To spin a phrase 360 degrees, 'if you don't fall for Jesus (specifically God), you will fall for everything'....

“and I totally believe in all love and forgiveness, and excluding no one.”

You have to admit, "spirituality" works a lot 'easier' where differently believing people collect - in a university classroom - and where the eyes are 'really needed' to remain open, like in Berlin sex club. We doctrinal wonks make the desks quickly slide away and who can afford to pole dance in front of a guy praying with his eyes closed. The Lady need seeing fans.

I was listening to a radio news programme in Dublin (Ireland) yesterday. There was a review of the latest Sex and the City programme. The reviewer giggled a lot and spoke of empowerment and independence as the messages of the series. Yes, it is sad to think that someone could entertain never mind make such a claim.
Apparently there is a scene in the latest movie in which one of the characters is arrested for some type of physical intimacy on a beach in the Middle East. The reviewer was aghast at this cultural insensitivity. It wasn't the cultural insensitivity of the character - an empowering individual no doubt - but the cultural insensitivity of the film-maker and script writer.
The reviewer may well be right. The film and series appeared to border on pornography with little respect for the person so a lack of sensitivity is to be expected.
What struck me as odd however is this was the only value which appeared to be at stake for the reviewer. Am I way off track or is there some link with this movement of spiritual without being religious?

David,

I think the “spirituality” of which you speak is indicative of society at large these days. While I am not old enough to remember the “Good Old Days,” I think I have observed a decided trend in the past fifty years toward making life as easy as possible. It seems that “success” is measured not only by how much stuff we have acquired, but also by how little effort we put into getting it. “Something for nothing” is the current mantra.

Daivd--you are very right to connect vague spirituality with lack of suffering. When I was in Iraq last year one refreshing difference was the lack of vague spirituality. Soldiers believe or don't. Vague spirituality is useless flying to toward the Iran-Iraq border in a Blackhawk or riding in a Humvee on convoy security. Anesthesia and riches keep spirituality at bay, making death even more terrible when it comes. But I really do pray that the approach of death brings real clarity to those whose only hope is vague spirituality.

To understand "spirituality", we need to see it in context.

I have just got done proofreading a major academic tome in which a number of authors are materialist atheists, to whom spirituality has no meaningful reference at all.

I was acutely aware of that when co-writing "the Spiritual Brain" (Beauregard and O'Leary, Harper One, 2007). I know many people who think of themselves as "spiritual", who are not connected with a church. But why should they be?

Local churches regularly feature gay marriage, anti-Semitism on behalf of Palestine, promotion of abortion ...

The people to whom I refer are really better off just staying away. Many Catholic churches, by the way, are not much better. While they cannot directly embrace a doctrine forbidden by the Church, they can and do conduct their services in so slovenly a manner as to make clear what they do not really believe.

I am sure there is a special blessing in Heaven for those who have remained faithful in the meantime, but I cannot say that I think this is a good situation for the position ofthe Church as a lamp to society.

"Spirituality" is a holding pattern for those who would otherwise become materialist atheists. They cannot be committed Christians without a reliable guide. And "reliable guide" does not include the doubt-wracked, thrice-divorced campus chaplain, who is getting therapy for an Internet porn addiction.

A very timely and insightful piece this is.

To put another spin on the phrase Mr Cortese references, "if you don't let Jesus take you up, Someone Else will take you down."

We really have no choice about whether we will have a spirituality, since the nature of man demands it. (This is what Pascal was pointing to in his comment about the God-shaped void in the heart.) Just as we are bound to be idolaters if we will not worship the true God, so are we bound to be oppressed by the spirit of malevolence if we will not accept the "glorious freedom of the sons of God."

I do seem to recall that Dante has a special section reserved on the edge of the Inferno for those who attempted to get through life without making the choice. Nevertheless, it's still Hell: They get what they want - no pain - but as a result, they have no joy, either.

Nicely written, as usual.

You capture nicely the reflexive trope that this phrase represents. (For some reason, I recalled the famous or notorious Madonna interview with Ted Koppel years ago on Nightline, I think, where she held a pencil in her hands: a very subtle prop to suggest her seriousness. Something similar happens with this, to create a private-public pose.

On the other hand, I go to some meetings where I often hear "I'm spiritual, not religious." It often comes from people who grew up in the Roman Catholic Church, and who have very grim stories indeed, even if they very rarely include sexual abuse, of that religious upbringing. Religion, the Church, Christianity, even faith seem poisoned by that experience. That's the Catholic idea of "scandal" I think, yes?

At this point, with these people, I think we get closer to the point you're driving at with the O'Connor quotes: there *is* an underlying despair, and "being spiritual" is not simply a superficial attempt to be jolly about it. It is, in O'Connor's words the demand "that what falls at least be offered the chance to be restored.”

While Lady Gaga might not be the best example for this, there are some people who take the idea of being spiritual not religious seriously. The phrase, I believe, was first popularized in Alcoholics Anonymous. I was introduced to this idea when I was 19 and embraced it. I was not willing at that point in my life to belong to any particular church or any other faith but definitely needed and wanted Something greater than me in my life. So I took what I could from what other people said about their spiritual lives and whatever else I could cobble together from things I read, Dicken's Christmas Carol, recitations of all Lincoln's lost elections leading to 1860, and even those Hallmark-y sort of inspirational sayings.
I believed in God but in a very nebulous kind of way, but still, I am certain that God was present in my life sustaining me. I prayed every day and even had my own ad-hoc morning devotions. I was aware of, and accepted, that what I had came from God and had a sense of deliverance from myself.
Eventually a series of events shook my confidence in my ramshackle structure and I found myself one night praying in despair in a Lady chapel when I suddenly realized that having a God of my own understanding didn't mean that I was supposed to understand God. In time, I became Catholic. It is a source of comfort to me that I don't have to re-invent the wheel of God every morning, so to speak.
I think the real tragedy is that my story is not typical and that most people like myself will simply get along as best they can. They can be likened to the people in the parable, who when called to the Wedding Banquet, beg off saying they must go to the market or on a journey or whatever and thus miss out in sharing their Master's joy. Michael Guenther

A friend writes:

The “spiritual” person recognizes the yearning at the center of fallen human nature, but seems unable to get from the quest to fill it to commitment to the God who can and does fill it – rather like the person yearning for sexual fulfillment, who likewise revels in the “chase” (and indeed, in its superficiality), but cannot quite bring himself to commitment and relationship in depth.

This is so true. It is depressing to see one exhibitionist celeb after another claim the mantle of "spirituality." The only thing I don't agree with is that "Marxism is dead as a source of human hope." Unfortunately, some aspects of Marxism (mainly the less hopeful ones!) seem to be quite alive in the growing trend towards support for "authoritarian capitalism" and other forms of undemocratic governance, as an antidote to what many perceive as the messiness of democracy and underlying permissive societies. Of course, democracy relies on individual self-governance, which does not seem to be enhanced by this type of vague "spirituality."

The first time I heard someone use the "spiritual" terminology was about 15 years ago when a friend told me, "I'm very spiritual. I believe there are spirits all around us." This seems more in line with spiritualism of the kind practiced by Arthur Conan Doyle; I don't know how many others who call themselves spiritual think that way, though judging by the prevalence of angels in pop culture it's probably quite a few. (I'm sorry to say that I could not summon up an iota of tact and told her that spiritualism without God gave us no standards by which to act or judge. My friend then exercised her offense-taking muscle, that most over-developed and over-valued of modern capacities.)

David,
Well said. As a university professor/administrator, I see spirituality all around me. As the students are in a new environment, they don't know the lay of the land around them, so many take spirituality as a protective coloration. Professors and administrators take this on as a protective coloration because they _do_ know the lay of the land.

Bobby Winters

Me, I'm religious but not spiritural.

Anyway, how dare Lady Gaga object to hatred and exclusion? If God doesn't mind -- and if He excludes no one, he doesn't -- what right has she to?

Once at a conference a woman in the audience prefaced her response to my paper on psychology and Christian spirituality by stating she was "spiritual but not religious." She continued by saying that she "like to take what was best from all traditions."

Had she ended her comments there I would have remained silent. Unfortunately, the woman asked me if I didn't think this was sufficient. Since I had just spent the last 20 minutes explaining why the Christian tradition mattered to psychology and why Christian spirituality was an important and necessary to balance the often amoral practice of psychotherapy, I can't imagine what she expected me to say.

What I did say, was that, for myself, I was uncomfortable telling the Dali Lama what was really BEST about Buddhism.

Reflecting on this and like exchanges, I've come to realize that "spiritual without being religious" is simply a personal mode of imperialism. Wealthy Westerns, bored with, or ignorant of, Christianity go searching among the religions of the world for little "trinkets" to place on the mantle piece of their own souls.

Bad as this is, we now see a "Christianized" version of spiritual without being religious. Especially in the Emergent Church movement we have people who approach the ascetical and mystical and liturgical traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches picking up bits and pieces to construct for themselves a "post-modern" Christian community. While such may be indeed be post-modern, I doubt that it is Christian in any but the most abstract sense.

All of this spirituality without religion should not surprise us. It is the latest, though hardly the last, manifestation of the scandal of particularity.

Thanks for the post David and thanks as well to any who've read this far.

+FrG

Following a painful divorce I did some online dating at some reputable sites. I learned very quickly that any woman who described herself as "spiritual" was generally to be avoided - - "spiritual" was frequently code for crystals, reiki, channeling, or macrobiotic food.

Wonderful article. The "spiritual" that Lady Gaga (and by the way, why are people gaga over this woman?) talks about really has to do with a feeling. It is primitive emotionalism and it reduces the complexities and paradoxes of faith (which are badly needed for a spirit to grow: think of Denys the Areopagite and his use and embrace of such paradoxes theough the affirmative and negative theology) to simple minded hippie factory that produces layers of happy feeling and denies the nature of the fallen man.

This is the phenomenon I call "McSpirituality" (as in McMuffin or McRib Sandwich). It's quick, easy, cheap, and tastes good. No discipline required, no fundamental changes, no pesky rules of morality. It is, however, nutritionally empty, and those who try to live on it will die earlier than necessary.

A youtube video may be found of Lady Gaga (birth name: Stefani Germanotta), performing unobjectionable, catchy jazz music. But as any music biz veteran will tell you, the public buys the musician's image, not her music. Smart and sophisticated Stefani pretends to be dumb, tarty Lady Gaga in order to achieve worldly success, and risks becoming the mask. The public won't stomach good aesthetic fair, so they turn out candy which is quickly ruining our digestion. In the same way that's what "spiritual" spirituality is about. An unwillingness to put up with the dowdier aspects of traditional religious life to get at the real life of joy.

Thank you, Michael Guenther, for telling us about your experience of moving from "spirituality" to entering the Catholic Church. It's an encouraging story.

But I wonder how accurate it is to say "most people like myself will simply get along as best they can." My experience of such people is that they're not getting along in that sense, but simply rationalizing an unwillingness to face the questions and demands of real religion. Most, in my experience, can't tell stories like yours because they don't have that degree of conviction of the existence of God, such as led you to keep looking for him. It's at most a comforting but unfounded belief in the fundamental goodness of the cosmos and its essentially laissez-faire attitude to their actions.

But maybe I'm being unfair, because my own mind is wired completely the other way. In high school, some of my friends would go all googglely-eyed over some popular swami or meditation technique or pop Hinduism or Buddhism. I thought they were nuts. Marx made sense. You could see what he was talking about. You could put your finger on it. But all that spiritual stuff, no.

C. S. Lewis makes an important distinction in the Abolition of Man. Most people, he says, when asked to pair science, technology, religion, and magic together would pair the first two and second two together. But the deeper relation is between magic & technology, science & religion. For magic & technology are both concerned to conform the surrounding world to our own will; technology has worked while magic has not, but the two were born of the same spirit and aspiration. On the other hand, religion and science are not about manipulating nature, but, in the case of science, discovering its physical laws, and in the case of religion, discovering and conforming to its moral laws.

I think that distinction is immensely helpful in understanding alot of what passes for spirituality in our culture. There are any number of books out which are all variations on the same teaching; that by aligning ourselves with some infinite but impersonal spiritual force or principle, we are thereby capable of attaining all our wishes and desires. Here we are in the realm of not religion but magic. The appeal is obvious; one potentially has access to great spiritual energy and transformative powers without any of the moral demands that come with religion. One need not conform his will to any moral commands or laws; he simply learns a technique by which he can conform the world to his own wishes and desires.

Lewis has an excellent treatment of this whole tendency in the chapter "Christianity and 'Religion'" in Miracles I believe.

Speaking as an atheist, I have to agree with Mr. Mills. I cannot tell you how often my atheist/agnostic/deist friends or acquaintances have told me that they are "spiritual but not religious." I know that what they really mean is that they have no idea what they believe, and I assume they have some vague sense of the ineffable that they wish to express. This is, unfortunately, a very common expression heard in my crowd.

I have never head anybody say he is "spiritual but not religious." And I work at a university. I have heard hundreds of self-proclaimed "religious" people denounce all the people who say they are "spiritual but not religious," but I have never actually met anybody who claims to be "spiritual but not religious."

I guess it's easier to bash a figment of your imagination, isn't it? Figments can be trusted not to bash back.

The statement "I'm spiritual but not religious" strikes me more as a desire to belong to a group, a lifestyle without investing oneself in doctrine or submitting to an authority.

If they can pick and choose as they wish then no one else can call them on it. Their position has no foundation, no canon that can be called upon. It is ephemeral and ever-changing as the situation necessitates.

In some ways, it is a counter-point to atheistic thought. The atheist has no authority except their own. They can take any position that they desire and work from it. It that one doesn’t work, they move on to the next.

The Christian and certain other religious traditions do not have that option. We submit to an authority whether it be tradition and/or scripture and since it is open to anyone who wishes to delve into it, our lives must be in accordance with that authority for us to be effective in proclaiming the good news of Jesus.

Claiming spirituality is merely someone's way of creating for themselves their own "religion". Your own rules.

Dear Endicott,

Really?! Well I took work in the academy too (four decades) and it is a common declaration at our schoo and elsewherel. Kids don't like the demands and the perceived hypocrisies of religion, but feel a bit uneasy about having no "soul." In fact I once heard a colleague say, "It may sound funny for an atheist to say, but I wish this place were more spiritual." If words count, his wishes have come true. I've also seen surveys in and outside of the academy (and student newspaper articles) documenting this claim as commonplace. If you had a dollar for everybody in the US who takes this line you would be a very rich person. There is a lot of money in figments.

The posters are tilting at dragons, or at least lizards aplenty, not windmills.

Best,

Richard

Still, Jesus himself often seemed to stress "love" like Lady Gaga. And it looks like he spiritually reached out, to even to other religions, with love.

For example? Conside the moment when Jesus and the NT told us that 1) to "love" was really, the one "new" and core commandment, that Jesus brought. And 2) then that the greatest commandment was to love God ... and to love your neighbor as yourself.

But especially note next that 3) to love your "neighbor" extends spiritual understanding, to a wide variety of people; even to other religions.

When asked, who is our "neighbor" to whom we should extend spiritual appreciation, "love," Jesus told the here-neglected story of the "Good Samaritan." That story suggested that even a Samaritan could be good. While a Samaritan at the time, was a person who was not in Jesus' religion (John 4.9); who was not a Jew or Christian. But though the Samaritan was not even a Christian, Jesus said that since he was generally good, since the non-Christian did good works (not just spiritual thoughts, note), that non-Christian was a better man, than the apparent models of Judeo-Christian propriety: better than even a priest, or a rabbi (/Levite; Luke 10.27-37). Who were "spiritual," but who did no mere material good works. Like healing the physically sick.

Today, conservative Catholics, here, seem to assume that of course, any religion that extends spiritual appreciation, love, tolerance, to any religion aside from Catholicism, is simply an evil heresy. But here, in Luke 10, we have Jesus himself doing that.

For which, to be sure, the religious conservatives of his time, the Pharisees, crucified him.

As they still crucify him, his spirit, to this very day.

Are you serious, Endicott? You have never heard anyone say that at a university? I find that hard to believe. I strongly suggest that you get your hearing checked.

Understanding this phenomenon is key to the future of the Christian faith, at least in the West. This represents the final collapse of any understanding of the objectivity of religion for modern man. By "spirituality," of course, what folks mean is (a) their own conscience, if they still have one, or, (b) in the more likely event that the conscience is largely seared, what their emotions (nearly synonymous with “gonads” for many) demand. To say that one is “spiritual, but not religious,” is to affirm that one's own inner life is divine, which makes obedience to one's own lusts a fairly easy and delightful religion to follow, at least in the short term.

I think I understand the phenomena of monasticism and asceticism more fully now, and why both arose in the later Roman Empire. Our ancestors undoubtedly encountered something very similar to "spirituality" as their wealthy and decadent world collapsed about them. As Casey Stengel noted, it's déjà vu all over again.

