The approach you describe and that so many believe they should pursue demand that the children
(who are to be responsible for their own decisions) are reared with knowledge of the truth. Otherwise
They will be making their decisions in ignorance. Then the common lifelong search for truth can be shared with them as they develop (and we too)  and together we grow toward the Truth until like Paul, Thomas, and the rest we experience it in its fullness and joy. Many people seem to think of this as one single Either/Or decision, but clearly for all of us, including our children, it must be a lifelong quest. So let’s not condemn them to fumbling around in ignorance making a “decision” about truth.

There is a loud and transparent theme in your piece: You are uncomfortable with searching, you want to “get there”. It seems that “there” for you, is some insulated catholic world where ultimately everyone shares your views on sex, parenting, politics, money, morality ecc. It is silly - laugh out loud silly - that you would describe searching for life’s greatest questions as “short term.” Thomas Aquinas at the end of his life declared that he ultimately knew nothing. You need to respect the fact that there are parents out there who are trying to teach their kids to be open to the TRUTHS in other faith traditions, and to not be closed off to truth where it may be found (ie where ever Jesus may be found). You are not the only in the room whose got an answer to life’s questions. You’re no more special because you’re catholic then is the Jew, Baptist, Muslim, or Agnostic. Jesus loves ALL of us equally

You misread my statement—my view is the same as yours, that the search for truth is the key. I add that it is unreasonable to raise a children to “make their own decisions” at some point in an unspecified future, and as though there is only one decision to make and only once, without providing them with the information and tools to do the searching, which must be a lifelong process. That no one has a monopoly on the truth is a central teaching of contemporary Catholicism, and the smug complacency you assume has no legitimate place. But I am alsoagreeing with Jennifer that parents may not just let it all stay fuzzy and aimed at an amorphous future “decision” without providing what is necessary at least for critical thinking.

@John - my post was meant for the author, not your response. I think Jennifer would have a different perspective on life and Catholicism if she spent some time volunteering and serving the most vulnerable people of society. Focusing her efforts on loving people, listening instead of talking, and seeking guidance would be more fruitful than “teaching” her readers about her view Jesus

I find Jennifer’s writing ‘about her view of Jesus” to be very helpful and insightful, and a good way to love and serve people all over the world from her home, where she’s busy phyiscally serving and loving several very vulnerable people 24 hours a day everydat, her children.

I was raised in this kind of open-minded atmosphere. My parents have no religion.  They belong to none.  They respect all, as long all doesn’t interfere with the lives of people.  We had a Holy Bible. I was the only one, to my knowledge, that ever opened it and that was a couple of times. I went to Mass with my aunt when we visited her.  I went to other Christian Churches when I spent the night with friends.  I visited synagogues with friends on occasion.  My dad had me read Siddhartha when I was in middle school. And I visited my Hindu friends that lived down the street for various different celebrations throughout the years.  Nothing was ever concrete, it was all “truth” in their worlds, so it was all okay.  There’s a fear, belying the open-minded approach. It’s the fear of choosing the “wrong” religion when we finally decide to choose to adhere to a particular one.
After growing up this way for many, many years. I converted to Catholicism.  And as time has worn on, I’ve realized that the objective truth that Catholicism is based upon is just that - Objective Truth.  It is a Truth that exists with or without Catholicism or any other religion.  I do not believe in Objective Truth because I’m Catholic, rather I’m Catholic because the Church dares to teach the Whole Truth.

I’ve heard this approach to religion, too & wonder if parents would allow their children to use the same method at mealtimes? Allow free choice regarding whatever food the child desires even though you as a parent know the real truth about nutrition.

Never mind possible, I never had any desire to even try.  We are a Catholic family, and I want us to stay that way.  I am educating my children about what the Church is and why it’s irreplaceable.  I have openly told my children to keep life simple and just date Catholics. I guess you can call that narrow or intolerant if you like, I don’t really care about your opinion.  I had the Catholic Church (my ancestral religion) taken from me at a young age by my parents’ selfish decisions.  (Namely, “I don’t like the rules, so screw them.”)  I was never at peace until I returned.  I know the value of the Church too well to rob my children of the ability to know and recognize it with false openmindedness.  Do I have a guarantee?  No.  What will I do if one defects?  Accept their adult right to make that decision, with deep sorrow in my heart, many prayers, and hope for their return.

I’m sure many Americans think that most of the older religious traditions are equally good paths to God, while excepting the more recent, odder religions such as Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science. At the same time, they cannot avoid living their lives as though they prefer one path over another. That is how children really learn—by watching what we do and imitating it.

So, no, I don’t believe you can raise children to be completely open-minded about religion. You can show that you respect other religions than the one you practice, but by practicing a particular religion, you communicate non-neutrality. Or you can model the belief that all religions are equally useless by not practicing any of them—which many parents do today, even while they claim to have some sort of spiritual dimension to their lives.

A parent can allow a child to choose whether or not to participate in the parent’s religious activities, but a young child usually just wants to do what the parent does, uncritically. An adolescent may well reject the parent’s religion as an expression of a growing sense of independence, not due to a thoughtful search for the “truth.”

In my opinion, a parent simply can’t avoid influencing a child in the matter of religion, anymore than they can in every other area of life, as Kathleen notes at Monday, Jul 16, 2012 8:48 AM (EST). You can’t put every food there is on the table at mealtimes—you have to make choices. And your child is watching what you choose from the selection presented. That’s not a bad thing!

We could let them make all kinds of choices as children. Chocolate instead of brocolli, Xbox instead of schooling, and not to mention chastity. I make the choices for my kids now, and I choose for them to be Catholic. I’m only trying to save their lives.

We’ve always raised our children to be open-minded on issues of religion.  I tell my daughter:

“If you don’t want to pray, fine; don’t stop others from praying.  If you want to pray, fine; don’t force others to pray.”

