Catholic teachings, Fundamentalist mindset

[DL82]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

 

[Trishie]

It has been my experience that some occasionally don’t always accept quotes from the Catechism or papal encyclicals, and on occasion, even Jesus’ words, but retain their own attitudes regardless. Many do accept such quotes, most, I think, nevertheless the fundamentalist attitudes that sometimes arise do create an atmosphere of fear, I think. Quite honestly I tend to always have a fear they are behind trees ready to call me a ‘liberal Catholic’, when I’m just stating what the Church teaches. I’ve been around for a lot of posts, but I still feel a bit nervous about agreeing with you on this at any level. What does that say about me!!!

 

[Bookcat]

As a Christian…a Catholic …

Let us embrace, and profess and live the fullness of the Catholic Faith!

Let us be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in us to those who ask!

Let us follow Jesus of Nazareth with great joy!

Let us “put off the old man” and “put on Christ”…

Let us read and study and love the Sacred Scriptures prayerfully (lectio divina)

Let us study the Teachings of the Church, the Catechism and documents of the Church with enthusiasm and joy and in the right way.

Let us love one another and seek to bring others the joy of knowing Christ!

Let us live the* “life”* we have in him and propose him to others…for he is our hope and our true life!

Let us live our baptism!

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060108_battesimo_en.html

Let us “renew our minds!” our “way of thinking”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (keep reading…the whole thing…about the renewal of the mind etc)

 

[twoangels]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

Thank you for posting this.

 

[JRKH]

I agree that there can be an element within the Church that takes this very legalistic view.
Good or bad, I won’t say for it depends on the individual and how they approach the matter.

However, consulting such documents etc has good many uses.

The good comes from the ability to consult the various documents for the purposes of learning and for resolving differences. For the deepening of ones faith and resolving matter that disturb the peace of the spirit.

After all, as St Paul says in one of his letters to Timothy, such things are useful for teaching, for correcting, for rebuke, and preparing one for all good things.

Peace
James

 

[Abu]

DL82
Not being an American nor living there, I’m surprised that in your litany you have failed to give any examples of precisely what your beef is. How about it?

 

[DL82]

DL82
Not being an American nor living there, I’m surprised that in your litany you have failed to give any examples of precisely what your beef is. How about it?

I do live in America now, as it happens. Have updated my profile.

My ‘beef’ is that my wife, who was born in America has constantly encountered such judgmental people, and I have also found a few on these forums, who have no latitude in their understanding of the Catholic faith or the Bible. I encountered similar people in the Evangelical churches, which is what drove me to the broad open arms of Holy Mother Church in the first place. These closed-minded attitudes remind me more of the Pharisees than of Catholics trying to be Church, the sacrament and soul of the world, reconciling man to God amid the mess of a fallen world.

 

[JRKH]

I do live in America now, as it happens. Have updated my profile.

My ‘beef’ is that my wife, who was born in America has constantly encountered such judgmental people, and I have also found a few on these forums, who have no latitude in their understanding of the Catholic faith or the Bible. I encountered similar people in the Evangelical churches, which is what drove me to the broad open arms of Holy Mother Church in the first place. These closed-minded attitudes remind me more of the Pharisees than of Catholics trying to be Church, the sacrament and soul of the world, reconciling man to God amid the mess of a fallen world.

The thing to remember is that the “Church” - “Ekklesia” - “community”, whether local or universal, there will be a wide range of views and attitudes. All of them are necessary, and even necessary, in order for the Church to properly learn understand and teach.

Consider the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The issue was between the very conservative and legalistic view of the Judaizers, and the more liberal views of Paul and the Gentile converts. We are told that the council was quite heated with debate over the matter. This means that everyone got their say before the Church finally ruled on the matter.

The thing to recognize is that these people are really presenting their faith. In other words, the way that works for them personally. Naturally, because they find this to be best for them, they present it to others as a good thing as well.

One other thing that should be considered in this.
There can, and should, be a difference in how we present views publicly vs how we might present things privately. This might seem duplicitous at first but it really is not.

When we here on CAF present a thought, position etc in answer to some question we are, in a sense, teaching publicly. Because it is public, we are constrained to present Catholic teaching as documented. Beyond that, and you will see this often, we will suggest that an individual speak with their priest about their particular situation.
Likewise, if I were talking with a personal friend and knew his situation, his spiritual status, etc. I might offer advice designed to help him that might not be as legalistic or dogmatic. In other words, private counsel can have different parameters than public counsel.

Peace
James

 

[Abu]

DL82 has still failed to give examples of what he calls the Catholic “fundamentalist mind-set”. What’s your problem? Are you unaware of our mandate to judge everything against truth? Let’s judge.

 

[Castello]

In my experience, every time I hear this song it comes from an issue where someone is unhappy about Church teaching on married sexuality.

