Arbitrary rigorism, a recurring theme on this board

[tcraig]

I think “arbitrary rigorism” tends to be more pronounced in those who are stuck in bad parishes. I know, I used to be there. When one is in a parish where the liturgy is in shambles, everything *but *the Catholic faith is taught, your priest and/or bishop is apparently not interested in orthodoxy, and you’re helpless to change anything, it’s easy to get caught up in minor things that might not otherwise bother.

 

[sir_galahad]

What I find disturbing about this debate is the idea that if you believe that the laws of the Church governing fasts and the Mass must be strictly followed… well, then you’re some sort of holier-than-thou jerk or nutjob. When making spiritual decisions, one should err on the side of laxity? Sorry, but I think anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with human nature knows that even the holiest, most pious people will try to make things either too easy or too hard for themselves in spiritual matters if left to their own devices. That’s why Holy Mother Church gives us rules on these things and, yes, even the hymns and instruments at Mass are governed by these rules.

 

[Conciliar]

Rigorous devotion to innovation flows from the progressive minded people toward others just as well. e.g.:

-When they look at you like you’re mean for not joining the congregation in applause during the Sacrifice of the Mass.

-When they act as though it’s anal to expect the lyrics to our hymns not to contain heresy.

-When they indicate that anyone who is aware of the rubrics and their importance, and recognizes abuses when they happen is not really entering into the Liturgy but is “keeping score.”

 

[Cristiano]

When you truly love nothing you do is good enough. That applies to our relationship with God as with our neighbor. You will realize that it is easy to take things for granted and become complacent. I do not invite people to become scrupulous but to really think " Is there more in our behaviors that we could do for our Lord and our neighbor?"

 

[Joysong]

:ehh: Well, I guess I’m with Lizaanne, bailing out of a potential hot box of trad vs. modernist with all that it subtly implies. Why does this always happen? Why are some rigorous ones always on the defensive, proving the point of this thread?

 

[Cat]

I don’t know that it’s so important to make a list as it is to discuss the dangers of rigorism and whatever it’s opposite is (non-rigorism?).

It’s kind of like parenting. There are two extremes: the harsh disiplinarian and the easy-going powderpuff. Both kinds of parenting will be likely to produce damaged children who grow up to be damaged adults.

The idea is to aim for a happy medium: firm but fair parents who are relaxed and yet vigilant.

And that’s what I think is needed in the Church. It’s good to be firm and steadfast, but it’s not good to be harsh and condemning. It’s good to be fair and relaxed, but it’s not good to be so open-minded that you tolerate wrong.

And as long as we are making a list, I would have to say that I find the Music Wars personally hurtful. As a church pianist, I do the very best I can and play the music that I am told to play, and it really bothers me to think that there might be people sitting in the pews during the Mass thinking that I am a terrible Catholic because I play the piano like a lounge lizard instead of the organ like Bach. Sorry, but I don’t know how to play the organ. And I’ve never been in a lounge because I don’t drink alcohol! Most church musicians are amateurs and volunteers. I think it is mean-spirited to eat them up when they are offering their talents to serve the Lord and His Church. At this point, I’m trying very hard to ignore anyone on this Board who says that Haugen and his peers are tearing the church apart and that the piano doesn’t belong in the Church. When the money rolls in for the pipe organ (but enough money is left to feed the world’s poor), and the line of capable organists is pounding on the church doors begging to be allowed to play for Mass, then I’ll step away from the piano. But until the Church actually forbids my piano, I’ll play it alongside the music of the heavenly angels during Mass!

 

[Brendan]

How 'bout the idea that a woman must dress in such a way that any womanly features must be hidden (meaning no apparent curves) or else she is immodest? Or that sandals are immodest? Or that women’s trousers are immodest?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that at all. In fact, what I’ve heard most on this board is that a woman’s clothes should follow her form well enought to show that she is a woman, but loosely enought to show that she is a lady

 

[SeekerJen]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that at all. In fact, what I’ve heard most on this board is that a woman’s clothes should follow her form well enought to show that she is a woman, but loosely enought to show that she is a lady

Hmm. I’ve been told that women should only wear ankle-length skirts, should wear sleeves that cover their arms past the elbows, everything should fit loosely so as not to tempt any men, and open-toed shoes or sandals are a near occasion of sin to some men so they should not be worn.

I’ve seriously considered removing myself from the volunteer cantor roster at my parish because unless I wear a head to toe sack, there’s no way I can hide the fact that I’m female, and I’m always afraid that I’m going to end up as the result of one of these posts: “Did you see what the 12:30 cantor at Sacred Heart was wearing? Her skirt only came to her knees and you could tell that she has breasts under her blouse! And she was wearing low-heeled dress sandals! Can you imagine? The men must have been so distracted.”

 

[CollegeKid]

I’m sorry - but this thread is just another excuse for a crab fest.

Count me out.

