One of the most frustrating aspects of my work as an apologist is when I am asked to provide an inquirer with a resource on a particular subject that is "one hundred percent faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church" and by someone who is "absolutely orthodox." Oftentimes, I may know of a particular resource that would be helpful, but am reluctant to recommend it because it is not "pure" from an orthodox perspective or by someone who can be considered totally orthodox.
Take, for example, John Allen, who is a Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. He is a very good resource for reasonably fair information on current Vatican affairs. As far as I am concerned, his book All the Pope’s Men should be on the required reading list of all aspiring apologists, particularly those seeking to explain why the Vatican takes certain actions that do not seem logical to the ordinary American Catholic. But, because of his credentials and his somewhat center-left approach to Catholicism, I either cannot recommend him much of the time or must load any such recommendation full of caveats. This is not because of a particular flaw in Allen or his work, but to explain to an inquirer exactly what can and cannot be recommended about Allen and his work.
What I have found is that many of the orthodox Catholic inquirers I deal with are very cautious about whom they will listen to or read. A particular author or speaker must offer a book or tape that is either one-hundred-percent orthodox — according, mind you, to this particular person’s perception of orthodoxy — or the resource is anathema. This is an understandable and even noble impulse because the Catholic in question is doing his best to avoid falling into error about the faith. Nevertheless, it is misguided. Let me explain why:
If one limits his exposure to the faith only to those individuals who one is certain largely conform to one’s own understanding of the faith, it is unlikely that such a person will ever grow beyond his own understanding of the faith. Applying "purity tests" to any and all resources that one will consider and automatically rejecting any that fail the exam means that one cannot benefit from the legitimate insights others may offer.
Rather than "purity tests," what orthodox Catholics should consider developing are "purity filters." Learn the faith well enough from orthodox sources to filter out the impurities while still accepting and benefiting from the good stuff an otherwise problematic resource can offer. If there is a question about whether a particular idea or claim is valid or should be trapped by the filter, then call on orthodox resources — such as Catholic Answers — to help figure out what the Church teaches or requires on the subject. A particular resource may end up entirely worthless and be thrown out. Some stuff, though, may be problematic but still useful.
For example, as a Catholic woman who hopes one day to marry and raise a family, I do a lot of personal reading on marriage and parenting. Believe it or not, one of my favorite parenting books is Becoming A Jewish Parent by Daniel Gordis, a Conservative Jewish rabbi. There is, naturally, some information that is either not helpful to me as a potential Catholic parent or follows a more liberal religious approach with which I do not agree. But, as one example of something helpful to Catholic parents in the book, Rabbi Gordis’s approach for teaching parents how to raise their children to marry Jews and raise Jewish families could very easily be adapted by Catholics seeking to raise children who will marry other Catholics and raise Catholic families. A Catholic using a "purity filter" can sort out what is unnecessary for Catholic parenting and take away Rabbi Gordis’s insights that are helpful to any religiously-committed parent.
“Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil. May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:19-23).
Michelle, you present a good perspective.
I’m occasionally involved with a secular men’s support organization. Some of them are atheists, some agnostics, some “New Agers,” some Christian, even devoutly Catholic, you name it…. I am greatly edified and at times humbled by the effort and commitment these men take to be honest, to keep their commitments, to intentionally avoid all gossip, to resolve conflicts and even to hold each other accountable for living in integrity with their respective values or morals. I have found my own Catholic faith, devotion and prayer intensified by my involvement with these men. From time to time, our discussions have given me opportunities to indirectly evangelize some of them, or to clarify Catholic moral positions such that some of them, without deciding to become Catholic, have adjusted their moral thinking simply because they have honestly admitted truth when they have had an opportunity to hear it. They would not have been open to (Catholic) truth, if this secular organization had not taught them how to listen for truth.
From time to time, I encourage devout, orthodox Catholic men to get involved in this particular secular organization because it provides effective human or natural tools and supports that grace can build upon.
This is much like the issue of inculturation, whereby our faith meets, ennobles, purifies what it meets. True, sometimes faith must reject and oppose aspects of a culture. Nonetheless, human culture is the object of salvation. The sacraments take the “stuff” of the world and culture–in short, human physical and moral realities–and transfigure the world through them: birth, intercession/leadership/teaching, eating, drinking, confessing, marrying, healing … water, oil, candles, clothing, bodies, bread, wine, gestures, interaction….