 

[DL82]

In my experience, every time I hear this song it comes from an issue where someone is unhappy about Church teaching on married sexuality.

OK, I need to reiterate, I am a faithful Catholic, and my wife and I (not that its any of your business) are faithful to Church teaching and are open to life.

I am not talking about being a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ by any stretch of the imagination. What I am talking about is encouraging a deep formation of conscience through the prayerful reading and contemplation of Church documents and Church Fathers and a sharing in the common life of the parish and the sacraments. This is different from a ‘straight in and out’ reading off from text to life, without it passing through our conscience or our will. This is the kind of thing that Fundamentalists do when they ‘proof-text’ from the scriptures, and it is an alienated way of producing religious faith, like being a production-line worker, the ruling comes from outside of us, instead of us putting ourselves inside the rule of faith.

The result, in terms of the rules we live by, is the same, but the result in terms of the people we become and the joy and connection we have to God as we live, is entirely different.

Of course, if you take everything you read to just confirm your own prejudices, you will conclude from this that I am just another ‘cafeteria Catholic’, if that’s your take-home from this, then that’s unfortunate.

 

[Thankfulness]

In my experience, every time I hear this song it comes from an issue where someone is unhappy about Church teaching on married sexuality.

That is very judgemental and misses the point altogether.

This is one of the problems evident in people who think their brand of extreme traditionalism is the only indication of true Catholicism,
and they generalize and judge even truly good truly committed, truly informed Catholics who are in obedience to the Magisterium, the Catechism, Canon Law, but live it with joy and love,
not a frown ready to judge other Catholics and indicate with contempt that they are ‘liberal Catholics’ when they are nothing of the sort.

 

[TrueLight]

. I encountered similar people in the Evangelical churches, which is what drove me to the **broad open arms **of Holy Mother Church in the first place.

Hmm.

You thought the Catholic Church was only made up of liberal folk?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I’m sorry, but in defense of the Original Poster above,
he never said that he thought that the Catholic Church was
full of nothing but Liberals.
Where did you get that idea?

I understand what he is talking about, to a degree.

I for one, doctrinally, am a very conservative, orthodox Catholic.
I accept fully the teachings of the scriptures and the magisterium.
But I also believe that there is a wideness in God’s mercy,
a wideness that some (not necessarily many, and certainly not all)
orthodox Catholics SEEM not to share in their very harsh judgmentalism
of people who fall. I’ll give an example. I don’t agree with or condone,
at ALL, what Father Corapi has done in abandoning the priesthood and becoming
instead the “Black Sheep Dog” complete with motorcycle jacket and newly-
jet black beard. But I will not condemn this man harshly nor encourage others to
do so, I think there should be fervent prayer for Father Corapi to return to the priesthood, and less almost-sadistic foaming at the mouth at him over his “disobedience.”
Yes, he is being disobedient, but people didn’t have to go on and on and on about it.
He has not denied one single doctrine of the Catholic faith.
Quoting Canon Law, scripture, and church documents in order to condemn the man,
is going way too far, I think. This is just one example. I have never seen Catholic conservatives turn on Hans Kung with the ferocity that they turned on the fallen
Father Corapi. That REALLY surprised me.
I wonder if the Original Poster had similar examples in mind when he wrote his post about fundamentalistic attitudes. Fundies tend to believe that you cannot lose your salvation no matter how wickedly you unrepentantly sin, but are the first to call for severe punishments and the death penalty (not realizing that if they are RIGHT about nobody being able to lose their salvation no matter what, then inflicting the death penalty on a wicked but born-again Christian DOESN’T really PUNISH him or her, but instead sends them STRAIGHT to the heights of heaven!!!).
Also, because a Catholic is sincerely in error and disagreement with a particular church teaching, doesn’t make him a liberal. It makes him wrong on THAT POINT, but it doesn’t make him a “liberal.” LIBERALISM is an ISM, it is an overall rebellious state of mind, not an error here and there, or a sincere but mistaken belief that the church is wrong. These people we have to pray for and be very merciful to. They are not on the same level, at all, as groups like Catholics for Free Choice, and even THOSE people we should offer prayers for for THEIR repentance if at all possible.
The Heart of God, is MERCY.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Birdpreacher]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

Well Said

 

[twoangels]

I do live in America now, as it happens. Have updated my profile.

My ‘beef’ is that my wife, who was born in America has constantly encountered such judgmental people, and I have also found a few on these forums, who have no latitude in their understanding of the Catholic faith or the Bible. I encountered similar people in the Evangelical churches, which is what drove me to the broad open arms of Holy Mother Church in the first place. These closed-minded attitudes remind me more of the Pharisees than of Catholics trying to be Church, the sacrament and soul of the world, reconciling man to God amid the mess of a fallen world.