I want her to take responsibility of her life and her beliefs.  I want her to be thoughtful, critical, open-minded, tolerant, eloquent, and in all things honest.

@Michael Tarascio:

Your comment seems like an emotional reaction to something other than the original piece. To whom/what are you reacting?

You say that Mrs. Fulwiler is “uncomfortable with searching,” apparently intending it as a criticism. But isn’t that actually a good thing? The point of her piece is that it is irrational to want to remain in a state of searching indefinitely. One searches in order to find. (If one doesn’t want to find, then one ought not search.) But if one is still searching, then one has not yet found the object of the search. (Obviously!)

To already have the feelings of having found the object of one’s search when the the object remains not yet found in reality is just a kind of lying to oneself.

You add that Mrs. Fulwiler wants “get there”: Well, I should hope so! Otherwise, there’d be no point to searching! She is exhorting the reader not to designate “searching” as the end goal, when sanity requires that “searching” is only a means to an end.

Then you say, “It seems that ‘there’ for you, is some insulated catholic world where ultimately everyone shares your views on sex, parenting, politics, money, morality ecc.[sic]”

That assertion has no basis in the text of her column. On what do you base it? A former atheist, Jennifer became Catholic and has written of feeling like she “came home” in doing so. So being Catholic is, apparently, what she regards as “there.” There is no evidence, so far as I can detect, that Mrs. Fulwiler feels “not yet there” and has decided that she will only feel “there” when the whole rest of the world agrees with her and all dissent from her worldview is squelched.

You go on to say, “It is silly - laugh out loud silly - that you would describe searching for life’s greatest questions as ‘short term.’” I think you’re misreading her, there.

It is an excusable misreading, since she does use the words “long term” and “short term.” But if you consider how she uses those words in the context of the whole piece, you’ll see that she doesn’t have in mind some arbitrary cut-off. She’s not saying that “searching for 1 year is okay, but searching for 10 years is not.”

She is rather arguing that one ought not to prefer a state of still-searching over a state of having already found the searched-for thing. The point of searching is to find. Searching for fifty years is okay, if it takes fifty-one. Searching for fifty years is not okay, if it only takes forty-nine. Searching for five minutes is also not okay, if it only takes four.

In other words, by “long term” Jennifer means “with no end in sight, with no end desired, and even with an end intentionally avoided.” By “short term” Mrs. Fulwiler means “with an end desired and sought, even if that end cannot be achieved soon.” So it is fair to complain that her use of the words “long term” and “short term” is misleading. But better attention to the overall gist of her piece would clear up the misunderstanding.

On Aquinas, you state, “Thomas Aquinas at the end of his life declared that he ultimately knew nothing.” Eh, no, not “nothing.” He said that, having experienced a foretaste of the Beatific Vision, he viewed his own written attempts to accurately describe the things of God as “mere straw” in comparison to the reality. That’s quite a bit different: Your “knew nothing” would imply that Thomas suddenly thought Islam or Atheism might be true. This is obviously not the case inasmuch as he was en route to defend Catholic teaching in a disputation when he died, and received confession and the Blessed Sacrament in his last hours.

You go on to instruct Mrs. Fulwiler: “You need to respect the fact that there are parents out there who are trying to teach their kids to be open to the TRUTHS in other faith traditions, and to not be closed off to truth where it may be found.” Well, sure!

Jennifer is a Catholic, and is therefore actually obligated to believe that the fact that a truth is held by a non-Christian or non-Catholic Christian does not prevent it from being true. “All truth is God’s truth” is the popular phrasing. As a Catholic, Jennifer obviously doesn’t disagree with that. But that isn’t at issue, nor does anything Jennifer said suggest she disagrees with it.

What is at issue is how to handle those topics wherein Faith X and Faith Y substantially and irreconcilably disagree. In such instances, no more than one side may be correct.

What, then, ought we to say to our children about such matters? To say that “both sides are correct” is a lie. To say that “both sides may be correct and if you can, it’d be good to figure out which one and act accordingly” is better, but what if the parent already has evidence strongly favoring one side or the other? Obviously the parent should convey that helpful information.

Jennifer’s piece is saying that, on topics where two views are in such irreconcilable disagreement, it is silly to prefer “searching” over opting for one view over the other once good reasons for favoring one side have emerged. And it is silly to say (as a blind-faith assertion) that good reasons for preferring one over the other can never emerge. And once they have emerged, it is neglectful not to convey that useful information to one’s child.

Your lecture continues: “You are not the only in the room whose[sic] got an answer to life’s questions.” But there is nothing in her piece suggesting that she thought she was. She’s a Catholic, remember: At bare minimum, she holds that the pope (and anyone else, clergy or laity, who are well-versed in the teachings of the Catholic Church) knows some answers!

Furthermore, keep in mind that Catholicism takes a very liberal and inclusive view: While it (of course!) denies anything which conflicts with Catholic dogma, it values truth wherever it is found, as when Vatican II approvingly describes the action of the Holy Spirit among other Christian groups as being intended for the edification of Catholics, or when Peter Kreeft describes Buddhists as having some very good practical psychology. Jennifer is a Catholic and thus takes this inclusive view.

You add: “You’re no more special because you’re catholic[sic] then is the Jew, Baptist, Muslim, or Agnostic. Jesus loves ALL of us equally.” She never said she was. What article did you read? Not, it seems, this one. You’re attributing all kinds of motivations and attitudes to Jennifer which are utterly absent from what she wrote.

When Person A writes a column saying “XYZ,” mentioning nothing whatsoever about “Q,” and Person B replies saying “Not Q! Not Q!” it seems reasonable to wonder why Person B is going on so. I’m not sure why you’re upset, Michael, but you really do seem upset. If it’s because a Catholic has at some time or other treated you badly, then on behalf of Catholics generally, allow me to apologize for that person’s behavior.

But unless it was Jennifer Fulwiler who did it, your reply to her article seems out-of-place.

