[Barbara] Johnson’s depiction of her faith mirrors that even of some clergy, including famed Trappist monk Thomas Merton who embraced and deeply studied Buddhism before his death in the 1960s. More recently, two Episcopal priests — including a bishop — described themselves as followers of Christianity and other faiths, one of Zen Buddhism and one of Islam....
“This is so surreal because I was getting closer and closer to my faith,” she said of those who assail her for seeking Communion with her blended faith identities. “I had really integrated my Catholic identity into my larger identity as someone who is very influenced by Buddhist teachings.”...
“Wasn’t the doubting Thomas good because he was in dialogue with his faith? It’s not between me and other Catholics, it’s between me and God.”
१३ मार्च, २०१२
"Can you be a Catholic and practice Buddhism at the same time?"
So-called "religious pluralism":
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६८ टिप्पण्या:
Not sure, but I think that's a big negatory, good buddy.
Cafeteria Catholics just don't get it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thomas Merton's writings are very engaging, but blending religions doesn't work like mixed martial arts.
NO.
Ms. Johnson sees herself as a Catholic, but believes little of it. She likes the rituals but not the doctrine, which is a far cry from someone being an orthodox Catholic and orthodox Buddhist.
That said, all religions are amalgams of other religions and past beliefs. Christianity has a clear influence of Hinduism. It also has a Zoroastrian influence. And Persian, Greek and Egyptian mythology and mysticism.
You can be a practicing Catholic and study Buddhism. However, I believe declaring oneself a Buddhist would be considered an act of apostasy as much as having oneself confirmed in, say, the Episcopalian Church would be. It's a little hazier, however, because "Buddhism" is often considered a life philosophy more than an actual religion. Plus, there are no gods in Buddhism.
Whether the hierarchy of the Church approves of this patchwork-quilt approach to religion is neither here nor there. There's nothing they can really do about it unless someone is being pretty outspoken and in-your-face about their opposition to Church teaching, as Johnson was.
This article is very vague and wants us to react favorably to this woman when it withholds some very fundamental information: does she believe in the core teachings of Christianity (Christ as Son of God and Savior) but likes meditating, or does she believe in reincarnation but likes "Sing a New Song Unto the Lord," or does she like the warm-and-fuzzies of each without having any firm doctrinal beliefs one way or the other? Fail.
Cool thing about Buddhism is that it does not force you to believe in a god.
From wikipedia:
"The non-adherence[1] to the notion of an omnipotent creator deity or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In Buddhism the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[2][3] called nirvana. The Buddha neither denies nor accepts a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.[6][7]"
Playing the field among the gods of other religious traditions sounds like an enjoyable open marriage with different lovers to add variety to a dull monogamous covenant.
What could possibly make God jealous about that? It must be God who has the personal problem here.
Ergo: The First Commandment is hate speech.
Buddists don't need a personal god anyway since all is one energy field which eliminates personhood as real.
What does it say about Barbara Johnson, who goes before a parish priest and essentially says that she must be given communion while practising other religions..
What does that make her ;)
Agree with Steve, somewhat.
What I know of Buddhism, it's more of a philosophy than a religion
Funny way the question is worded. "Be Catholic," "Practice Buddhism." What you are and what you do are different things, so it seems to me that the question is worded so as to elicit doubt. It's like one of those trick poll questions where the pollster wants a result like, "37% say they could be both Catholic and Buddhist"
If what you're looking for is a religion where it's "just between you and God", the Roman Catholic Church is probably not what I'd recommend.
She might want to give Unitarianism a whirl.
It's like one of those trick poll questions where the pollster wants a result like, "37% say they could be both Catholic and Buddhist"
Or that Obama could be both a Muslim and a Christian.
Whatever you believe is personal - not collective
Seeing as how Christianity believes in a monotheistic God who created heaven and earth and how Buddhism rejects the concept of a creator, Catholics can't be Buddhist and remain Catholic. The Nicene Creed gets in the way.
