Catholics Shouldn’t Say “I”
It’s possible I mean this hyperbolically, but as Winnie the Pooh might say while hovering under a honey tree, you never can tell with me. So what am I, who says I shouldn’t say “I,” really saying? This: the definitive pronoun for 
Catholics is not “I,” but rather “we,” and we’d do ourselves and others much better by thinking more in terms of “we” than “I.”
Being Catholic involves more than an affiliation with an institution, an affirmation of doctrines, teachings and creeds, or a faithful participation in the sacramental life. To be Catholic is to have a peculiar disposition, a particularly Catholic way of being disposed to the world, and that disposition emphasizes a communal and social understanding of the human person over an individualistic conception. Humanity is one and many, same and other, collective and individual, and yet a Catholic conception of humanity in many ways stresses the former over the latter. God is Trinity, and we are made in God’s image and likeness.
When we Catholics say there is no salvation outside the Church, we mean that there is no salvation apart from the community of believers, the Body of Christ. No one is saved as an autonomous, isolated individual, even if it appears that way. Salvation come to us as a we, as a community, not to me as an I, as a sinner alone before God, even if I am physically alone before God.
I cannot really even say “I” without implying the plural pronoun, for who I am is bound up with who others are. I cannot tell my story without telling the story of others. I have no self apart from those whose stories have woven threads into mine. I am not I. I am only I because we are we.
This bit of Catholic metaphysics and play with pronouns has practical consequence for how a Catholic ought to conceive the moral life, in particular responsibility and obligation. While we obviously have obligations as individuals—it’s my responsibility to love my wife as a husband, for example—most of our obligations have a social or communal aspect; they’re not merely the responsibility of individuals or entirely the responsibility of society. If a Catholic disposition bends me toward conceiving human persons chiefly as “we,” as opposed to a loose collection of individuals, then it may not make sense to conceptualize obligation and responsibility as existing primarily in the sphere of the individual. At the very least, a Catholic disposition denotes a recognition and appreciation for our social obligations and the societal means and structures we use in response to them.
So, for example, from the Catholic standpoint, we shouldn’t respond to poverty or pollution or health or education simply as individuals, or even as groups comprised of individuals, but also and especially as a whole society—politica
lly free, of course, but also guided by rightful and lawful public authority. Government may be a necessary evil, so to speak, but it is not, for the Catholic, an enemy to be conquered or a danger to be avoided. It is a tool to be used prudently, if cautiously and with an eye toward the temptations of power.
None of this is to say that Catholics shouldn’t value individuality. We’re not the Borg collective, after all. And you don’t have to be my therapist to know I have an obsession with alterity—with otherness and difference. Whereas I said above that we cannot say “I” without implying “we,” the pronoun “we” implies a plurality of others, a union of those who are not the same. In short: an emphasis on the “we” shouldn’t entail a forgetfulness of the “I.” To say “we” is, in fact, to say “I.”
Kyle Cupp is a freelance writer and editor with a background in literature, language, and philosophy.
Comments are closed.
Unfortunately at Mass come Advent we will all be saying “I believe.”
Yes, I know, and there’s nothing unfortunate about it.
“Credo” is singular, is it not?
We can profess our faith in the context of the community, but ultimately it is *I* who believe in these things. The Church consists of a number of people who all, individually, believe these things.
Well, things are a bit more complicated than that with regards to I/We in the creed. The original creed from the council of Nicea said “We”: this was a corporate statement and not simply a statement of personal belief. It is my understanding that in the east they continue to say “we”—Henry, you can comment more authoritatively on this. In the West, the creed became more associated with baptism, where it is indeed a personal statement: you are affirming that you believe what the community believes so that you can pass into membership with the community.
Now I am not going to the mat over whether we should say “I believe” or “We believe” in the creed on Sundays. But I think PeterPaul’s original point is a valid one. Kyle is arguing, correctly I believe, that our Catholic identity brings with it a communal identity—a “we” which helps shape and define our “I”. If that is the case, then how do we mark this liturgically? One way (a powerful way if emphasized pedagogically) is to collectively profess what “we believe” every Sunday.
David
No, it is actually “I believe” — Πιστεύω είς ενα Θεόν, Πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, ποιητήν ουρανού καί γής, ορατών τε πάντων καί αοράτων.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2CfISm__cA is the creed being prayed in a Byzantine parish.
Thank you Henry. I had presumed that since the original Greek creedal statements said we that the Greek liturgical usage was we as well, and something I read seemed to confirm this. But I was not able to find a translation of the Greek liturgy into English, and the tiny bit of Greek I taught myself in college has long since vanished.
David,
I’m not sure which form is the original with the Greek; indeed, it seems we have records from the same time which use I or We. There are speculations as to why this might be the case (one was to be recited individually, the other not), but I don’t think that necessarily follows; the Latin clearly uses the singular. One possible solution is that the “we” is the original from the council, and is indicative of a conciliar use, while the I, which clearly is what was used in ancient liturgies, was meant to enforce how “I” also accept what is said by the we. It’s tricky.
Kyle
God’s Self-Revealed Name is “I AM”. There’s something to our individual personhood, and there’s something to our communal life together. I don’t think we should prioritize one over the other.
It’s all well and good to have a Catholic disposition, but it should be a Catholic one that recognizes the person and the community together in interdependence. Not one that seems to reduce the self to something less than infinitely valuable, or one that denies the necessity of life lived in community.
True, but then we later learned to call God “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
I like Kyle’s original post very much, especially in that it invites individual and communal examination of self and purpose — something I often find sorely lacking in my interactions with myself and with my faith community. The poetry of that last paragraph reminds me of Buber’s Wo aber Du gesprochen wird, ist kein Etwas.
My personal issue with translating credo is not so much singular/plural as picking “to believe” rather than “to trust” as the translation of credere. (In the spirit of full disclosure, this is not my original idea!) In English, we have the concepts of credit, credence and other derivatives of credere which come much closer to “trust” or “faith” than “belief.”
Especially in a scientifically and psychologically informed society, wouldn’t “I trust in…” or “We trust in…” come closer to the original intent of reciting the Creed and closer to an honest description of our inner process and the reason we come together as a Church and support each other in faith? Doesn’t making recitation of the Creed a matter of intellectual assent, especially when most of the congregation only vaguely understands the details, maintain the appearance of unity in mind, while denying deep personal doubt that belongs in every soul who wrestles with faith?
How many Catholics have carefully examined and honestly believe every word of the Creed as they understand it literally, from the Son’s only-begotten-ness to anticipating the resurrection of the body? Examined each phrase with openness to alternative answers that might more honestly express what I “believe”? Examined myself and the possibility that on any particular day, on any particular issue I might find within myself doubt, total faith or something in-between? And if the answer is that not very many have put much effort into understanding the Creed or understanding the relationship between individual faith, Church teaching and God’s unconditional and infinite love, why does it matter if the recitation begins with “I” or “we”?
Isn’t the question of “I” or “we” for most of us just a matter of comfort in a familiar ritual, even though precious little “belief” or “faith” underlies the specific form of the recitation?