Modernists demand that we be *empty* minded about religion, not just open-minded. As you say, investigators keep an open mind at the beginning of a case, but as the evidence piles up they prepare to take a definite stand. Young couples date at first, and then they commit. Without the commitment, the open mindedness takes a sinister turn. It becomes foolishness and eventually cowardice.

Thank you R.  C. I guess my point of view is “yes, one may children to be open minded about religion, but one should not.’ we raised three as Catholics. If one means by ‘religion’ the way we live, then all three still ar; if the way we live and worship, then one is; if the way we live and worship and what whe believe is true, then just one. So all are open minded in the sense that they continue their lives in the search for truth, through a glass darkly, but none is ignorant about what is at stake, and none lacks the tools of discernment, and none understands the issues as an amorphous blob. All of them are ‘open minded’ and seek truth where it will be found. Sure Catholicism is a destination, but if we considered it to be a kind of entire finality we would still be condemning usury, so maybe Michael has been misled by teachers who limited the view to a set of moral rules. that is not the same as the question Jennifer F raises.

Alternatively, Paul, it could be that because religious issues are not open to the same sort of evidence and confirmation as others, honest investigators may find the quest for justification for such a commitment is a lifelong process.

“The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”—GK Chesterton

I heard this addressed in a recent talk by Dr. Michael Yousef.  He related a story where one parent said to another, “I’m raising my children without prejudicing them toward a particular religion.  I want them to make up their own mind.”  The other parent said to the first, “Come, I want you to see my garden.”  So they go to the garden and the first parent says, “Where’s the garden, all I see is weeds!”  The second parent says, “Well, I didn’t want to prejudice my garden in any way.  I didn’t do anything to control how it grows or what grows there, I just wanted it to follow its own path.”  I thought that illustrated quite clearly the folly of the concept Jennifer describes.  Besides, a parent should know eventually his/her children will make up their own mind anyway, regardless of what he/she does.

How can one (a child especially) evaluate information without some background?  They require some foundation.  Are they to choose that themselves?  If we did that in any other area we’d certainly be judged as bad parents:  “2+2=4 Billy unless some other answer would make you happier.”  We must prepare our children to go out into the world as adults and in order to do that they need a moral rudder.  They must be able to choose right from wrong (yes right and wrong really do exist).

Matt:

We let “weeds” grow in our garden.  Many things that are called “weeds” by gardeners myopically intent on a mono-crop are actually beneficial local plants that are themselves nutritious or medicinally valuable.  Some just have beautiful flowers.  When a new weed appears, we learn all we can about it before we decide to pull it up or let it grow. 

In other words, of course there are bad ideas out there, just as there are plants that are, in the end, harmful to a garden (or to the hungry gardener).  The difference is that an open-minded person, like an open-minded gardener, does not simply pull up a plant because it is not the preconceived intention of the garden.  When a new idea appears, he weighs it for what it is without prejudice.  If it is good, he keeps it (we sometimes have transfered these plants - we call them “volunteers”).  If it is not, he throws it out.  And, in the process, he grows and learns more!  (We have found several “weeds” that are actually quite wonderful this way!)

It is this attitude that embodies true “open mindedness.”

Yes, Jennifer is right. In fact, such an attitude is heretical. It is the parent’s responsibility to provide for the religious education of their children. Men wish to know algebra and science, geometry and physics, but it is out of place to know who we are and where we came from, why we are here, where we are going and Who it was that made and saved us.

It ignores the natural reasons alone that would suffice to draw this conclusion, as the Apostle says, “The invisible things of Him have from the creation of the world been clearly visible, for they are able to be perceived from those things that are made” and the historical fact of Christ coming down from heaven to teach all nations and rising from the dead to show us who He was.

Secularism is itself heretical, for it is based on the principle of indifference, that we should not distinguish between truth and error. It is a blind man who will say we should not or we cannot distinguish truth from error.

Applied in any other field, like economics or politics, only confusion and folly would result. Would anyone say, we must be indifferent between free enterprise and socialism, between private property and communism, between democracy and dictatorship? This is not keeping one’s mind open, this is losing it. It is the parent’s responsibility to teach their children right from wrong, the problem is that so many parents no longer know that distinction themselves.

You’re right. Even the Council of Trent says in canon 13 on baptism “If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion;[14] or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT7.HTM

Oops I meant canon 14 on baptism “If anyone says that those who have been thus baptized when children are, when they have grown up, to be questioned whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized, and in case they answer in the negative, are to be left to their own will; neither are they to be compelled in the meantime to a Christian life by any penalty other than exclusion from the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent, let him be anathema.”

Nishant:

I believe you have mistaken what “secularism” is.  It is not indifference towards the notions of “right” or “wrong” but rather a particular disposition towards specifically religious claims about right and wrong which restrains from making public policy based upon that specific set of claims for the express purpose of creating a more orderly society when the populace is religiously heterogeneous. 

Also, there is indeed debate and discussion in the fields you mentioned about what forms of economics are better, and indeed more subtle thinkers will note that such comparisons do not actually come down to absolute right or wrong systems but in establishing prudent systems to achieve certain sorts of goals and which fit the particular circumstances.  It is important to remain open-minded in such fields - that is, to recognize the genuine possibility that the “other” has something to offer or point out that is lacking or flawed in one’s own current views.

I think “religion” is a red herring.  You can’t help but to raise your child in your religion, or in your secular belief system, no matter what you tell them to do. 

The real focus is, in my opinion, raising your children to be open-minded about people, and humble in the face of ideas, including the process of scientific investigation.  Even believers ought to cultivate a healthy agnosticism about the nature of creation.

First, I am not a parent and while I disagree with you, I want to thank you for your article because it made me think about my own beliefs from a different perspective.