How would we evangelize the world if we simply avoided it?
What you describe is simply another consequence of the Limbaughization of the culture, which has really picked up steam with the blogging movement.
People would rather sit around an echo-chamber having their own beliefs (and sometimes prejudices) reinforced and given the patina of “othordoxy” than to engage the real world with all its complexity and, yes, even nuance. The search for such purity bespeaks a desire to be certain rather than right.
Fortunately the Church gives us her teaching, in her own words, in the form of the Catechism and the very accessible papal documents. As long as we hold anyone’s words up against those standards, we can’t go wrong.
Hi Michelle!
What you say about the “purity filters” may be true, but how many people are at the stage where
they can effectively sift the orthodox from the cleverly disguised heretical? Perhaps the request
for the 100% orthodox sources are meant to help the inquirer develop the purity filter.
I agree with “Other Eric” on this one. Usually when I am asking for myself, I’ll ask for something you think is good, and as a sidenote ask what you think about the orthodoxy of the author.
But if I’m asking for something to give someone else who is not strong in their faith (or not Catholic yet) I want something “pure” because I suspect they haven’t developed their filter to that point yet.
Therefore I don’t think you should judge it always bad for someone to ask for that.
Furthermore, the fact that someone asks for your opinion on an author’s orthodoxy shows that they trust your judgement, and are appealing to something more universal than their own personal nuances or preferences.
Michelle:
I need your advice. What book(s) would you reccomended for a non-believer who is just starting to think about belief in God?
What book(s) would you recommend for a Christian but not Catholic but is just begining to think about Catholism?
Thanks!
I would have to say that I pretty much need the orthodox and pure stuff to read. It may be that I am not very smart or that I am swimming up to my earlobes in non-believing people or protestants or Catholics who have no clue. The purity of the material keeps me focused and grounded. Reading serious Catholic “imprimatur” works is all I have of Cathlic orthodoxy around here. It’s my island that is surrounded by a sea of sharks. Does that make sense?
IOW, Michelle needs resources who are ‘more orthodox than the Pope’ but not ‘more Catholic than the Pope’?
I made the journey from Southern Baptist to Catholicism with the aid of a book that doesn’t (according to other Catholics)doesn’t meet the purity standard mentioned here. I think that we need to be careful about using one. If a book is readable and pleasant, it will have a greater effect than one that isn’t. I would make the decision about what would encourage the reader most and then if there are problems down the way correct it then.
StephenL. Even though he is not Catholic, but of the evangelical branch of Christianity, I would look into Philip Yancey’s books for your friend starting to think about God. In specific, the three books that he wrote with Dr. Paul Brand. “In His Image”, “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made”, and “The Gift of Pain.” The other first one is a book of short essays by Philip Yancey alone, “I was Just Wondering”.
Filter, don’t block
So advises Michelle Arnold on Jimmy Akin’s blog. I think she’s on to something. If we completely block out not only thoroughly bad stuff, but anything that’s in any way tainted, we will not only miss out on things that can be useful and enlightening …
It may be that I am not very smart or that I am swimming up to my earlobes in non-believing people or protestants or Catholics who have no clue. The purity of the material keeps me focused and grounded. Reading serious Catholic “imprimatur” works is all I have of Cathlic orthodoxy around here. It’s my island that is surrounded by a sea of sharks. Does that make sense?
That makes sense. From what you say, it sounds like your filter is already getting a good deal of use.
As ajb points out, the difficulty often lies in what you call orthodoxy. Part of the issue is the apathy for philosophy. Reductionism, rationalization, legalism, or whatever term you prefer seems to be king among many Catholics. The faith is reduced to whatever is defined as dogma and the rest is optional.
For example, conservatives often complain about anti-life liberals. Liberals retort that this isn’t dogma and can be changed at anytime. The Church just needs to become more enlightened and stop living in the middle ages.
Liberals on the other hand often complain that conservatives ignore the social justice teachings. Conservatives argue that “socialism” has been proved inadequate and the Church needs to recognize modern science. Besides, the social teachings haven’t been made dogma.