~Liza

Sometimes a little bit of crabbing is appropriate

 

[OneAugustKnight]

and open-toed shoes or sandals are a near occasion of sin to some men so they should not be worn.

That’s funny, I think you just made my day.

 

[anniemart]

Food for thought …

Sometimes we are unnecessarily threatened when we come across a thought that leads us to believe that maybe we haven’t gotten it all figured out after all; and when, upon sincere self- examination, we find our piety to be just a tad “false,” the fumes begin to rise and the fire smolders until it can’t be contained any longer. Here is where the choice lies…do I choose to re-evaluate my piety or do I not?

It’s a tough question to answer and sometimes we assume we don’t need to…
…

 

[katy]

I think “arbitrary rigorism” tends to be more pronounced in those who are stuck in bad parishes. I know, I used to be there. When one is in a parish where the liturgy is in shambles, everything *but *the Catholic faith is taught, your priest and/or bishop is apparently not interested in orthodoxy, and you’re helpless to change anything, it’s easy to get caught up in minor things that might not otherwise bother.

What he said.
Which is why I go out of my way to a parish where there is some, but not mandatory, handholding and other gestures that are not for me. The Mass is reverent, the homilies orthodox and kind. The priest asks that people be considerate of what is and is not meaningful to others, and most folks respond accordingly.

 

[JimG]

Everyone is entitled to their own spiritual personality. We ought not to let other peoples’ idiosyncrasies unduly affect us. Nor should we judge the motives behind others’ actions. St. Therese of Lisieux, for example, (and many of the saints) strikes me as quite rigorist, yet she was also entirely non-judgmental of those who might have been, to her own view, too lax in their practice of the faith.

The only time I see rigorism being a spiritual danger is in the case of the overly scrupulous. A scrupulous person might ask, for example, about a perceived “bad” confession, and receive a perfectly correct reply. But in that case the correct reply might be just what they do not need to hear. Because hearing the definitions and conditions, they will become all the more convinced that they are guilty of it. It is rather like a medical student, who, upon studying the detailed symptoms of each disease, finds those precise symptoms in himself and thinks he has the disease.

 

[baltobetsy]

What I find disturbing about this debate is the idea that if you believe that the laws of the Church governing fasts and the Mass must be strictly followed… well, then you’re some sort of holier-than-thou jerk or nutjob. When making spiritual decisions, one should err on the side of laxity?

My original point is that the laws should indeed be strictly followed, but that we should not impose additional restrictions that might be our own personal piety, but not the rule of law.

Back on the first page, someone complained about people who might stop at McD’s for breakfast on the way to Mass and carefully time the Eucharistic fast so they can still receive. While this might not be the most generous personal sacrifice, it is still within the law, and no one should be berated for doing it. This person may at some later time grow in piety and omit the breakfast stop, but he should not be “guilted” into doing it, or worse, told that it is somehow sinful. That’s the kind of thing that frightens people away from the Church unnecessarily.

We should not ask more of others than Jesus Himself asks of them through the Church and her laws.

Betsy

 

[RobNY]

A few comments:

My original point is that the laws should indeed be strictly followed, but that we should not impose additional restrictions that might be our own personal piety, but not the rule of law.

Back on the first page, someone complained about people who might stop at McD’s for breakfast on the way to Mass and carefully time the Eucharistic fast so they can still receive. While this might not be the most generous personal sacrifice, it is still within the law, and no one should be berated for doing it. This person may at some later time grow in piety and omit the breakfast stop, but he should not be “guilted” into doing it, or worse, told that it is somehow sinful. That’s the kind of thing that frightens people away from the Church unnecessarily.

We should not ask more of others than Jesus Himself asks of them through the Church and her laws.

Betsy

I discussed the fast issue with my friend Rob once, and he and I agreed on one thing-- try not to take it legalistically. “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” I like to try to think about it this way, if I push the law to its letter to get away with things, then in many ways I’m living by the, “letter” of the law, and not by its spirit-- although, simultaneously I’m hoping God will judge me by the spirit of the law which I’m so hopeless at following literally.

The point isn’t that people who receive who have fasted exactly 60 minutes and 0 seconds are bad-- to the contrary, they have every right to receive. The point is just a way of looking at our Christian life-- many people, ironically, take the idea that we have to live according to the spirit of the law as an excuse to do less and shirk obligations, which is ironic because it often turns itself into a reverse hyper-legalism.

Just some thoughts… they really have little to do with the thread. I do agree that anyone who has fasted the required time should be able to go up, even if they’re timing it juuuust right.

anniemart:

Food for thought …

Sometimes we are unnecessarily threatened when we come across a thought that leads us to believe that maybe we haven’t gotten it all figured out after all; and when, upon sincere self- examination, we find our piety to be just a tad “false,” the fumes begin to rise and the fire smolders until it can’t be contained any longer. Here is where the choice lies…do I choose to re-evaluate my piety or do I not?