Contrary to N's assertion, Buddhism does have gods (devas). [In fact, Hindus sometimes say that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism, a statement that irritates Buddhists.] Devas are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, but they can intervene in our world. These gods, however, are no wiser than humans and have not achieved nirvana. Consequently, Buddha is a teacher to the gods.
Buddhists also don't believe in an eternal soul: pretty much the opposite of Christianity. If Johnson believes in this aspect of Buddhism, then she has committed heresy and has been excommunicated latae sententiae. In which case, she absolutely should not be given communion. BTW, from Wikipedia entry on Buddhism: Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death" (my emphasis). Wow. So apparently this means that, being Catholic and Buddhist, Johnson must be a hard-core pro-lifer.
Tibetan Buddhism has demons. Lots of them.
Does she believe in Tibetan demons?
But are devas truly "gods"? Seems almost like they're closer to angels (real angels, not Precious Moments angels).
It would seem impossible to be a true Buddhist, to be seeking nirvana, while also practicing Catholicism, though.
I think a lot of Westerners, probably especially Americans, have no idea how difficult it would be to truly practice Buddhism in its strictest form. When they refer to themselves as "Buddhists", they're mostly buying into the SBNR thing, but with yoga pants and kitschy garden statues.
The language of the question pre-supposes that there must be "an answer."
What's the difference?
Faith, spirituality, practice and belief are highly personal and whether it fits into boxes shouldn't really matter all that much in terms of what really counts which is certainly not other people's opinions; I hope it doesn't matter too much to the individuals discussed.
~N: I think Buddhism is pretty firmly recognized as a religion and even though it doesn't believe in Gods in the Western way, many Buddhists are animists, believing that all objects have some spirit or soul. So there's a little something "supernatural" there.
Buddhism is yoga for the mind; it's not a religion.
I'm not Buddhist, and I haven't played one on TV, but it's always hacked me how western fans of Buddhism turn an extremely variegated tradition into a fuzzy a-theistic natural religion.
It is, as other commenters have pointed out, nothing of the sort. Visit a Chines or Thai Buddhist temple and see the pamphlets with stories and prayers to bodhisattvas who have worked miracles. Incense, prayer wheels, demons. It's a lot of fun, but it's not Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.
It's every bit as "superstitious" as Christianity, if not more so.
I don't think Ms. Johnson is quite in Thomas Merton's league. Do you suppose the author of the article ever tried to read Thomas Merton? Feels like a name drop to me.
I think its up to the Catholic church to decide whether she is in communion with the church, not her.
She can be Catholic and Buddhist in the same way she could be married and sleeping with other men.
Ummm... Ms Johnson wasn't paying attention when the story of 'Doubting Thomas' came up, I guess.
Thomas wasn't 'good', he was wrong in needing to see with his own eyes, feel with his own hand, rather than to accept on faith. That is not good in terms of Christian doctrine. It's a weakness that can be fatal.
I argued myself into Christianity in my mid-20s but I toyed with Taoism and Confucianism before this, and I still think that Taoism at least is compatible with Christianity. Eastern religions are just as much philosophies as religions, and the Chinese religions strike me as compatible in broad strokes with the Judeo-Christian tradition. I say this as a born-again Bible thumper.
Pass the tray. TIme to nosh at the religious cafeteria.
N,
You're trying to equate Buddhist concepts of supernatural beings with Christian ideas, but devas are gods. Think minor-league Mt. Olympus or Valhalla without the assigned roles. Some forms of Buddhism even use the Hindu cosmology--e.g., Brahma et al.--and Buddhists do pray to the gods at Hindu temples.
PWS is right that Buddhism, like Hinduism, has a pantheistic strain in which everything and everybody is part of god.
Whatever you believe is personal - not collective
Sunsong, this is my belief, as well.
Gah. It's sometimes frustrating how little people know about Buddhism while considering themselves expert.
how Buddhism rejects the concept of a creator
You're misunderstanding that. The Buddha said of questions about Creation, Creators, Gods, etc, that worrying about those things was not conducive to ending life's frustrations, "duhkha". He didn't say "there is no Creator", he said "you'll be more comfortable if you don't worry your pretty little head about such things."
Contrary to N's assertion, Buddhism does have gods (devas).