I myself have played this game, having believed that I had a full understanding of Catholicism. That was until the Iraq war when I found that no bishop or cardinal was willing to endorse my view of the war. Some made what I considered to be extreme arguments against it. One or two fruits I could have dismissed as being naive, even if one happened to be John Paul II. Not able to do that, I worked to understand their viewpoint. Many that demand orthodoxy I’m afraid should do likewise.
Liberals on the other hand often complain that conservatives ignore the social justice teachings. Conservatives argue that “socialism” has been proved inadequate and the Church needs to recognize modern science. Besides, the social teachings haven’t been made dogma.
Actually conservatives argue that, unlike liberals, they have actually read the social justice teachings of the Church and have found that they don’t advocate socialism at all. Conservatives also understand correctly that while the Church hierarchy are the beneficiaries of much guidance from the Holy Spirit, and their wisdom in all matters is to given great consideration, it is ultimately the responsibility of the laity (and this is Church teaching) to figure out how best to apply the gospel to economic matters. Of course, conservatives are all to happy to thump all manner of Church documents on economics since these are so often in line with the conclusions they have reached themselves in their studies of economics.
Conservatives also understand correctly that “life issues” concerning when human life begins are matters of faith and morals, a realm in which the Church has been granted a charism of infallibility. Unlike economic matters, in which the Church is very clear that this is the purview of the laity, the Church actually claims dogmatic authority regarding the life issues.
Conservatives are honest about what the Church teachings are and are not, and don’t feel it at all necessary to apologize for their positions. Liberals on the other hand, knowing full well that their positions on the life issues take them well into the land of heresy, find it necessary to twist the truth about the Church’s teachings on economic matters, to make it seem as if the Church agrees with them. They engage in the repetition of this falsehood so often that they have even come to believe it themselves.
I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the positions of conservatives and liberals are in any way whatsoever equal in their amount of heterodoxy, or that because liberalism has been proven heterodox, that there must be some other matter in which conservatism is heterodox. This does not follow.
I find that holders of such an attitude are usually liberals with wounded egos, having had their position thoroughly shattered by a conservative yet unable to concede this, who must now find a way to elevate themselves above the dispute to a mythical higher plane of knowledge that only they and a privileged few others have the intelligence to understand. This position is then arrogantly labeled by them as the “true Catholicism”, from which they continue revel in the feeling of moral superiority over conservatives.
Jimmy had a very relevant post recently:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/06/the_church_teac.html
With regard to Michelle’s post about the “purity test”, I don’t see anything wrong or misguided about laity who act in such a manner. Not everyone wants to be an apologist or has time to sift through falsehood to find the truth. Some people reach a point where they are sick and tired of arguing and debating all the time and they just want to let their guard down for a heavy does of the real stuff to increase their own personal holiness and develop their spiritual lives.
I think for some people it’s also about avoiding giving the unorthodox any market share for their views.
So while such an attitude would not be advisable for an apologist, I don’t see a huge problem with it for the average Catholic.
M.Z. Forrest,
Just curious, but are you the “Michael Forrest” mentioned by Karl Keating in this e-letter:
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_041221.asp
?
That would be Michael W. (I believe, certainly not Z.) Forrest formerly of CAI, and now working with Priests For Life. I’m not sure if that is paid or volunteer, since I haven’t emailed him in awhile, and I wouldn’t get that personal with him.
We have only been able to establish that we aren’t closely related. He resides in Mass., and I live in WI. You can see my 5-year-old speeding ticket here.
I don’t want to debate you on the merits of the conservative arguments at this point. I only wish to point out that many within the Church consider them to be against Church teaching. I have seen too many of these arguments devolve into a “what is the minimum I’m required to believe to be saved” deals. You can choose not to believe me that American conservatism is a unique view in the church. Just tell me, who is the Michael Novak equivalent in Europe or Africa.
I was reading what you had written on yoga.
There is no such thing as doing exercises and that will be okay.
The church in the document you mention, will say, not to do yoga.
If you read Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s book on new age, he also said, that many people say that they just do the “excersise”, but there is no such thing as only the excerise, it is still dangerous to do.
You can also go to http://www.crossveil.org – here Claire Merkcle who was into it, will tell you, do not do the excersise because behind it is the real reason for eastern techinques to open up the charkras.
Johnnette Benkovic from ewtn aslo wrote a book, The New Age Counterfeit which also claims the same.
I think you should really read these before posting information that will harm people’s soul.
I pray that you correct the statement.
God Bless
your sister in Christ