Thanks for this piece David. I like The Onion's approach to this empty expression:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/priest-religious-but-not-really-spiritual,17373/

Priest Religious, But Not Really Spiritual

BOSTON—Father Clancy Donahue of St. Michael Catholic Church told reporters Wednesday that while he believed in blindly adhering to the dogma and ceremonies of his faith, he tried not to get too bogged down by actual spirituality. "I'm not so much into having a relationship with God as I am into mechanically conducting various rituals," Donahue said. "To me, it just feels empty to contemplate a higher power without blindly obeying canon law and protecting the church as an institution." Donahue emphasized that although he did not personally agree with those who pondered the eternal, he had nothing against them.

This Onion piece seems open to two readings.

On the one hand, it seems to suggest that a) Father Clancy is a parody of what many people improperly think, of Catholics; of course, it seems to say, Catholics do not focus on just religion by rote, ritual; but they are open to a generous spirituality.

But on the other, b) this piece can be read as suggesting that Catholics are all too much, like Father Clancy: they are all-too often focused narrowly on following rituals, rules; with no appreciation of a wider spirituality at all. Indeed, they have a positive antipathy to any broad spirituality that embraces the larger would, outside their small parish.

As someone hinted here: if you don't like "spirituality without religion," what about "religion, with no spirituality"? "Having the form of religion," the rituals, but lacking any understanding of its larger application.

It seems possible to err with either extreme.

Though to tell the truth, much of the world sees Father Clancy as in fact, an accurate picture of the typical Catholic: totally absorbed in petty rules and rituals; utterly unappreciative of a larger, generous spirit.

Today, conservative Catholics, here, seem to assume that of course, any religion that extends spiritual appreciation, love, tolerance, to any religion aside from Catholicism, is simply an evil heresy.

Really? Where do you find these people? Every conservative Catholic I know, including the ones who don't read theology, holds to the Church's teaching (even if they don't really know it, they've picked it up on this point), which is generous, in a sense agnostic, and respectful of the dignity of believers in other religions.

I've found that the simple challenge, "what does that mean?" befuddles these folks. You are right that they've never considered what the word means.

Fantastic article. Thanks for writing this! So true, I really loved what you said:

"The man wasting away from pancreatic cancer will get no help nor comfort from the “spiritual,” which will seem a lot less friendly and comforting when he feels pain morphine won’t suppress. He has no one to beg for help, no one to ask for comfort, no one to be with him, no one to meet when he crosses from this world to the next. He wants what religion promises."

It's when we hit rock bottom that we realize we cannot save ourselves but need God. How easy to say that one is "good" without God....yeah, until some kind of disease comes on you, or a close call on the highway!

David Mills:

All are respectful of other forms of religion ... except nearly everyone here, regarding Lady Gaga's spirituality, and related forms.

David Mills:

Conservative Catholics, you say, are broad minded, and appreciate all kinds of other religions? But conservatives here, in the present forum, are utterly disdainful of Lady Gaga; and all related forms of "spirituality."

Granted, Lady Gaga might not be the best example of contemporary spirituality; but clearly the (conservative) author of this piece for example, and most of Catholics in this very forum, reject not only Gaga as simply ridiculous, but all other related forms of spirituality too.

By the way, I find "our" "Lady," Gaga/Agape/agape, very interesting, theologically.

Lady Gaga has said in interviews that she took her name from "Radio Gaga".

"Today, conservative Catholics, here, seem to assume that of course, any religion that extends spiritual appreciation, love, tolerance, to any religion aside from Catholicism, is simply an evil heresy."

The writer seems to assume a lot. I know lots of conservative Catholics and non of them run around calling out "heresy," regarding other religions.

As to tiresome charge being laid here that Mills et al are exhibiting a lack of "tolerance" toward Gaga's "spirituality," you really betray a lack of understanding. Mills and the rest are not "intolerant," they're actually thoughtful and concerned; these people take the "easy" way by claiming "spirituality alone" (sola spirituality?) - because it can mean anything and does not demand a defense - but they have nothing. When they really need a spiritual anchor, they will not have one.

But you should probably just stick with your "intolerant" idea. Because that is easy and it makes you feel good about yourself. Just like vague spirituality.

This is the biggest load of uninformed, misguided BS I have read any topic related to spirituality (or religion for that matter) in a very long time. Dear author, you are so disconnected and clueless about what is out there, it is not even funny.

If I had to choose between you and some of the fundamentalist, bigotted and prejudiced nutcases who walk this planet, you will certainly be last in line.

Please, never come and play in my sandbox!

Stop obsessing about what some celebrity is doing and saying, and try to educate yourself a little more on what true spirituality really is.

Read some Dyer, and Hicks and Hay. Don't blow your wad over things you know absolutely zero about.

It is true what another pop singer once said when asked what makes the world go round. His answers was: "stupidity".

Nothing is more dangerous than a moron on a mission. And I am not talking about Ms Gaga.

Thank Gaga I am spiritual. ;)

In Love and Light!

Amen and Namaste.

Excellent article.

I think this abstract spiritualism is a veiled form of Gnosticism. In such a view, the material world is completely divorced from the spiritual world, so there are no material or ritual obligations in thinking about spiritual concerns. And that's all this spiritualism reduces down to: thinking. Unlike Christianity, which seeks a relationship with the Triune God (and what better argument for the primacy of relationships than the Trinity?), abstract spiritualism seeks only positive emotions through thinking about a vaguely benevolent life-force. It is a selfish worldview that values individual feelings over relationships, instead of allowing our feelings to be subsumed by God's relationship with us.

We even see this divorce between materiality and spirituality in modern romantic relationships. Physical action is divorced from emotional and spiritual concerns, allowing couples to abuse their sexuality whenever they wish, regardless of the level of their emotional and spiritual connection. Then they wonder why a healthy relationship is not blooming.

How should you live your life? Spiritual, but not religious implies that you do whatever you want, to please yourself; no lasting standards, no foundation, and few or none who will miss you, let alone pray for you when you are gone.
BTW, @Brettongarcia: Jesus in his teaching about the two greatest commandments was quoting from classic Judaism. (and from the Torah)
Historically, Samaritans were looked down upon by Jews returning from the Babylonian exile, because the Samaritans had intermarried with their pagan neighbors, and incorporated some of the pagan gods and practices in their worship. So the concept of a "Good Samaritan" as a model to be emulated was turning the mental world upside down to the original hearers of that story.
TeaPot562

Brettongarcia writes:

"Though to tell the truth, much of the world sees Father Clancy as in fact, an accurate picture of the typical Catholic: totally absorbed in petty rules and rituals; utterly unappreciative of a larger, generous spirit."

Hmmm....generalization upon generalization: "much of the World ...typical Catholic...." I wonder if Brettongarcia thinks the people with that view have "larger [more] generous spirit[s]" than the Catholics they so crassly stereotype?

"Please, never come and play in my sandbox!"

I am Spiritual! does not seem to agree with Lady Gaga's message of tolerance and inclusion. Dearie, dearie me. Which one is true spirituality, then?

Methinks a little background on our "spiritually clueless" David Mills is in order:

David Mills is editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. He is the author of Knowing the Real Jesus (Charis Books/Servant Publications) and the editor of a series of books featuring essays by leading literary scholars on prominent English Christians of the Twentieth Century, the first of which is The Pilgrim's Guide: C. S. Lewis and the Art of Witness (Eerdmans). He is working on volumes about J. R. R. Tolkien and G. K. Chesterton.

Recent Touchstone articles include: "Getting Jesus Right: How Sincerity Seduces the Sincere," "The Writer of Our Story: Divine Providence in The Lord of the Rings," and "Necessary Doctrine: Why Dogma is Needed and Why Substitutes Fail." His writing has also appeared in The Anglican Digest, New Covenant, Our Sunday Visitor, New Directions, Chronicles, and other magazines.

Best,

Richard

"That story suggested that even a Samaritan could be good. "

Albeit not on mushy grounds of claimed spirituality but on grounds of positive good deeds.

Thank you! I've been waiting for someone to address the "spiritual but not religious" dodge. I've stopped a conversation or two when someone has claimed to be "spiritual but not religious" by asking what *exactly* they mean by the phrase. Thinking deep thoughts when seeing a sunset or hearing beautiful music? Experiencing that "oceanic" feeling? My interlocutors have never been much help clearing it up.

Richard: Thank you for the biography, but it's a little out of date. I was the editor of *Touchstone*, but am now the deputy editor of *First Things*.

One thing that you leave out: Being religious (rather than "spiritual") for most people connotes ORGANIZED religion. The self-proclaimed spiritual persons pride themselves on not engaging in rituals, having creeds, carrying out obligatory religious duties, or belonging to any specific group of believers.

If I may guess at the minds of others, it seems to me that what "I am Spiritual!" and M. Brettongarcia are objecting to (albeit the latter in a considerably more gracious manner than the former) is the presumption that the S-B-N-R caveat refers *only* to the semi-conscious attempt, as Mr. Mills describes, to have one's cake and eat it too, supernaturally speaking. In the sense that this does partake somewhat of the same Bulverism (the imputation of the worst or most self-interested motives possible as the "real reason" an opponent disagrees) for which we're criticizing S-B-N-R'ers, it's a fair point to make.

It's certainly true that this salad-bar, all-thrills-no-price approach describes quite a lot of people who drift into this mindset. (It describes how a lot of nominally traditional religious folks actually live, too.) However, there is a small but real subsection of the S-B-N-R crowd who are there not because they find formal religious practice especially boring, stifling or frustrating in a personal way, but because they genuinely believe that rote repetitious ritual undermines and precludes the experience of the numinous (to paraphrase Lewis) by definition.

Like all the most appealing heresies, there's truth to this: the Pharisees are the hallmark of those who live by religion's letter but not its spirit. From this perspective, the inability to practically define "spirituality" is not a weakness; it's the whole point of the term in the first place. You can love people without feeling any need to condemn them for what really do seem to be only trifling or inconsequential flaws. You don't need to agonize over moral dilemmas; you can act as seems right to you at the time, as circumstances merit, adjusting your hierarchy of principles to maximize the happiness of *everyone* involved. You can allow everyone the freedom to define their own purpose and meaning without need for conflict over which purpose is the best or the rightest. And your joy in the beauty of creation, life, and fulfillment need never be flattened out by the constant need to say the same words about it, week after week, year after year.... Doesn't familiarity breed contempt? Avoid ritual, then, so things will always be new and surprising and therefore delightful.

What this is rooted in, more than anything else, are impulses admirable in themselves: the spirit of empathy and compassion that moves us to forgive, to resist hypocritically judging others, and makes rejecting those we love a grief and pain, and the joy in novelty, discovery and change that helps us grow as human beings. These are real and vital parts of Christian faith. Yet -- like all the other vital parts of the faith -- when taken out of context and set up on their own as the Ultimate Good, even these impulses go wrong. The desire to achieve peace becomes the willingness to repress disagreement; the desire not to condemn becomes the willingness to tolerate or indulge anything; the desire not to stifle or be stifled by "meaningless ritual" becomes a furious refusal to submit to any law or rule except where forced; the desire never to find life or the world boring becomes an addict's self-numbing craving for ever-more exotic, and eventually perverted, experiences and sights.

All these sins have their mirror image in the Pharisee, of course; the Devil sends errors into the world in pairs, as Lewis notes. But a line from *Screwtape* comes to mind: "Our strategy in every age is to make that age most afraid of the vice from which it is least in danger; we want everyone to rush to the side of the boat that is already furthest under water." It is precisely when we most obsess about the dangers of one sin that we are most at risk of succumbing to its opposite.

Lady Gaga: "There’s really no religion that doesn’t hate or condemn a certain kind of people, and I totally believe in all love and forgiveness, and excluding no one." That's sheer nonsense. She dropped out of NYU after two semesters, so we can't blame a university for her ignorance. She's a narcissistic ignoramus, plain and simple.

"A few years ago a much-reported study of college students’ religious practice found that they become more “spiritual” as their observance of their childhood faith declined. The researchers defined “spiritual” as “growth in self-understanding, caring about others, becoming more of a global citizen and accepting others of different faiths.” What on earth does being a "global citizen" (whatever that might mean) have to do with being spiritual. This is simply Lefty politics served up as a false religion.

We as a people lack any sort of meaningful education; we live very shallow lives and don't even know it; we happily turn ourselves into clichès.

T. S. Eliot, The Wasteland

Unreal City,
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.

I agree that seeking the spirit without the letter is, in the end, a fruitless task. But isn't searching for the spirit part of the essence of the letter? The purpose of this essay seems to be to ridicule the misguided hunt for the spirit ("get out of jail free," "claim to superiority," "Ms. Gaga and all else who speak like this," et al.). While surely there are many "spiritual" sorts who act superior and have mushy views of love (just as there are many smug, spiritless religious folk), don't they also have a real desire for God, one which a Christian should want to develop? It's hard to imagine a "spiritual" person reading this and being tempted towards something higher--in fact, feeling anything other than being derided. Flannery O'Connor in the brief quotation here offers a much richer (and more severe) view of the matter. The fact is that many individuals in our age have a sense that religious institutions are largely bankrupt, so many that it isn't reasonable to believe the problem is simply that we have more dumb or bad people than in the past. Shouldn't one of the tasks of First Things be to show that religious institutions do have something real, even something essential, to offer those who seek the spirit in their misguided (i.e. fallibly human) way? To manifest the spirit of the letter? The rhetoric of this essay reminds me of the New Atheists. Just as they subvert their message of rationality with fallacious reasoning, this is apt to remind the lapsed of why they left. Life without the Letter is in the worst of taste, Auden says somewhere, but without the Spirit we die.

Excellent article, David.

The emphasis on "spirituality" over dogma and formal religiosity is largely a product of the abandonment of objectivity as a philosophic ideal in favor of subjectivity, as well as the embrace of an inconsistant relativism. The dismissal of objective truth and moral absolutes has necessarily created a wilderness of uncertainty. The "spiritualist" attempts to anchor his life (and eliminate the existential anxiety) not by recognizing the need for objective truths and moral absolutes but by tying himself to principles that "feel" or "sound" right but which, more often than not, aren't logically connected to one another or grounded in any in-depth examination of experiential reality. Uncovering the bedrock of objectivism and tapping the wellspring of moral absolutism requires work: intellectual heavy lifting for which our current educational processes and goals leaves many of us sadly unprepared. (Of course, I don't refer to anyone here!)

Brettongarcia says: "Conservative Catholics, you say, are broad minded, and appreciate all kinds of other religions? But conservatives here, in the present forum, are utterly disdainful of Lady Gaga[] and all related forms of 'spirituality.'"
This necessarily brings up the question: How should we "accept" other belief systems? For if there's no objective truth and no moral absolutes, then there's no logical or meaningful way in which tolerance can be better than intolerance, or in which acceptance can be morally superior to rejection. On the other hand, once we posit as an axiom the existence of objective truths and moral absolutes — even if we disagree on what those truths and absolutes are — then it follows that not all belief systems can describe reality in a manner that makes moral certainty, even moral sanity, possible; discernment and rejection of the misleading systems then becomes not only logically possible but morally necessary.

It isn't really an expression of charity to "accept" Lady GaGa's "spirituality" by saying polite nothings about it, or by pretending that it has some spiritual nutritional value. We're meant not only to live the Truth of Christ but also to proclaim it, which can't avoid illustrating the extent to which other systems are false and even dangerous. Sometimes the most merciful thing you can do will cause pain, like setting a broken bone.

Jesus had no publications, and was not a member of the Catholic Church. He worked for a while with St. Peter; but because Peter, the first Pope, kept contradicting him, Jesus finally turned on Peter, and called Peter "Satan" (Mat. 16.23).

After Jesus died, Paul helped found Christianity on the inscription, "to an unknown God."

Dogmatism, Church membership for a moment, curiously lacking.

Or as I like to say (I may be stealing a quote, but if so, I cant remember to whom to attribute it): "If you believe in everything, you effectively belive in nothing." But spirituality without religion does remind me also of a quote I can attribute, Lincoln's famous quip "A soup, made from the shadow of a crow that had starved to death." I got a good chuckle from the "Namaste" sign off from "I am Spiritual". Brought back some memories from what I at the time perceived to be heady days in college. As for those who fired back "What about religion without spirituality?" Yes, it too misses the mark, but at least it is not the flimsy, "ice your own cupcake" non-entity that "spirituality without religion is". In other words, a nominal Catholic at least ahs a standard against which to judge. The self-proclaimed spiritualist is a leaf in the wind. Besides, Mr. Mills is in no way advocating religion without spirit, he's just underscoring the vacuity of spirituality without religion. Serious adherents to orthodox Christian religion, have plenty of connection with a rich tradition of the Spirit and spirituality. But it is one informed by the Deposit of Faith not the whims of whatver fashionable connivance currently holds sway.