I think what issue boils down to is whether truth is relative or absolute. I am young and don’t pretend to be wise enough to have the answer. I do know when I find something meaningful, that makes God whisper deep in my soul. My current ‘religious’ practice is trying different things and repeating what I find to be meaningful. I think it’s important to be honest, about what is no longer working. When you belong to a church it seems like people try to agree with what the church says rather than honestly evaluating if they agree. This seems to be the major difference, whether truth is an inherent body (i.e. the catechism) or whatever path you take will lead you to valuable truth in your own life.

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

— Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Being so-called “open-minded” is mostly a code these days. One can search for the truth and people will say oh how lovely, but if you find the Truth then they will call you names like close-minded, intolerant, and much more.

One should be open to truth, not error.

Jennifer, you are right on the money.
.
We are teaching our children to be respectful of other religions.  We point out the beautiful behavior that is admirable in other religions as proof that God inspires everyone, everywhere, if they are open. But this does not mean that they posses the fullness of truth.  Truth is immutable.  Truth is not subjective, any more than gravity is.  From our studies and search, we know the Catholic faith to be true, even if Catholics themselves are not always faithful.  We realize that eventually our own children will have to decide for themselves to embrace what we’ve taught them, or not.
.
We live in a more conservative area now.  We raised our children for quite some time in one of the most liberal towns in the country.  I was always so impressed by some of the social engineering in that town.  The parents, the culture, the teachers and the schools did an amazing job of teaching the kids not to bully, to be citizens of the world, to have stewardship of the earth.  When a new kid came to town they were open and inclusive.  Those were good fruits—the only problem is that as those children grow up, with secular humanism as their only system of beliefs, the *lie* of secular humanism begins to infect them.
.
Last week my daughter rattled off a few names of girls I had known since they were sweet, innocent,little girls. Most of them are wealthy, smart, and attractive.  They have progressed from “partying” to “hooking up” parents allowing boyfriends and girlfriends sleeping over, and now, even *orgies*.  When my daughter told me this about some of these kids I was floored, but then I realized that it actually made a certain amount of sense, given the world that their “open minded” parents are raising them in.

But Scotty, to carry the analogy even further, if you suddenly have two plants that appear in your garden - One you already know from experience in others’ gardens, will take over and be harmful to the whole garden. The other you already know from experience in others’ gardens will grow, be fruitful, and provide helpful benefits to your garden. do you waste your time researching the plants and letting them grow to see what happens, or do you immediately remove the offending harmful weed?

Just curious.

Sullibe,

That depends on truly knowing what the plants are.  Religions, like philosophies, and like the inside of men’s souls, are quite a bit more obscure.  To the closed-minded first century Roman Patrician, Christianity was an upstart cult as dangerous to the established and venerable religious order as Communism seemed dangerous to the 20th century Catholic closed-minded father.  Both represent immediate prejudice judgments: they are knee-jerk reactions against things they barely understand and which they have not (and will not) take the time to investigate. 

Are there religious beliefs - like human sacrifice - that are more readily identifiable as true weeds?  Of course, although they are rarely enticing to post-industrial nations.  The religions which occupy the western religious marketplace are not readily identifiable as “weeds,” and few indeed are the number of any of their adherents who can honestly say that they have investigated the other religions with an open mind.

We live in a very culturally diverse area.  Therefore it is very important for my children to know about different religions.  We study them as part of our history studies and as they naturally come up in our lives.  BUT as part of discussing the facts, we discuss how what they believe coincides with what we believe as Catholic Christians and how it differs.  I believe it is totally important for my kids to understand and respect those of other faiths who trying to know, love, and serve God the best way they know how to do so…even if we think parts of their understanding are incomplete are just plain wrong.

I also tell my kids that as long as they have been entrusted to my care they will be raised as Catholic Christians.  That is my duty and injunction from God.  My soul depends on preparing their souls as long as they are in my care.  But I know, and they know that I know, that when they get to be adults that they will have to make the decision for themselves and they will be accountable for their own souls.  Furthermore, it’s a decision that each of as to make over and over and over again…day to day, hour to hour, and minute to minute.

If you found something to be true, and if you found that truth to be beneficial in living your life, it would be asinine not to share it with others, especially your children. If you were taught truth in mathematics, science, language, or philosophy, it would be rather evil to keep it all to yourself and force others to discover it on their own (when you did not). These are the very reasons that schools exist. The world is full of beautiful languages, but you’ll never hear of parents, in the name of holy open-mindedness, allowing their children to choose which language they’ll decide upon as a first language. People are never open-minded about not imposing the truths in, say, mathematics, but they’ll dismiss or reject the truths amassed from centuries of study about human nature and existence simply because a “religion” has something, usually very wise, to say about it. Thus, the Western mind is now a secular, relativistic, and atheistic mind. It can deal only with empirical things, calling everything else relative or subjective. So everything is done for practical, rational, efficient and pragmatic purposes, while matters of our very existence are cast into a crashing sea of open-mindedness. That’s not where any sane person would want to place his children. But the world is growing less sane every day.

The difference, Mark, is that when we teach about science, mathematics, and so forth, we rarely say, “This is the way things are.  Do not deviate.”  We say, “This is what the greatest minds in humanity have discovered, and the reasons why.  If you can find out a better way of doing or describing things, more power to you: you will become a vital part of that history.” 

Things we take for granted now as mathematical or scientific “truth” were once considered heresies or viewed with a skeptical eye.  That we possess them now is thanks only to the open-mindedness of the innovators who struggled sometimes against an overwhelmingly closed-minded world.

I have met several spiritual seekers, who are more like wanderers. They talk about spiritual but not religious, or whatever.
I mean, even in traditional Christianity (more prominent in the East), they do apophatic theology, or negative theology. I believe that many fallen away Catholics who describe themselves as agnostics just needed some proper apophatic theology (me being one of them).
But there does come a tipping point, when one has to commit to something specific. You can’t just be hovering from one religious image to another, or you can never have any depth any anything at all.
I have a degree of sympathy for agnostics, but at the same time, agnostics need to be challenged so that it is not just some ego-driven quest to indulge their exotic tastes.

