Catholic Extremism

[lwest]

Is there such a thing as Catholic extremism? When we look at other groups, extremists are easy to spot, but what about us? Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. The Pope is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. We all know that. We all know that we MUST follow the basic precepts of the Church if we’re even to be considered a practicing Catholic. We all know that ‘cafeteria Catholics’ need our prayers. But what about people who add their own twist to the Teachings with their dress, prayer life, devotions, following mystics, etc, and then consider themselves to be ‘more’ Catholic than others? Can this be misleading…does it qualify as extremism?

 

[Newbie2]

Well…yes, I guess. Most of the time when we think of extremists, at least I think of someone who twists the teachings of whatever discipline they’re involved with to reflect a different, misguided agenda.

In Catholocism, IMHO there are some “legalistic” extremists who use their own interpretation of Church teachings and use Church documents to “prove” what they’re saying is true, all the while beating you over the head with said documents.

 

[DavidHume]

There are always the sedevacantists and similar folks, but the convenient thing about including “accepts the Pope as the Vicar of Christ” in the definition of Catholic is that it eliminates sedevacantists by definition.

 

[uther]

Personally, I think we are not extreme enough, at least we don’t see ourselves that way. In fact, many of our moral problems stem from trying not to be too radical, to blend in. If we think about it, what we believe is really extreme. A lot of people have died since the very beginning of the Church for what we believe. All but one of the Apostles was martyred. That’s extreme. When we don’t stand out we need to check to see what we are doing wrong.

 

[lwest]

Personally, I think we are not extreme enough, at least we don’t see ourselves that way. In fact, many of our moral problems stem from trying not to be too radical, to blend in. If we think about it, what we believe is really extreme. A lot of people have died since the very beginning of the Church for what we believe. All but one of the Apostles was martyred. That’s extreme. When we don’t stand out we need to check to see what we are doing wrong.

According to society, sure, we’re nuts. We’re pro-life, against gay marriage, premarital sex, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia. Our job is to stand up for the faith, no matter what. Sure, that’s basic. But I’m talking about those who (for example), won’t hang out with someone who wears make-up (or who doesn’t live in a fancy house, or who shops at a particular grocery store) tbecause these things are evil in their eyes. These aren’t Catholic issues but some people choose to judge others by these self-imposed standards. See what I mean?

 

[mpi]

Personally, I think we are not extreme enough, at least we don’t see ourselves that way. In fact, many of our moral problems stem from trying not to be too radical, to blend in. If we think about it, what we believe is really extreme. A lot of people have died since the very beginning of the Church for what we believe. All but one of the Apostles was martyred. That’s extreme. When we don’t stand out we need to check to see what we are doing wrong.

I couldn’t agree more. I strive to be more extreme in my Catholicism every day.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Is there such a thing as Catholic extremism? When we look at other groups, extremists are easy to spot, but what about us? Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. The Pope is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. We all know that. We all know that we MUST follow the basic precepts of the Church if we’re even to be considered a practicing Catholic. We all know that ‘cafeteria Catholics’ need our prayers. But what about people who add their own twist to the Teachings with their dress, prayer life, devotions, following mystics, etc, and then consider themselves to be ‘more’ Catholic than others? Can this be misleading…does it qualify as extremism?

People can swing to the opposite extreme.

Here’s one example I have encountered on occassion from some Catholics: in addition to contraception (disapproved by the Church) some extremists disapprove of all uses of NFP to regulate birth under any circumstances. That’s not what the Church teaches.

As far as prayer life and devotions, Catholics have great freedom to choose such things for ourselves. If the “twist” someone puts on such things includes looking down on other Catholics with different practices that fall within Catholic guidelines, that is wrong.

Some people find particular attraction to unapproved (or not yet approved) aparations and they almost seem to regard any Catholics who questions these unapproved visions and mystical experiences as heretics. (The Church doesn’t even require us to believe approved aparations and mystical writings of saints because these are personal revelations not essential to salvation.)

Those are some examples that I think might match what you are describing, but it isn’t because these people took Catholicism to an extreme. It happens because they put their own views and opinions above what the Church actually teaches.

 

[apromisemade]

You are always going to find members of every faith, ideology, political or cultural allegiance that will find a way to distort their teachings in order to justify harming the innocent.