I suspect part of what drives the "spiritual but not religious" crowd is the desire to believe in an afterlife. Politically, it appeals to people who dislike consumer culture or capitalism. They see that secular life revolves largely around commerce and work and have a feeling that this is an inadequate basis for a complete life.

Insofar as "spirituality" involves incorporating aspects of Buddhism or Hinduism, it also appeals to those who style themselves as cosmopolitan or worldly.

I see this phenomenon as the extension of the religious mentality but for those who feel out of place in organized religion. The church I grew up in had very few young singles in their 20s or early 30s -- it was mostly families and elderly people. This kind of environment is not going to appeal to a young person on their own for the first time. There are exceptions of course but even these won't appeal to everyone.

I believe the reason many people avoid organized religion is as Sartre said, "Hell is other people." It takes a great deal of discipline, love, and tolerance to become a member of a church, to go weekly, to put up with the human foibles of your religious family. Yes, it can be a joy and source of comfort, but it can also be as annoying and aggravating as your biological family, as anyone who has planned church activities knows. And it can be depressing to try and reconcile the inconsistencies of dogma and practice.

It's much easier to just forgoe this aggravation, avoid organized religion, and say you are spiritual. But in a way, this declaration is in itself a declaration of intolerance for your fellow humans. You can "love" them as long as they don't make too many demands on you.

Ultimately I do have some reservations myself, about a totally freeform spirituality. However, I wouldn't rein it in with particularly, traditional religious icons. As much as with science; with an insistence that any spirituality prove itself, by producing material "fruits." Or "works." To that extent, I'm rather catholic.

This means though, that I'm not as enthusiastic about oversimplified traditional religious icons as an "anchor."

In fact, I'd like to note here that there's a tradition in Pop Culture, of attempts to parody or update religious images and icons; like the image especially, of Mary. An update of Mary, is found curiously, in several key famale entertainers, singers. Ranging from 1) Eva Peron; to 2) "Madonna" ("like a virgin"); to ... 3) our Lady Gaga.

In general, these alternative personas, the revolutionary alternative Marys these entertainers have created, seen to try to strike a balance between the cliched supportive crooning, but rather one-dimensional virgin, then Mother. And a more outgoing woman: no longer a virgin, and "living in the material world." And being far more productive. The image is more incarnational: spirit coming down to earth. "Living in the material world; while "I'm a material girl."

In some cases it's quite a shocking difference. Still, it is a female, supportive voice or song. And more outgoing; and capable of producing Product.

Or in traditional religious terms, "works."

I've talked with quite a few folks who claim to be spiritual but not religious, and in all the cases it boils down to their wanting some connection with the transcendent, but a connection which makes no demands upon them. One friend, a sort of spiritual agnostic, stated that were she to believe in a God, it would be a God who had no expectations of us. I tried to explain to her that this was a nice thought, but that it made no sense. How could you love your father, for instance, if he expected absolutely nothing from you? She got miffed and changed the subject.

lost in words, limits the ability to know the spiritual self ..

Yea don't worry David Mills I think I'll take your word over someone who ventures onto a journal of intellectual inquiry and advises someone "don't blow your wad".
It should make any American cringe that our society is capable of rearing such people who are "spiritual but not religious" like "I am Spiritual!" and think that such a thing is appropriate to say in any serious conversation, let alone on the website of one of the most profound intellectual journals on the globe.

Oh brave new world...where peasants have instant access to scholars!

It may be true that Gaga is imitating religious music (probably because she went to Catholic school), saying simple and understandable refrains over and over again and intertwining those refrains into new verses over music (Catholic choirs do an immeasurably better job musically than do her producers who seem to have abandoned melodies, harmonies and thus any attempt at making complex sounds).
The fact that she imitates, or "does the same thing" as religion only means that she is stealing thunder from Catholicism (like Muhhamed, but that's another argument).
Her imitation is cheap, crude and mindless. It leads to sexual problems, drug problems and at the very least a life wasted listening to shallow pop lyrics sloppily laid onto amateurish music. (I'll grant that it might be professional musicians who know that it's hip to sound amateur making this music..but amateur is the result none the less.)

You can have your religious fundamentalist any day...I'll take First Things and The Catholic Thing and we can go our separate ways and compare who did better after this is all over, Lady Gaga and pop music or the Catholic intellectual tradition.

I'll remind you that Tiberius laughed at the Christians and their bazaar way of life because it seemed so silly to him that the social groups and popular pastimes of the day that he found so thoroughly proper and interesting might die out.
Perhaps it would also interest you to know that the fundamental messages of the contributors to First Things and the Christian commentators of Tiberius' time are identical to the core. No such continuity can be claimed by any purely secular tradition--which is misleading itself because, apart from the crude examples of pagan Greece and pagan Rome, there is no pre-Christian secular tradition. Even in Greece and Rome you were killed for standing up to the dominant priestly caste.

People who strongly support anti-religious secularism only find salvation in ignorance of the past, which makes it extraordinary that they've lasted even this long.
The new diverse anti-religious technocrats (or whatever they call themselves now) owe their existence to Christians and Jews from the past. That's obviously going to be a big problem for their creation myth.

Well, what IS the fabulous superior quality of Catholicsm? As evidenced here, it seems to be the spirit of self-righteousness, and contenuousness.

Read the letters from the beginning: smug, disdainful contempt for others - for Popular culture, Lady Gaga and secular culture. Who are only "peasants"; even Aristotle and Plato and the founders of Western Civilization, are only stupid "pagans."

Here's the basic vocabulary of our very religious Catholics, here. As they refer to spirituality, and spiritual persons, our readers apply the following terms to them:

"Debauchees.... fuzzy.... lost in "drugs" ... in a religion that "does not do us any good," that is "no comfort" (Mills); full of "cultural insensitivity" (Sean); "useless" (Niel); "doubt-wracked, thrice-divorced" (Denyse); deserving "Hell" (Edwards); "ramshackle" (mmg); lacking "deapth" (Mills); "exhibitionist" (Jane); hypocritical/"protective coloration" (Bobby); "imperialism" (Fr. Greg); "goggley-eyed" (Mills); "magic" (Jordan); "no foundation" (toddes); "gonads" (Bill); "no help" (Abrittany); "tiresome" (EMK); "vague" (TK); "primitive emotionalism" (Melonie); "McSpirituality" (Greg); "mushy" (Mary); "mindless" and "narcissitic" (Ed); "inconsistent" and "vacuous" (Max); "peasants" following the "bazaar" ("bizarre"?; Jacob).

As one more moderate Christian voice suggested here, this language does not seem likely to convince a spiritual person, that she or he should listen to you carefully; that you are very, very superior beings. Who have moved so far, far beyond spirituality.

I understand this is an Interet blog; rudeness and frankness are the rule here. But if so, then note, expect the same in kind.

I like the comments in Professor Anthony Esolen's endorsement:

"My friend David Mills, erstwhile editor of Touchstone and now assistant editor of First Things, has posted a really interesting article on the phrase that one often hears (especially, as one commenter notes, from women into Reiki and macrobiotic diets), "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual." Check it out. It reminds me of a conversation I had with an atheist friend last summer. I mentioned the virtue of reverence, and how it was demanded by our encounters with both the natural world and one another. He apparently liked that a great deal, and has been thinking about it ever since. But as for me, I am trying to figure out how to say to him, "Reverence without an objective quality of being worthy of reverence makes no sense, and reverence without One to revere quickly collapses into a nice feeling, utterly unable to withstand the tidal wave of utilitarianism.""

Brettongarcia raises a point we must always keep in mind, especially since the effect of writing is often so different from what the writer intends.

But his own use of the evidence is an example of the kind of thing he condemns. I didn't, for example, accuse everyone who talks about "spirituality" of debauchery, but only one example who spent the night in a Berlin sex club, and I mentioned that only because it illustrated the intellectual problem I was explaining. Charity does not require one to abandon moral realism.

And it is not in any way uncharitable to suggest a "spirituality" of the kind I was examining "does not do us any good" and lacks "depth." If I am right, saying so clearly is an act of charity to those who may be drawn to "spirituality without religion."

Others of the comments he quotes are similarly attempts to speak clearly, and I am fairly sure out of the same concern for people who prefer the kind of "spirituality" I was describing. We think it is bad for them, or at best a settling for something much less glorious than they could have. And this would be true of some of those who words sounded harsh, perhaps much harsher than they intended.

Anyone who writes this kind of thing gets used to critics trying to use the idea that by speaking plainly he is driving people away. It's an ideological tool. But it's one that could be used against our Lord, and St. Paul, and a raft of the Church Fathers, and Martin Luther, and for that matter C. S. Lewis.

Mr. Truth & Prof. Esolen:

Prove you are worthy of the "reverence" that you seem to feel you and others like you deserve, but not many others. (Mere "spritual" people?).

Many Christians, recognize only a very narrow set of things, to revere; and they therefore miss many, many aspects of the God who fills "all" things.

Should we revere the statue of Mary for example - and disrespect the beggar on the street? Or disrespect all of science?

Or disrespect the Holy Spirit, because it is not immediately visible in our Church?

It seems to me that those who focus just on a few religious cliches and self-congratulating people ("expect the same") to revere, miss much.

Brettongarcia: I did not mean to offend people who are spiritual but not religious by calling their spiritual focus "vague". I was trying to show what I find objectionable about that view, not to insult the people who hold that view. However, if the word "vague" is still offensive, then I apologize.

Instead of just criticizing, let me explain what I find good about the Catholic view. Hopefully that is a more loving approach. After all, sin is not objectionable just because it can lead to damnation, but also because it stunts or negates the good. By saying what I find good about the Catholic view, I hope that you can partake more fully in the joy of that view.

The beautiful thing about Catholicism is that it presents a relationship as the ultimate goal of our life: the relationship between us and God. In healthy relationships, partners never stop learning about each other and delving into the mystery of each other. Likewise, our relationship with God is meant to be an eternal unfolding of His mystery, so coldly dogmatic people who claim to know everything about God are actually erring, since they do not appreciate His mystery. These are the religious but not spiritual people who have been mentioned in some of the comments. However, spiritual but not religious people also err. Relationships require a physical connection and recognition, since physicality is a major part of our being. That is part of the reason why long-distance relationships mostly fail. Catholicism states that through its rituals and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we can have a physical connection with God. The visible institution of the Church, with her people and sacraments, contributes to that physical connection (though both people and sacraments also have vital spiritual components). We are both physical and spiritual creatures, so the best relationships involve both aspects of our being.

I have always been Catholic, but until recently, I was not very involved in the rituals or the sacraments. The sacraments especially did not make much sense to me; after all, how could bread become God? But then I realized that despite my firm belief in God, I did not feel like I had a loving relationship with Him; I just had fun thinking about Him. So I started following Saint Anselm's famous motto: "credo ut intelligam" ("I believe so that I may understand"). I took a leap into the sacramental life, believing the dogma before rationally understanding it. Since then, I have come to understand it more through my faith, and I have felt such love bloom in me due to God's grace. I have a long way to go, but my relationship with God has grown exponentially since I started participating in the sacraments.

You see, the Church's dogma is not a fossilized list of beliefs; it is a preserver of Mystery. For example, Catholics must believe that God is three-in-one, but no one fully grasps that idea. However, by believing it and pursuing it, we come to a deeper understanding of it and a deeper appreciation of its beauty. Therefore, dogma is like poetry. If you have faith in a poet's talent, then you believe that there is wisdom in the lines that initially don't make sense. This trust gives you the motivation to keep reading those lines, and by repeatedly reading them, you come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of them. That's why Catholics believe and engage in repeated rituals and recitals of prayers that may not initially make much rational sense. By trusting in the rituals and prayers' wisdom, we come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of that wisdom. And that deepens our loving relationship with God.

I hope that explains "credo ut intelligam", and I hope I have not been too verbose!

The form that “spirituality” expresses itself in may be shallow, but the longing that some nonreligious people have is not. I recently spoke to a lapsed Catholic, a mother, who described herself as “spiritual.” She was passionately trying to make sense of Kant. Her son had just died in an operation she had authorized. She asked me in tears if it is true that the moral worth of an action is independent of the action’s consequences. It is compatible with charitable to describe the conditions and failings of her “spirituality,” but it is uncharitable not to recognize the intense longing for the good possessed by at least some of the people being dismissed here as lazy, superior, and shallow. As great as C.S. Lewis is, he was not above being dismissive, though only occasionally, in the same way. Speaking plainly is important, but it isn’t everything. Shouldn’t one also speak with understanding? I think this essay, while accurately depicting some of the bad tendencies of the “spiritual,” fails to recognize sufficiently the conditions of our time, which are much more complex than that we have a higher number of shallow people, conditions that can drive a wedge between our spiritual longings and our religious institutions.

Part of this trend (toward spirituality and not religiosity) is caused at least in part by disillusionment with religious institutions. We learn about the angry Fred Phelps, the abusive priests and enabling bishops, the self-hating and hypocritical homophobic pastors with their male prostitutes, the misogyny and homophobia of so many churches, the "snake oil salesman" preachers wanting money, and the anger and judgmentalism of too many religious people, and it's not surprising that people move away from churches. I don't think those embracing "spiritualism" deserve the evisceration they're receiving here. They're expressing their humanity by yearning for the good and the beautiful, and they're not finding that in traditional churches. The fact that they remain at least "spiritual" is something to celebrate.

TKM:

Thanks for your moment of kindness. Though maybe after all, here on the Internet, we should be franker, next.

Note here, that 1) Lady Gaga is ALSO about "love." And 2) a relationship with others, and 3) a sense of the Ultimate. And 4) as to how her religion makes sense, that is also a "mystery." So?

So far, Catholics are exactly the same, as the person many here despise.

Projection? Displacement into the "Other"? Scapegoating? Making sure others die for your sins?

Thank you, Samuel, for that good word. You are right. You've read into my essay more than I intended, because I wasn't talking at all about the people you describe.

I thought I was being clear that I was analyzing specifically those who say "I'm spiritual but not religious," the whole phrase, who in my experience are not the kind of person you describe, but apparently not. I should have said more precisely what I was talking about and explicitly excluded people who do have a real struggle with God or a real desire to find Him, even if they're not sure what they're looking for. I wish I'd done so.

In response to some other comments, if some of us err in not understanding some of those who speak this way, others err equally simply in ascribing to them higher motives and seriousness. The claim to be spiritual or interested in spirituality means, in this culture, very little by itself, if anything.

I have been helped greatly in my own life by people who pushed past my explanations (and I'm clever enough to think of some really good ones) to the reality I was trying to hide, and from myself as much as anyone else. This is what we can do for some we know and are called to engage who toss off the line "I'm spiritual but not religious." We may find a serious desire for something higher, but we may well not. Just assuming they're serious won't help them.

Now to go garden.

I simply interpret the phrase "Spiritual Without Religion" as meaning "I don't want to choose sides." I was raised in the Baptist Church where there was not a great deal of discussion regarding the spirit world. When I turned my back on that church I turned my back on Christianity. The introduction I received to Christianity was one of hypocrisy and condemnation of all others. That church taught ALOT of DON'Ts and very few DOS. Our church was "the exclusive road to salvation." They spewed out more hate and pity towards those of other faiths (including other Christian Religions) that at times as a child I would end up in tears because friends I had made in school were destined to burn for all eternity. I turned to atheism, then after a few years longing for "something" yet not knowing what that was (the Christian God as I knew Him was soooooooooooo hateful!!!!) was initiated into the Assembly of Wicca. I defined myself to others in just the way you describe, although our practices were not in any way lazy or lacking of ritual. One night half asleep "something" GRABBED ME!! PHYSICALLY!! Details would make me sound totally insane. However, when I began to search for answers, my questions led me to writings by a Jesuit Priest, Father Hardon and his writings on Angels and Demons. My best advice to others who are "Spiritual but not Religious" would be simply, "there is more than one type of spirit and when practicing 'spirituality' you'd best know for certain what spirit it is that you're dealing with." At some point, all intellecualization aside, you are going to have to choose sides!

To want to teach others better, higher, real spirituality, presumes that you yourself have it. But could this be mere presumption? Or Vanity?

How do you know that the spirit you yourself have, is for sure, the right one? And not one of the many, many "false spirits," "illusions" and "delusions" that the Bible warned about constantly?

Is a feeling of deeper and deeper fellowship and like-mindeness, comradery, and mutal love, with like-minded people, in itself a sign that one has found the right spirit? What if, as the Bible warns us, many are deceived, together?

A sense of fellowship and like-mindedness about values, in itself, is less valuable and sure, than many think.

Regrading the writer's presuming the reprobateness, compared to "fundamentalists" such as himself, and the castigation of those who describe themselves as spiritual or spiritual but not religious, is there a type of spirituality at all, whether non-specific, syncretistic, or the allegedly "traditional" and "committed" and even truly "spiritual" type lauded in this little blurb, that cannot be fudged before one's fellow human beings? Especially if it's one gets paid to do it? It's a lot harder to craft an address to the spiritual-but-not-committed than to point at them and make uncharitable generalizations, which are not granted validity by the grab bag of cultural references. This might have been a more compelling piece if the writer could demonstrate that he feel good about himself for having spoken up for the "committed" and truly spiritual cause because he lives it. In that case, he probably would not have sought first to make minor spectacles of souls less well-guided than he.