Brother Mark,

While some of what you say resonates with me, I am fascinated by the prejudice already implied by the idea that other religious systems (and those who participate or study them) are merely the expressions of some “exotic” taste or aesthetic rather than sincere religious systems attempting to explain, enlighten, or otherwise grant spiritual benefits.  This is in some ways what I mean when I say that the average closed-minded religious individual has no real interest in investigating the truth claims of rival religions (though they are very insistent on others examining their own truth claims).

Charles Dubray wrote,

“The Church is as intent as Secularism on the improvement of this life, as respectful of scientific achievements, as eager for the fulfilment of all duties pertaining to the present life. But the present life cannot be looked upon as an end in itself, and independent of the future life. The knowledge of the material world leads to the knowledge of the spiritual world, and among the duties of the present life must be reckoned those which arise from the existence and nature of God, the fact of a Divine Revelation, and the necessity of preparing, for the future life.

If God exists, how can Secularism inculcate the practical sufficiency of natural morality?” If “Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere” how can it command us to follow exclusively the light and guidance of secular truth? Only the Atheist can be a consistent Secularist.

According as man makes present happiness the only criterion of the value of life, or on the contrary admits the existence of God and the fact of a Divine Revelation and of a future life, the whole aspect of the present life changes. These questions cannot be ignored, for on them depends the right conduct of life and “the development of the moral and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point”. If anything can be known about God and a future life, duties to be fulfilled in the present life are thereby imposed on “all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service”. “Considerations purely human” become inadequate, and the “light and guidance” found in secular truth must be referred to and judged from a higher point of view. Hence the present life in itself cannot be looked upon as the only standard of man’s worth. The Church would fail in her Divine mission if she did not insist on the insufficiency of a life conducted exclusively along secular lines, and therefore on the falsity of the main assumption of Secularism”

Only the Atheist can be a consistent secularist. Truer words. Secularism leads ultimately to indifference, agnosticism and atheism. One cannot in public, personal and social life be oblivious to the reality that Christ has come into the world and taught us truths of the greatest import which can be known by all with solid certainty, without difficulty and with no trace of error. By fulfilling prophecies spoken centuries before Him, He shows all reasonable men that He is the Messiah and is a sure guide to our heavenly homeland, and to the Father whose love He came to earth to reveal.

My response is here:

http://exconvert.blogspot.com/2012/07/openmindedness-towards-other-religions.html

Nishant: Secularism does not demand that we follow exclusively the light and guidance elsewhere.  It merely demands that public policy be made on grounds publicly available to reason and observation rather than on the particular revelations of its constituents’ religions.  A truly secular society allows religious organizations and beliefs to operate in a free and open market, thus allowing individuals to peruse those beliefs for enlightenment.  The Church, like other religious organizations, is allowed to perform its mission within such a society.  The primary difference between a religious state and a secularist state is that individuals are free to pursue a variety of religions (or non-religion) in a secular state but are coerced into a particular religion in a religious state.

Scotty—In each paragraph your argument could interchange science/mathematics with Catholicism and still be valid. Catholicism is what it is due to allowing Catholics to “find a better way of doing or describing things” and becoming “vital part[s] of that history.” Every Catholic saint and thousands of other great Catholic thinkers, (all taught the fundamental truths of the faith (2+2, if you will)), have gone on to explain revealed truth in their own way, and many are still doing so. The faith is alive and growing, like science itself. But both science and religion rely on fundamental truths that are not left to the whims of the open-minded. Both have “struggled against an overwhelmingly closed-minded world.” More and more modern science (for political ends) is saying “Do not deviate,” and thus science is becoming a rather closed-minded political religion of its own. Catholicism alone amongst the world’s religions (including modern science), has retained those crucial first principles, those fundamental truths about existence and proper order, that are necessary for human flourishing.

Scotty: It’s the reasons why that you never get from a religious person.  It’s held, as has come across to me in many conversations, that God’s plan, nature and ways of thinking are not meant for us to know, and yet somehow the religious know it, they’re on good terms with it, and get occasional revelations or verbatim briefings from it.  They somehow know they can hold up Leviticus 14-22, 1 Corithians 6-10 and 1 Timothy 1-10 (whose authorship is debatable I might add) as the bulwarks for their teachings against homosexuality for example, but they’re free to gloss over the other 602 laws (aside from the Commandments which are nonnegotiable) and anything else in the Pauline epistles they don’t concur with (I’ve been to Masses before and I know women are very much free to speak), for example.

There is no doubt, Mark, that Catholicism has had its share of innovators who have risked much: Augustine and his merging of Christianity with Neoplatonism; Aquinas and his merging of Christianity with Aristotle; Luther, and his merging of Christianity with early modernity.  There is also no doubt in my mind that, as one of the great religions, Catholicism has much to offer and has had an undeniably vital role in human history.  The Catholic faith has grown, developed, and changed, often far more than Catholics are willing to admit.  Nevertheless, one of the hallmarks of Catholicism is the strong focus on absolute exclusive truth (echoed in your own closing sentence): You need not look elsewhere!  And, more strongly: To look elsewhere is anathema!  This is what I refer to as closed-mindedness.  Science actively encourages everyone to look at reality, observe its every part, because its methodology requires that someone keep his eyes open to everything in the world.  Religions such as Catholicism, when they are not demanding someone to not look at other faiths at all, demand that they look at them through a hermeneutic of suspicion that they would not wish others to examine Catholicism with.

And let’s not forget the underlying assumption for the “tolerant” crowd. It’s ok as long as it doesn’t interfere with their lives, but that point is itself a man-made construct. After all, who says something is ok if it doesn’t interfere with your life? Every religious view, including atheism, tries to tell people what to do and how to do it.

In my opinion, letting your children decide on a religion is akin to letting them decide their gender. Yes, I hear parents are doing this too in order to avoid gender typing their kid. Both seem wrong. If you believe your faith, you teach it to your kids. If your wishy washy - you teach that to your kids too.

