Catholic Extremism

[lwest]

Re: ‘exact recitation of the Rosary’…there’s nothing wrong with that. If a family feels drawn to the Rosary, it’s great if they pray it together. BUT…it would be elitist if this family walked around with a holier than thou attitude. We pray the Rosary because we need God’s grace, rely on God’s grace in our marriage and our lives. It sure ain’t because we’re holy. It’s because Jesus is holy. Pride is contrary to charity and compassion, IMHO.

 

[David_Zampino]

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?

It can be misleading and it can qualify as extremism. Not necessarily, but it can.

As Catholics, we are all called upon to follow the teaching of the Church and to properly form our consciences.

HOWEVER, all of us are unique in the particular manifestations of our Catholicism and spirituality. If a spiritual discipline is meaningful to me, but not to you, yet I criticize you for not having the spirituality that I have – I am wrong! If I choose to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent, and you abstain only on Fridays, are you in the wrong? No – you are following the precepts of the Church. And God may well have called YOU to a specific discipline that I am not called to undertake.

This is one reason why, in the Body of Christ, we have Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Jesuits, etc.

When things become extreme is when I try to bind your conscience (using authority I don’t have) to force you to accept a spiritual discipline, a pious (but not dogmatic) belief, etc. over and above the clear teachings and precepts of the Church.

And yes, I have seen – on this very forum – extremists of this very type.

 

[lwest]

It can be misleading and it can qualify as extremism. Not necessarily, but it can.

As Catholics, we are all called upon to follow the teaching of the Church and to properly form our consciences.

HOWEVER, all of us are unique in the particular manifestations of our Catholicism and spirituality. If a spiritual discipline is meaningful to me, but not to you, yet I criticize you for not having the spirituality that I have – I am wrong! If I choose to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent, and you abstain only on Fridays, are you in the wrong? No – you are following the precepts of the Church. And God may well have called YOU to a specific discipline that I am not called to undertake.

This is one reason why, in the Body of Christ, we have Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Jesuits, etc.

When things become extreme is when I try to bind your conscience (using authority I don’t have) to force you to accept a spiritual discipline, a pious (but not dogmatic) belief, etc. over and above the clear teachings and precepts of the Church.

And yes, I have seen – on this very forum – extremists of this very type.

David,

Beautifully put!! Thank you and God Bless you. Do you think this can also apply to the pro-life mentality? I’m 100% pro-life, no doubt about it, but I’m also praying for Pres. Obama and I don’t hate him. Cardinal George has commended Pres. Obama on keeping the conscious clause. I’ve heard criticisms of this. The bishop of Ft. Wayne has said (on EWTN’s the World Over) that there wasn’t a problem with Pres. Obama speaking at Notre Dame but there WAS a problem with him receiving an honorary degree from a Catholic University. Yet some people have ‘bumped it up a notch’ and condemned Notre Dame for even allowing Pres. Obama to speak there. I’m wondering if this hints at disobedience and if this could be considered ‘dangerous’, too? Or following visionaries who aren’t approved and then judging everyone by if they follow that particular unapproved visionary. ???
Again, God Bless…
Linda

Linda

 

[David_Zampino]

David,

Beautifully put!! Thank you and God Bless you. Do you think this can also apply to the pro-life mentality? I’m 100% pro-life, no doubt about it, but I’m also praying for Pres. Obama and I don’t hate him. Cardinal George has commended Pres. Obama on keeping the conscious clause. I’ve heard criticisms of this. The bishop of Ft. Wayne has said (on EWTN’s the World Over) that there wasn’t a problem with Pres. Obama speaking at Notre Dame but there WAS a problem with him receiving an honorary degree from a Catholic University. Yet some people have ‘bumped it up a notch’ and condemned Notre Dame for even allowing Pres. Obama to speak there. I’m wondering if this hints at disobedience and if this could be considered ‘dangerous’, too? Or following visionaries who aren’t approved and then judging everyone by if they follow that particular unapproved visionary. ???
Again, God Bless…
Linda

Linda

Hi Linda,

Yes, I think that you have posed a good example. (And I, too, am 100% Pro-life!) Sadly, some of the protesters at Notre Dame clearly and deliberately violated the express wishes of the Pro-Lifers AT Notre Dame with regard to behavior during the Commencement exercises. And, true to form, the newsmedia concentrated on those few extremist protesters, to the detriment of the thousands who were not trying to create a media circus. So yes, I have seen this type of extremism in the Pro-Life movement as well.

I get nervous when an individual or group takes the position of "You only agree with me 98% of the time – therefore, you’re my enemy/a material heretic/an apostate, etc., especially when the issue is not one of doctrine or dogma, but rather of discipline (or of method!)

For the record, I opposed the granting of an honorary degree to President Obama, not so much that he was invited to speak. I would have preferred a different speaker – but the honorary degree, especially over and against the advice of 70 bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, was what was most problematic to me.

Blessings,

 

[lwest]

Hi Linda,

I get nervous when an individual or group takes the position of "You only agree with me 98% of the time – therefore, you’re my enemy/a material heretic/an apostate, etc., especially when the issue is not one of doctrine or dogma, but rather of discipline (or of method!)