Brettongarcia, point taken about taking care to separate contempt for an idea and contempt for the people holding it. However, in my experience, as apparently in Mr. Mills', the term "spiritual but not religious" is usually a cover for the sin of acedia. The people I know who use that term do tend to be self-absorbed and morally, intellectually, and, yes, spiritually lazy. They are, in fact, analogous to people who live off of fast food because it's easier, faster, and cheaper than preparing nutritious food. While those people may not be completely contemptible as human beings, that does seem to me a contemptible quality in a human being. I feel more pity than contempt, though, for those who come to "spiritual but not religious" by way of rejecting what they see as the hypocrisy and/or oppressiveness of "organized religion." There is no and has never been any human idea that cannot be used in a hypocritical and/or oppressive way by some individual(s). This is what Christians mean by speaking of our "fallen" condition. But to reject a religious organization because of that seems to me awfully like rejecting hospitals because of the existence of malpractice or refusing to drive because of the prevalence of traffic fatalities. Those people, it seems to me, have let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Samuel, the only thing I have to add to what Mr. Mills said about your comment is that there are people (in my admittedly limited experience the majority of those who claim to be "spiritual but not religious") who use the term "spirituality" precisely to avoid the painful spiritual decisions you talk about.

brettongarcia:

"Note here, that 1) Lady Gaga is ALSO about 'love'. And 2) a relationship with others, and 3) a sense of the Ultimate. And 4) as to how her religion makes sense, that is also a 'mystery'. So?

So far, Catholics are exactly the same[] as the person many here despise."

1) So far as Lady GaGa has articulated anything, her "love" doesn't seem to be much more than an overly-generalized, undemanding philos — at least, when it isn't focused on eros. Not quite the agape that requires self-sacrifice or concern for others.

2) "Relationship" is a vague word which can describe anything from a marriage to a person with whom you talk while smoking cigarettes on your coffee break at work. Again, in the context of modern "spirituality", it doesn't immediately conjure up the "all-in" intimacy and self-sacrifice which characterizes the "relationship" with God Catholicism preaches.

3) In Catholicsm, "the Ultimate" has a name, a nature, an expressed Will ... a concrete Reality that one can know, although not in full. To say that Lady GaGa has a "sense of the Ultimate" is to say that she has a suspicion some kind of Higher Being lurks out there ... which, I guess, is better than denying it out of hand, but is NOT the same as Catholicism.

4) In Catholicism, "mystery" refers to God's hidden operation in the world; it may not always be detectible, but it is comprehensible. Once again, so far as Lady GaGa has articulated anything, the "mystery" of her "spiritualism" leaves few clues as to its nature and operation. Again, NOT the same.

While I understand that you're trying to keep us charitible in our comments, you might try learning something more about Catholicism before you try comparing it to anything else.

John Cummins:

"... [I]s there a type of spirituality at all, whether non-specific, syncretistic, or the allegedly 'traditional' and 'committed' and even truly 'spiritual' type lauded in this little blurb, that cannot be fudged before one's fellow human beings? Especially if it's one gets paid to do it?"

Nice little attempt to poison the well. Certainly, any kind of spirituality can be faked, including skepticism or complete lack; you don't even need to get paid to do it. It doesn't follow that a person who gets paid to write on matters spiritua does in fact fake his spirituality. Whether or not David Mills' writing is uncharitable, I think you can — and should — make your case without calling his spirituality into question.

"This might have been a more compelling piece if the writer could demonstrate that he feel good about himself for having spoken up for the 'committed' and truly spiritual cause because he lives it. In that case, he probably would not have sought first to make minor spectacles of souls less well-guided than he."

And doesn't that throw your initial premise into chaos? If Mills can fake his spirituality, can he not also fake the well-being he derives from that spirituality? Would you not then dismiss his claims as braggadocio, the Pharisee saying, "I thank you, Lord, that I am not like other men"? The Christian message, as taught in Catholicism, isn't about validating one's self ... it's about dying to one's self, if anything.

John & TKM:


Thanks for your kind support. I thought it was very important to put on the record, our reservations about a critical theology; "critical" in this case, for once, in both senses. But having expressed that, and apologies having been made (albeit qualified and often typically condescending or accusatory), I'm inclined to go ahead. And return to functioning within the original, hard-hitting, critical blog genre.

That is, having inserted my reservations, I think I became attracted to this genre, even in the very moment I was objecting to it. So I'd just like to go ahead, and accept and work within the competitive internet blog format we were all just backing away from: back to hard-hitting frankness. Even to frank expression of cultural bias; though hopefully to be discussed rationally, and worked out.

The very critical approach, seems to be where Mills is strongest. And so, to take advantage of his stengths? And having warned everyone, this is hardball? Why don't those who want to, just go ahead?

First of all, Mills seems to feel that I and others, don't really want to be converted to his spirituality or religious sense. In all honestly, that is actually true enough; I want him to be converted to mine.

By the way, I wonder why we should argue, or even really disagree; I used to study Marxism myself, in my foolish younger years. And still find its rationality and materiality attractive. But today I believe that Christianity itself, can "come down to earth," and be presented in a way that makes material sense, too.

But here's my first objection to Mill-ian Catholicism: Catholicism often admits that the meaning of much of Christianity, is a "mystery." Or that is to say, it says that it really doesn't fully undertand itself. It doesn't make full sense, even to itself; many of its own ideas are a "mystery," even to itself. If that is true, 1) should Mills' Catholicism, still presume to dogmatize and firmly tell us it is true? Since it admits itself, in effect, it doesn't really know what it is saying, clearly?

And 2) if Lady Gaga's ideas seem somewhat unclear too; isn't there a kind of equivalence, here too?

Anybody interested in this argument? Or maybe some other topic?

Tony:

1) Mills just called a hundred million people's spirituality silly. And questioned their motivations: their spirituality was motivated by low base emotions, like erotic sexuality; but we can't question HIS? Be consistent please. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

2) Gaga's love, doesn't include "concern for others"? But the background ideas behind what she said about loving all, giving them space, is all about concern for others, even sinners. Giving others space, credit; to help them grow. You of course disagree with the way she expresses concern; but that your methods of doing that are better, needs to be proven, not simply asserted.

3) I know Christianity, Catholicism well enough; and Catholicism used to be about Tolerance. Let's look at when it changed. And is that change legitimate. I suggest it is not. The 1980's "no tolerance" theology was invented by Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh; who are not God. Don't confuse God, and Ronald Reagan.

4) Gaga's liberal relationships, are inevitably shallow? A simple value-judgement of yours. Consider the life-long attachments of liberals, socialists, to helping society; and working with each other and others. And the name of a higher ideal. Think their's nothing in their poor little dedicated, PhD heads, at all?

5) Liberal's relationship with their Universal isn't "all in"? When was the last time you heard a liberal Marxist or feminist argue?

6) The Gaga/Liberal's Universe is vague? You just said yours was "a mystery." And by the way, more closely read, that really DOES mean ... you don't quite understand it. As invoked above, for example. By the way, liberalism usually includes confidence in Science; do you find all of science, hopelessly vague?

While I understand we are trying to keep remarks charitable here, I suggest you learn something about Liberalism, before you condemn it.

Or just stop being condescending?

Tony:

Easy to see why someone working in a religious market, might fake spirituality or here, relligiosity; it gets you money.

But why fake ... arrogance ? What does that get you in a world of mild, self-effacing priests? It just makes you look bad. We might regard it as a defensive mechanism; still, not an admirable one.

While I'd say in any case, the arrogance and self-satisfaction I see here in most speakers here, gives every appearance of being bone-deep, and geniune. Not faked at all.

i have a few problems here. There is much in the article, and more so with the comments, that i feel detract from the point.

IF the point was "spiritual but not religious" is a hollow phrase, a way of trying to cling to all the benefits of a religion, without any of the costs..... which as i see it is the very ESSENCE of the new age movement .. then your point is being lost in all the Lady Gaga bashing.

"how can anyone like her music" "its all noise and amateurish" etc etc etc. "Pornagraphic songstress" ,etc

heavens! one would think it was one of the promises you make at confirmation...
"do you reject the devil, all his empty promises, and rock music?"

i LIKE a lot of her music. i like a lot of rock and pop music. i have found deep inspiration from contemplating the works of many modern musicians, although not Lady Gaga..... but i certainly can claim to enjoy her music..... it has helped to speed the time in my day job, caused me to smile, helped to keep me awake while driving......

that doesn't mean i know anything about her religious or spiritual beliefs...... or her lifestyle. you see..... i happen to know that reporting on celebrities is incredibly inaccurate, and scandal ridden. and i am of the opinion that it amounts to participating in gossip.
(ok, i confess to an interest in her clothes.. and yes much of THAT is rather scandalous.. but she is no worse certainly than many other celebrities in that regard)

i wouldnt trust anything reported about any entertainer without deep scrutiny, as the article will be canted to appeal to their READERS....... and possibly sell records/downloads.
is it believed that most of her audience is devoutly religious?
or is it believed by the record companies that most of her audience is "spiritual but not religious" or even atheistic.

i bet they figure the money per download bet is on the latter. so the publicists (and if she is materially oriented at all, the artist) will certainly emphasize how much THEY are just like US and dont have any beliefs that might make a customer uncomfortable......

sad.. yes. but hardly worthy of derailing the point of the conversation, is it?

Spiritual but not religious is basic code phrase for "dont worry, i wont preach at you, but i will hand you some nice feel good phrases that make everyone feel better without actually.. you know.... having to work at it?" and is pretty much the norm throughout most of society. Its the means the devil is uing to keep the sheep calmly and quietly herding toward hell..... but you can hardly point to Lady Gaga as anything other than one more of the celebrities that is either *themselves* being led to the slaughter, or is too led by greed and fear to stand up and say what she actually thinks.....
sad in either case, dont you think?

why has no one suggested praying for her? Have you all forgotten the command of love and mercy? to pray for others? ESPECIALLY those you think are caught in a lifestyle of sin and lack of faith?

poor woman. The celebrity world is a difficult place for even the most devout soul... for anyone weaker than that its being crushed beneath the wheel of secular demands.
May God in His infinite Mercy guide her safely to him, even through the shoals and reefs in which she is traveling....

don't you people realise,that the rote and ritual are there to keep you going, when the spirit is dry which happens to most people, even saints : they go in tandem. there's no way you can have one without the other; and anyway why are athiests reading your blog???????????

I suspect part of what drives the "spiritual but not religious" crowd is the desire to believe in an afterlife. Politically, it appeals to people who dislike consumer culture or capitalism. They see that secular life revolves largely around commerce and work and have a feeling that this is an inadequate basis for a complete life.

They tend to like consumer culture, if you judge them by their "revealed preferences" as the economists call it. Do you see many heading out to the wild to be the new Desert Fathers and Mothers?

brettongarcia:

1) I AM being consistent. My whole point was that Cummins could indict a perceived lack of charity without being uncharitable himself. Re-read the argument.

2) Even the most vocal advocate of "tolerance" has things they simply won't put up with or defend. But simply tolerating the foibles of others isn't by itself an active involvement in their lives. If you see someone destroying their life with drink or drugs, is it an act of "concern" to stand by and say or do nothing? If someone near you is cold because she doesn't have a coat, do you write a letter expressing your outrage that she's too poor to own a coat, or do you give her your own ... even if it leaves you without one? That's the difference between "concern" and "agape". The latter is far more challenging because it can cause us to suffer in the act of trying to ameliorate the sufferings of others.

3) Catholicism, in its 2,000 year history, was NEVER "about" Tolerance; it was and is about submission to the Will of God, which sometimes dictates fraternal correction of error and active opposition to evil. "Tolerance" is a relatively recent buzzword developed by political liberals; I first noticed in college in the '90s that it was frequently tossed about by people who could seemingly tolerate everything ... except correction and opposition.

4) You've deliberately misconstructed my point about the looseness of the meaning of "relationship". I neither said nor implied that Lady Gaga's relationships were shallow, neither episodically nor inevitably. Re-read the argument.

5) Didn't say liberals or Marxists couldn't argue passionately. But there's a definite difference between pleading for government intervention, or threatening rebellion against capitalist oppression, and actually going out to feed the poor like many Catholic religious orders do.

6) No, more closely read, "mystery" in the Catholic sense means that God's action in human affairs can be articulated and comprehended; they are revealed in miracles and in the Sacraments. On the other hand, "mystery" in the ordinary sense isn't necessarily tied to any revelation or discovery.

By the way, liberals may proclaim a confidence in science, but they're often quick to dismiss scientific results if they conflict with politically-correct paradigms. As for me, I don't find science "hopelessly vague" at all, though I possess a lot more confidence in the natural sciences than the social sciences, which are far too open to political and philosophical bias. (And I say that as a sociology major.)

7) Why "fake" arrogance? I don't see any comment in my remarks accusing anyone here of arrogance whether ersatz or real. But it seems to me that, if I remember anything from my psychology texts, and if arrogance can be said to be "faked", it's to cover up insecurities or holes in the psychological armor.

Finally, I didn't bring Liberalism into the argument — YOU did that all on your own. In fact, you managed to unearth a whole lot of things that I never said, seemingly for the purpose of making my critique of your arguments into straw men you could heap derision on.

Kirsten: For the record, my comment was not directed to Lady Gaga's music. My remark was directed to her bland, nonsensical comment about her "new spirituality." If she were the only celebrity to make such comments, I'd have held my fire. Unfortunately, she is very much like many young people today, who even want to be as shallow and ignorant as she is. She's ignorant about religion and spirituality and, worse, doesn't know that she's ignorant.

A Bob Dylan fan who enjoys the music of Taylor Swift.

Though you did not mention it, I perceived that Gaga essentially, is a liberal. For that reason, I brought up the word; because it is necessary to speak of liberalism here, to more adequately describe and defend her.

Sexually she is liberal; perhaps many sex partners. And you therefore suggested our Lady Gaga's relationships were vague; or your exact words, not "all in." While you saidher "love" was just erotic. But I believe that her spirituality, leads to a very, very "all in" relationship; if not to individuals, then better, to society.

Our Lady (Gaga) speaks of of getting along with, helping, everyone. That is liberalism. Liberalism is in part, about love of everyone, or nearly all of society; and giving social services to the masses. This love of the many, does many good things. You assert Catholics feed millions; government welfare, from Gaga or Roosevelt era liberals, feeds millions more.

Liberalism tolerates many different races and opinions, because it believes that all our knowledge is imperfect: who knows therefore, what is the "right" answer. Liberalism often suggests that not everything in life is known. Today some conservative Catholics they say they DO know everything firmly, through the church; there is no "mystery." Butthe Church normally notes a "mystery" in its doctrines. And that Mystery, says the Catechism, "expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything we can understand or say" (Cat. of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1997/2000, sec. 206). So this word, mystery, really DOES mean Catholics don't fully understand God; because he is "infinitely above everything we can understand." His full nature is thereore a "mystery." Why try to twist this word, into its opposite? (Though many do). It means in teh Church, what it normally means: many things about truth and God are a mystery - unknown - even to the Church.

I mentioned Liberalism, because, whether you know it or not, your objections fall into a pattern, an ideology, all-too-familiar to me. You might want to know the pattern that is determining much of your thinking: it is called Conservatism; which attacked Liberals, and "tolerance," for example; just as you do.

"Tolerance" is one of the pillars of Liberalism: getting along with minorities, other nations, tolerating them. But if you say that the Catholic Church never tolerated tolerance? That is what Reagan era thinkers said. But consider the way, tolerance-loving Liberals, based themselves in large part on the BIBLE: they quoted Jesus telling us to "love your neighbors," and even your "enemies"; to "judge not, least you be judged." Then remember the Bible telling us that many who thought they were good religious persons, following Christ, would be found to be "deceived" even in their best idea of God and truth; and that only God himself would know, and tell us in the End, who followed the right idea of God. So that therefore, we should not be too quick to criticize - or be intolerant of - others. Since no one but God knows who is really right. Even the Church at times today backs off judging people; saying that no one knows what is in their hearts. Here, the Church is tolerant.

So in fact, t he Catholic church, following THIS side of Jesus, WAS rather "tolerant" for signficant parts of its history. (Cf. also the moments when "syncretism" was allowed). It was only Ronald Reagan and Pat Robertson, that temporarily taught the Church to become intolerant again.

Tolerance of course, by definition, excludes strong corrections of others. That's not a contradiction; that's part of the meaning of the word. A tolerance of intolerance would be simply oxymoronic; a logical self-contradiction or paradox, that is logically incoherent.