No, Scotty, does recognizing the ideal of free enterprise imply that the state is going to coerce communists? No, it does not. It merely means that a culture knows the truth, is going to recognize that truth in its laws, and teach that truth to its children, while giving freedom to those who disagree to express that opinion, as anyone who believes dictatorship is the best form of government is free to say so in a democratic country. But the country itself is not governed by the norm of indifference.
.
Far more than economic and social truths, moral and spiritual truths You call Catholics close minded, but that is because you’ve already defined it that way. To you there is no religious truth, or at least no one can claim to know it with certainty. And yet this if true would be a religious truth, and you are pretty darn sure of it! So you claim to know a truth relating to religion with certainty, and base government on that principle of indifference.
.
Is there any hypothetical circumstance you can think of, Scotty, under which you could say, Now it would be reasonable to hold these truths we have come to the knowledge of with certainty, and teach them to our children? If you answer no, that appears rather closed minded yourself. If you answer yes, it is conceivable, I would say merely that it has already occured. Would a man rising from the dead count? Would the fact that he fulfilled specifically remarkably diverse prophecies in doing so suffice? Would the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Roman hands exactly as he’d said less than a generation after He was crucified there establish this? If yes, Christians are being perfectly reasonable in taking great care in providing sufficiently and carefully for the moral and spiritual formation and education, which matters even more than their skill and learning in natural matters, important as it is, of their children.

Jay: The underlying principle you are referring to is an issue of rights.  Basically, one is free to pursue whatever end one wishes, however one wishes, so long as that action does not prevent others from achieving their own goals.  The assumption is that this framework allows people to live as they wish: if they wish to live according to stricter, religious principles, they are free to do so.  I will grant that it is an assumption, but it is a generous assumption that includes the possibility of the fulfillment of religious beliefs and worship.  The alternative, which believes that one should be forced to live in a specific way by force, offers no additional positive benefits (since that worship can still go on in a rights-based environment) while producing a lot of negatives.  That is the basic justification of the tolerant crowd.

MarkM: I agree you should teach your children your faith.  I agree that you should teach your children what you believe and why you believe it and raise them to practice it along with.  Open-mindedness about religion is not the same as indifference.  It is teaching your children that they must be responsible for their beliefs; that they should never turn away from alternatives without a fair hearing; and that, whatever else, they should be honest.

As for the gender issue, I think that is a matter of prudence.  I think it is unnecessary in most households, but probably a good idea in the case of certain gender dissociative disorders and other similar physiological cases.  That said, I do think that it is a good idea from teaching gender biases, such as that boys shouldn’t sew or knit or so forth.

Nishant:

“No, Scotty, does recognizing the ideal of free enterprise imply that the state is going to coerce communists?”

You may be unfamiliar with McCarthyism, but the basic answer is that, yes, that may very well be what that means.  But even if there is no active persecution of a group because of diverse views, there is still the negative that a closed-minded person loses the possibility of growing and learning from diverse ideas. 

I have never said there is no religious truth, so I would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.  I believe in truth, and the fact that it is labelled “religious” or “scientific” or what-not does not change my opinion on the matter.  Truth is the conformity of the mind with reality.  Claims, religious or otherwise, need to be justified in some way.  As a Catholic myself, I distinguish between closed-minded and open-minded Catholics and other religious; it is a matter of the individual’s disposition towards alternative beliefs, not their denomination or religious affiliation (or lack thereof) that makes someone closed-minded.

I have no problem with and strongly encourage parents to hand on their beliefs, whatever those may be.  However, this should be a matter of sharing, rather than forcing; it should be a matter of an introduction to the broad world of engaging with religion, not a closed-minded indoctrination that leads to an intellectual dead-end.  My children learn responsibility for themselves, how to think for themselves.  They will make their own choices, and I hope that whatever they believe they do so because they honestly believe it to be the truth, and that they always remain open to alternatives and other beliefs.  If I disagree, I will never stop dialogue, in order to see if perhaps I am wrong in my own beliefs or if they are; but I will respect them as responsible thinkers.

I think that everyone here needs a reminder of the definition of “open-minded.” The definition according to Merriam-Webster is “receptive to arguments or ideas.” It does not mean “indecisive” nor does it mean “open to everything that isn’t Christian or conservative.” You can be open-minded and have a solid foundation in the faith of your parents. You can respect and appreciate other views without changing with the wind.

It isn’t the duty of parents to raise their chidren to be ‘open minded’ about religion. It is their duty to teach them the truth. The problem is that most parents don’t have confidence enough in the truth themselves and take the ‘open minded’ approach.

crs: One of the points of being open-minded is recognizing the possibility that you may be wrong.  This is a necessary admission in order to be actually open or receptive to a new idea.  Raising open-minded children is not about telling them nothing is right or true; it is raising them to realize that they should always be open to revisions or corrections if they are justified.

My response to the call to be open-minded:
We love being open minded about what to have for dinner or what movie to go see…we aren’t open minded about sin….(I just go for it!)

