Is God Catholic?
In “Silly God, Voting is for Kids”, I did something that I generally dislike: I was gave a litany of things that God is not. (It is one of my pet peeves, actually.) As surprising—albeit not uncommon—as this contradiction was, I was even more surprised when I began to type this sentence: God is not Catholic.
This caused me some discomfort, but I couldn’t really figure out why. So I went ahead and re-worked the original statement into a softer, less decided tone. I wrote, “Is God even Catholic? Why would God be a Catholic?”
The basic thrust of these questions has stuck with me. And much of what fascinates me is not simply a matter of what the correct answer is. Deeper down, I am curious about how asking this question affects me, and why. How and why does this particular question create this strange, unfamiliar tension in me?
After all, I am not one who is usually shy about asking questions, all kinds of questions. You may recall when I asked “Should we pray for the conversion of Satan?” or more recently when I confessed my own dissent. I don’t mind sounding edgy. But this particular question has been different to and for me. Like a small splinter, it has stayed with me and festered.
My reply here, then, is more than analysis or chop-logic: it is first and foremost a bit of work on myself. That is my hope. (By the way: this brings to mind a lovely little book on Wittgenstein’s latent Catholicism by Fergus Kerr entitled, Work on Oneself.)
In what follows I will try and distinguish two sorts of questions—and answers—to this theme that continue to make me uneasy.
In the original questions, there are two very different sorts of things being asked: (1) Is God Catholic? and (2) Is God a Catholic?
The answers I would give would go as follows: (1) Is God Catholic?—Yes, at least one should hope so; and (2) Is God a Catholic?—No, not necessarily.
Returning to the questions: there seems to be a difference between “being Catholic” and “being a Catholic.” What I mean by this is that the first question (Is God Catholic?) uses the term ‘Catholic’ in a way that is not limited to “being a Catholic.” In other words, the term ‘Catholic’ in the first question is without content if the answer is no, it makes no sense. If God is not “Catholic” in the first sense, then why should anyone or anything be “Catholic”?
However, while being Catholic (in the first sense) and being a Catholic (in the second sense) are not mutually exclusive, we need not assume that God is a Catholic. First of all, it would raise all kinds of stupid, difficult questions. Questions like, “If God is a Catholic, then, is what kind of a Catholic is God? Is God a Roman Catholic or some other kind of a Catholic?” This should show how “being Catholic” and “being a Catholic” are different at a certain level and therefore demand different kinds of answers.
Some might find this redundant and point me towards the “big C” and “little c” distinction, the difference between catholic and Catholic. I have used this distinction myself, but I think it is too generic for these questions. Yes, surely God is universal. In fact, that statement is backwards: the universe is Godly.
But my suggestion is that while God is the fullest expression of what we can possibly hope for it to mean to “be Catholic”—as Catholics of any kind, Catholicism in the widest sense—we need not assimilate God into our tribe, our history, our home team.
If God is Catholic, then, the term ‘Catholic’ is nothing but a reflection of God and God becomes the ultimate measure of this reflection. But this particular kind of Catholic reflection is not the same as registering God at our local parish (or in our Roman Church) and calling God a Catholic.
In the end, this distinction helps me make some sense out of my own Catholicism: it also helps me to understand myself in relation to God—that who I am is both God in one sense and not God in another sense.
1. I am God, God dwells in me and I image God, in the first sense of “being.”
2. I am not God, I cannot contain God, God is everything and I am nothing, in the second sense of “being a.”
God is Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason whatsoever to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family. But make no mistake: God is not a Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family.
Just as we are persons but not individuals, God is Catholic but not a Catholic.
This may seem to be a petty and trivial use of language and waste of time—and in too many ways it is!—but I hope it serves to pull us (myself first and foremost) out of our complacency as Catholics without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I also hope it shows that many people can be Catholic, the universe itself is Catholic, without being a Catholic. If it possible for God, it must be possible for man and creation.
The danger I will end with it this: we cannot allow the idea or the term ‘Catholic’ become the measure of things; God must always be the measure. And that measure is beyond the very concept of size, measurement, and, indeed, everything—even beyond the word ‘God’.
Comments are closed.
Whether God is Catholic is certainly debatable. But it is not debatable that he would love many Catholic works like the Masses of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. This leads us to a further deduction. Though He may not be Catholic, he almost certainly likes liturgies.
I would most certainly tend to agree!
Sam
PS: For all the skeptics, here is an added proviso:
God would also seem to dislike things that Catholics (in the second sense) do. And God would like other forms of art too. There.