No, Devas are more like angles: a higher order of being but still subject to duhkha.
Tibetan Buddhism has demons. Lots of them.
Does she believe in Tibetan demons?
Catholicism has saints. Do baptists believe in saints?
it's always hacked me how western fans of Buddhism turn an extremely variegated tradition into a fuzzy a-theistic natural religion.
It is, as other commenters have pointed out, nothing of the sort.
And, having said that, you turn an extremely variegated tradition into a colorful Oriental superstition.
I love NewAge.
Appropros of Joe's comments about Ms. Johnson@10:16 I used to have a good friend (since unfortunately passed away) who was a devout pre-Vatican II type conservative Catholic. When in discussions with "Cafeteria Catholics" like Ms. Johnson, he would politely listen to their disquisition on why they still believed themselves nevertheless to be "good" Catholics (their rejection of most of that religion's major tenets notwithstanding) then step forward, shake their hand and proclaim: "Congratulations! You're now a Protestant!" LOL.
The answer to the question is 'it depends'. Buddhism is very broad running the spectrum to a literal religion complete with dieties, saints, demons, afterlifes and so on all the way to a 'mere' philosophy.
So can one be a good Catholic and practice, say, Tibetan Buddhism? Probably not since that would mean believing in and even worshipping a host of dieties. Practicing Zen Buddhism, though, basically means just sitting still for an hour or two a day. The answer to the question then depends upon what you do with it, or don't do with it. If you approach Buddhism as a replacement for Christianity, then the answer is no....but if you're seeking to replace Christianity then you're by definition seeking to not be a Christian. If you approach it as a supplement too or embodiment of Christianity, then the answer is probably yes. (In much the same way early Christians ended up changing their mind about rejecting the Greek philosophers as worthless pagans who had nothing of value to offer because they did not benefit from direct revelation).
There is a long tradition of Christian contempletive prayer that encourages meditaion. Not the "no mind" meditation of Zen or softer meditative regimens bu prayerful meditation. See Fr. Thomas Keating on the topic or better yet visit the monastery in Old Snowmass Colorado and see for yourself.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
"It's sometimes frustrating how little people know about Buddhism while considering themselves expert."
I can assure you, Charlie, that goes double for Catholicism.
Now trying to combine Christianity with capitalism - there's the trick.
Well, it didn't work out so great for Merton. The proverbial bolt of lightning wasn't so proverbial in his case.
My view is that one cannot be fully one and the other. However, that being said, I think other religions can help illustrate what is embedded, but not emphasized, in Christianity.
That's partially why I like church history so much. It exposes me to a much broader range of thought than contemporary expressions. Other religions can do that too, as we see what questions they are asking and solutions they are offering we are challenged to come to terms with these. If it is compatible, almost always there will be a Christian writer or tradition that will have pointed that same direction.
However, as already noted, there are different religions because they sometimes offer different answers to shared questions. Inasmuch as one refuses to choose, or chooses the other religion, they are not actually Christian.
In other words, I think the elements that are appealing about Buddhism are already embedded in the broader tradition of Christianity while that which is contrasting in Buddhism cannot be combined with a Christian faith. So, one can learn from Buddhism, and should, but there's not really such a possibility as a Buddhist Christian.
However, this is also true with a lot of other theologies and philosophies, which because they are less foreign and more culturally comfortable are often embedded in people's expression of Christianity.
One cannot really be a Marxist Christian or a consumerist Christian or whatever else wants to assert identity in contrast to the crucified Christ.
As Tertullian asked a long while ago, "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" Which didn't stop all sorts of philosophers from adapting Christian theology over the centuries to fit their own philosophical assumptions.
Here's a quick distinction:
In Buddhism, the pursuit of liberation comes from emptiness of being.
In Christianity, the pursuit of liberation comes from fullness of being.
Now, there's a path of Christianity that entails first emptying in order to be filled, the casting off of the "old man" in order to participate with the fullness of God.
The crucifixion is, ultimately, the path of the emptiness, emptying identity and meaning. That's the representation of baptism, being lowered into the water. To stop there, however, is to not be Christian.