The attack on tolerance, grew up with Ronald Reagan's "Zero Tolerance" and other schemes. It's not from the Bible. Though the God of the Old Testament is rather, say, firm, it is generally thought the the kinder, gentler Son, Jesus, interceded for us with this God, to get him to "forgive" - or tolerate - our sins somewhat. With his "Grace" ... or again, forgiving ... tolerance.

If God was all THAT intolerant, then of course, there would be no possiblity of any of us going to heaven; since all have sinned. So they say, it is fortunate for us all, that thanks to the advocacy or intercession of Jesus, God forgives - tolerates - our sins, to a significant degree. God himself is somewhat tolerant.

So, in tolerating some sins, Our Lady (Gaga) is very, very close to God and Jesus especially; far closer than intolerant Catholics.

Indeed, we are "gaga" - agape - at her; and she is "gaga" - agape - for us. (My reconstructed etymological derivation: "gaga" meaning in awe of; from "agape"; in turn from Gk. "Agape.")

In my own original reconstruction of the etymology of "gaga," I read it as deriving not just from Fr. "gaga" or foolish, but in turn from English "agape," or wide open, open-mouthed; then finally all that from Greek "Agape."

So that what do you know; our Lady Gaga is not just reflective of, but has even named herself after, the total, foolish, openmouthed, totally open love, the accepting receptivity (the super tolerance and love) we call "Agape."

Indeed, wouldn't we expect that a liberal who tries to love everyone, just like Mary or Jesus, should have this "agape," more than anyone?

Come to Our Liberal Lady Gaga; don't be shy. She loves everyone. Give up your sinful, false, self-satisfied, 1980's, Conservative, Ronald Reagan Catholicism.

When someone claim to be spiritual rather than religious means that he or she is agnostic.
The search for GOD,if the person is sincere,is there,and should be respected.
As Catholics ,when confronted with this sort of situations,i think the best response is
to suggest reading some of the great Catholic mystics like Saint John of the cross or more recent Saints like Therese of Lisieux
I say this for two good reasons , first our saints truly lived their faith and witnessed
to GOD love for us and they did within the confine of the Catholic Church.Second most agnostics (spiritual?)believe that to belong to a church is to settle to a lesser more ritualistic form of worship ,again our saints prove this perception false.
After Vatican II in the late 60's-early70's while our priests were doing their best
to make the new Mass as cool as possible the baby boom generation was looking
towards eastern religions to find a way to GOD.

brettongarcia:

I think I'll make this my last post on the subject.

Here is what I said: "So far as Lady GaGa has articulated anything, her 'love' doesn't seem to be much more than an overly-generalized, undemanding philos — at least, when it isn't focused on eros. Not quite the agape that requires self-sacrifice or concern for others." I didn't say her love was "just" erotic; erotic love has its place and reason for being. If she does have more than an undemanding benevolence towards others, well and good. But there's plenty of room between benevolence and being "all-in"; it's not a switch with only two poles. The kind of love God calls us to involves radical selflessness, to which many of us only aspire. This means leaving behind attachment to what God has defined as sin, not redefining sin to suit ourselves.

You say, "Liberalism is in part, about love of everyone, or nearly all of society; and giving social services to the masses." I disagree; in fact, it's an idealization of liberalism. Liberalism is about institutional change as an instrument of social change; love does not have to be a part of it. In fact, a lot of the liberals I was exposed to in college and afterwards were seemingly more motivated by contempt of what they viewed as "white male homophobic Christian" morality and social ideals rather than any true feeling for the poor and oppressed.

I have no objections to government intervention in poverty per se; as you point out, the government has the capability to feed more people than religious societies do. I think they could do it better, less wastefully, than they do ... but let that go. However, I think many people — including myself — tend to use both the government and charitable organizations as substitutes for personal involvement. It's easier to donate money to a soup kitchen than to actually work in it yourself.

"But if you say that the Catholic Church never tolerated tolerance?" In fact, I didn't say it. I said the Catholic Church was never about Tolerance. The picture you so lovingly paint of Jesus the All-Tolerating Master may have been the "Catholicism" taught by Fr. Birkenstock at St. Jane Fonda, but it's a very incomplete picture. The forgiveness of sins has always been conditioned by the prerequisite of repentance for sins, which necessarily requires recognizing that one has in truth sinned. Jesus saved the adulteress from stoning ... but he also told her, "From now on, avoid this sin." St. Paul taught that nothing can separate us from Christ ... but he also taught that the unrighteous — including adulterers, homosexuals, robbers, drunkards and revilers — will not inherit the kingdom of God.

"What shall we say, then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who have died to sin still live in it" (Rom 6:1-2)? "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries" (Heb 10:26-27). "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers'" (Mt 7:21-23).

Of course, we will drop our crosses every now and again. That's what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is for — so we can pick them up again. But there's a difference between picking yourself back up after you stumbled and loudly insisting that you never fell in the first place ... or remaining where you lie.

Try reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church. In fact, try reading the Baltimore Catechism, since it predates Vatican II and should give you a clearer picture of what Catholicism taught prior to Woodstock. Try reading the Church Fathers. Try reading St. Thomas Aquinas. Your simplistic equation of Catholicism with Liberalism is false to history. But, then again, most of the college liberals I've been exposed to have not been above re-writing history.

Gallup has asked Americans a specific question about Americans' beliefs in God four times now. The question gave three possible answers: 1) believe in god, 2) believe in a "universal spirit" but not "God" or 3) don't believe in either.

Roughly, 1) corresponds to traditional theism, 2) corresponds to "spiritual but not religious" and 3) corresponds to atheism. A very interesting thing has happened to these numbers since 2000 (poll is available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/109108/Belief-God-Far-Lower-Western-US.aspx).

Belief in a "universal spirit" has gone from 8% to 15% between 2000 and 2008 while belief in "God" has fallen from 86% to 78% -- atheism only increased from 5% to 6%.

As an atheist, I also think "spiritual but not religious" is a cop-out. It's obvious from the poll results that atheism is a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow -- but then increasingly, so is mainstream religion. Spirituality is an attempt to split the difference.

I think this does put some of the sniping and snarking here in perspective, though. If I was a Christian, I would start thinking about ways to try to make religious faith appeal to people again as it is pretty clear that traditional religion is losing members to wishy-washy spiritualism.

Some of the comments here read like articles one might expect to read in the newspaper of a Communist country about dissidents and defectors: uneducated and uninformed people being seduced away from the truth of Communism by a mix of self-interest and naivety. The same kind of insecurity is evident in both.

Even opinion polls that ask people for their religious affiliation will still probably overestimate the number of people who are truly religious. The Pew Forum report on religion in the U.S. has some fascinating results. They ask people whether they believe God is an "impersonal force" or a "personal God." The only consistent religious groups on these questions (with the vast majority believing in a personal God) are Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons.

29% of Catholics (!), 42% of Muslims (!!), and 25% of the entire U.S. adult population believe in an impersonal God. Traditional religious dogma has taken quite a hit in recent years and vague, wishy-washy spiritualism is just only one of many ways this lack of faith manifests itself.

Dear Brettongarcia,

Where to begin?

What on earth Ronald Reagan has to do with any of this is beyond me. And in any event, despite his Irish surname, he was not, alas, a Catholic.

You are justified in rebuking several of the comments as being perhaps too sharp, my own included. Christian charity calls for temperance in these matters, particulalrly when speaking with strangers. Kirsten is right too, in that our first duty as Christians is to pray for Lady Gaga (and others similarly situated). Like Madonna, Ms. Gaga, is another sad testament to the Church's terrible track record in making the life of the Faith (it's spirit) meaningful to so many of the children raised in the Church. As a convert, I am regulalrly astonished at the truly dismal understanding many cradle Catholics have of the rich treasure of their Faith.

I shall concede too that there are a few sincere SBNR folks out there. Though in my experience they are extremely few and far between. In my experience, the phrase is almost always code for somehting alongthe lines of "I like to read eastern mystics and sleep around as much as I can." I used to be one of those folks, so I have some standing to make that assertion.

All that said, you have cut loose some pretty judgmental whoppers yourself, particularly against political conservatives, all of whom apparently, according to you, are intolerant racists. And also against Catholics, all of whom are smug, spiritually dead and unloving.

Well. As a former liberal now conservative, and former SBNR now Catholic, I object to both charges. These are rote canards, neither of which are true. Are there "mean" conservatives and Pharisaic (i.e. judgmental) Catholics? Sure. But they are not representative of conservatives and Catholics generally, anymore than Ms. Gaga is of SBNRs (even I will admit that most of them are not as outlandish as she). The issue is not Ms. Gaga, the issue is a sprirtual focus that is defined by one's own self-comfort (whatever that may be), i.e. SBNR, is by definition, utterly subjective. I gather from some of your linguist tinged commentary that you are something of a Post-Modernist. If so, then it comes as no surprise that you would embrace relativist subjectivism. It's all the rage.

Now, you raised a few points about Christian, and particularly Catholic, tradition that I believe are ill-informed and innacurate. Some of these have been addressed by others in passing, but I'll throw in my 2 cents for completeness.

5.28.2010 | 10:42am You made the claim that Jesus commanded only love and referenced the Good Samaritan parable. As TeaPot562, mentioned, Christ quoted the Torah in articulating the Golden Rule, and the point of the parable was the Samaritan's action, not his religion. Granted, this was a "radical" narrative device to cast the Samaritan as the "good guy", but to extrapolate from that that Christ advocated Samaritan pagan syncretism is unfounded. He didn't say "do as the Samaritans do in worship, or "do whatever you want" he said "Go and sin no more," "Take up your cross and follow me" and that he had "not come to abolish the law (i.e.all those pesky moral absolutes) but to fulfill it."

You make several references to finding Lady Gaga, Madonna etc. "theologically interesting" and, if i read you correctly, finding their "theological" example as equivalent (if not superior) to that of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is a truly remarkable (and IMHO comepletely indefensible) statement, given the 2,000 year legacy of the BVM's influence on music and art. Art criticism is not my forte, but I would wager that in 200 years people will still be lining up to see the Pieta and listening to Schubert's "Ave Maria" but "Shake UR Kitty" or "I Like it Rough" (I don't know if those are hits, I had to Google her songs) will not yet have made it to the liturgical worship committee. And as for "empowerment", I have a hard time believing all those young women out there about emulate the latest incarnation of "the Virgin and the Prostitute" (yeah, I've read "Thunder, the Perfect Mind", yawn...) will find anyhting approaching fulfillment (spiritual or otherwise). It is too bad their prayers to Lady Gaga won't assuage their spending the rest of their life with an incurable STD, their squandering of their reproductive years, or the scars of an abortion (or several). If you think these are exaggerations I refer you to the work of Mary Eberstadt, often featured in these pages. Haven't the wages of the sexual revolution been made plain yet to liberals? Please.

5.28.2010 | 11:50pm You refer to Christ's rebuke of Peter ("Satan, get thee behind me"), but conveniently ignore his giving Peter the authority of His Kingdom. The rebuke was aimed at Peter's suggestion that Christ avoid fulfilling his mission in the crucifixion, his investiture was based on Peter's recognition that Jesus was the messiah. Peter's special place among the Apostle's is well established in both scripture and the earliest tradition of the Church. The investiture passage (Mt 16:18) is also pregnant with meaning in that Christ is actually referring back to King David's prime minister, yet another biblical confrimation that the primacy of Peter (and thus the Papacy) is inextrcably intertwined with the fulfilment of messianic prophecy. Christ may not have labeled Himself a Catholic, but the Church He established is.

You also make passing reference to Paul and also make claims that the Catholic Church dismisses all other religions as "evil". That is simply not true. Paul expressly refers to glimmerings of the truth that the pagans had in their philosophy. Paul himself was clearly classically educated, thus th reference is not unqualified on his part. The Church still recognizes that other religions have aspects of truth both in the Catechism and in the council documents of Vatican II.

We'll have to agree to disagree that "tolerance" means not strongly rebuking another from time to time. In fact, correction of the sinner is one of the spritual acts of mercy. Some do it better than others.

As for presuming to have the Truth, I don't pretend to have it myself, I believe the Catholic Church has it on the basis of scripture and the remarkable theological, liturgical and institutional consistency it has maintained for two millenia. In essence, that is the indispensible difference between an orthodox believer of revealed religion (Judaism, Christianity or Islam) and SBNR-- its adherents recognize a moral authority other than, indeed above, themselves.

Finally, after reveiwing all of your commentary, I think you are conflating your political proclivities with theological inquiry. Christianity is radically counter-cultural, but not in the political sense. Lady Gaga may be many things, but I would submit she epitomizes the spirit of contemporary culture, not its counter. Orthodox Christian tradition, now as in the first century AD, does not pigeon hole neatly into either political conservatism or liberalism. Nor does it embrace with pagan Rome's and contemporary western "spectacles of violence and eroticism." (that is a line stolen from Muggeridge, also a former SBNR who ended up a Christian, and eventually a Catholic, I commend him to you) Which is yet another reason why I am convinced it, and not Lady Gaga, is right.

Peace of Christ be with you. You, and Lady Gaga, shall be in my prayers.

Bill Reichert:

"I think I understand the phenomena of monasticism and asceticism more fully now"

Good point. But (to quibble a bit) "monasticism" and "asceticism" are two different phenomena. Ascesis is for all Christians, not just for monastics; as Christians in the first centuries certainly understood. Monasticism is (inter alia) a response to the decline of ascesis among Christians generally as Christianity became socially acceptable and therefore inevitably more worldly. Monastics follow the same ascetic ideal that we all are called to follow, but they do so in separation from the world in witness both to the radical character of that ascetic ideal and to the fact that we, as Christians, are not to be conformed to this world.

To put it more briefly, the life of all Christians in the first two centuries looked a lot more like what we would now call "monasticism" than it looked like the worldly life most of us (myself included) live today.

Also, I'm pretty sure it was Yogi Berra, not Casey Stengel.

Gosh, Mark — where did that come from?: "Some of the comments here read like articles one might expect to read in the newspaper of a Communist country about dissidents and defectors: uneducated and uninformed people being seduced away from the truth of Communism by a mix of self-interest and naivety. The same kind of insecurity is evident in both."

If you are referring to my post, please read it again. My point is that if Lady Gaga were an educated person (i. e., a person with a firm grasp of literature and history, including religious literature and history) she would not have made such an ignorant statement. Later, I remarked that she is typical of many people in our country, especially young people.

I assume that you aren't serious when you link "the truth of Communism" with the Western (Greco-Judeo-Christian) Tradition.

Tony and Max, You're wasting your time engaging in exchanges with Brettongarcia. He impresses me as a clever kid whose sophistry, specious argumentation, and references to half-understood information work so well with the other, less clever, kids that he thought he'd try them out here. Arguing with that kind of adolescent mind-set is an exercise in futility. If he's as young as he seems, maybe once he's got some years and intellectual maturity behind him, fruitful exchange will be possible. Until then, I wouldn't bother.

But consider the way, tolerance-loving Liberals, based themselves in large part on the BIBLE: they quoted Jesus telling us to "love your neighbors," and even your "enemies"; to "judge not, least you be judged."

He also told us that we can judge a tree by its fruit.

And he said things like "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?" and "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth."

@ Mary and all the other eager cheerleaders in here....

Dear Virgin Mary,

You are quite correct!

Unlike you, I certainly do not look for guidance from bubblegum pop singers in the popular media (so much for the average American's additiction to meaningless, dumbed-down soundbites...).

No thanks, I seek my spiritual guidance elsewhere.

If you believe Lady Gaga to be a spiritual guru to others, you need to get your IQ tested.

In fact, coming to think of it....why is Lady Gaga featured in this article and discussion on spirituality in the first place? And why are reporters asking celebrities their views on spirituality? Who cares? Did I miss something? When did the Lady Gaga's replace the priests, pastors, shaman's and swami's?

Am I the only one in here that does not see the stupidity of this whole discussion? As if Lady Gaga has the power to change human spirituality irrevocably? This is insane. Stupid.

I am so out of here!

To be sure, the values, the (Pre-Vatican II-, Baltimore Catechism-) vision of the Church, that this journal represents, were for a long time considered the definitive statement of Catholicism and "wisdom." But those of you who contemptuously dismiss the liberal position, and who here proclaimed yourselves to be wise and worthy of reverence? Put aside your Vanity, and listen for a minute.

Re-consider especially, the classic Liberal, biblical arguments, against Reagan-era, "conservative," Baltimore-Catechism Catholicism. Granted, Regan was not a Catholic it seems. But indeed, that is the point: one key point being made here, is that the key word in Pharisaic, Conservative Catholicism, the war on liberal "tolerance," was not a word from the Bible, but from conservative politics. The war on "tolerance" was actually from the political "traditions of man," like Republican efforts at "zero tolerance." And it was Reagan,not God that, as much as anyone, started turning back the clock in our culture generally, to oldtime strict aderence to the old understanding of religious rules and laws. Or indeed finally, this general, mostly political "conservative coalition" ideology, began to re invent ... your religion: anti-"liberal," conservative Catholicism. Enforcing a strict and rather liberal understanding of all the old rules; allowing no change, no evolution, no liberality. No freedom. No forgiveness.