This is just a “p.s” to the story above.  I’m still reeling from the information that I touched on above, as I only learned of this a week ago.  I wish I could post pictures of those beautiful, fresh-faced daughters, at their fifth grade graduation in a town that looks like Mayberry…The P.S. to that story is the conversation I had with some casual friends on the beach yesterday evening.  He is Jewish, she, ex-Catholic.  We hang out with them summers, because their daughter and our son are like two peas in a pod.  Our kids actually look like twins, it’s uncanny, not even my own children look as much like him as she does.  They boogey board, build sand castles and giggle endlessly together.  They are simply beautiful, and as smart as God makes them.  So, to get back to the story I was telling, I did the *nasty*.  I popped their sweet, organic, agnostic, bubble.  I told them about how I was praying non stop at my daughter’s graduation party. (I was using my 21 y.o. son as my patrol agent).
.
We discussed our youth in the 80s and 90s.  My friend’s husband is a DUI lawyer, so he gets why I was praying. I made a sweeping gesture with my hands toward their sweet, soon-to-be third grader and my son.  “See that?” I said.  Then I told them about what my daughter told me about those old, friends of hers.  Those beautiful children.  Free range-organic-cotton children.
.
*sex parties*
.
My friends were clearly uncomfortable.
*
Then, my friend’s husband spoke.  He told me about the announcements he sent out when his daughter was born.  He told me that he declared, “She’s beautiful!  Ten fingers, ten toes!..Only I just get the feeling that I will suffer through her for everything I ever did wrong.  Then he said it.  This is what he said:  “You know what my best friend told me?  The boys go to the police station, and the girls go to the clinic…”
.
It was our turn to be uncomfortable.  All I could say was, “No!  Oh no….”
.
He thought he was funny when he asked me, “do you think they take Jewish nuns?”
.
I felt my spirit rise within me like an uprising.  Yes! I said.  Edith Stein.  Edith Stein is a great Jewish saint, and a Carmelite nun.
.
This time I didn’t stay quiet.  He actually cued me.
I didn’t care if I almost crossed a line.  They are friends, and they respect us.  There are so many good people like them, and they thirst for goodness for their children.
.
Happy feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel…

Which of us wants to raise our children as closed-minded? About religion? Is that even possible? How would one go about it? How could we assure success?

Keeping an “open mind” is double speak for warm & fuzzy nitwittery. Objective truth does not have an open mind, mathematics is no respecter of open minds and truly nature will chew up & spit out those organisms with an open mind about the food chain.

This is all nonsensical talk designed to remain “non-judgemental” or to not have to say out loud someone else is wrong. Well, in life, there is right and there is wrong. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality but society does pretend this outside of the physical sciences. Your truth, my truth and other such babble

And in modern culture religion is not about a true relationship with God but rather a process for feeling nice & spiritual…whatever that means.

John: Unfortunately, you seem to lack the imagination necessary to engage anything other than a straw man version of open-mindedness.  Perhaps if you were more familiar with the history of mathematics, you would realize that open-mindedness - that is, the ability to see beyond or even against established ideas, concepts, and traditions - has been vital to the development of things like: zero, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, calculus, and so forth.
.
By intentionally misconstruing what is meant by “open-mindedness” and defining it as “non-judgmental” you have failed to see that open-mindedness simply means the ability to charitably receive any sort of idea, argument, and so forth, to weigh its merits, and to recognize that your own beliefs may be faulty.  It is not to deny that there is right and there is wrong, but to be open to right and wrong wherever it is found and to realize that one’s understanding of right and wrong is subject to correction and revision.

G.K. Chesterton: “Do not be so open minded that your brains fall out”

“Then, said Cranly, you do not intend to become a protestant?  I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?”

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Blessed are those who are “open-minded”? Naw, that is not it.

In my family, my mom was a devout Catholic and my dad was nominally Presbyterian. Dad agreed to raise the children as Catholics; however, I learned that, after sending my brother to Catholic school, my dad protested. He demanded to raise me as Presbyterian. There was a WWIII type of showdown in which mom was going to divorce him for this; he relented, & I, too, went to Catholic school. Our mother was strident nearly to the point of being rabid about her Catholicism with me. This felt stifling & crazy making. At university, I went to Mass but was livid because I thought they had had no right to brainwash me this way. I felt or feared that I would be unable to discern the truth. The big & deep search happened, with my studying every major religion that exists, including smaller offshoots. I committed my life to Jesus Christ @ age 22, & have (and always will) remain a Catholic. Today, 40 years later, having been raised strongly Catholic & very well catechized (10 years of Catholic school), I have thanked both parents endless times for raising me this way. It was the single BEST thing they ever did for me - and, guess what? The fine Catholic education I received helped me search for the Truth far better than if my parents had left me with “an open-minded attitude” about religion. That would have been tantamount to their giving me nothing at all - not even a hint that the answers to the deepest questions in all of life DO, in fact, matter.

I’d say raising your children to be open-minded about religion is like raising your children to be open-minded about the importance of caring for the environment, or to be about open-minded about personal hygiene.

The “open-minded” part sounds pretty good. But there are some lessons that human beings have had to learn the hard way, lessons that are worth our passing down to our children so they don’t have to go through all the misery we humans had to go through to finally get them through our heads. (The Environment. And personal hygiene.)

And there are other lessons . . . Lessons that are worth our passing down to our children because Our Heavenly Father asked us to do so. Because He loves us al.

Scotty. This is what I said, “To you there is no religious truth, or at least no one can claim to know it with certainty”. I’m delighted to hear you say that you do believe there is truth, and that it is the conformity of the mind with reality. But it is clear you hold the second part of what I said above, that no one can claim to know religious truth with certainty.

But, I answer that it is absolutely essential that man possesses the knowledge of this truth and with it the knowledge of God with certainty, for on it his life and salvation depends. You didn’t answer me, is there any hypothetical circumstance under which you would consider that truth in religion can henceforth be known with certainty? I would say it was definitely true since the Resurrection of Christ.

There is no question of forcing anyone, but of explaining this, and explaining on what basis we believe in it, and how many Saints and honest intelligent and holy men and women beginning with the Apostles have handed this down from the beginning.

You mentioned St.Thomas and St.Augustine, I assure you they would be the first to tell you that we can know of God and that Christ has revealed Him with complete ccertainty. They were conversant in Plato and Aristotle, but steeped in Scripture and Tradition.

Nishant: I don’t believe in absolute certainty with respect to any form of truth claim (including this truth claim), on a number of grounds:
.
First, our experience of reality is limited and conditioned by our physiology and finite existence.
.
Second, the mental and social symbols we use to represent that reality in truth claims are historically and culturally contextualized and may falsely or only partially represent reality.
.
Third, even if we have justification to believe that something is true (and I believe we do have justification, just not certainty), all truth claims are potentially subject to revision or correction.
.
Therefore, I would first need to be shown how it is possible to have certain knowledge about anything before I can go on to agree that I can have certain religious knowledge.  However, I would agree that one can have justified religious knowledge.

