendly teachings. As one respondent noted,
I see my faith as being less rigid than others. ... it is
not organized as is the Catholic faith. There is no monetary benefit.
...[its c]entral message is: be your own person. ... Women in Wicca are
equal.
She later wrote:
My current faith allows me to ask questions. There is not
guilt or shame. It is more enjoyable tha[n] Cath. in that there is a
more optimistic view of life and living. It allows you to live. Cath.
excludes many important issues, the rules of the church are antiquated,
and you are not allowed to question anything, which to me can only lead
to ignorance. ... I chose this faith because it is unorganized. I have a
problem with organized religion, in general
[sic].
Or as another respondent put it,
My mother often says: "You do not need to understand to
have faith." So I guess I do not have faith, because there are many
things that I do not understand. ... I expect a great deal of myself and
others, and I sometimes think that Catholicism provides an easy out for
the lax faithful.
Thus I came to the conclusion, from talking to my correspondents,
that the Catholic Church could not be seen as unitarily demanding a
complete and blind faith. True, there were individual cases where this
was so, but this could not be considered a theological pillar of the
Church's beliefs, since not everyone had gone through this experience.
Furthermore, in all such cases my respondents chose to leave the Church
rather than be stifled - which says to me that a sincere attempt to
understand was made by the women. Also, it was apparent to me that
leaving the Catholic Church was not a frivolous or careless step for
them - in every case they continued to attempt to seek out
understanding. Interestingly enough, one of my correspondents ended up
returning to the Church later in her life. That particular correspondent
was the one who first clearly demonstrated to me another fallacious
belief I'd held, namely:
"Women are seen by the Catholic Church as being naturally
inferior to men"
The mental corollary I'd held with this was that women also could
hold no positions of power or responsibility within the Catholic Church,
as a consequence of this belief. Again, I found the answers of my
correspondents sometimes agreed with this assessment... but just as
frequently I found myself feeling I had not examined the points of view
of others closely enough. True, there are aspects of the Catholic Church
that are shockingly narrow-minded and patriarchally reactionary, and
they are not ignored or misunderstood, as these two correspondents point
out:
"I see women as being repressed in most faiths,
particularly in Catholicism which is very patriarchal. ... the Cath.
religion is very anti-feminist in my opinion -- very traditional and I
don't like that
[sic]."
"In other faiths (save Wicca, Paganism, and some Protestant sects) I
would say that women's status is very low."
Nevertheless there appears to be a growing ground-swell of opinion
that would seem to be changing the Church, attempting to influence it
from within. One respondent put it in this fashion: they may have put a
wall in front of her, but that does not mean she cannot go around it.
Another thoughtfully replied to my question about the perceived status
of women in the Catholic Church as follows,
I think the status of women in all the religious faiths
greatly reflect their status in society. Some are repressed, some are
just accepted, and some are treated as true equals.
And most personally startling was the following:
I feel that women have the most important status of our
faith. They are entrusted with raising our youth. It is up to women to
teach our youth what is expected. Women impart love and forgiveness as
part of this teaching. Children need to know that God is as forgiving
and loving as their mother. It's important for children to learn to talk
with others, admit their faults and responsibilities, and improve
themselves. ... I've never been taught anything about woman submitting
to man, as man submits to God. In fact, I've been taught the exact
opposite.
Well, I thought, so much for my original belief that in the Catholic
Church women were being universally seen as subordinate to men. Still,
what of women not being able to hold positions of power and authority
within the Catholic Church? That's pretty unarguable, after all... how
will my respondents answer that?
I should have known better. Once again, my expectations fell short of
the truths of real life, as experienced by practicing Catholic women. I
spoke extensively with one woman about her position as the music
director in her church. As she noted, she spends most of the sermon
within about 5 feet of the priest. The parishioners, looking up at the
altar, see their spiritual leaders standing there side by side; a man
and a woman.
Furthermore, as the person in charge of selection of music she is
given complete freedom of choice. She sees this as a chance to expose
her fellow church-members to a wide variety of different cultural
expressions of faith. Thus she has some jazz, some classical pieces,
some African-American songs, other types of music as well. To her, this
position is one of great responsibility. Consider: words in sermons can
become droning, misunderstood, or extensively intellectual and difficult
to follow. Music, on the other hand, speaks in a sometimes more direct
fashion, straight to the soul. Thus what she chooses will have a direct
impact and influence on the spiritual advancement of the people of her
church. Under such circumstances, how could one say she has a position
of no authority within her church? She is helping others to grow within
their faith. There is no greater responsibility, in her eyes.
I asked her how she felt about women in the clergy. She admitted that
it was true that women cannot currently enter the priesthood.
Nevertheless, as she pointed out, due to the current shortage of priests
in American there are places where nuns are the spiritual leaders of
their flocks. A priest may be necessary to administer some of the
Catholic rites, but most of the rites are administered by the nun who
actually lives there - and it is to the nun that the people turn for
spiritual enlightenment. As my correspondent noted, in the eyes of the
people of that town there would be no difference between a priest and
the nun who led their church. Furthermore she saw this as an empowering
situation; as the Church became more dependent on its women there'd be
more demand for women to be ordained as priests.