But today I suggest that, after 30 years of Neo-Conism, the Church should become more liberal again.

Should it become liberal enough to make a saint out of Lady Gaga, specifically? Possibly not. But elements of her "spirituality" might be allowable. In fact, she's not just another example of how the Church should have done better, in the Catechesis of children and adolecents. In fact, she has here begun to serve reasonably well, as a convenient launching-platform for a serious discussion, on the possibly serious value, of a renewed liberalism in the Church; and especially for some recognition of the extremely important new "spirituality."

A spirituality which to be sure, is not over-concerned with the Pharasaic imposition of the "letter" of religious, Catholic "laws." But this movement does seem to have captured the essential character, the "larger matters" at hand in Christianity in general: of "love" for all of mankind, for example. Which Lady Gaga evidences.

Is this new Spirituality utterly crazy and "subjective"? As defined HERE, by ME, note that it is not. Here, spirituality, has to "prove" that it is good, or from God, by producing good material, physical "works." And for that matter, the early Liberal versions of spirituality, did contribute to some significant works helping our fragile stability in the West: from learning to get along with other peoples; and helping the poor. That is to say, early Liberal spirituality has already shown some significant good works, already.

Are my arguments here only trendy? "The rage"? The fact is, the Bible itself, in the famous story of the Good Samaritan, suggested that good could reside, in non-Christians; so long, precisely, as they produced good works, good deeds. Like helping the assault victim by the side of the road. An act of Health Care, of obedience to Jesus' dictum to heal the sick, that was neglected by the conservative Pharisees of the time: a conservative (non-Christian) priest, and a conservative rabbi.

Can we have any modification to, or new extention of, the old religious "laws"? Jesus himself in parts of the Bible, suggested that he had not come to "abolish" or even "change one iota" or dot, "of the law." But note a potential qualifier next: "until all is fulfilled." While perhaps that condition was completed, when Jesus, on the cross, said "it is done"/fulfilled.

In any case, many say Jesus changed many laws: he 1) worked, allowed his apostles to gather food, on a Sabbath; one of the Ten Commandments that the Old Testament strongly enforced, even on penalty of death. Then too, 2) regarding adultery, Jesus declined to prosecute one such case. While 3) if Jesus himself did not change much, Paul and others began to drop for example, the Old Testament food laws. The kosher laws, that did not allow believers to eat pork and shellfish. (Peter having a dream for example, where God allowed him to eat all kinds of things). Then too, 4) Paul, following the Good Samaritan tale, even said things that might allow non-Jews, even non-Christians, to be considered good: "for the Gentile does by nature, what the law requires." Paul also advocating many Platonic, "Greek" ideas.

So the Bible was open to growth. Even 5) particularly, to SPIRITUAL growth; many Protestant denominations having long taken the gift of the the Holy "Spirit" as a mandate to after all, listen to our spirits, even new ideas; and to allow them to have some influence. After due "test"ing.

So the Bible itself - which is part of the foundation of Catholicism - seems open to growth; even to "Spirituality."

While as to warnings about many false things presented in the name of Christ? We should finally ask this: is it Spirituality, or is it say, Pharasaic, Reagan-era, intolerant Catholicism, that is the false religion, the false Christianity, that the Bible so often warned about?

Tony Layne:

"Whether or not David Mills' writing is uncharitable, I think you can — and should — make your case without calling his spirituality into question."

Mr. Mills article calls into question the spirituality of others. So, delving into the matter, it's therefore fair game to question his. It's not a matter of "poison" (and certainly not of who likes whom and who feels affirmed by whom among the posters here) but of logic, symmetry and fairness. The lousy image the Church has earned by sex scandals and coverups requires this even more so; saying "God", "tradition", "conservative" do not have lthe currency they once had, if they ever actually had it. Discussions with this kind of rigor are hard and superficially dull, but necessary if treatment of these matters is to progress beyond a bunch of people expressing their feelings, which accounts for the bulk of writing so far on this page, both liberal and conservative, despite the references and still-born reasoning.

Mr. Mills refers to spirit, but in order to present something of value to Lady Gagas and brettongarcias, etc., should have spent more space, and thought, on what that is, in his experience, and that of "saints" both Catholic, and non-Catholic. Without this, his proposal seems no more than to say about the "SBNR's" that they are misguided, he is there to guide them, and he guides them to tradition and conservatism, shunting aside the calls from the histories of liberalism and conservatism for fair treatment of them, ultimately discounting the spiritual interests and impulses of the "SBNR's" because they don't hew to traditional formats, implying that the only way to Christian spirituality is through the same type of submission to tradition that may have offended or repelled them in the first place.

This is not to advocate coddling sinful human beings, or jokers and hypocrites, but to always acknowledge that, unless a "traditional", "conservative" Christian such as Mr. Mills, or enthusiastic convert such as yourself has realized through their spiritual disciplines and failures that they are sinful, a joker and a hypocrite, just as Paul and Peter realized about themselves, they may be less well-suited than they suppose to "preach the gospel wherever [they] go" as St. Francis said, "and even sometimes, use words". You will never be able to substitute assertions of the Church's history, tradition, wisdom, holiness, truth subsisting in it, and so forth, for the power of witness required by the type of life St. Francis urged. And you won't get that power by exercising your intellect, taking pleasure in the connections your mind makes between issues and scriptures, but by being broken and transformed by the power behind those connections, by seeing the eye, not just hearing with the ear, by wondering what Thomas Aquinas perceived that caused him to call all his work "straw". And yet you must also be "ready to give a humble account for the hope that is in you" and to "let your gentleness be evident to all".

Many "SBNR's" are looking for people like that, many aren't: "a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?".

Also, realize how much of Catholic tradition was forged by the disruption of tradition. This is not to advocate perpetual rebellion for its own sake, but to recall that the history of the Church has not had the irenic periods and transcendent governance as often as some seem to believe it has and that it is a human institution, still liable, as are we all, to commit hypocrisy, theft and murder. Answer this with yes or no: was the Risorgimento good for the Church or not?

My point is that if Lady Gaga were an educated person (i. e., a person with a firm grasp of literature and history, including religious literature and history) she would not have made such an ignorant statement.

My comment certainly was not directed exclusively at you. Lady Gaga (who, I stipulate, is not necessarily a particularly deep thinker) says, "There’s really no religion that doesn’t hate or condemn a certain kind of people." What does "condemn" mean? The dictionary definition of the word "condemn" is to express strong disapproval of, to censure, to pronounce to be guilty, to judge adversely, etc.

Does Christianity "condemn" certain people? Yes, it does.

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:33-34 KJV)."

The fact that one can obtain forgiveness for one's sins and be saved from eternal punishment by accepting Jesus as one's savior does not mean the Christian faith does not condemn certain people. Lady Gaga's religion of birth condemns homosexuality in fairly certain terms and requires that homosexuals remain chaste throughout their lives. Lady Gaga no doubt disagrees with this pronouncement and would not necessarily find her moral views welcome among strict adherents to Catholicism.

I assume that you aren't serious when you link "the truth of Communism" with the Western (Greco-Judeo-Christian) Tradition.

The point is that many people who grow up in the Christian and Jewish faiths leave those faiths when they become adults. Why are they doing this? One common sense explanation is that more people do not consider mainstream religion to be a satisfying or necessary part of their lives. They also may find the teachings of most religions to be contrary to their own experience and common sense. In other words, people are voting with their feet.

People are voting with their feet; they ARE leaving traditional Catholicism & Christianity.

In part, because they are not entirely satisfied it is broad-minded enough.

Or modern enough. Can we, should we really believe a religion that thinks largely in terms of Magic: touch the magical object, the bone of a saint, and be healed? That asserts that adherents can walk and water and fly through the air?

In part they are also leaving Christianity, because they have trouble believing it is intellectually coherent: how is it that we are both saved and condemned? Forgiven and not forgiven? Loved, and sent to Hell?

In part they are leaving because of its Vanity: setting up a love-o-meter, rigged to validate their own lovely love, over anyone else's.

Dear All

What a fascinating discussion. I do think this question is at the root of "what do we do now" in the Church. And I am not sure my contribution will add anything - but I am going to make one anyway!

Having taken the decision, after reading a few of his/her posts, not to read any more of what Brettongarcia said I found the latest one very interesting.

I think there is a tendency for us to separate the intellectual content of our faith from its spiritual content. We do need, as Benedict XVI exhorts us, a personal relationship with Jesus. But we also need "...to stir your minds, so that your understanding may come to full development, until you really know God's secret in which all the jewels of wisdom and knowledge are hidden" (Col 2:2,3) The Jerusalem Bible

Because our faith is based on real events. Healing through touching the relics of saints is a reality - it is not magic. It is in the bible and it happens today just as it did 2000 years ago (and even before that, of course). Jesus rose from the dead. In a body. We believe because we have heard and read the testimony of those who were present at the time - that is, the scriptures. And the scriptures are simply the written record of those to whom were entrusted the Deposit of Faith.

We have thought about these things for 2000 years and our faith is the only intellectually coherent interpretation of the facts that we see before us.

Perhaps one of the problems we need to address is the division of what our theologians write from our ordinary Christian lives. Perhaps we make the division between Martha (the active, intellectual approach) and Mary (the prayerful, spiritual approach) too great.

Because the things that we see: the sacraments, the teaching, the moral code, the canon law (yes - even that!) all come out of this relationship with Christ - they are not two separate things.

So - "what do we do now"? I think we all need to try and get a better understanding of our faith and a better personal relationship with Christ. But I also think that as we do that we need to encourage others to walk with us because so many are getting left behind. Quite how we do that I don't know. I have started in my own church a Men's Group which meets for an hour every Saturday morning and where we try and chew on a little "meat".

Dear Simon Whitney (and then Brettongarcia),

“Having taken the decision, after reading a few of his/her posts, not to read any more of what Brettongarcia said I found the latest one very interesting.”

You made, then unmade, a good decision. Here is one reason why. Brettongarcia somehow produces:

“In part they are also leaving Christianity, because they have trouble believing it is intellectually coherent: how is it that we are both saved and condemned? Forgiven and not forgiven? Loved, and sent to Hell?”

Engaging such a person is pointless, unless it be in person over an extended period of time. Sorry, Brettongarcia, you need more work on the basics. Get thee to RCIA or adult catechesis or maybe Sunday School (you see, I, too, have been reading your posts).

Then you can engage the grownups. Meanwhile, I’ll pray for your conversion.

I am spiritual, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back and pretend

I am spiritual, watch me grow
Oh yes, I am my own pope!
See me see me see me in my hope

I am spiritual (I am stupid) I am frightful (I am loopy)
But look how much (I think) that I have gained
I am spiritual (I am lost)
I am strong I am boss (of God)
An' he better watch out 'cause I am spiritual
And he's no-o-o-ot

So be your own pope like me
Nothin' will happen wait and see
Just have pride and be legion (like satan)
Just be spiritual and not hatin'
Just be spiritual!... like me Me! ME!!

Mark Morford, a columnist for the San Francisco Gate had this to say about spirituality in June, 2008:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics….
…we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.

I've heard the RCIA lessons - and don't believe them. God loves us but sends us to hell? Because he is tough love? Because we punish the ones we love, with eternal damnation? While the Bible itself said different: 1) what father, if his son asks for food, gives him a scorpion? Why 2) punish a creature you yourself made imperfect, capable of sinning, for the sin whose possiblity you created? In 3) what sense are we free, and responsible for our decisions, if God knew our path before we were born?

The problem is, the most ultimate "answers" you have in RCIA, are only sophistries and rationalizations. The only reason they seem convincing, is that the more convincing opponents to these conventional ideas, are never allowed to speak in your RCIA classes.

But what do I know? I'm just another stupid guy with a PhD. We're all stupid, compared to you and your friends, aren't we?

Pretty high opinion of yourselves? Pretty grown up to call others children? PRetty vain? Pretty smug?

What will be the ultimate penalty, for Pharisaic, self-satisfaction? Any idea?

Dear Brettongarcia,

I teach RCIA. I too have a PhD, although I regard that as straw. In my classes, I try to show what shines forth brilliantly for me, the beauty of the faith. As for silencing dissent, that simply is inaccurate for me or any RCIA teachers I know, and I know a round dozen. There are no forbidden questions. The inquirers (all of them are intelligent, and some are brilliant--one had three courses in theology from Holy Apostles Seminary) are invited to ask questions about anything and do. They are satisfied with the answers--not really my answers, but those of some of the greatest and most holy minds and spirits in the history of the race, drawing on the living water of scripture--because the truth which sets us free is beautiful and make profound sense. Why not? It is the bread of life.

You disagree. That is your right. But beward lest you commit the very wrongs that you decry--rash judgment, uncharity, and an unwillingness to hear out the views of the other side. Do not call us fools--your Jesus and mine warned that those who say "fool!" to others must render an account to their maker. If you think we have erred, if you think we have sinned, admonish us as a brother to brethren and, most of all, pray for us. You say that God is Love. I agree. If we must compete, let us compete in loving one another and doing good.

Best,

Richard

Richard:

Is RCIA (or for that matter, a church) really, commonly a good forum for real debate between say, conventional Catholics, and Spiritual people? Are the strongest and most effective opponents of/arguments against conventional religion, really going to be found attending an RCIA class? Far more likely, you will find there, mostly people who are already mostly converted in their minds, to Catholicism. That is why they are there; to confirm and fill out what they already essentially believe.

Nearly all the various religious environments, program minds, in part by denying, shutting out, any possiblity of true discussion, argument, of two sides. When you go to church, all communication is one-way: the preacher or priest, speaks to you. You are not allowed to talk back. One voice speaks; that is all. Only one opinion is allowed; everything else is literally, demonized.

The same on religious talk radio; if someone intelligent calls in to object to this or that point of right-wing religion, the station hangs up on him. All that is allowed, in most religious forums, is delivering the same ideas, over and over again. The same phrases, repeated in prayers a hundred times a day; to hypnotically program the neural pathways. What we have mostly in religion, is not fair debate, but propoganda, psychological programming.

Most of religion depends on, survives by way of, suppressing real, fair debate and discourse. It is mind control.

You might argue that First Things allows a bit more real debate on religious questions; but an RCIA class?

Dear Brettongarcia,

In all charity, it seems to me that you are unwilling to consider the possibility that people on the other side are open minded or have actually thought their positions through. I began life as a cradle Catholic. At the age of seventeen, for reasons of concupiscence and pride, I left the Church. I tried agnosticism for thirty years. The result was morally unpleasant and intellectually unsatisfying. When I came back, as an adult with a phd, I had to think through everything again. I have. I have heard nothing from you or anyone else on this thread that I have not for one reason or another considered at length.

Since my convictions were countercultural, and since I had to be prepared at all times to defend everything in a skeptical academic environment, I could take nothing for granted. Many of those who come to me in RCIA classes are in a similar situation. They have seen life. They have tested other belief systems, from apaty to occultism to some other branch of Christianity, and decided that they wish to pursue Roman Catholicism. That is their choice, and it is usually a considered one. Yes, they are more likely than not to be inclined to come with the belief that they are coming home. That is no crime. When you meet with people who believe as you do, do you demand that everyone hold a debate on every article of shared conviction before you can assume them and go on? Of course you don't. If people were required to rediscover fire or reinvent the wheel every day, no one would get anywhere.

To call me, as you have, a robot who spews a line I have not analyzed, is very presumptuous. To call Catholicism nothing but propaganda in which thougt is suppressed is not consonant with my experience. To assume that you are more critically minded or intelligent or educated than I or any other practitioner of Catholic Christianity is, in my view, both presumptuous and (to speak at the very least of statistical probabilities) erroneous. As far as I can see, no one on this thread is more adamantine or invariant in the fixity of their views than you. I don't feel called upon to defend myself or my Church to a hanging judge, except as a witness to others that the grounds for condemnation are, at the very least, open to doubt.

Your opposition is unappeasable. It is pointless to attempt the task of Sisyphus. Pax.

Best,

Richard

Is your PhD in religion, or a field relevant to it? That might have made a difference.

Consider this problem: no one here, seems embarrased by a post, that says in effect, "I'm more religious, even more spiritual, than you" the problem: isn't that a bit self-cancelling? Self-deconstructive?

Given that the heart of Christilike religion in effect, is to be Humble; not self-righteous? Here our posters have said in effect, "I'm more humble than you." Or "my love" (agape) is better than yours.

"I'm more humble than you"? Isn't that necessarily, oxymoronic? Self-contradictory? Self-deconstructive?

Does a truly humble person, act superior? Does a humble person, brag about his humility? Logically, that would seem obviously, to contradict one's self. Logically, the very act of bragging about your humility, proves you don't have it. You are not humble; you are bragging.