I convict myself of being a Pharisee all the time. What I remind myself of is that the Jews were indeed God’s chosen people. They understood scripture well and they took the letter of the law very seriously. Regardless of who we are, though, we’re all called to repentence. Jesus never denied that the people coming to him were sinners. The Pharisees probably were not guilty of the type of sins the people coming to Jesus were guilty of. He rather pointed to the fact that everyone was in need of repentence.

Unforunately people confuse “admonish the sinner” which means to educate people in sin, with chastising those who are guilty of sin you feel you are above committing yourself.

 

[Abu]

Jaypeeto4 #15
Also, because a Catholic is sincerely in error and disagreement with a particular church teaching, doesn’t make him a liberal. It makes him wrong on THAT POINT, but it doesn’t make him a “liberal.”
I have never seen Catholic conservatives turn on Hans Kung with the ferocity that they turned on the fallen Father Corapi.

Such misuse of “liberal” and “conservative” with regard to the truths of Catholicism and any dissent is quite appalling. No attempt is made to identify what is supposed to be the doctrine or the dissent.

DL82 has again failed to provide any specific examples to identify any “fundamentalist mind-set” on any doctrine or dogma, so that is still tilting at windmills, and leaves his charges without substance.

 

[yablabo]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

Since what one holds by faith in general, whether a natural or supernatural faith, is not derived by natural reason, all one can do in that case is point to the authoritative source. This isn’t proof-texting, it’s sharing truth, possibly even in the hopes of establishing or finding communion. A lot of people do use the truth badly or even misuse and abuse it, but that doesn’t change the truth any.

I do agree that the general solus Catechismus attitude is just as dangerous as the sola Scriptura attitude. However, that doesn’t reduce morality from being black-and-white, based upon material action as well as one’s own degree of knowledge (both of the matter of the action, as well as the form of one’s own commission), consent of the will, and general duty to be a moral agent.

I am referring to all of this very generally here. There is a lot more to Catholic doctrine than what is found merely in the written teachings of the Church, but one cannot cut off that which is written and transmitted from that which is unwritten and transmitted, as both would be authoritative in varying distinctions. Nor can one doubt that a certain morality can be discerned both by nature together with what has been divinely revealed.

The Councils of Trent and First of the Vatican give us a wealth of information in this regard, even if it does merely come in tidbits throughout. The Catholic truth is much bigger than Scripture and Tradition, also, and thanks to the First Vatican Council we have a standard by which to judge what is of the faith and what is not:

“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

That being said, only the saints are examples of living these things out properly. What did the saints throughout history have to say about dogma and doctrine and how to incorporate these into one’s life? How did they do it themselves? While these are not what I would call an infallible guide, they would be a great confidence booster in the following the two-fold command of the Gospel (as I recall St. Francis de Sales said), “Believe and obey!”

– Nicole

 

[Dan_Daly]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

You raise a very interesting and vaild point. I agree that a great many American Catholics think of themselves as Americans first and Catholics second (or third or fourth). There is a strong influence from Protestantism here, which isn’t surprising since the dominant culture in the US is Protestant/Secular Humanist. However, it’s also worth noting that not all Protestant positions are wrong…some of them are right- the ones that agree with Catholic teaching. It also happens that some Protestant groups seem to do a better job living out particular Catholic teachings than the Catholics do- much to our own shame and their credit.

I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but if you would offer the particular ways that you think American Catholics are off, I could better respond.

I would say that the Catechism and Church documents should not be dismissed. They certainly are important. Also, many American Catholics are wary about simply accepting things because a Priest told them so, because they know from experience that Priest will very often (and very sadly) give advice that is not orthodox Catholic teaching- approving of contraception for example.

The issue you raise is not a new one at all. I’d suggest reading Pope Leo XIII’s letter to the American bishops about Americanism. It reads like it was written to the US Church today.

Pax Christi

 

[Thankfulness]

Such misuse of “liberal” and “conservative” with regard to the truths of Catholicism and any dissent is quite appalling. No attempt is made to identify what is supposed to be the doctrine or the dissent.

DL82 has again failed to provide any specific examples to identify any “fundamentalist mind-set” on any doctrine or dogma, so that is still tilting at windmills, and leaves his charges without substance.

Hi Ebu,

Some of those who have visited the forums for a long period of time do know what the OP is referring to. He would not be so unChristian as to give a list of threads or posters to demonstrate his point so can only speak in general terms.
You may ask as many tomes as you wish, that is your right, (three so far I think) but to demonstrate his point require concrete examples that cannot be offered in the light of charity.
He nevertheless had the right to express his general concern, and he is not alone in having that concern. He simply had the courage to express it, where many who agree would not dare