Or just personal opinion!! I’ve heard someone insists that ‘good’ Catholics would never allow animals in the home. That has nothing to do with Church teaching and yet they used it as a ‘tool of judgement’. It’s absurd and sad that Catholics can’t stand united. How are we to be strong against adversity if we’re fighting about stupid things among ourselves? God Bless you…at least I don’t feel so ‘alone’ now!!

Linda

 

[Marfran]

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.

Wow!!! I have encountered some of these OCD people–and have never thought of it that way!!! What an eye opener!!! People who seem to be entirely missing crucial parts of the gospel message–and I can’t figure out how they don’t get it. OCD–explains alot.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Please discuss the topic, not other posters, either individually or collectively. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[Nino]

Extremism is in many ways, in the eye of the beholder…a hate crimes bill is now in the senate which declares…‘vets,pro-lifers,and second amendment supporters’ as 'right wing extremists and thus possible terrorists!!! If a person leads an honest life…easy to get along with,does not cheat on his or her wife or children,is an example for all of us to follow,so what if that same person prays harder then we non-extremists do!!! Some wear the hairshirt on the inside and suffer in silence…others on the outside and we all hear about it. I was one of those years ago who was called an extremist for warning that there are people in government,in the media and academia but now the same moderates and couch tators are quite friendly and frankly concerned…yes,that word ‘extremist’ is a two edged sword…depends who is wielding it…maybe we who do follow Jesus,God over Ceasar…will also be considered security risks as in the lovely peoples republic of china,and cuba etc…sad about Tysons kid…children suffer from adults carelessness…

 

[lwest]

Extremism is in many ways, in the eye of the beholder…a hate crimes bill is now in the senate which declares…‘vets,pro-lifers,and second amendment supporters’ as 'right wing extremists and thus possible terrorists!!! If a person leads an honest life…easy to get along with,does not cheat on his or her wife or children,is an example for all of us to follow,so what if that same person prays harder then we non-extremists do!!! Some wear the hairshirt on the inside and suffer in silence…others on the outside and we all hear about it. I was one of those years ago who was called an extremist for warning that there are people in government,in the media and academia but now the same moderates and couch tators are quite friendly and frankly concerned…yes,that word ‘extremist’ is a two edged sword…depends who is wielding it…maybe we who do follow Jesus,God over Ceasar…will also be considered security risks as in the lovely peoples republic of china,and cuba etc…sad about Tysons kid…children suffer from adults carelessness…

I thought the hate bill only mentioned pro-lifers who used violent tactics. Did I hear incorrectly? Can’t keep up on this stuff. You make some good points. People are pointing fingers at us, we’re pointing ours at others. Stepping back, though, it’s silly. We need to stand united on what the Church teaches, don’t you think? Also, it brings up another question…I hear the argument that ‘it’s not enough to be a good person’. Fair enough but some have taken that to be a polar opposite of being a good Catholic: you can’t be a good person AND a good Catholic. Or do I just need more coffee?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I thought the hate bill only mentioned pro-lifers who used violent tactics. Did I hear incorrectly? Can’t keep up on this stuff. You make some good points. People are pointing fingers at us, we’re pointing ours at others. Stepping back, though, it’s silly. We need to stand united on what the Church teaches, don’t you think? Also, it brings up another question…I hear the argument that ‘it’s not enough to be a good person’. Fair enough but some have taken that to be a polar opposite of being a good Catholic: you can’t be a good person AND a good Catholic. Or do I just need more coffee?

Here:

And here: worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98692

Nino made an excellent point about extremism being in the eyes of the beholder. Some people define anyone as “extremist” if they simply disagrees with their position.

As far as what you wrote about the difficulty being both a “good” person and a good Catholic here’s another article by Mitchell Kalpakgian published in the New Oxford Review several years ago. Kalpakigian distinguishes the difference between “nice” and “good” newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1204-kalpakgian

In casual conversation the word “nice” is often used as a synonym for “good,” as when someone compliments a man for being “a nice guy.” But a world of difference separates the bland quality of being “nice” from the Christian virtue of charity and the noble virtue of justice. While it is relatively easy to be “nice,” charity and justice are exacting and demanding. Anyone can be nice – that is, easygoing, non-threatening, non-judgmental, and tolerant. A nice person never criticizes or judges; a nice person avoids confrontations and arguments; a nice person does anything and everything to keep peace and make life comfortable for everyone. He hears no evil and sees no evil. A nice person never insists on virtue or ever questions the prevalent practices and trends of the day. A nice person never feels outraged at shameless behavior or shocking injustice. While being nice easily leads to popularity and respectability and never creates enemies, it does not inspire admiration, cultivate heroism, or evoke respect.
…Thus, being nice often means pretending civility, tolerating lies, and allowing injustice. Those who do speak the truth are criticized for poor manners and for a lack of sensitivity.

 

[lwest]

I loved that article…thanks! (guess I’m not nice So a ‘nice’ person is someone who doesn’t make waves, everything’s ‘ok’? And a ‘good person’ is someone who tries their darndest to follow Christ? But it is tough sometimes knowing when to speak up, when to remain silent, how to handle people who’s values are contrary to Catholic teaching. I know we’re called to bring people to Christ and people tend to become defensive when ‘corrected’. So it’s not always black and white on how to handle it. ??