Perhaps you yourself Richard, have not bragged as much as many here; but...? Maybe you have. Read the first remarks, and their contemptuous dismissal of others.

Granted, an RCIA class, especially one run by a PhD, IS often going to be a somewhat more critical environment than ... a hundred parishioners, duly soaking up rote lessons in the average Church. Still? Can anyone say they have adequately thought it all through?

To be sure, I don't ask people to daily prove themselves, on matters that I regard as reasonably certain. But in matters I regard as problematic? Of course I do.

Maybe you should re-think your support for the Church, in an era when we find out that our priests were no better than most normal human beings;when we find that all our bishops lied to cover up child-mollesting priests.

Will you not humbly reconsider your support of the Church and bishops?

Brettongarcia,

You have not shown much growth through 19 posts (my count) in this thread. You pose objections; most are silly in the face of scripture, tradition, and the magisterium. Surely you know that. Others replied that the Church has convincingly dealt with this or that point, and you said (my paraphrase), “well, what about an opposing view.” So I suggested you go to RCIA or, in better tune with your apparent lack of knowledge of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which you are so ready to criticize, to Sunday school.

Read that last sentence twice.

You claim a Ph. D., which I doubt. Two of your interlocutors make the same claim, and now I am a third.
Still you insist that you must be met as some sort of equal on the field of battle.

You will pardon me for my disbelief in your intellectual preparation and claimed level of educational achievement.

Several of your betters have, in turn, promised to pray for you. So shall I, as I promised earlier in the thread which you have “trolled” (my verb).

My remarks here are often quickly written, and unedited. But my arguments come to unconventional, but rational,conclusions.

As you defend the pederasy and lies of your church, rather than simple name-calling, simply calling my claims "silly," why not offer a single rational counterargument? To any one of them?

Rather than simple name-calling, while trumpeting your own superiority, can you offer a single rational argument?

Dear Brettongarcia:

I had to take a bit of a hiatus form following this intiguing banter. I am curretly on deployment in Afghanistan so I can't maintain constant comms. Also, I don't have a Ph.D, but I do have a J.D., which I make no pretense at being as notewirthy as a Ph.D. Also, although I am a lawyer civilian side, I am not a JAG. Rather, I am an Engineeer.

You went on a rant about people claiming to be more humble than others. I read back through the posts and I see only civility being offered. No one seems to me to be thumping their chest about how humble they are. In any event, that is just an aside I thought I'd mention.

Also, your claim that all priests and bishops were complicit in the horrible and inexcusable abuse scandals revealed since 2002 is the grossest of inaccuracies. I will not call you a liar, but merely presume that you are again ill infomred. It has been made clear fromthe exhaustive inquiries made that numbers of priests involved were a very low percentage. But truly, teh episcopal mismanagement by some bishops of those predatory priests made the matter the crisis that it is. That fact doesn't undermine my belief in the Catholic Church. No aspect of the scandal is based on any teaching or precept of the Church, but rather its violation of such teaching and precepts. In fact, some contributing factors in what led to the crisis can be ditectly attributed to more "open-minded" ideas about sexuality that you seem here to be advocating, inter alia.

But what I really wanted to engage was this statement by you to Richard:

"Granted, an RCIA class, especially one run by a PhD, IS often going to be a somewhat more critical environment than ... a hundred parishioners, duly soaking up rote lessons in the average Church. Still? Can anyone say they have adequately thought it all through."

The last line in particular is what astonishes me. Are you serious? Aside from the numerous individuals in these posts who have clearly "adequately thought it through, " let's recap a (non-exhaustive) list from roughly 40 A.D. on:

St. Paul
St. Augustine
St. Jerome
St. Anselm
St. John Crysostom
St. Benedict
St. Thoma Aquinas
St. Bonaventure
Thomas a Kempis
St. Fracnis of Assissi
St. Dominic
Dante Alighieri
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Teresa of Avila
St. John of the Cross
St. Ignatius of Loyola
St. Thomas More
Erasmus of Rotterdam
William Shakespeare
John Milton
Blaise Pascal
Fyodor Doestoyevsky
John Henry Cardinal Newman
G.K. Chesterton
C.S. Lewis
J.R.R. Tolkien
Dorothy Day
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Flannery O'Connor
Thomas Merton
Walker Percy
Karol Wojtyla (aka John Paul II)
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
George Weigel
Scott Hahn
Joseph Ratzinger (aka Benedict XVI)
Archbishop Charles Chaput....

Against this woefully incomplete list you offer.... Lady Gaga and your Ph.D?

Forgive me if I find your argument less than compelling.

Good heavens, I forgot one of my favorites who most definitely adequately thought it through: Malcolm Muggeridge.

Cheers!

Dear Brettongarcia

Is this your personal blog?

http://brettongarcia.wordpress.com/2010/03/

If it is yours, are you trying to argue that abortion is permitted as the embryo is not fully human?

That is my very, very humble blog.

The book offered there, by Dr. Dempsey, argues that the real position of the BIble, and of the Church itself, is that abortion is a minor sin at most; because the embryo is not yet "formed" (Ps. 139) enough, does not have a big enough brain, to have a human mind or spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas confirmed. So that therefore, our current Pope actually said that voting for prop-abortion candidates, "can be permitted" (Card. Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, 2004 memo).

That blog, Dr. Dempsey and I admit, is a rather boring, rush job; a rough draft. But it does logically outline 100 biblical and Catholic arguments, that suggest abortion is a very minor sin, if it is any sin at all.

This will be shocking to many; but this book has more than 100 arguments, based on the Bible and Catholic tradition - and the prouncements of two Cardinals and the Pope - to prove it. Or at least, that inordinate, dis "proportionate" ("Worthiness"; Ratzinger), "one issue" emphasis on abortion, is wrong.

Here again, we are trying to follow the Bible and God ... and are finding out that their real message, is very, very different from what most people believe. Even from what many bishops believe.

But many bishops have been shown to be wrong recently, after all. Many are resigning even now, in Ireland and Europe, due to the mollestation scandal.

Dear Simon,

Thanks for the discovery of that blog. It clarifies much.

Best,

Richard

Dear Brettongarcia

What I don't understand is how the same ethical system can, quite rightly, condemn peadophile priests and condone abortion.

I certainly don't want to engage in lengthy debate over this and would urge others to restrain themselves but I needed to check some things out first.

Num 5:11-27 makes no mention of abortion - unless you interpret it in line with your views.

I do not know Aquinas well enough and you give no references - at least in the beginnning and (as you say yourself) it is "rather boring" and I couldn't be bothered to read more than some of it.

As for the pronouncements of Popes and Cardinals - you seem to say that because they consider that "one issue" Catholics should get some balance then the "one issue" they are concerned about is not so bad after all. That seems to me to be logically incoherent. We would regard anyone who constantly went on about one particular aspect of faith as having the need to get balance. If someone constantly talked about murder and about how we are all murderers because if we have broken one law then we have broken them all and he who said thou shall not steal said thou shall not commit murder and that our sins are responsible for the murder of Our Lord then we would rightly conclude that that person needed to get some balance. We would be wrong to conclude that murder is not so bad after all.

As Richard says, it explains much. Let us leave it at that.

Dear Brettongarcia:


!. Thanks for the wish for luck, we'll need it. We do principally construction engineering this round though we have some mine clearing ops too. I was a combat engineer during my Iraq tour. But in reality, it doesn't really matter what your line of work here, you are at risk of indirect fire inside the wire and IED/ambush outsidethe wire. Just the nature of asymmetric COIN. I'm sure the time in Turkey was stressful and formative. Relieved that you and the world dodged that bullet.

2. I in no way am arguing anyone on that list is sin free (nor does the Catholic Church). There actually are several Prots on the list and two Orthodox. Muggeridge was Brit writer/critic and eventual convert to Christianity and then Catholicism.

3. The list was not in response to your commentary on humility, just on orthodox Christians, and Catholics in particular, not having "adequately thought through" their faith.

4. If you think that the allegations in a plaintiff's lawyers complaint are giving it to you straight, well, I would admonish you to "adequately think that through".

5. Again, even assuming arguendo that every diocese had some instance of abuse (which is not my recollection of the findings, but it has been several years since I reviewed the report), certainly not every instance was mismanaged. Therefore I still find your reasoning deply flawed on that issue. I am unaware of any claim that the Church is perfect. It's four marks on "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic".

6. I find the cases legal theories to be based on a dubious assessment of the Church's organizational structure (a la Dan Brown) and motivated (at least on the plaintiff's bar's part) by potentially astronomically lucrative contingency fees (as many lawsuits are, regardless of the validity of their claims).

7. Whether the cases proceed or are dismissed (personnally I don't think the complaints as drafted should survive the summary judgment phase, but we'll see) I agree that exposure of the scandals is a painful and necessary step in cleansing the Church of an insipid an demonic evil that was allowed to fester for far too long. And yes, the laity was intrsumental in exposing it. I have no doubt that the Evil One is rejoicing in his current tactical gains. But the Church has had many scandals and setbacks in 2,000 years. It has survived and will survive. Personally, I belive that the Church will emerge stronger and more orthodox from the ashes of this painful period, not less so. Those Catholics who disagree will likely join the likes of the Episcopal communion, or some other mainline protestant communion that has accoutrements of liturgy but a theology formed in our, rather than His, image.

As for your other posts re alleged scriptural and Catholic tradition reasons to give abortion a free pass. C'mon guy. In light of all the contemporary knowledge of genetics and embryology and we are going to establish criteria based on a time when "quickening" (i.e. movmement within the womb) was the cutting edge of gestational understanding? Please. Check out Atheists for Life. Even they understand that life begins at conception.

I really don't get why folks like you wan the Catholic Church (or the Eastern Orthodox and traditional Baptisits and evangelicals for that matter) to revise its theology to contemporary "moraity" (if you can call it that). Again, the Episcopal communion and innumerable "ice your own cupcake" communions of "what's happening now" are there for the joining. They've got eveyhting you are looking for, Christian in name but with a catechism that all out embraces the political "progressive" agenda. If you feel they are right, why not spend you time and effort bulding them up intead of battering a Church you obviously feel is a giant windmill of error?

As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.

In hoc signo vinces,
Max

Well, parenthetically? Probably I'm in danger of being 1) stereotyped here as an anti-Catholic or something; which for some 2) is enough to invalidate each and every individual point I make on any subject, for the rest of my life. Since for some here, 3) a church that molests little boys and lies about it, is still obviously perfect; and any attempt to criticize it, is obviously wrong.

This is slightly off topic. But to address it briefly, relate it to our present discussion of Lady Gaga: many of us today do in general, have less and less confidence, either in the Catholic Church specifically - or certainly, its present bishops and understandings.

Indeed, many people particularly in the new "spiritual but not religious" movement, feel there are many problems in conventional, ritualistic religion. But our voices are not widely heard, by conventional believers. To be heard by believers, we must use the language familiar to them; to those who remain loyal to the current, received sense of religion. Even though many of us today believe that tradition is itself however, unsatisfactory. Or in my case: I believe the old tradition is satisfactory - but that tradition is universally misunderstood by most of our bishops today.

Still, that IS slightly off topic. Or perhaps not.

Let's return to the specific case we have before us now, to examine it on its own merits: Lady Gaga, and liberal "spirituality." Vs. the assertion that we should follow certain "traditional" ideas about God and spirituality. And reject modern/contemporary spirituality.

In the present case, where do I suggest that many contempory Catholics have gone wrong, in the matter at hand? Here I'm arguing that in rejecting contemporary spirituality, there are problems with Humility vs. Vanity. Ironcially, the error in rejecting spirituality, SBNR, too quickly, can be expressed as problems that come in part from not really understanding or following Catholic Tradition and the Bible. God told us to be humble; but claiming to be spiritually superior, is not humble.

To that criticism, I would add that, aside from Vanity, yet another element of the conventional (if not Traditional?) Christian/Catholic sense. Here I suggest that a Catholic spirituality that does not embrace the material world (and the materiality of sex?) - is contrary to the Bible's incarnation sense; of Jesus as God, "made flesh." And for that matter, rather against Pope John Paul II's, "theology of the body."

In part, people object to Gaga, and her spirituality, because of her sexuality. Her spirit, her "love," is all too focused on the "lower" aspects of Christian love; on "eros," not "phil" or "agape." But ultimately, we suggest here that a more proper theology, is a more incarnational one. One more accepting of this material life and love.

Which leads us to the conclusion that the Bible itself and God himself, might be less shocked than many seem to think, at even the sexuality of say, Lady Gaga. Indeed, her slightly (and note, parodically) sexualized spirituality, is valuable precisely because it is more incarnational; it is not shocked by even, sexuality. And it finds - or some similar explorations, aside from Gaga, find - a way to be sexual, a material girl, in a responsible way.

By the way, Gaga does put some critical perspective on sexuality. To some extent, her parody/update on Madonna, 1) finds sexual elements after all, in the original Virgin, agape, open to the Lord. While 2) Gaga's presentation of sexuality itself, is not without a critical perspective; Gaga's notoriously manufactured/contrived image, is in part a parody of over-sexualized, big-hair, often -bleached blonde movie stars of the past; like Greta Garbo, Jean Harlow, Betty Grable (SP?), and especially Marilyn Monroe.

The spirituality of a Lady Gaga, properly attempts to re-discover a more grounded, incarnational way, to follow even the original Madonna; in a way that re-integrates our spirit with the material world, again; in a way justified in the Bible in part, by a Christ who was God returning to the "flesh"; "God made flesh." Furthermore, since this is admittedly a risky process, encountering many hazards, even her highly incarnational sense is however, not entirely uncritical of sexuality. As we see in the partial recreation, but also partial parody, implicit in her highly exaggerated image, of the sex goddesses of the past.

As for qualifications, I hold two (2) ABD's, i.e.d., fruitless PhD's. Mill's original point that to be "spiritual but not religions" is well taken. I understand Mills to be saying that SBNR is itself an oxymoron on the grounds that,

"The word “spiritual” has no useful meaning if it does not refer to a relation to a real spirit, something from a world not our own, something supernatural, something that or someone who tells us things we do not know, judges us for our failures, and gives us ideals to strive for and maybe help in reaching them."

I agree and add the following.

Human beings are composed of three interlocked but non-coterminous parts: Body, Psyche, and Spirit. The intersection of these three is the "soul". That which ties these three together in relationship is "religion". Therefore, every living person has a religion. Some persons are theists, some are atheists, some have not yet chosen the group to which they belong.

I used to be one of those who were "spiritual but not religious"; I tried many things. The best metaphor is that I was a cockle shell squib with neither rudder nor centerboard nor compass and an emptiness that could be filled only by a personal relationship with Jesus.

Finally, God loves me as He does all sinners. Heaven is for those who accept God's offered gift. Hell is for those who reject His offer. Place your bet, make your choice, and accept the consequences.

Great article. I've often thought of Faith and Spirituality as two very different concepts. Faith means belief in some doctrine or other. Spirituality is emotion untethered to faith.

Blessings,

Michael

RichardGB & Mills:

To be spiritual, does NOT necessarily imply having a VERY definite idea of what thing or spirit we are addressing. Indeed, the word "spiritual" is typically applied to things that seem ... nebulous; ghostly; and in other words, not fully visible. Or even intellectually defined?

Going with that sense, SBNR tries to suggest that overly-concretized and dogmatic institutions, are bad; they should be called "religions." Whereas a real spirituality should be prepared to be far more flexible; capable of drifting above and through, such mere fixed emplacements. And parts of the Bible allow that: "to an unknown God," who fills not just churches, but "all things"; while God "does not live in shrines made by man."

Even the Church at times allows this more freeform spirituality. In spite of frequent objections to this point, the Church itself really DOES refer to some things in its purview, as a "Mystery," in the sense of not being clearly known, being "mysterious" to the Church itself. (See above; quoting the Catechism, 2nd 1997-2000 Ed., ref. # 206: "he is - beyond everything that we can understand or say"; he is the "hidden God").

The great attraction of agnosticism in fact, is openness precisely, to "mystery." While I submit, the book especially of Ecclesiastes - the "Wisdom" book - in effect, advocates and allows, a high degree of agnoticism. "Who knows" whether there is a heaven or hell?

In fact, my main purpose here, is probably to suggest that the "spirit" that the Bible calls us to, is more variable, less defined, than the average church dogmatic moralist implies.

No doubt though, to be sure, things can get pretty vague and rudderless, here. That is why as a matter of fact, too, I myself make some compromises between a totally free spirit, and some sense of tradition. I myself largely follow, if not the Church, then at least the Bible itself. Or especially, the Bible as read through contemporary Theology/Biblical Criticism, etc..

But how fixed should we be, in following religious institutions? As fixed as following all their dogmas? As fixed, as loyally following our Pope and bishops, even into pederasty? I don't think so.

Regarding the matter at hand? I think I accept God; but accepting the Church, is a very, very, very different matter. Especially when priests are molesting little boys, and all the bishops are lying, to cover it up.

