Why would I need to be more specific about the different branches of Catholicism? The author in the screenshot doesn’t do that either. They simply point out their observation that lifelong Catholics tend to value broad teachings that aren’t necessarily specific to Catholicism, while adult converts become fanatical about doctrinal minutiae. In other words, the former is relaxed about their faith, while the latter is zealous.
I then related that to my own experiences, where someone who is raised in a belief system tends to be less aggressive about those beliefs than someone who converts to later in life - i.e. the “zeal of the convert.” This observation isn’t exclusive to Catholicism, it’s just being made into relation to it in this instance. This phenomenon isn’t even exclusive to religion, as one can observe it with political beliefs as well.
I don’t think anything here requires a differentiation between branches of Catholicism, because the observations are about the act of converting, not about what specific belief system the converts moving to and from.
I’m completely lost. How and when did this become about religious people behaving badly? I am 99.9% sure that the point of the original topic was a commentary on how recent converts tend to be more enthusiastic about their faith than people raised in the church, regardless of what the individual beliefs actually are. The example beliefs from the original post (“feed the poor” and “women shouldn’t drive”) are just examples to help characterize this dichotomy in an amusing way.
In fact, that second example, about women and driving, is almost certainly not an actual Catholic doctrine. Any search for the full phrase leads only to reposts of this image, and I’d wager it was made by just stringing together some Christian buzzwords for humorous effect. While I don’t doubt some Catholics do believe women shouldn’t drive, I also very much doubt they’d use the phrasing and justification found in the original post.
The example wasn’t ‘more enthusiastic’ tho. It was 'combing through minutae for excuses to be a dick’¹ and it rang extremely true, because people choose religions for reasons, and a big one of those reasons is to feel sanctimonious about being a dick²
¹which is absurd! You don’t need an excuse to do that! Look at me!
²which is absurd! You don’t need a religion to do that! Look at me!
I, and presumably others, associate obsession with religious minutiae with religious fervour. I have a lot first hand experience with this, as some of the most ardent Christians I knew were also the ones who were eyeballs deep in apologetics and church history (and also adult converts). It makes a certain amount of logical sense too, as you wouldn’t expect a casual church-goer to care that much about all that.
With that in mind, it isn’t a big leap to connect the original post to the phenomenon of the zeal of the convert.
What it comes down to, then, is that the original post has more than one layer to it. Rather than focus on the difference between charity and dogmatism, I chose instead to highlight contrast between the simplicity [of charity] and the convolution [of dogmatism]. Once again, my personal experiences informed the way I approached this post.
I think the big thing here is that Catholicism has a clear set and well defined dogma, but it’s not just that. Converts tend to have the dogma but they lack more or less everything else about Catholicism. That includes the community values (for better or for worse) and the folk traditions. Instead they tend to double down on the aesthetic and general cultural understandings.
In short, they believe monks should be Benedictine and not a smiling Franciscan sharing his meal with a homeless person or a Jesuit studying the stars to bear witness to their glory.
Except its not the same beliefs?
Like, okay, be extra zealous about giving food to people who don’t have any.
This (as described) isnt that.
The “belief” in this case is Catholicism.
You’re really gonna have to be more specific. There are like fifty of those, they just call themselves the same thing.
Why would I need to be more specific about the different branches of Catholicism? The author in the screenshot doesn’t do that either. They simply point out their observation that lifelong Catholics tend to value broad teachings that aren’t necessarily specific to Catholicism, while adult converts become fanatical about doctrinal minutiae. In other words, the former is relaxed about their faith, while the latter is zealous.
I then related that to my own experiences, where someone who is raised in a belief system tends to be less aggressive about those beliefs than someone who converts to later in life - i.e. the “zeal of the convert.” This observation isn’t exclusive to Catholicism, it’s just being made into relation to it in this instance. This phenomenon isn’t even exclusive to religion, as one can observe it with political beliefs as well.
I don’t think anything here requires a differentiation between branches of Catholicism, because the observations are about the act of converting, not about what specific belief system the converts moving to and from.
But they’re not zealous about their faith in general. I could even assume that they favor the religion because it allows them to be scumfucks.
I’m completely lost. How and when did this become about religious people behaving badly? I am 99.9% sure that the point of the original topic was a commentary on how recent converts tend to be more enthusiastic about their faith than people raised in the church, regardless of what the individual beliefs actually are. The example beliefs from the original post (“feed the poor” and “women shouldn’t drive”) are just examples to help characterize this dichotomy in an amusing way.
In fact, that second example, about women and driving, is almost certainly not an actual Catholic doctrine. Any search for the full phrase leads only to reposts of this image, and I’d wager it was made by just stringing together some Christian buzzwords for humorous effect. While I don’t doubt some Catholics do believe women shouldn’t drive, I also very much doubt they’d use the phrasing and justification found in the original post.
The example wasn’t ‘more enthusiastic’ tho. It was 'combing through minutae for excuses to be a dick’¹ and it rang extremely true, because people choose religions for reasons, and a big one of those reasons is to feel sanctimonious about being a dick²
¹which is absurd! You don’t need an excuse to do that! Look at me!
²which is absurd! You don’t need a religion to do that! Look at me!
I see where the disconnect is now.
I, and presumably others, associate obsession with religious minutiae with religious fervour. I have a lot first hand experience with this, as some of the most ardent Christians I knew were also the ones who were eyeballs deep in apologetics and church history (and also adult converts). It makes a certain amount of logical sense too, as you wouldn’t expect a casual church-goer to care that much about all that.
With that in mind, it isn’t a big leap to connect the original post to the phenomenon of the zeal of the convert.
What it comes down to, then, is that the original post has more than one layer to it. Rather than focus on the difference between charity and dogmatism, I chose instead to highlight contrast between the simplicity [of charity] and the convolution [of dogmatism]. Once again, my personal experiences informed the way I approached this post.
I think the big thing here is that Catholicism has a clear set and well defined dogma, but it’s not just that. Converts tend to have the dogma but they lack more or less everything else about Catholicism. That includes the community values (for better or for worse) and the folk traditions. Instead they tend to double down on the aesthetic and general cultural understandings.
In short, they believe monks should be Benedictine and not a smiling Franciscan sharing his meal with a homeless person or a Jesuit studying the stars to bear witness to their glory.