Christian theology speaks first of the resurrection of Jesus and then the filling of the Holy Spirit, the fullness of life filling each participant with new life.
"who was a devout pre-Vatican II type conservative Catholic."
Being a pre-Vatican II type Catholic is also, by definition, a protestant. It's just protesting in a different direction, but still is protesting the assumed theology of the Catholic Church.
Ask a priest and a rabbi about being a Jew and believing in Jesus as Messiah.
Ask an imam about a Muslim also being a Christian.
Meanwhile, Ms. Johnson is a baptized Catholic; whatever her sins may be, she has certain rights by virtue of her baptism, and a priest cannot refuse her communion without sufficient basis.
Whether the priest in question had sufficient basis is, in fact, a matter of church law.
People don't like laws, until they protect their rights--which is one of the purposes of law.
Virgil:
"who was a devout pre-Vatican II type conservative Catholic."
Paddy:
Being a pre-Vatican II type Catholic is also, by definition, a protestant. It's just protesting in a different direction, but still is protesting the assumed theology of the Catholic Church.
Perhaps in the case cited by Virgil, but not as formulated.
It is a (in-church) partisan claim that Vatican II represented a decisive break from the prior tradition, ergo one who "clings" to "pre Vatican II" ways is not a faithful Catholic.
The first part of that formulation, curiously, is held by both "progressives" and by "traditionalists," but it is, again, a partisan claim; and not very persuasive theologically. If the premise falls, the conclusion must find other support.
Here is a counter argument (from Pope Benedict, and well grounded in the Church's teaching and self-knowledge): Vatican II did not depart from, or alter, anything essential; what was the Catholic Faith before the Council, remains the Catholic Faith.
Hence, one can love everything prior to Vatican II, and try to sustain it, and yet be a perfectly good Catholic.
Here's the rub: if one is a Catholic champion of the message and effect of Vatican II, one is bound to accept this formulation of Pope Benedict; because a valid council of the Church by definition could not create the sort of discontinuity that would make a pre-1962 good Catholic a bad one, after the Council.
So the progressives, to be consistent, must accept the legitimacy of adherents to pre-Vatican II forms. They hate it, but they have no argument.
Their only alternative is to accept being outed as "newchurch" advocates--which validates the argument of the very people they despise and want to marginalize.
There's more! It also means that a good Catholic need not think all that highly of Vatican II. (I am not in that camp, to be clear.) Because if Vatican II changed nothing of essence, one can think it was all a waste of time, or even a misadventure...and one is still adhering to the fullness of the Faith...
Which is why the pope may succeed in reconciling the pre-Vatican II groups, principally the Society of St. Pius X, while asking virtually nothing of them.
Progressives will have a fit. Stay tuned, it may happen before long.
For clarification, I might add...
It is possible for a Church Council to formulate a doctrine, and to present it as settled--and then faithful Catholics who reject this action would, then, be out of sorts.
This has happened in Church history, beginning with the first Council of Nicea and as recently as Vatican I.
So what I wrote was inexact--one could be a good Catholic before a Council, but not after. However, the validity of the newly defined teaching rests on the claim that what was made explicit and formal was there all the time.
Example: the Council of Trent formally defined the canon of Scripture; but the matter had been treated as settled for centuries, and the only reason the subject came up is because the Protestant movement re-opened the question. They didn't spring any surprise on anyone.
But in any case, this situation has no relevance to Vatican II; because Vatican II itself said it wasn't formulating any new doctrine.
First you have to distinguish between so-called elite and folk religions. It's been a few years since I took some far East religion courses, but there are two forms of Buddhism, Hinayana and Mahayana. Hinayana is the religion of the masses, with gods and demons. Mahayana, sometimes called "higher path" Buddhism is non-theistic.
I suppose it could be possible to be an adherent of Judaism and be a Mahayana Buddhist. Leonard Cohen seems to be able to integrate the two.
But Mahayana Buddhism is an exception. For the most part, the world's religions hold mutually exclusive positions.