Are you serious? Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are not timeless and will likely at some future time fade into the background over time like most everything else. IMHO neither the world is “Catholic” nor is God – it is actually rather amazing to presume such a thing in light of just 2000 years of history – come on – how long does it historically take for a religion to rise and fall? Clearly religions from the beginning of time have taken on rather distinct expressions of the regional cultures – a constant ebb and flow – we are kidding ourself to think otherwise – anyhow since a perfectly fine and ‘orthodox’ ‘Catholic’ believer from 1500 years ago would not recognize what even the most diligent and traditional Catholic practices today as ‘Catholics’ why would God? Billions of people have come and gone never knowing anything about our particular religion – billions more will follow – God created them all equal and in my view did not create some kind of magic maze to discover and follow- it is late I obviously need some sleep.
The Creator of the Universe will kindly smile at us playing word games – what a luxury in light of all the real suffering in this world.
I am very serious indeed, grega; I like to think that God likes beautiful, harmonious things.
And you seem to have misunderstood the post entirely. The sense you are railing against is precisely the sense I argue that God is NOT Catholic—God is not “a Catholic” for the reasons I gave and the ones you add here. The first sense (God is Catholic) is at least as old as the universe itself and is no “magic maze” as you put it: it *is* only insofar as it imitates, seeks, and follows God.
Your parting blow shows your blindness to the heart of the post, which is my own struggle with this question as it pertains to my own inner life. I hope that you simply didn’t read it well or at all—that would at least be a reasonable explanation.
Allow me to part with two selections:
“The basic thrust of these questions has stuck with me. And much of what fascinates me is not simply a matter of what the correct answer is. Deeper down, I am curious about how asking this question affects me, and why. How and why does this particular question create this strange, unfamiliar tension in me?”
“This may seem to be a petty and trivial use of language and waste of time—and in too many ways it is!—but I hope it serves to pull us (myself first and foremost) out of our complacency as Catholics without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I also hope it shows that many people can be Catholic, the universe itself is Catholic, without being a Catholic. If it possible for God, it must be possible for man and creation.”
Sweet dreams,
Sam
I must align myself with samrocha’s riposte to grega. Even though I like Grega’s “billions and billions” emphasis, which sounds like what’s-his-name’ s science TV show from the seventies. Religion is one of the most important parts of culture. And without a culture we are nothing. You cannot be a human being in the abstract. One of the things that gets lost in all the wrangling about Catholic Church positions is that somehow or other the very ethos of the religion created an architectonic across the ages that inspired a lot of great thinking and, to me more importantly, great art. This fact is NOT epiphenomenal. It says something intrinsic about the worldview. The sad part is that it is hard to get down to that sort of discussion because of all too human tendency to focus on petty minutiae.
It may be that Mozart and Haydn will fade. I sure hope not. For as I see it hermeneutically, that will only be possible if the very horizon of humanity itself has disappeared. There are some signs pointing in that very direction, and I don’t mean science fiction! If I am willing to be a “fool for Christ” it is to help stop that trend, some of which ironically is happening in religions themselves. I am sorry to bring a very tawdry example into this elevated discussion but only a total dehumanized fool could be taken in by the likes of Fr. Corapi, who is now exiting priestly life with as much fraudulent hubris as he brought to that life while in it. I can tie this all together by saying that whatever that art-inspiring ethos of Catholicism was or could be, it is the opposite of Fr. Corapi and very close to the L’Homme Arme Mass of Dufay, to use another sort of example.
Good point PeterPaul Fuchs -
Carl Sagan
Sorry guys I did not meant to come across as harsh and cynical as I must have and did not mean to go on and on ranting.
Sam you are correct my comment was not in responds to your post but was simply
a quick reply to the catholic music is timeless and loved by God.
I did need some sleep that night
For me the Holy Spirit is very important and the concept of an all embracing Holy Sprit makes our Religion tick despite the fact in my mind that our religion will go the path of all religions – it starts – succeeds and than falters to be replaced with the next best philosophical /religious framework – in my view our religion is on the way out -
pure speculations on my part – I do not know – just a feeling – to many things do not add up.
God and the Holy Spirit will see to it that future generations will be just as interested and engaged as pst ones pondering these kind of questions – practicing one form of worship or another and spending considerable time in and around sacred grounds.
We cannot make God belong to a religion. HE IS THE RELIGION -Catholicism- ITSELF. God, and specifically Jesus is Catholic because he founded HIS CHURCH called “the Catholic Church.” Jesus – the founder of the Catholic Church- must be then CATHOLIC, not protestant not orthodox, and not belonging to any other religion. When we talk about Catholicism, we talk about Jesus, and both cannot be separate. So God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Catholic because they revealed to us who they are. The Catholic Church is founded by Jesus, the Son of God, through the Holy Spirit, therefore The TRINITY is Catholic.
Paul,
Historically, Jesus was Jewish. But that is all beside the point.