You should read the First Vatican Council. It was called, Scotty, to bring to bear scholastic wisdom and patristic tradition to formulate the Christian response to the modernist influence that was already rearing its head in that day, and which has now become pervasive throughout the whole western world. It defined the relationship between faith and reason, why true faith and right reason are always in accord, what are the motives of credibility, how all men can know the truth with solid certainty, without difficulty and with no trace of error, the role of supernatural signs like miracles and prophecies etc.

Reason investigates the credibility of the witness or the authority, and once it is satisfied as to his competence, faith accepts by his word everything that he reveals because we know him to be reliable.

“The Son of God, redeemer of the human race, our Lord Jesus Christ, promised, when about to return to his heavenly Father, that he would be with this Church militant upon earth all days even to the end of the world Hence never at any time has he ceased to stand by his beloved bride, assisting her when she teaches, blessing her in her labors and bringing her help when she is in danger.

...

Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.

Hence Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ our lord himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies; while of the apostles we read: And they went forth and preached every, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it . Again it is written: We have the prophetic word made more sure; you will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place .

So that we could fulfill our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son, founded the Church, and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.

11. To the Catholic Church alone belong all those things, so many and so marvelous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the manifest credibility of the Christian faith.”

Posted by Scotty Ellis on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2012 4:34 PM (EST):

Nishant: I don’t believe in absolute certainty with respect to any form of truth claim (including this truth claim), on a number of grounds:
########################################################################

Is this not the worst type of post modernism?

Anon, I wonder if Scotty claims that in truth there is absolutely certainty that there is no absolutely certainty with regard to truth claims? Don’t you? ;)
.
Scotty, a Man who in accordance with centuries of prophecies lives, dies and then rises from the dead and commissions His Apostles to tell the world of it, which they do with their lives and their deaths, is very competent to speak with certainty on the great truths of human existence, including the afterlife, the duties of the present life, our relationship with our Maker etc. Suffices the authority of Christ. Let another man rise from the dead and come to me and then I’ll consider his truth claims over Christ in this regard.

The link here ow.ly/1lt7UU describes a study of sexual objectification among six year old girls. The religious structure of the families in the study appears to have an effect, but it is dependent on media exposure. ( I saw this on the pathos catholic feed, and I think it originated at huffington.)

@RC -

I envy your free time. I’m glad you had enough of it to dissect my response while at the same time attempting to demonstrate a strong intellect and solid writing skills. I moved on from trying to reconcile the realities of life with the catholic manual on living and its rule book called the catechism. Conversing and being in relationship with Jesus, while not attempting to pretend we have all of the answers - simply because we have a pope - is a much more freeing way to live. Life will continue to make sense to you as long as you can refute a person or a situation by using the catechism, or through some witty one-liner you heard in a homily. Sooner or later, you’ll face a situation in which the catechism and your own inner compass don’t add up… at that point its Jesus who will give you the answer, not a rule book. Good luck in the future

Mike,

By freeing way to live you mean doing what you want regardless of truth?

There is a secret truth claim underlying this “we’re raising our children to be open-minded about religion” approach:  all religions are basically ok and it doesn’t really matter which one you choose or if you have none at all. That is not a neutral message at all…it is a truth claim of its own. Parents raise their kids that way because that is what they believe. 

And your post gives an example of this:  sounds like the parents didn’t really mean they wanted their son to be truly open, but that they wanted him to be a universalist of some sort like they were and to stay that way when he grew up (or at least not become—gasp—a member of a religion which makes truth claims that excludes other religious commitments). When he did not comply, they reacted just like religious people act when their children convert away from the parent’s religion: upset and shocked!

Having been raised with a “open” or “universalist” faith system is actually a prejudice some folks have to overcome in the process of becoming open to truth claims of the Christian faith.

Once upon a time teaching children to be open minded about math was a fad that swept the nation.  Remember the New Math?  How’s that working out for you, America?

Micha, I don’t recall anyone proposing “open-minded ness” about math. Mathematical truths stand for themselves and make no claims about how one is to live. There have been and still are many controversies about universal schooling in math, just a few days ago voiced in a NYT op-Ed. Apprehending math truths, regardless of how taught, requires strictly an act of intellect, while apprehending Truth in Faith requires engagement of one’s entire being. It is reasonable to question whether and how minor children must be schooled in math, and how, but thatis not the same question as whether parents must engage their children in learning and discerning the way, the truth, and the life.

“embrace the search for objective truth instead”
Yes.  And since it is clear that science and religion are in an irresolvable conflict, it is then clear that science has a chance at “objective truth” and religion doesn’t have a prayer.

“As you say, investigators keep an open mind at the beginning of a case, but as the evidence piles up they prepare to take a definite stand.”
And since there is no “evidence” for any religion, the correct stand is obvious.

“They must be able to choose right from wrong (yes right and wrong really do exist).”
But that has nothing to do with any religion.

“From our studies and search, we know the Catholic faith to be true”
Of course.  Every religion knows it is the One True Religion.

“My soul depends on preparing their souls as long as they are in my care.”
You are using a noun which has no evidence to support its existence.

“while matters of our very existence are cast into a crashing sea of open-mindedness.”
Hilarious.  It’s almost like you think that humans are “important”.

“The knowledge of the material world leads to the knowledge of the spiritual world, and among the duties of the present life must be reckoned those which arise from the existence and nature of God, the fact of a Divine Revelation, and the necessity of preparing, for the future life.”
Hilariously irrational.  Go be a monk on the top of a mountain?

“Reason investigates the credibility of the witness or the authority”
Yes.  And the authority of your book of mythology is nonexistent just like all “gods”.