(ctd)
I admit, this all can make sense only if one believes in a "non-physical form of reality", which does not remain "to be determined" but to be believed in (and modelled through religions) for reasons that cannot be decided on purely rational grounds (c.f. e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389&page=0#150883 and the sequel; also, Pascal's "Le coeur a des raisons que la raison ne connait pas.)

>>Should I understand that you do not adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church but that you choose not to express this openly in order to avoid upsetting certain people.<<

I thought I explained this when I wrote "Like I would not criticize the way a primary school teacher explains mathematics to children, although I might rightfully think I have a deeper understanding of it." So yes "not upsetting certain people" is ONE PART OF THE REASON. In the above example it is not only the children, but usually also the teacher (unless he/she has higher mathematical qualifications unnecessary for doing her job) who could get - well not upset in this case but - confused. In matters of faith, "explanations" that are too abstract for the recipient can both confuse and upset.

One speaks of Church "teachings", indicating the appropriateness of comparing its role to that of an educator rather than researcher. It objects to some rebellious Catholic theologians for two reasons: that they might confuse the more “simple minded” believer, but also because they do not want to have these personal opinions presented as official Catholic teaching.

The Church does not object to the research or “teachings” of Protestant theologians - actually many are being read also in Catholic seminaries - the same as I would not object to your opinions, unless you wrongly claimed that they were my opinions.

Well, I am not somebody carrying the label “Catholic theologian”, so I can speculate how to make these things comprehensible to myself. (ctd)

(ctd)
There is one limitation on all this. Your use of the term dogma made me restrict my attention to the "teaching of the Church" regarding articles of faith (the Credo) rather than matters of morals, which are concerned not with how to COMPREHEND but how to ACT in particular situations. Here “understanding abstractions” is not that relevant, but the concept of (“informed”) conscience comes into question. That is a whole Pandora’s box of problems, that I would not like to open here.

Again, I am not sure to what extent I succeeded in answering your two questions, but certainly, thanks for the challenge.

.

Dear George,

.

"...I am not sure to what extent I succeeded in answering your two questions ..."

Thank you, George, you have done a great job on both scores.

If I understand you correctly, your answers can be summed-up in two words: belief and deference.

Belief in the "transformation" of the host to the "non-physical body of Christ".

Deference to the official dogma of the Catholic church.

You even went a little further and kindly indicated that (what I summed-up as) your "belief" and "deference" were founded in the following basic hypothesis:

"... there must be Something ... not reducible to the physical universe ...".

Now if I were to listen to my intuition, I might be tempted to carry that a little further myself and complete your image of "father/authority" to "father/authority/church".

I leave God out of the equation because, in your mind, paradoxically, the notion of God seems to follow the route of "reason" rather than those of "belief" and "deference".

I hope I have not "denatured" your message nor exceeded my aptitude to comprehend the fascinating person who expressed it.

.