Please see my reply to grega (above) and you may want to clarify who you mean by “we.” It is strange and ironic to me that you and grega’s responses differ greatly (indeed his historical sensibilities would detract from your position), yet commit many of the same basic mistakes—although your position, if you can call it that, is lacking its own unique ways too.
I most certainly did not have the Trinity out of my mind (see the final icon), but the issue is more complex than your assertions here, I think. I suspect, again (as with grega), that you did not understand the guiding sentiment of this post, nor its most basic position, argument, or content.
I will also add one final selection that addresses your main concern: “…we cannot allow the idea or the term ‘Catholic’ become the measure of things; God must always be the measure.”
Sam
I understand the different meanings of the word “catholic.” But that wasn’t my point. Of course Jesus belonged to a Jewish family and taught in synagogues but he had to do it to fulfill his Father’s plan of Salvation. Jesus came to let us know fully who the Creator is and He founded His Church -which we belong to- the Catholic Church. It is HIS foundation, not ours. It could’ve carried another name, but it has only one name which is “the Catholic Church.” And since her founder is Jesus, not Buddha or Muhammad, then I can surely assert than God is Catholic, His church -the Catholic Church- belongs to Him and He belongs to Her as a Founder.
By “we” I mean us humans, especially those who believe in the Catholic Church. I am very comfortable saying that Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are Catholics in both meanings of the term, universal and religiously. Tons of books starting from the Bible and the Catechism talked about the Catholic Church, her foundation, her role and her mission. And again, I wouldn’t be ashamed, shy or afraid to tell the whole world that God is Catholic, religiously.
Paul,
Whatever your point may be, you will need to not go it alone, but actually draw it into conversation with my own post. (For instance, I did not make a distinction between versions of the term ‘catholic’: I made a distinction between “being Catholic” and “being a Catholic.”) Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a *comment* to this post.
As I wrote, this question of religious Catholicism (in the second sense) asks some tough—albeit trivial, in my view—questions. I’ll repeat them here, as an invitation for you to *comment*: “If God is a Catholic, then, is what kind of a Catholic is God [after all, there are many Catholic Churches, from East to West]? Is God a Roman Catholic [Latin Rite] or some other kind of a Catholic [or both at once, or something else]?” I don’t find these questions compelling or very serious (as I wrote), but they (and some of grega’s objections above) do present serious challenges to your view presented here. In fact, even the Judaism of Jesus is very poorly addressed—”he had to do it” is not a very compelling argument or rationale of your trenchant position.
Also, the Catholic Church, literally, has many names: in different languages.
Finally, you may be comfortable speaking on behalf of humanity and of the entire Church, but that is not a compelling reason to do so nor for anyone to take it very seriously. Your own self-confidence in your position is not sufficient to pin down your argument.
If you are unable to engage the content of the post, then I am afraid that while I will likely continue to post your comments, I will not spend time replying to them.
I encourage you to re-read the post with attention to its motivation and how the questions and answers follow from that. Otherwise, I think you may have the wrong idea entirely.
Sam
Of course God is not Catholic; as my Bostonian grandmother will be happy to inform you, he is an Irish Catholic.
Let’s not forget that “Catholicism” signifies a temporary status, as the Church itself is a temporary institution. There is no Church in the eschaton, only Christ’s Body–the New Jerusalem–and, as we’ve known since Augustine, the two are not identical. So, here’s one reason why God is not Catholic.
Notwithstanding this, I do admit that God does not sing, and so he bears a strong family resemblance to Catholics.
WJ,
“Of course God is not Catholic; as my Bostonian grandmother will be happy to inform you, he is an Irish Catholic.”
Yes! Now this a serious reply, I think. I also appreciate adding the eschatological dimension to this conversion. Lacking knowledge and training in theology, perhaps this settles things more than my rather tortured distinctions.
Sam
My intention is not to belittle your feelings or insight on the matter, because they are important and valuable, but I’m scratching my head as to the purpose of this post. We’re being presented with a box, and saying that God is, in some sense, inside the box, and in some sense outside the box, and in some other sense, he is the box. What insight exactly have we reached?
Dan,
Thanks for your genuine question. You’re right: I am saying all those things. What they might amount to, I hope, is to begin to show how asking these sorts of question can lead into a midrash of sorts. A process of of looking inside, outsides, and to the fundamentals condition of the thing itself. For myself, I think that I have found that the identification “Catholic” was something I was afraid to look at in this way. This post helped me to begin to become unafraid and seek the truth of the matter in a better way—albeit a vexing, non-linear way. I doubt we reach any kind of insight, but I think we do begin to see sketches of the relationships between God and the Church and ourselves. At least that is my prayer.
Also: there is a more prescriptive implication that should open the heart of “a Catholic” to see how vast the very idea of what “Catholic” can be.
Thanks again,
Sam
PS: In a way, the images I selected show the progression I wanted to strike: to move from introspection to contemplation of the divine…