FWIW, it's rather telling that those Episcopal priests have embraced Islam and Buddhism, two relatively exotic (by Western Christian standards) religions. They would never say that they were simultaneously Christian and Jewish (well, unless they bought in to the "Messianic Judaism" fraud) because the inherent contradictions would be too obvious.
Auto:
For what it's worth...
When St. Augustine wrote his City of God--in large measure, in response to the accusation by pagans that the adoption of Christianity brought about the sack of Rome--he spent a lot of time analyzing paganism.
And in doing so, he developed a dichotomy within paganism very similar to what you just described.
Actually, now that I think about it, he may have developed three categories, but without pulling out City of God, I'll let an inquiring mind look that up.
In any case, he certainly talked about the philosophers' paganism, which in many ways had points of contact with, or at least readiness for, Christianity. And to that he contrasted the vulgar paganism, which really was vulgar at times, with obscene plays about the vanities, lusts and outbursts of the gods. (What I can't now recall is whether he distinguished two sorts of "common" paganism.)
I always thought the story of Thomas to be about faith, not dialog. I'm sure Jesus still thought Thomas was a great guy, but he sure gave him a verbal spanking.
Well, it didn't work out so great for Merton. The proverbial bolt of lightning wasn't so proverbial in his case.
Yep, Merton would have lived forever if he'd only stayed in line with the true faith. Or are you saying a deva frayed the fan cord?
Fr Fox, well said, thanks.
Now, Christianity is based on the seers of Buddhism just as Islam is based on the prophets of Christianity. Jesus spent @ 18 years in India and especially Tibet. The "three kings/wiseman" were Tibetans.
The religions are integral and share histories and processes. Yet they are not identical. They differentiate by time and clime and type of liberating experience sought.
Historical epochs are supported by up-wellings of divine presence, each with a unique character. Christianity, such an upwelling, rose in the waning of an epoch of divine presence called Buddhism. The up-welling, the divine presence, is the substance, the nourishment, the meal. The name given the nourishment and the work done to describe what's named is the menu.
Menu items are not the same, except at a family-style diner. The nourishment mostly is the same, but not entirely across the whole menu. Historical epochs are unique and unrepeatable.
If one knows water lies abundantly below ground but does not know its depth, and if one has 900 feet of pipe to sink in a search, does one drill three 300 foot wells or one 900 foot well?
Paddy O
"In Buddhism, the pursuit of liberation comes from emptiness of being."
"In Christianity, the pursuit of liberation comes from fullness of being. "
Err not quite. In Zen Buddhism you're just supposed to sit still for an hour or two a day (maybe longer one day a month or so). That's basically it. You can call it 'emptiness of being' but you can also call it 'fullness of being'. Either is fine for the same reason one coach may scream "hussle, you're lazy, run faster!" while another may scream "you're doing great, keep it up, yea!". Logically they contradict but it's not an exercise in logic, it's an exercise in getting the person's body to push itself to the physical max. If being mean does that, great, if not then try nice....in either case getting too caught up on the textbook reading misses the point.
Likewise Christian mystics have a long tradition of talking about losing oneself, dropping the ego, and so on...cautioning against being full of onesself.
Eastern traditions did not make the sharp distinction between philosophy and religion that the West has. Therefore it is not sufficient to ask whether one can be 'Buddhist and Christian'. It's like asking can one be a Platonist and Christian. The answer is it depends. While Plato has a long tradition of being respected, if a person said that he felt that God, being eternal and unchanging, could not and would not ever interact directly with humans he would have a serious problem in most Christian denominations but not with Plato.
C.S. Lewis (not a Catholic) and Pope Benedict XVI (very Catholic) both tackled this exact issue in their writings. Lewis does it in "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters", while Ratzinger did it in his "Introduction to Christianity".
Alas, they both drew conclusions contrary to that of Ms. Johnson.
"Or are you saying a deva frayed the fan cord?"
Nah, just noting the irony. Not being serious about it.
"In Zen Buddhism you're just supposed to sit still for an hour or two a day"
hmmm, well I don't have a lot of interest in debating religions, so I'll trust you on that, but this seems a little... reductionistic. A lot of people sit still for an hour a day and that doesn't, I think, make them zen buddhists. I might be wrong, in which case I know a lot of anonymous zen buddhists.