People have used scripture to justify everything from adultery to mass murder and slavery.
I think the modern commonly accepted definition of a religious extremist is someone who kills and promotes violence in the name of their faith.

 

[mpi]

People can swing to the opposite extreme.

Here’s one example I have encountered on occassion from some Catholics: in addition to contraception (disapproved by the Church) some extremists disapprove of all uses of NFP to regulate birth under any circumstances. That’s not what the Church teaches.

As far as prayer life and devotions, Catholics have great freedom to choose such things for ourselves. If the “twist” someone puts on such things includes looking down on other Catholics with different practices that fall within Catholic guidelines, that is wrong.

Some people find particular attraction to unapproved (or not yet approved) aparations and they almost seem to regard any Catholics who questions these unapproved visions and mystical experiences as heretics. (The Church doesn’t even require us to believe approved aparations and mystical writings of saints because these are personal revelations not essential to salvation.)

Those are some examples that I think might match what you are describing, but it isn’t because these people took Catholicism to an extreme. It happens because they put their own views and opinions above what the Church actually teaches.

I disapprove of NFP to regulate births in MY marriage. I even advocate not using it to other people. I am fully aware, however, that NFP is acceptable under certain defined circumstances.

But the goal of Catholics should always be the lowest common denominator. For example, there is no Canon law that says the rosary must be read daily - so those that do say the rosary are taking a more extreme position. Again, I strive to more of an extremist every day.

 

[lizaanne]

Personally, I think we are not extreme enough, at least we don’t see ourselves that way. In fact, many of our moral problems stem from trying not to be too radical, to blend in. If we think about it, what we believe is really extreme. A lot of people have died since the very beginning of the Church for what we believe. All but one of the Apostles was martyred. That’s extreme. When we don’t stand out we need to check to see what we are doing wrong.

Outstanding!! I totally agree!

~Liza

 

[centurionguard]

There are always the sedevacantists and similar folks, but the convenient thing about including “accepts the Pope as the Vicar of Christ” in the definition of Catholic is that it eliminates sedevacantists by definition.

I am not officially a Sedevacantists myself. However; I for one am glad they are in the Church if for no other reason but to keep self-righteous cafeteria Catholics from their liberalized agenda in the present Vatican II era in check. Not everything that was brought out of Vatican II has God’s blessing. That you can be sure of. In next five hundred years Catholics will see the errors and embarrassments wrought by Vatican II. That is of course if the clergy and the laity alike are too proud to admit it.

 

[centurionguard]

A True Catholic Extremist is one who follows Church Law and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in FULL union with the Saints and the Fathers of the Church.

Jesus tells his disciples that he has not come to abolish the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it. “Not the smallest letter, or the tiniest stroke of a letter” will be erased. The earliest English translations were closer to the original, “Not a jot or a tittle”. The “jot” refers to the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, yod, which looks rather like a comma. A tittle is part of a letter, like the dot on our letter I, or the accents on letters in French. To say that not a jot or a tittle would be removed from the Law is a sign of how immutable God’s Law is: it has never changed, from the Garden of Eden, to the teaching of the prophets, to the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. But if Jesus was so insistent that the Law would never change or disappear, why was he unhappy with the Pharisees, who made it their mission to persuade people to observe the Law to the letter, even to the tiniest stroke of a letter?

You’ve heard that our ancestors were told, “Don’t commit murder”, and “Whoever takes the life of another will be subject to judgment”. But I tell you that if you’re angry with your neighbor, or call your neighbor an idiot, you are liable to judgment. If you curse your neighbor, you are in danger of hellfire.

So, if you’re going to the Temple to present a sacrifice at the altar, and you remember that your neighbor has something against you, leave the sacrifice right there, go back and be reconciled to your neighbor, then come back and offer your sacrifice to God.

You’ve heard the commandment, “Don’t commit adultery,” I tell you, that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. In this saying, Jesus appears to be even more legalistic than the Pharisees. But, at another time, Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30) So, what he just said is not heavier, but lighter, than the doctrine of the Pharisees?

Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” A law is not fulfilled when it is being observed to the letter, but when it serves the purpose for which it was enacted. If Jesus had said, “Don’t bother with the details, just do the best you can”, he would have sounded like a reckless liberal, to use a modern phrase. But he still would have been talking about the letter, not the spirit of the Law. He would be in a different corner of the same box the Pharisees had put themselves in.