Why don't we compromise here? A little "Religion"; but a lot of spiritual flexibility too. Enough that we don't HAVE to follow churches, concrete religious institutions, when they make the mistakes that they inevitably DO make.

As for Ms. Gaga? Our Liberal Lady Gaga? I think her image in part reflects Our Lady; but also attempts to go beyond that image too. Does she go too far? Possibly. Though keep in mind, its well known that her image is pretty deliberately fabricated; the real Ms. Gaga might be saying something deeper and more reserved than many might think.



(Paul: There are other sins in spirituality in general too, I suggest too; sins even in the spirituality of Catholic priests. One of them is the sin of getting too spiritual - and neglecting, denying the importance of the material, physical world- James 2, etc.. Our physical needs.

By the way Paul, as you note, an ABD is the sin of material, physical "fruitless"ness! : (). What went wrong? It might be over-spirituality; in truth, pursuing just "spirituality," neglects physical works; and hinders concrete attainment. Two ABD's, suggests idealistically, deliberately refusing allegedly superficial, "visible" or concrete, cashable validation. Like a diploma, and a job. Perhaps you are over-spiritual then; and need some more respect for this physical, material life? Beyond the physical church?

By the way; there's a kind of special anxiety about dissertations; often our own fears or feelings of unworthiness wipe many of us out, here. But if you're good enough to complete the course work, you're good enough to write a dissertation. It's just a big paper. An assemblage of eight or nine 30-page term papers, all on a related subject.)

coincidentally, the path of the rise of fast food mirrors the rise of 'spirituality without religion. fast alleges to nourish without nutrition, spirituality alleges to guide without a light. in the end, expect to see a rise in spiritual diabetes.

Bretton, are you still at it? On to another topic entirely with:

"But if you're good enough to complete the course work, you're good enough to write a dissertation. It's just a big paper. An assemblage of eight or nine 30-page term papers, all on a related subject"

The link between coursework and the dissertation is much more tenuous than you pretend. It sounds like you never wrote a dissertation. I say that as a Ph. D. (yes, I finished it) in one field and ABD in another.

Enough of this. Away with you, sir, and fly into space! (check Cardinal Newman for the reference).


Mr. Mills is on to something useful here. I thank him for the article. Spirituality necessarily implies the belief in spirits. These real spirits are not strangers to us. If we know anything at all about God and the supernatural life, then we can identify the Holy Spirit and follow his promptings. He thinks we should tend to God, stick with the Church, and, if we can, change pop culture. Not the reverse. Not misinterpret the faith. Not persuade ourselves that abortion is highly recommended by the Church.

Bretton, I don't really think you are going anywhere. A fortiori, I hope you will consider RCIA.

To all those responding to brettongarcia:

Surely you realize that with every post this individual "responds" as if you said things you clearly have not said by introducing new angles and tangents not previously mentioned. This is not so in every case, but overall over his 20 plus posts one can see it is his primary course of attack. My teenager dos it all the time. Sadly, one of his posts indicate he may be just a little older than me.

He repeatedly deploys a typical left-wing maneuver, which can be seen most clearly in his avoiding any direct refutation of the multiple points you all have collectively made to him. Instead, in response to each challenge by you he routinely throws additional new elements into the hopper, almost as if to say, "OH yeah? Then what about THIS?" This is a universally typical left-wing tactic.

It's a dead giveaway that our "friend" is not only guilty of the lack of charity he finds in others, he also struggles to respond directly within the framework of the arguments you variously make. Again, our liberal "friends" suffer terribly from this form of intellectual weakness. It runs rampant in their community.

Go back and trace the trail he's left throughout the whole thread, with special attention to his failure to address your challenges to him. He repeatedly injects new material, instead, for you all to address, thereby keeping the heat off himself.

His contributions consist of all light, only a little heat, and lack substance. His entire thread is not only boring, it is incessantly tiring. Worst of all, by spamming the thread he has succeeded in getting the lot of you to work much harder than he by responding to arguments that don't deserve the attention. The only "advantage" is that with so many of you the labor can be divided, but this doesn't prevent him from attaining his actual goal.

I hate to introduce this indelicate observation, but in some ways brettongarcia has been using this thread like a young puppy in heat. He's been using the lot of you to get his jollies, and you've been all too willing to comply.

brettongarcia is a troll, and nothing more. I am not referring to his value in the eyes of God, of course, but only as far as this thread is concerned. He accuses Catholics of being insulting to others but no one here can hold a candle to his presumptuous arrogance.

I'm reminded of a post I see now and then: Please don't feed the trolls.

You'll see there is no need to address brettongarcia once you examine his MO. If he gives up this teen-like nonsense you might consider giving him a new chance to participate. Meanwhile, if you ignore his rants until he grows up he won't hang here anymore - it won't be fun and he'll find greener pastures populated by good Catholics who will rise to the bait.

For myself, it's just not worth visiting threads populated by such foolishness (a description of behavior, but not the person). I probably won't be back until the next time one of my google Alerts brings me something of interest to investigate here. Getting sucked into this kind of masterbatory activity is unfulfilling for me, and each time I encounter a twisted liberal like brettongarcia I appreciate all the more Father Z having tightened up the registration process at his blog. We've had a dramatic reduction in foolishness there ever since - pretty much nonexistent, for the most part.

BTW, I am not intolerant of opposing views - just teen-age "eloquence." Well-supported and reasoned arguments that stay on course from our friends across the aisle are always welcome - and solid challenges are much appreciated.

Thanks for tolerating my rant - I usually ignore folks like brettongarcia, but such excessive behavior warrants a solid response - and not a pointless attempt at refutation. Twenty plus posts of that nonsense was more than I could let go by without comment.

Dear Phil

Amen to that.

Brettongarcia appears in many blogs peddling the same incoherent stuff. He hasn't answered a single direct question and your analysis of his tactics are spot on.

It is a "he" by the way as the book he has written refers to Dr William Dempsey.

Can you imagine 700 pages of the same as we have had here?

I will certainly be praying for him.

Phil:

Specifically name, outline, one or two of the points you feel were neglected; I'll try to respond directly to them.

God spews religion out of His mouth. We worship in truthand spirit..it is all about spirit...and developing an intimacy with our Creator...leave man's doctrine and dogma by the wayside...this is personal...we come together in truth and spirit as His Word tells us...we walk a new existance in the Holy Spirit...being born again...it is simple, uncomplicated and soul saving...religion has nothing to do with it...by the Holy Spirit He leads and we follow...our eyes are open to His truth....it is a way of life on this earth and in this fleshly existance...

Thanks Simon Whitney and Phil. I'll try:

"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:16

Adios, Bretton, don't pretend you can miss the point of this snappy little bit of scripture.

John:

But who's distorting it? 1) Me? Or you and 2) the pederastical church you follow with impossible loyalty and faith?

I referenced this this article in my posting about spirituality and the "spiritual but not religious" movement.

http://talkingskull.com/article/spiritual-but-not-religious-big-cop-out

Wow! So now, God the creator, who existed before religion, who is called many things today and throughout the ages, has to be in a box (church) called by names like "Jesus", "Christ", "Father", etc can only be accessed through a "man made religion".

I am a spirit first, human being second and when I communicate with the creator it is a private dialogue, this is what I call being spiritual. It also, means I respect the opinions that are written in the bibles of the world.

I really don't understand why my beliefs are important to anyone. Because of my beliefs, "do unto other as I want them to do to me", " I understand that everyday I am going and living from others", "giving is a wonderful give that I give to myself on a none physical level, while help someone else", and "forgiveness is a gift I give to myself and to others my releasing them from the mistake (sin)".

If the churches were so effective that leading humans, then wars, poverty, and capitalism, communism, and all the other 'ism would not exist.

Remove the "molt" from you eyes first, then (s)he who is without sin cast the first stone............many are called but few are chosen.........wide is the gate that leads to damnation, but narrow is the path that leads to salvation of the soul.

Judge ye not!

Lastly, I think, this is more about the collection plate, than the direction of my soul after this life!

Dear Carol

What if God made the box?

("Upon this rock I will build my church")

And what if He wants everyone to be in the box?

("Go and make discples of all nations")

Bullseye! Great article, I will use it in my Religious Education classroom.

Simon? What if:

"God does not live in shines made by men"?

And Jesus ...

"Turned and said to Peter, 'get behind me Satan'" (Mat. 16.23).

It was the title of this post that struck me. It made me realise that for so many years I had been following nothingness. Like so many seekers I turned away from the faith of my birth and sought solace in many a spiritual pursuit never realising how hollow that pursuit was because there is no spirit without G-d. the Creator is all; nothing can exist without It's presence, not even spirit.

It seems to me that the designation “I am spiritual” is a way to safely relieve the tension that exists in many of us for some connection to the divine, without basing that connection in something historic, or in something that overrides our sense of personal autonomy.

I can fully understand the hesitance that many, particularly young people, have with identifying themselves with so called institutional Christianity. Certainly the Religious Right has done much to alienate this generation, as have the many public leaders who have exhibited behavior that contradicts what they preach and the many fundamentalist preachers who have said outlandish things in the name of God.

But, to be honest, I believe those who take the “spiritual but not religious” label because of the Religious Right or because of Christian hypocrisy are simply using those things to cover up something deeper within themselves.

hmm.. i was about to leap into the fray or maybe it's the breach, here when i noticed the above stern reprimands delivered to 'brettongarcia' and was reminded of my own - i hate to use this word but right now i can't quite leapfrog him - 'traumatic' experience of being designated a "troll" - this occurring during my efforts to join in the discussions going on at NZ's leading media-astute site; i have to tell you that i found myself unable to sleep because of it, i would lie wake all night replaying the exchanges until i thought i would burst w/ frustration.. oh, and the charge of "incoherence" was made several times as well! I found the situation diabolical in the extreme, to tell you the truth, for every time i attempted to show that what i was saying was not "incoherent" at all, the big man weighed in and said how he could not tolerate that the thread consequently "became all about me" (and trying to avoid *that* was like trying to avoid the very devil) and every time i implored the big man of the site to explain to me what he meant by his "your posts are not made in good faith", he would never, ever do so; so well hey, i just thought i'd tell you this much at the OUTSET - i myself see no qualities in BG's thoughts that i can really say i relate to mine own; but there you go, the nature of the charges made against him have aroused a very large part of my ..how shall i say 'online persona'

deriving straight then from the very latest flick of the beast's tail, made right above my most current posting, i would say that the compulsive recourse made thereabouts by that very flick, to what is reckoned there to be buried ever "deeper within oneself' because of a supposedly too easy access to reasons-to-believe just WHY one might be confessing 'spirituality' and not 'religion', is a paradoxical contradiction par excellence, for can any one of you here say that 'religion' is buried 'deeper' than spirit within a person, and if so, who buried it? Why should the product of my thought recognition of hypocrisy be the simultaneous and even necessary camouflage of hypocrisy within myself, and how can the catholic church, with all its resentment-inducing rigmarole (rigged morale?) ever manage to definitively dissuade me that 'tis but my inflamed reluctance to cast my lot within this castle that constitute my irreligion, and not my spirit burying ever-deeper with its perhaps even yet-to-be-comprehended communion with likewisely lost spirits?

correction: that should have read 'burrowing', and yes, perhaps even 'borrowing' ever-deeper'..

this is the corrected post, hoping against hope to avoid the charge of incoherence..

deriving then from the very latest flick of the beast's tail, made right above my most current posting, i'd say that the compulsive recourse made thereabouts (by that written flick), to what is reckoned here to be buried ever "deeper within oneself' BECAUSE of a supposedly too-easy-access to reasons-to-believe just WHY one might be confessing 'spirituality' and not 'religion', is a paradoxical contradiction par excellence, for can any one of you here say that 'religion' is really buried 'deeper' than is spirit within a person, and if so, who buried it? Why should the most spiritual product of my thought-recognition of hypocrisy be but the simultaneous and even necessary camouflage of hypocrisy within myself, and how can the catholic church, with all its resentment-inducing rigmarole (rigged morale?) ever manage to definitively persuade me that 'tis but my inflamed reluctance to cast my lot within this castle that constitutes this my irreligion, and NOT my spirit burying ever-deeper with its perhaps even yet-to-be-comprehended communion with likewisely lost spirits, still far from being able to even imagine a suitably-mediated concordance of body and soul?

Wow there are some great writers on here.

Dear Flora

I agree with your final comment that people are using the Spiritual not Religious tag to cover something deeper than just a dislike of some aspects of the Church.

I run the RCIA programme in my parish and in the final week before this Easter we had yet more revelations about paedophile priests. I thought some people would back out and I asked them to think about the passage in Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:22-24

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Fortunately, no-one pulled out. I think that the above passage shows that religion and spirituality are a bit like the body and soul. Both go to make up the full human being. Our religion teaches us that we have come to something real and it is up to us to stay connected to that reality.

Dear Frisky

I have to say that I agree with those who have commented on your comments. If you want some advice why not just try and slow down - make one (at most two) points in each article then the rest of us might be able to stay with your train of thought.

I am one of those who have delivered "stern reprimands" to brettongarcia and at the moment you seem to be a bit like brettongarcia on speed!

may i ask most respectfully why my comment, posted last night in relation to the comment directly above, making 2 or 3 singular points in bullet paragraphs no less, was not accepted?


bubblegum is the naked truth

Dear Frisky

By allowing a post which contains the comment that "bubblegum is the naked truth" the moderators have allowed you to answer your own question.

Those of us who frequent this blog do so because we want to discuss issues in an intelligent manner. The moderators do an extremely good job of keeping the debate at a certain level and within acceptable boundaries of what can and cannot be said. Nobody minds a certain acerbity - these are all opinions which are deeply held by people who have given the matters raised a great deal of thought. "Bubblegum is the naked truth" does not fit into that category.

I have searched for an intelligent board for 10 years and this is the best I have ever found. Many others be fairly sugary and that is not the way I take my medicine. The moderators are to be complimented highly for spending so much time and effort in keeping this board at the level it is.

All are welcome - including you, Frisky. But just keep in the boundaries.

the non-allowed post merely expressed disappointment at the most crummy quality of the comment 'like BrettonGarcia on speed", and simply wondered aloud if the writer was not reviewing a rock CD...


"keep within the (always unexplained until after the fact when its too late) boundaries" sounds like an entirely discouraging sort of .well, .threat to me...


the bubblegum comment as it happens sir, was a highly tentative dare, yes dare, on my part to reveal a hint of what is perhaps my greatest sense, and fear, of being spiritually attacked when defenseless in sleep - i saw the phrase written somewhere and merely thought how vastly superior its 'crypticism' was to that most hideously dismal of operations, ie, so-called "dream interpretation"


your haste to condemn, and total failure to discern the nature of something gingerly put before an audience of folks i recklessly assumed to have the finest sensitivities..


and now i am not even sure that i should go any further at all with the 'gum story'...



and i wonder whether "what can and cannot be said" does not, well, curse that very freedom upon which all other freedoms are basically dependent - freedom of speech.. if you think that your intelligence is in any danger by talking openly with me, then you are painfully mistaken..




i do then suspect there are insecurities at work here that can only stand in the way of getting at a greater truth, which, as a great american once said after all, only waits upon the liberty to appear...

and really, chaps, can a "board" be that hot and really cottoned at every point to what we've gleaned from the great human science of mimesis when it depends on an adult to step in everytime and well.. more or less pervert the course of presumably heaven-hungry children's greatest enterprise?

Lady GaGa as one of the santos, complete with her own novina candle (from a neo-pagan website):

http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/05/lady-gaga-prayer-candles-because-we-can.html

She may not honor spirits, but apparently she has become one!

Mr. Mills could not have hit the nail on the head any harder if he tried with this. What a great, eye-opening article. I've never really thought about "spiritual, but not religious" in the way that he described it. I do agree though- I think it's a way for people who unfortunately don't have a relationship with God to convince themselves that all is well in their life and the universe. It's a generally accepted term by anyone with whom you come into contact. It's the easy road.

I love how he referred to spirituality as being a "warm" and "fuzzy" word, while religion is "cold." One positive thing to hearing that someone considers themselves as "spiritual," is that it could possibly be an opportunity to introduce them to our Father. People who are "spiritual" generally claim to be open-minded. So why not take advantage of that open-mindedness and tell them about our Creator?

-Brenda Thompson

hmmm, I don't think spirituality is about comfort. I consider myself "spiritual but not religious," and have not returned to my religious upbringing when waiting for biopsy results, when being called into the doctor's office immediately to address blood test results, or when my wife or mother were dying of cancer. The spirituality I know is about facing life as it is. Get the biopsy. Don't unleash your anxiety about it on anyone. Go to the doctor for the result. Take the next sensible step. What's "God" going to do? Face reality: that's what it means to be spiritual but not religious. In a word, it means fearlessness. Few are fearless enough to give up their religion or "God" and to stand naked in the world. Maybe Lady Gaga is, however. Well ... yeah ... that's her point.