This empowered attitude about women was shared by other
correspondents within the Catholic Church, although there were
interesting variations on how the situation was perceived. As one
correspondent wrote:
I'm not bothered by the fact that women cannot be
ordained as priests. I say who would want to be a priest. What is their
role that is so desirous?
Others simply felt that the Church had yet to open its eyes and see
how important women were to it. A single example: one correspondent
explained to me that it was women doing most of the proselytizing that
brought new members into the fold. There seemed to be two reasons this
was so. Firstly, the women were following an inner calling, one that the
Catholic Church didn't really have a whole lot of say over. Secondly,
the priests were just getting to be too rare for missionary work any
more - they were desperately needed to administer rites to the faithful.
Thus a new generation was becoming Catholic - a generation with an
expectation of women being in positions of authority, of viewing women
in a positive and respectful light.
So I realized that, contrary to my expectations, women are leading,
are administering rites and participating in the Catholic rituals,
sometimes simply because they can and are needed, sometimes because they
feel they must. This led me to my final (and hopefully least arrogant)
assumption:
"The Rites Of The Catholic Church Have Become Meaningless
Ritual"
As a student in various Catholic schools I've suffered through some
pretty darn uninspired masses. I've seen young girls squabbling before
First Communion (which is supposed to be a very significant religious
ceremony in the Catholic Church) over who has the prettiest new dress.
I've seen godparents proudly announcing their godchild's Easter gift was
the most impressive in the family that year, rather than helping the
child realize the enormous religious significance of the rituals and
symbols of Easter Sunday. I'm not so naive as to assume this is unique
to Catholicism. Nevertheless it did seem to me that many of the rituals
of the Catholic Church seemed to have lost their meaning to the
parishioners hastily gabbling out a set number of rote Hail Marys as
penance for some infraction.
However, as one of my correspondents thoughtfully pointed out, we all
seek 'god' in our own way, and we all take our own paths towards that
'god.' For some it is the beauty of a sunset; for others artistic
creation; yet others find it in a church or temple. What is important is
that we pursue our own individual versions of 'god,' not that we
slavishly follow a particular ritual or path. Ritual is there to assist
one in meditation or preparation of the mind; it is the means, not the
ends.
It was fascinating to me to have her use an example which was
personally illuminating. As she pointed out, horse-back riding was where
I found and claimed my particular spirit, where my personal soul or
deity could be found. It was just myself and a large, friendly mammal to
carry me effortlessly into the countryside, where I could find inner
peace in my contemplation of the horse, the team the horse and I made,
and the lovely scenery around me. And wasn't a powerful part of this
experience the ritual that led up to the actual ride? True, sometimes I
did not look forward to pulling on my boots, hiking out to catch the
horse, cleaning and grooming it, tacking it up [putting on the saddle
and bridle]... but by the time I finally got out and was riding, didn't
I somehow feel more 'right,' more in tune with the world around me? And
conversely, wasn't the ritual of returning to the barn, untacking the
horse, picking out its hooves and washing it down, a similarly slow but
satisfying return to the concerns of the real world?
It was, oddly enough, this seemingly insignificant anecdote that most
clearly illuminated religion to me. Ritual is individually significant,
and takes an infinite number of forms. Its purpose is nothing more than
to prepare your mind, your self to find your own personal spirituality.
Spirituality, religion, creed, call it what you will... it is the
individuated, distinctive, sometimes unconscious quest for some sort of
meaning that is peculiar to you and you alone. If your quest allows you
to find meaning with others in a religious community, that is a good
thing... but if your path leads you to a faith of only one, it is in no
manner or form any less significant than a church of millions.
I'd like to take a moment to share some of my correspondents'
beliefs, as discrete, specific expressions of their own unique journeys
and discoveries,
I personally see religion as a different way of looking
at what is ultimately the same thing. I have the sense of something
'bigger' than me that can point me towards the answers if I ask the
questions the right way. ... [one of the central messages of my faith
is] the idea of charity -- you should give of yourself not only to save
somebody else, but because that somebody else is in some ways you
yourself.
In closing I'd have to say that I learned a great deal about myself
whilst writing this paper, as well as individual variations within an
institution I'd previously regarded as homogenous. I would like to
clearly state here that by no means do I now feel the Catholic Church is
the one true way or answer, nor do I feel my correspondents should all
turn to it for all their answers to their pressing spiritual questions
and needs. Nevertheless, I do feel there is a richness and complexity,
both to the individuals to whom I spoke as well as the Catholic Church,
that I had not previously realized.
I still do not believe the Catholic Church is for me. However, I can
now better understand why it 'is' or 'is not' for others - without
shallowly assuming they either have finally come to their senses, or
must not yet have truly considered what it is they are espousing.
Furthermore, through talking to my correspondents I now have a greater
appreciation for the role of faith and belief in one's life, and the
individual expressions that need for ritual and spirituality may take.