Jesus is (“outside the box”). He goes beyond the external observance, and probes the heart. He sees that murder begins with hatred or anger, that adultery is the fruit of lust. Everything we do starts with an impulse, followed by a decision whether to act on that impulse, or to reject it. Jesus reminds us to focus not on the letter of the law, but on the intention of the heart. Our model is the Sacred Heart of Jesus: “Love one another, as I have first loved you.”

 

[lwest]

I disapprove of NFP to regulate births in MY marriage. I even advocate not using it to other people. I am fully aware, however, that NFP is acceptable under certain defined circumstances.

But the goal of Catholics should always be the lowest common denominator. For example, there is no Canon law that says the rosary must be read daily - so those that do say the rosary are taking a more extreme position.

You’re right, we aren’t required to pray the Rosary daily. And those of us who choose to pray the Rosary every day shouldn’t look down our noses at those who don’t pray the Rosary every day. Yet some do. The same with NFP…it’s allowed so those who choose not to use it shouldn’t look down their noses at those who do use it. Letting pride into our hearts can be damaging, too. Or wearing chapel veils…it’s not required yet some choose to wear them and that’s great. But it’s dangerous to walk around thinking you’re better than those who don’t wear them. Or confession…we’re required to go once a year to be considered a practicing Catholic. Regular confession is going monthly adn that’s encouraged. but we can’t think we’re better if we go monthly. It doesn’t give us license to criticize, belittle, shun those who don’t practice as we do. That’s what I meant by extremism, I guess. Pride can be damaging, can’t it?

 

[Sillara]

That’s what I meant by extremism, I guess. Pride can be damaging, can’t it?

Well, if extremism = pride, then, umm, yes, there are “extremist Catholics.”

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

A True Catholic Extremist is one who follows Church Law and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in FULL union with the Saints and the Fathers of the Church.

I disagree. That’s just being a Catholic…period. To me, an extremist Christian is one who takes a Bible and, metaphorically, bludgeons someone with it or believes that causing public disorder, being a public nuisance, and violence are legitimate forms of evangelization.

 

[centurionguard]

I disagree. That’s just being a Catholic…period.

To me, an extremist Christian is one who takes a Bible and, metaphorically, bludgeons someone with it or believes that causing public disorder, being a public nuisance, and violence are legitimate forms of evangelization.

Implicit comparisons from a argumentative biblical or theological standpoint can often be misconstrued by people who have little to “no” theological background in catechisis.

Your augmentative description of someone using the bible to

metaphorically, bludgeons someone with it

is often seen in people who sometimes take scripture passages (“out of context”). However; I don’t see this as a norm in every situation. Catholics themselves are not known as “Bible Thumpers” as seen in some other pseudo-Christian religious cults.

You take your statement to the extreme when you say

someone with it or believes that causing public disorder, being a public nuisance, and violence are legitimate forms of evangelization.

On what assumption do you legitimize what you state here. Please elaborate.

[/QUOTE]

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Catholics themselves are not known as “Bible Thumpers” as seen in some other pseudo-Christian religious cults.

I think perhaps you misunderstood what I said. I was not attributing this behavior specifically to Catholics. It is my view of how Christian extremists, in general, behave. I have come across some Catholics who fit that description but I would agree that it is far more prevalent amongst Protestants.

On what assumption do you legitimize what you state here. Please elaborate.

One specific movement which comes to mind is the National Liberation Front Of Tripura which seeks to gain independence from India and turn Tripura into an autonomous Christian theocratic state. This group uses extreme violence to achieve this goal and to convert Hindus in Tripura to Christianity. It’s funded and supplied by the Tripura Baptist Christian Union. Another group which comes to mind is the Lord’s Resistance Army. This group seeks to turn Uganda, Sudan, and the Congo into Christian theocracies and employs unspeakable violence to achieve this goal and, from what I’ve gathered, is also anti-Catholic. In fact, just last Christmas they attacked a Catholic Church in the Congo and hacked 45 people to death during mass. Anyone who stands in their way is brutally murdered…even fellow Christians.