It’s a tough question to answer and sometimes we assume we don’t need to…
…

So true! So true! I agree. Being a good Christian means making oneself constantly uncomfortable in this way, and how difficult it is.

CollegeKid:

Sometimes a little bit of crabbing is appropriate

I was reading something from St. John of the Cross recently which shocked me.

From, Sayings of Light and Love, section 4, saying 162.

Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

Let’s just say this one didn’t make me feel too good. But I figured I’d share St. John with everyone here.

 

[Pug]

What examples can you think of? How can we avoid placing unnecessary burdens on people while still encouraging their piety?

Betsy

I think there is some cause for worry if one is discussing NFP and birth control and the like (just cause, grave reasons, etc…). Perhaps also if one is talking about what people in irregular marriages ought to do.

Speak the truth with love. The best way to encourage piety seems to be by pursuing holiness yourself.

 

[Conciliar]

This thread is very telling. For one, it shows that “arbitrary rigorism” flows both ways.

It also shows that when the intolerant rigorism of the so-called “trads” is being pointed out, an exchange of thoughts ensues. But when progressive minded rigorism is being pointed out, to some it’s just those darn trads being defensive again, and it simply can’t be tolerated.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

GENERAL REMINDER

As this is the Liturgy & Sacraments Forum please stay with the topic in that area for the purposes of this thread. Attempts to hijack it with extraneous topics such as NFP, or into a Traditional vs. Novus Order discussion will cause thread closure.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

My original point is that the laws should indeed be strictly followed, but that we should not impose additional restrictions that might be our own personal piety, but not the rule of law.

Back on the first page, someone complained about people who might stop at McD’s for breakfast on the way to Mass and carefully time the Eucharistic fast so they can still receive. While this might not be the most generous personal sacrifice, it is still within the law, and no one should be berated for doing it. This person may at some later time grow in piety and omit the breakfast stop, but he should not be “guilted” into doing it, or worse, told that it is somehow sinful. That’s the kind of thing that frightens people away from the Church unnecessarily.

We should not ask more of others than Jesus Himself asks of them through the Church and her laws.

Betsy

Having been batted about a bit too much this week by those who would insist on deifying certain Catholic personages who are not within the “chain of command” (pope, bishops), and taking those words or alleged words literally; not to mention, those who think not only should women wear veils, but that some should be nominated to go stapling them on all women’s heads- yes, it’s time. Thank you, Betsy, for saying what you said. It has been on my heart all weekend.

I even sang along at a Mass this morning that was all H-H in hymns, even Song of the Body of Christ, which reminds me too much of “One Ton Tomato (Guantanamera).” I would request “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” once in awhile, too, but that’s OK. And as I am not inclined to get up there and play the organ or any other instrument- more power to those who can perform! I appreciate your effort and hope I don’t throw you off-key when I sing along.

I don’t like to hold hands during the Our Father, but those who wish, go ahead with those who do. I find what I call the “This Old Man- With a Knick-Knack Paddy Whack” symbolism of throwing the peace back at Father distracting, but not so distracting as you can’t do it. I will be bowing at that certain point in the Creed even if you don’t. Please don’t think less of me for doing so.

I don’t care if people of either gender wear flip-flops, decently-fitting jeans that don’t expose too much of their bodies, bermuda shorts, capri pants, burquas, chadors, yarmulkes, kepahs, big fancy hats out of a millinery, small hats out of the 50s and 60s, beanies, hat clips, chapel caps, veils, mantillas, shawls or hats made of fruit ala Carmen Miranda. Just don’t make comment on my four outfits that I rotate for Sunday wear, by the fact that you can tell which Sunday it is by my clothes. And until there is a definite discipline back in force that says we women must- don’t expect to see anything on my head but hair and maybe a few dried fleck of hairspray. ( Can hairspray count as a head covering the way Kleenex used to count? )

I prefer to receive the Sacrament of Reconcilation face-to-face, but have known times where I have wanted “the box”. Let’s keep both!

Receive the Eucharist on the tongue. And it will not be my hand that holds the chalice bearing the Sacred Blood to your lips to force you to drink it. Give me a heads up if I am behind you in the Eucharistic procession if you intend to kneel, so I don’t fly over the top of you and into Father or the EMHC. But don’t deny me what is now my opportunity to receive my Lord in my hands, or to drink from the chalice. I know I am not worthy of Him, and I also know not one part of my physical body is, even my mouth. I don’t have to say it in Latin to bring that fact to my heart. But if it helps you- by all means, do so.

And if my now granddaughters want to serve Mass, they may.

I remember in the 1960s and 1970s people who would make pronouncements, even priests who would make pronouncements, that simply were not true. They kept people out of church and way from the sacraments. Instead of improving things, we are still at it. From this point out, I will do my best not to cause that to happen any more.

 

[deacondev]

My spiritual director always points me toward balance in my prayer life and in my study. He tells me:
"Prayer without study leads to ‘goofiness’, study without prayer leads to rigorism or scupulosity’.