 

[chain]

I guess extremism can come on two fronts. I expect most people would consider someone who lives a secluded contemplative life as fairly extreme. That said, they are also fine examples of people who are living their faith with every breath.

Then there are others who think the current church doctrine is not Catholic enough, and choose to not accept it (as apposed to those who accept with the doctrine, but feel it is not adequately taught)…

 

[Sonny1954]

Yes, I believe that it’s possible for there to be extremist Catholics, but with a slight difference. Extremism usually refers to positions on issues; a spectrum from extreme right through moderate to extreme left.

Extremist Catholicism has less to do with what one believes, for most Catholics believe the same things, broadly speaking. Some Catholics, however, treat people with different viewpoints or values as “enemies” to be converted or subjegated. This really “over the top” attitude is extreme, and perceives civil dialogue as “weakness” or lack of faith. It’s more a matter of the medium rather than the message.

 

[david_house]

Of course you are extremists, well most of you anyway, by any reasonable meaning of the word. In my view extremists of any type represent a real and present danger to the rest of society. I think you are as dangerous in your own way as many muslims. Your extreme positions just make their own extremists far worse and because they believe they are fighting a holy war that is not helpful at all.
Any group which believes that they are the only ones with all the answers are extreme. The inability to learn from others and to accept alternative ways of doing things mark you out as extremists. Tolerance and understanding, rather than crusades and preaching is what is required. I am so thankful that your Church is losing memberships in so many places as people wake up and think for themselves. No doubt you will all receive a strong re-buttal of that, but go do your own research. It’s true and I thank God for it, for He would never be a member of your Church, it has drifted too far away from the true message and now has got bogged down in it’s own doctines which are mostly routines born of habit, and have nothing at all with the word of God. Yours is a Church of selfish men, bent upon the preservation of their own positions. Wake up, use your brains and see the real truth, not what you have been spoon fed by others.

 

[chain]

My humble guess, but if you put the poll up, most here probably believe the church is loosing members because it has focused on padding the pews for the last 30 years rather than teaching the truth.

 

[vz71]

Your extreme positions just make their own extremists far worse and because they believe they are fighting a holy war that is not helpful at all…Any group which believes that they are the only ones with all the answers are extreme. The inability to learn from others and to accept alternative ways of doing things mark you out as extremists…Yours is a Church of selfish men, bent upon the preservation of their own positions. Wake up, use your brains and see the real truth, not what you have been spoon fed by others.

:ehh:

Seems someone has neglected to see the board in their own eye.

Your characterization of extreme being those with ’ inability to learn from others and to accept alternative ways of doing things’ does not square at all with your later statements concerning the church.

Unless you are the extremist.

 

[Eric_Prine]

Someone can be “right” but still be extreme in an unhealthy way. If we are trying to control others, live their life for them, be pushy w/ our beliefs- that is unhealthy, even if we are more right than the person we are trying to change. We have to accept free will of others, just like God lets us have free will, even if He doesn’t like our choices.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 that God’s love is what should compel us. When we are being compelled by fear or hatred, that leads to unhealthy extremes. This falls under self evaluation and “heartsy” stuff- someone’s extremism can’t always be pointed on just by relying on theology alone.
Ignatius Layola had taken mortification to extremes to the point he had gotten some health problems. He realized there was nothing “spiritual” in causing himself that kind of damage afterwards.

 

[david_house]

My humble guess, but if you put the poll up, most here probably believe the church is loosing members because it has focused on padding the pews for the last 30 years rather than teaching the truth.

That response rather confirms one of my points doesn’t it? Who are you to decide what is the “truth”? The truth is different for many of us. You have your truth, I have mine. What makes yours better? It is all opinion based upon belief. I don’t seek to stop you believing what you want to, that is your personal right. You are free to live your lives in what ever way you chose. When you try to spread that to others, and worse, to seek a role in determining public policy, I object. I am glad that your version of the truth is turning people away as it did me. Your idealistic attitude is so far detached from today’s realities. The hypocritical double standards of much of the priesthood will surely be made ever more public as more and more investigations are undertaken. There is so much yet to come out. The “new” churches are destined to replace yours simply because they are prepared to re-interpret the lessons of the past using the knowledge of today. Now that really is the truth.

 

[chain]

As far as I am aware, the Catholic Church does not believe in moral relativism. That is simply part of the church teaching.

However over the last 30 years, the local churches have not gone much out of their way to preach anything that is overly controversial. It is easy to preach about love, but you will offend some when you preach about sin.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Who are you to decide what is the “truth”? The truth is different for many of us. You have your truth, I have mine. What makes yours better?..

You show you lack real knowledge of Catholic teachings by your statements. The Catholic Church does not teach that we are the only ones with truth.

From the Catechism 2467: Man tends by nature toward the truth…

We believe that we have the fullness of the truth available to us in Catholic teachings, but we don’t deny that other people of other faiths have portions of the truth.