 

[centurionguard]

I think perhaps you misunderstood what I said. I was not attributing this behavior specifically to Catholics. It is my view of how Christian extremists, in general, behave. I have come across some Catholics who fit that description but I would agree that it is far more prevalent amongst Protestants.

One specific movement which comes to mind is the National Liberation Front Of Tripura which seeks to gain independence from India and turn Tripura into an autonomous Christian theocratic state. This group uses extreme violence to achieve this goal and to convert Hindus in Tripura to Christianity. It’s funded and supplied by the Tripura Baptist Christian Union. Another group which comes to mind is the Lord’s Resistance Army. This group seeks to turn Uganda, Sudan, and the Congo into Christian theocracies and employs unspeakable violence to achieve this goal and, from what I’ve gathered, is also anti-Catholic. In fact, just last Christmas they attacked a Catholic Church in the Congo and hacked 45 people to death during mass. Anyone who stands in their way is brutally murdered…even fellow Christians.

I completely understand where your coming from. You should know that there are many people who call themselves (“So called”) Christians and create upheaval as an affront to peace but are in fact wolves in sheep’s clothing who set out to devour in the name of satanic evil. Any Christian who deliberately sets out to spitefully do the things you describe above is an Anti Christ. It’s so sad to see so much conflict happening in Africa.
By all rights Africa should have been the most wealthiest continent on the face of this planet. Where does one begin to lay the blame. It would be too easy to say their own people made bad choices. But I think one has to look back over 1000 years of history to see how other more advanced cultures from different countries went into Africa with greed in their heart and virtually bled Africa of all it’s resources. People who Lord it over others to feed their self-righteous greed for wealth and power. Africa today is riddled with dictatorships. South Africa is still for the most part under British rule. An incredible vast amount of charity in monetery funds, food and clothing gets funneled into Africa from the western world. Regrettably; much of this finds it’s way into dictators hands who sell it to the highest bidder to fund their own political conquest’s with weapons and the sort.
So why doesn’t the Western world step in militarily to help ? Why ? because there’s no collateral, monetary benefit or strategic military interest to the west. So in effect Africa being the poorest continent has to fend for itself with countrymen fighting countrymen with bloodshed to the death. Survival of the fittest in the cruelest manner. Sad is an understatement.

 

[Middleman]

I encounter Catholics who are extreme in their rigid legalism and scrupulosity, who present with almost OCD tendencies, People who obsess about absolute correct recitation, for example, or the rosary.

I’ve read at this site many people who seem to be entirely missing crucial parts of the gospel message, yet exteriorly they follow canon law with exactitude. This type of legalism seems to be found more often in Catholicism, I think because of the extensive body of Church law.

 

[centurionguard]

I encounter Catholics who are extreme in their rigid legalism and scrupulosity, who present with almost OCD tendencies, People who obsess about absolute correct recitation, for example, or the rosary.

I’ve read at this site many people who seem to be entirely missing crucial parts of the gospel message, yet exteriorly they follow canon law with exactitude. This type of legalism seems to be found more often in Catholicism, I think because of the extensive body of Church law.

Perhaps there is (“some”) truth in what you say.
(“Every religion has it’s own operative hippocrates”).
Is it really in all fairness scrupulous to downplay and biasedly criticize the Catholic Church as a whole ? It’s not at all surprising to me to see many in this world who are quick to blame the Church. And most of these people who would censure the Catholic Church would do well to give there own moral certitudes an honest reevaluation. I’m not saying that the Catholic Church does not deserve criticism with some issues hopefully with tactfulness.
However; the majority of these issue that people do have qualms about are directly related to Sexual Ethics and the questionable immoral lifestyles of those who have complaint against the Catholic Church.

I’ve read at this site many people who seem to be entirely missing crucial parts of the gospel message, yet exteriorly they follow canon law with exactitude. This type of legalism seems to be found more often in Catholicism, I think because of the extensive body of Church law

The key word here as you state is

seem

. Catholics in general don’t purport to be perfect people. They are sinners like every other person in this world.
Most who come to this site are trying to learn and practice their Faith to the best of their abilities and grow spiritually amongst other brothers and sisters in the Charity of Jesus Christ. What you state here

many people who seem to be entirely missing crucial parts of the gospel message

is really a generalized statement which lacks solid foundation.