Reading USCCA, Chapter 5: "I Believe in God"
Knowing that God is love and that He is rich in mercy draws me to Him. My earliest concept of God was as my Loving-Heavenly-Father-Who-Created-me-and-loves-me-forever. Because I know too that God requires of us holiness which includes our acting and relating justly, I am challenged to grow in my understanding of how mercy and justice are part of one thing. I still have much to learn. In relating with my "neighbor," I find that it's very difficult to experience true/complete justice on this earth, yet God has given me the capacity to offer mercy. So, for now, I trust God to work out all things for good for those of us who love Him, and meanwhile, I try to show mercy whenever I can.
Re the doctrine of the Trinity: My understanding of God is primarily as The One Who Is. The fact that God told Moses "I Am Who Am" resonates deeply within me. It makes sense to me. It makes more sense to me than anything else in the whole world. My understanding of anything and everything else is founded on or in relation to my complete embracing of God as the great "I Am." That God reveals Himself as 3 Persons also makes sense to me, but only as firmly grounded in the primary truth that God is One. I accept the Mystery. I know in my spirit that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit has helped me to grow in this understanding. No aspect of this has ever been a road-block for me in believing the doctrine of the Trinity, but I do find it difficult to explain to anyone who doesn't believe. It's much easier to believe that God Is One. HOW God reveals Himself is what requires the gift of Faith to perceive. For me, I have EXPERIENCED God first as Father (my Loving-Creator), then as Son (my Savior), then as Spirit (my Life). Throughout my life I have continued to relate with God primarily in one Person or another. It is only most recently (maybe the past 10-20 years?) that I have consciously related with all 3 Persons at once. This is not to say that I think 1 Person of the Triune God works independently of the others; I don't. I KNOW they are One and that the 3 Persons are always at work together as the One God. I'm talking more about my perception, my personal experience, as it has changed over my life-time.
I don't think I can really teach ABOUT the doctrine of the Trinity. I can only share my acceptance of Scripture and Tradition on this matter, and my personal experiences.
Too much Catholic literature equates "creationists" with "fundamentalists." This is an error. First of all, "creationists" are people who believe God created all that exists. To what extent they take the Genesis account literally varies. How and to what extent they accept the theories of micro-evolution as part of God's creative act, or as part of the effects of the Fall, varies. Typically "creationists" reject the Darwinian theory of (macro) evolution; typically "creationists" view that theory as antithetical to God's creation of a world He proclaimed Good. "Fundamentalists" are thought to take everything in Scripture as literally true and only literally true. But those who would call themselves "fundamentalists" vary in the degree to which they do this. Furthermore, anti-fundamentalists often call anyone who believes any of the miracles revealed in the Bible a "fundamentalist." IN MY EXPERIENCE, many intellectual Catholics confuse "fundamentalists" and "fundamentalism" with "fanatics" and "fanaticism." Often when talking about "fundamentalists" they make generalizations and assumptions that are simply not true of any group of people! Everyone would be better served if people would quit talking about the "-ists" and talked about the "-isms." Furthermore, those who want to compare and contrast various "-isms" would do well to be more specific and more consistent in their definitions. Furthermore, when anyone talks about "creationists" (regardless of their attitude toward them) they are usually talking about which scientific theories those persons find more credible. Whereas, when anyone talks about "fundamentalists" (regardless of their attitude toward them) they are talking about an orientation to Scripture interpretation. The two labels are not equivalents. The two categorizations of people are not the same. The reality is whether or not any one person would validly be labeled a member of both categories varies greatly from person to person.
Having said all that, I do not consider myself a "fundamentalist" because I accept that there are various literary forms in Scripture. I am however, a creationist in that I see that the theory of special creation by an intelligent Designer is a better model than any other theory that would interpret the scientific evidence for origins of species, human development, etc.
As regards how I understand Scripture, while acknowledging I am not a "fundamentalist," I would also be quick to say I do not subscribe to much of what modern-day liberal theologians teach. I think it is probably fair to say I am a "Traditionalist." I really don't think I fit perfectly into any one category, but I think most people would place me in the category of the "Traditionalists" in terms of how I receive Scripture.
The question that is often posed is "Why is the dialogue between religion and science necessary and valuable?" I can't take this question head-on because I think the all truth is from the One Source of Truth, God, and we can only receive the fullness of Truth when we accept in faith God as The Author of Truth. I.e. believing must come first. Even atheistic folks who categorically discount God have to believe something. Every argument has an "a priori." That "given" has to be at least accepted as if believing it in order to proceed with any thoughts based on it. And if any of the succeeding thoughts are to actually be believed, the "given" has to be truly believed as well. Furthermore, we don't really KNOW anything in the fullest sense of knowing something (embracing it into our life-view, and acting on it) until we BELIEVE it.
So I would say that it's intuitively obvious that "religion" and "science" must be in dialogue because I believe all that is true is compatible with all else that is true; Truth is One. However, my bias is that the best of what religion has to offer is rooted in living one's faith in God, and when one is alive in God, one realizes faith is the higher and deeper and all encompassing source of Truth. The burden of the challenge is mostly on Believers to find ways to communicate with atheists and to show atheists, even w/in their own way of thinking, how faith is not only necessary to discovering Truth, but it is actually something they already do in an idolatrous form: they have faith in their own minds rather than the Mind Who created them. I think it (assuming scientific knowledge is equal or greater than faith knowledge) is the "apple" and Babel all over again.
"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (Matthew 11:25)
