What are the good things about the Catholic Church that don't depend on it being factually correct?

[monta]

Sad how our families cannot accept it.

Meh! My sister is a Muslim now, so I'm kind of off the hook :biglaugh:

 

[Vile Atheist]

Meh! My sister is a Muslim now, so I'm kind of off the hook :biglaugh:

Your poor parents lmao. They must have daily conniptions!

 

[Madhuri]

Meh! My sister is a Muslim now, so I'm kind of off the hook :biglaugh:

Oh my, your poor parents! Are they freaking out about the two of you?

 

[monta]

Oh my, your poor parents! Are they freaking out about the two of you?

Try 6 of us, 4 atheists , 1 Muslim and a Protestant, all raised catholic

 

[Madhuri]

Try 6 of us, 4 atheists , 1 Muslim and a Protestant, all raised catholic

lol...at least it would make things interesting...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For one, the large charitable arm of the Catholic Church...

Good point. I don't agree with everything that the Church considers "charitable" (though I don't want to get into this in the DIR), but it is the mechanism for people to perform a lot of good work.

I remember hearing an interview with Rick Warren when he said something that rang true for me: churches stay. You can find a lot of examples all through the developing world where a secular charity came in, did a lot of things costing a lot of money, and then left a few years later. There are lots of hospitals that don't have full staffs, or very nice ambulances sitting idle for lack of parts to repair them. In contrast, one thing that churches seem to have gotten right is connection with the community; when the Church comes to town with a new parish church or a religious order, they don't do it with any sort of "exit strategy". They tend to stay, form bonds with the community and often become more responsive to the community's needs as a result.

I would say a strong moral foundation... but I think you might dispute that the foundation possibly brought about by growing up in the Church is better than outside...

Another good point. Maybe I should also point out, though, that in my mind, it's not necessarily a choice between Catholicism or nothing. For example, the Unitarian Universalist church still has a certain appeal in my mind.

Hiya old buddy... hope you are well!

Thanks! I am - I hope you are, too.

As to your question, I believe there are many things that you will agree with... and many you will agree with the general "theme" or message of the teaching, even if presented in a way you don't 100% agree with.

As an example:
Catechism of the Catholic Church #1713
Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil". This law makes itself heard in his conscience.

I am sure you may take issue with some that in their definition make reference to God:
#1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called "cardinal"; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

... so while the "Catholic" teaching will make reference to Scripture and God as the foundation of the teaching, I doubt teaching a child virtue (habitual and firm disposition to do the good) would be difficult for you.

Not in and of itself, but there's one aspect of the Church's approach to this matter that worries me: don't you think that emphasizing divine authority as the basis for morality de-emphasizes other bases? IOW, for example, when you teach a child, "you shouldn't steal because God forbids it" and present that as the reason, doesn't it implicitly say that other rationales, e.g. "you shouldn't steal because it hurts people" aren't the reason?

The main problem, in my opinion, is the day the child asks you to explain concepts like good and evil.... moral relativism is often more difficult to explain than why they should believe in some Jewish dude nailed to a cross.

Maybe... though I think that kids usually have an innate sense of empathy and fairness, and that's all we need to support the Golden Rule.

Worse thing that could happen would be that your child will have a firm grasp of the basics of morality.... most of the "lofty" concepts (transubstantiation, heaven/hell, etc) will be tackled later in life closer to high school age... and by then, I'm sure you will have many chances to present your beliefs to the child.... or not.

That leads me to another of my concerns: it seems to me that the Catholic Church asks children to participate in rituals without real understanding of them. The most obvious is infant baptism, but also, as you point out, most children wouldn't have a good idea of transubstantiation probably until adolescence... however, they're asked to take part in their First Communion well before that. Even with Confirmation (which is supposed to be a re-establishment of a commitment to the Church on attainment of the "age of reason", right?), I worry that a 13- or 14-year-old doesn't really have full knowledge of what they're agreeing to or participating in.

I understand (somewhat) the idea that the grace of the sacrament isn't necessarily contingent on the child having full understanding of it, but is there an argument for why these practices are good (especially given the age and understanding of the participants) absent the idea of grace?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Hmm, I would like to give a good answer to this question. Something that comes up the top of my mind is the (often specifically Catholic) commitment to both faith and reason. This creates an enormous tension for Catholic theology and is in itself something of an apparent contradiction- but is a greatly fertile region for thought.

God and the contours of Catholic theology have to be accessible to reason- though not simply reducible by it, and this preserves a great deal of the thirst of the human intellect as well as its strong desire for mystery and the openness of faith. I believe this has lead, for example, to such statements as "no true Catholic dogma can contradict the findings of true science".

In time, I will try to make a more thorough post.