There are different "branches" of Buddhism. Tibetian Buddhism, for example, seems heavy on ritual and a reverence for spiritual leaders. But there are other forms.
I thought that the foundation of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths. IANAC, but they don't seem inherently contradictory to Christian teachings - maybe someone else can elaborate?
1. Suffering exists.
2. The origin of suffering is craving/attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The way to eliminate suffering is to follow the Eightfold Path: Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.
All else is interpretation.
She can believe anything she wants-- is that controversial?
I would think that the real question here is whether she is accepted as "One of us" by Catholics or Buddhists. My guess is no, but I haven't taken a poll.
Only if you are a Nancy Pelosi/Edward Kennedy Catholic
It's probably a little late, but here's another response, which comes down to "neither the reporter nor the person involved seems real hip to Buddhism."
http://buddhism.about.com/b/2012/03/14/can-you-be-a-buddhist-and-a-fill-in-the-blank.htm
Paddy O
"hmmm, well I don't have a lot of interest in debating religions, so I'll trust you on that, but this seems a little... reductionistic. A lot of people sit still for an hour a day and that doesn't, I think, make them zen buddhists."
No they don't. I suggest you try sitting still for even ten minutes, it's harder than it sounds. In fact if you try it even for a few minutes you may be surprised to find how much your brain will do just about anything to keep you from really sitting still for even a trivially small amount of time.
As for whether that constitutes a religion, I would say it probably doesn't, but then again note that it's in Western thought that a sharp distinction was drawn between religion and philosophy even before Christianity was on the field (Socrates and Plato saw what they were doing as distinctly different and more real than what the priests were doing at the various temples to Zeus, Athena, and so on). A Zen Buddhist will most likely note that no one in China or Japan ever had a notion that they had to develop a full fledged 'religion' to meet Western definitions...even as a philosophy its kind of iffy. One person I've read even goes as far as to simply say Zen Buddhism is probably more analgous to an artistic style (like cubism or punk rock) than either a religion or even a philosophy.
Which brings one back to the original question of can one be Buddhist and Christian. Well it depends on what one means by being Buddhist.
David-2:
Christianity would disagree with your 2nd point: suffering is due to craving/attachment.
Per Christianity, suffering is due to sin, original and actual.
Avoidance of suffering is not the main thing; the main thing is union with God. That may allow for some suffering to be avoided, but when your God is on the Cross, there's no avoiding it all.
David Graham:
What? Jesus spent 18 years in India and Tibet? The magi were Tibetans? Were you quoting someone? Where does that come from?
Fr Fox, fair question. I was quoting and paraphrasing several people to the same effect and also, most importantly, expressing my own observations of literary and historical evidence such as years of inquiry, induction and deduction have yielded to me personally. My observation, itself, is authoritative. Perhaps not universally recognized, but authoritative nonetheless. Nothing I asserted has not been "out there" for anyone to see for a long time.
There was an early Jesuit who visited Tibet and reported striking similarities between Roman Catholic and Tibetan liturgies, liturgical colors and even vestments.
I am no Nestorian, however, there are indications in that tradition's Central Asian expressions. Our heresies, as you know, are often historically instructive. Russian Orthodoxy has indications.
There was an early Jesuit who visited Tibet and reported striking similarities between Roman Catholic and Tibetan liturgies, liturgical colors and even vestments
Right. And this has exactly what to do with the fantasy that Jesus spent 18 years in India?
Besides, what's 1000 years here or there among friends?
4. The way to eliminate suffering is to follow the Eightfold Path: Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.
Christianity has the perfect God-Man and the crucifixion. Forgiveness and salvation don't occur by the self effort of right effort, right thought, right anything ....
With point of view of us who das not know bible good catholic can believe a God and Buddha in one time. We always find some explanation for this doing.
I would like to get answer on my ask guestion please.
What is your opinion please?
How will our elive God and Jesus Christ react on our double-dealing please?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा