Confused about Catholics

[smead2942]

Spiritual envy is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit-- the unforgivable sin.

To put it simply, from CatholicExchange.com:

Finally, envy is a sin against the Holy Spirit because it was through Satan’s envy that death entered the world (cf. Catechism, no. 2538; Wis. 2:24). When one is envious of the spiritual good of another, he places himself on the level of Satan who wanted God’s glory for Himself rather than humbly accepting the gifts God had given him (Ezek. 28:11-19). One must accept the blessings God has given him rather than look at how God has blessed another and desire that for himself. Envy of another’s spiritual good is a sin against the Holy Spirit inasmuch as it is the Holy Spirit who pours out spiritual gifts to the faithful.

Rather than envy the faith of others, I suggest you pursue your own. Sitting back and moping about it only leads to despair. You have a false perception of religious security, as we’ve all said before.

Catholicism does not exist to make us happy. It does not exist to make our lives easier. It does not exist to please us. Catholicism was founded by Christ to protect His Gospel and lead souls to salvation.

Similarly, divine providence doesn’t mean “Jesus take the wheel!” in a literal sense. Obviously, if you take your hands off the steering wheel while driving, you risk your life and those of many others. If my house burned down I probably wouldn’t jump up and down with joy and say “YES! Finally! Thank you Jesus!”. That would be horrible, and I wouldn’t be the slightest bit happy, but I wouldn’t lose faith over it. I know God provides, regardless of how bad things seem.

 

[Lucy107]

Spiritual envy is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit-- the unforgivable sin.

Really? Does that mean I’m done for, it’s over for me?

Finally, envy is a sin against the Holy Spirit because it was through Satan’s envy that death entered the world (cf. Catechism, no. 2538; Wis. 2:24). When one is envious of the spiritual good of another, he places himself on the level of Satan who wanted God’s glory for Himself rather than humbly accepting the gifts God had given him (Ezek. 28:11-19). One must accept the blessings God has given him rather than look at how God has blessed another and desire that for himself. Envy of another’s spiritual good is a sin against the Holy Spirit inasmuch as it is the Holy Spirit who pours out spiritual gifts to the faithful.

Interesting. I didn’t know that.

The religious people I have come to know themselves took credit for their religiosity. I have never met anyone who would actually thank God for their religiosity. While some would say that the Holy Spirit is working in them, they also noted how this was somehow due to their own merit. That it’s because they are such good people that God loves them and does them favors.

The way I was taught religion, by people from different religions, was that I was supposed to figure things out on my own and attain things on my own - like they did - and that if I can’t, then I’m just a basket case deserving only contempt.

I suggest you pursue your own.

What do you mean??
First you tell me nobody can take credit for their religiosity, but now you tell me I should?
What do you mean?

Sitting back and moping about it only leads to despair.

I’m not moping or despaired, just bewildered.

You have a false perception of religious security, as we’ve all said before.

Interesting. This will require a paradigm shift for me to consider it.

Catholicism does not exist to make us happy. It does not exist to make our lives easier. It does not exist to please us. Catholicism was founded by Christ to protect His Gospel and lead souls to salvation.

Leading souls to salvation is about happiness, is it not?

 

[smead2942]

Really? Does that mean I’m done for, it’s over for me?

Interesting. I didn’t know that.

The religious people I have come to know themselves took credit for their religiosity. I have never met anyone who would actually thank God for their religiosity. While some would say that the Holy Spirit is working in them, they also noted how this was somehow due to their own merit. That it’s because they are such good people that God loves them and does them favors.

The way I was taught religion, by people from different religions, was that I was supposed to figure things out on my own and attain things on my own - like they did - and that if I can’t, then I’m just a basket case deserving only contempt.

What do you mean??
First you tell me nobody can take credit for their religiousity, but now you tell me I should?
What do you mean?

I’m not moping or despaired, just bewildered.

Interesting. This will require a paradigm shift for me to consider it.

Leading souls to salvation is about happiness, is it not?

1. I can correct, but I cannot judge where anyone’s final destination will be. I’m simply telling you that spiritual envy is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The rest is up to God.
2. There’s a difference between saying “After I studied X and prayed about Y, God led me to Z” and “I figured it out all by myself because I’m so smart”. The difference is pride.
3. I never said “You can’t take credit for your religiousity”, though, no one finds the Truth by his or her own power, so it would be wrong to really “take credit” for such things. Rather than wishing you have what others possess, do some praying, studying, whatever. These things come differently to everyone, but I seriously doubt faith will hit you like a ton of bricks. That sure wasn’t the case for me.
4. Not entirely. Aiming for absolute happiness (Paradise) does not ensure immunity to suffering while on Earth. Thousands upon thousands of saints, martyrs, and every day people can attest to that.

 

[Rau]

Sounds like you have a rather secular understanding of what it means to be religious.

Or maybe one simply different to yours?

Looks like you’ve never envied people their religion.

That is speculation on your part.

This, and it comes down to how I understand when people claim to have “the one true religion.”
To me, in order to know which religion is the right one, requires omniscience, or at least being beyond all greed, anger, and delusion. I thus presume that those who claim to have been able to choose the right religion, are omniscient, or beyond greed, anger, and delusion.
I see no reason why an omniscient person or a person who is beyond greed, anger, and delusion would ever suffer - as ‘in wish that things would be otherwise, complain, or just plain feel down and out about the hardships of life.’

Knowing that I am neither omniscient, nor beyond greed, anger, and delusion, I naturally feel bewildered when people who claim to be religious, “suffer.”

I have never seen religious people as “fellow humans” or “neighbors,” but always as a special category that is (or at least should be) above and beyond the ordinary mental strifes of human life.

You increase my inclination to see the original post as an attempt at ridicule.

 

[Lucy107]

Or maybe one simply different to yours?
/…/
You increase my inclination to see the original post as an attempt at ridicule.

It looks like you don’t see my understanding as “simply different to yours” …

 

[Lucy107]

Rather than wishing you have what others possess, do some praying, studying, whatever.

… which, however, comes with the risk of never fitting in in the Catholic Church.
If I act according to my conscience, I don’t think I will ever fit in in the Catholic Church. Even if my mind and works were to be in agreement with Catholic doctrine, I suspect that I would still be different in some crucial way that would prevent me from fitting in.

By envy, I do not so much wish what others possess (because I don’t really believe they are omniscient, or beyond greed, anger, and delusion), I’m sad that I can’t be omniscient, or beyond greed, anger, and delusion. I suppose that makes for envying God.

Some Hindus are actually very open about this – e.g.

I suppose that’s just a risk I will need to take.

 

[Rau]

It looks like you don’t see my understanding as “simply different to yours” …

The remarks are not opposing each other. I am able to hold two thoughts in my mind at once.

 

[christofirst]

I checked this passage in my native language, and translated into English, it would literally read:

"Thus because we are justified through faith, we live in peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
through whom has opened to us through faith access to mercy, in which we stand and pride ourselves upon the hope for God’s glory.

But not just that, we also pride ourselves upon distress/need/emergency/hardship, because we know that distress/need/emergency/hardship gives birth to patience, patience gives birth to endurance proven by trial, endurance proven by trial gives birth to hope. Hope does not make ashamed, because God’s love is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit that was given to us."

The Vulgate has “tribulationibus.” I checked some German translations, and they have the equivalents of “hardship,” “suffering.” I checked two Slovene Protestant translations from the 16th century, and they have “trouble/nuisance”. I checked some other English translations, and some have “problems and trials.”

Clearly, this passage is translated with a variety of concepts; sometimes with reference to external hardships, sometimes with reference to the internal experience of these hardships. This suggests that it apparently isn’t so simple to translate it with just “suffering.”

Yes, I checked several different Bible translations for Rom. 5:3, and I also found the words suffering, affliction, tribulations and hardships, but I am not so concerned with any supposed nuance in meaning as you seem to be. My Webster’s dictionary defines the word suffer as, “to undergo; to endure; to permit; to tolerate - to feel pain, to undergo punishment; to suffer loss or injury.” To my way of thinking, any one of the above words used in the different Bible translations would apply and could be used interchangeably for suffer.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem concerned with our reaction to trials or hardship, and if we react in a negative way, you call that suffering. I see suffering as the entire event: both the hardship and our reaction, which can be either positive or negative. If a cancer patient manages to maintain a smile while undergoing chemotherapy, I would still say she is suffering, just suffering well. Faith in God may or may not enable her to suffer well, but it is no guarantee that she will do so. Many other factors come into play.

Pope John Paul II wrote an apostolic letter, Salvifici Doloris, On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering. Perhaps this would be a good resource for you to better understand the Catholic idea of salvific suffering, which is a notion, I must say, I tend to shy away from myself. I fear suffering, and by that I mean the whole event: both the pain, and my reaction to it, which is usually not too good. But at least I know my suffering can have deeper meaning. John Paul says, “It can be said that man suffers whenever he experiences any kind of evil.” He goes on to give an etymological and biblical study of the word “suffer”, which is too long to go into here, but you might find it and the rest of his exposition interesting. But even if we understand the concept of redemptive suffering, and have faith in God, many of us will still not be able to suffer well (you should see me when I have muscle spasms in my back!). The merits of our faith cannot rightly be judged by the way we often put it into practice, weak creatures that we are.

Just an aside, you mentioned Slovene in your post, and I am Slovenian on my mother’s side, although I do not speak the language. Good to meet you, and God bless you!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

“Pain” is inevitable, and any meaningful life will see some thrown its way.

“Suffering” is a mental construct, and here I’m not talking about whether something physically hurts. I’m talking about whether we perceive ourselves to be victims or martyrs and being dealt a losing hand.

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but I saw the first several posts and really like the OP’s ideas about it from that so far.

What does it say about Catholics if we’re angry about this and suffering from that? Jesus told us that bad things would continue to happen in the world, and yet if we have His peace, it will take us through times of both worldly comfort and worldly testing. If we are only “feeling peaceful” under “conditions” that are “comfortable” in the world then it is comfort, not the peace of Christ, you are experiencing. Jesus says He gives us peace the world cannot give – that’s because the world can give temporary, conditional comfort but the peace of Christ allows us to produce fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23) even in times of testing.

My son tells me that I have a “utilitarian approach” to religion. I agree. Why should I be Catholic and do Catholic stuff and all, if it’s not going to do something for me? The Church was built for the sheep, not the sheep for the Church.

For me, it makes no sense to believe stuff and do things just because other people tell me it will put me in favor with a God I can’t see but they can tell me about, so that hopefully after I die I won’t suffer forever. That to me, is the Low Expectations mode of Catholicism. If Christianity can’t “transform” us then frankly what good is it compared to before Jesus came? Like Richard Rohr has said, it’s like we see this life as an evacuation plan for the next.

And Pope Francis gets that. I apologize if someone has already posted this, but soon after he took office, he talked about the attitudes of Catholics:

Excerpt from Vatican radio:

2013-05-10 Vatican Radio

(Vatican Radio) Christian joy is a pilgrim joy that we cannot keep ‘bottled up’ for ourselves, or we risk becoming a ‘melancholy’ and ‘nostalgic’ community. Moreover, Christian joy is far from simple fun. It is something deeper than fleeting happiness, because it is rooted in our certainty that Jesus Christ is with God and with us.

This is the lesson that Pope Francis drew from the Acts of the Apostles at Friday morning Mass as he described the disciples joy in the days between our Lord’s Ascension and Pentecost and what we can learn from them. Mass in the Santa Marta residence chapel was concelebrated by the Archbishop of Mérida, Baltazar Enrique Porras Cardozo, and the abbot primate of the Benedictine monks Notker Wolf, and was attended by Vatican Radio staff accompanied by the Director General, Father Federico Lombardi. Emer McCarthy reports:

"A Christian is a man and a woman of joy. Jesus teaches us this, the Church teaches us this, in a special way in this [liturgical]time. What is this joy? Is it having fun? No: it is not the same. Fun is good, eh? Having fun is good. But joy is more, it is something else. It is something that does not come from short term economic reasons, from momentary reasons : it is something deeper. It is a gift. Fun, if we want to have fun all the time, in the end becomes shallow, superficial, and also leads us to that state where we lack Christian wisdom, it makes us a little bit stupid, naive, no?, Everything is fun … no. Joy is another thing. Joy is a gift from God. It fills us from within. It is like an anointing of the Spirit. And this joy is the certainty that Jesus is with us and with the Father”.

A man of joy, the Pope continued, is a confident man. Sure that “Jesus is with us, that Jesus is with the Father.” He asked: Can we ‘bottle up’ this joy in order to always have it with us?

“No, because if we keep this joy to ourselves it will make us sick in the end, our hearts will grow old and wrinkled and our faces will no longer transmit that great joy only nostalgia, melancholy which is not healthy. Sometimes these melancholy Christians faces have more in common with pickled peppers than the joy of having a beautiful life. Joy cannot be held at heel: it must be let go. Joy is a pilgrim virtue. It is a gift that walks, walks on the path of life, that walks with Jesus: preaching, proclaiming Jesus, proclaiming joy, lengthens and widens that path. It is a virtue of the Great, of those Great ones who rise above the little things in life, above human pettiness, of those who will not allow themselves to be dragged into those little things within the community, within the Church: they always look to the horizon”.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

… which, however, comes with the risk of never fitting in in the Catholic Church.
If I act according to my conscience, I don’t think I will ever fit in in the Catholic Church. Even if my mind and works were to be in agreement with Catholic doctrine, I suspect that I would still be different in some crucial way that would prevent me from fitting in.

By envy, I do not so much wish what others possess (because I don’t really believe they are omniscient, or beyond greed, anger, and delusion), I’m sad that I can’t be omniscient, or beyond greed, anger, and delusion. I suppose that makes for envying God.

Some Hindus are actually very open about this – e.g.

I suppose that’s just a risk I will need to take.

I don’t “fit in” with the Catholic Church. I have plenty to say about it, and frankly now that my son is in seminary I feel some rights to have opinions about the church and where it’s going.

There are Catholics who hold interfaith dialogues, and generally these are monks from religious orders and they don’t set well with the “mainstream” so don’t worry about fitting in. My pastor was an atheist and an orchestra director before he became a priest. One of our past bishops, Michael Olmstead, was a Buddhist before he became Catholic.

Personally I think the “inner teachings” of Jesus, and some of the goals I’ve heard Alan Watts describe about Buddhism are compatible. I think part of the problem is that too many Catholics are more like “Jews on steroids.” They still think it’s about moral superiority and cheap behavior contests. That’s what they had before Jesus came; I guess now we must just think that now we have some chance at not suffering for all eternity – if we believe in Jesus (and kind of “if we’re lucky” because we seem to do a lot of fear) since being “good” is impossible.

Now in the “information age” some of those in religious orders who have generally been kept quiet and isolated away from public view for centuries, are starting to emerge and speak out some about what they have to say. One guy in particular, Richard Rohr, has been a topic of threads lately. When you call the “status quo” into question, it doesn’t fit well with people who in my opinion don’t even know what the “prize” or “goal” is, for they have become completely beholden to the process. He is a Franciscan monk, for example, who has helped me find great value in Catholicism, along with several other key figures in my spiritual development. And he helped me understand how Jesus taught non-dualistic thinking – and not like I hear some people turn “non-dualism” into a religion in itself, but just as a tool as a way of thinking.

Especially “contemplative prayer” which looks a bit like Buddhist meditation but you will have people very paranoid about describing the difference between the two types – when in fact IMO they have the same goal. Reducing the “clutter” of “mental noise” so that the mind may heal. So we say it’s the work of the Holy Spirit and maybe Buddhists say whatever they say – the same God, in the same Universe, gives them the same benefits. But that’s heresy.

Anyway the monk: Richard Rohr. Try starting a thread about him without people saying he’s terrible and new age etc.; you can’t do it.

What did Jesus Really Teach? – Richard Rohr

Peace, joy, and love,
MS

 

[TarkanAttila]

As far as I know, confession is for the absolution of sins.

What do you think that means?

Interesting. So there seems to be a doctrinal point here.

It’s common sense. It’s really the only doctrine in Christian theology that can be proven and demonstrated. We call it “original sin” - which basically means that evil exists, so to speak, and doesn’t belong in the world.

I’ve already explained it many times.
Suffering is a person’s internal, mental response to external hardship.
If one breaks one’s leg, one has pain.
If one feels down and out about having a broken leg, one suffers.
External hardship is a given, suffering isn’t.

I think we are confused in our terminology. I’ve never heard your definition of suffering before. This is the common definition, and this is what we mean by suffering:

suffering
noun

: pain that is caused by injury, illness, loss, etc. : physical, mental, or emotional pain

sufferings : feelings of pain

Suffering is not the reaction to pain. It’s the pain itself.

If suffering was only the reaction to pain, and not the pain itself, why would it present such a problem - well, for you? You could just adopt a new attitude to suffering and work on manifesting joy, or at least apathy, rather than distress or anger. You could perceive pain as a good or unimportant thing, and the problem of suffering would be over. If suffering were not an objective condition rather than a subjective perspective.

Interesting. So this seems like a doctrinal stance.

Could you provide some scriptural and doctrinal reference for this?

Oh boy.

So I can only assume you’ve never experienced the feelings of horror, disgust, fear, hatred, etc?

I’ve got a few webpages I’d like you to visit…http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/evilgrin/evilgrin.gif PM me if you want me to give you a full taste of the evil that exists in this world (and possibly ruin your life). (I cannot post these websites publicly because of their extremely disturbing content. Y’all have been warned.)

The traditionalist Buddhists and some Hindus would say that aging, illness, and death, greed, anger, and delusion, all of them in their various forms, poverty, hunger, separation, oppression, are a part of conditioned existence.

I do not understand… what is a “conditioned existence”, as you understand it?

They would not say “Life should not be like that” or “A good life would be without those.”
That it’s nice if those things aren’t present, and to some extent, we can prevent them from happening, but that it is misguided to think that a good life can only be had when those are not present.

If by “a good life”, you mean “a life where the individual chooses that which is good”, then we would be in complete accord. Jesus’s life was, as far as we are concerned, perfect, yet He experienced much evil, some of it in the form of suffering.

However, if you mean something else, we are not on the same page.

I don’t think they would say either “Those things don’t belong in a good world” nor “Those things don’t belong in a good world.”

They have more a stance like “Aging, illness, death, separation, and oppression, hunger, poverty etc. are simply part and parcel of life on Earth, and there is no point being upset about them one way or another.”

In one way, we agree - in that the Fall has already happened, and nothing we can do in this life can change that. And, indeed, we do think it will be that way until the end of time.

But if by this you mean “God created evil” or “God condones of evil”, we would most sharply disagree. As would Gautama, or the Hindus. For when we say “God”, we both mean “the highest reality” (in Thomas Aquinas’s words, “the essence of being”). We both agree that that which is not real must be abandoned if we wish to know reality.

But the reason evil exists, for an Easterner, is because of the illusion that I actually have needs that are not being met (tanha, desire), when really, I do not exist as an individual entity separate from reality itself (anatta, non-being). Because I want things (tanha), I believe that I exist(dukkha), and that I exist apart from reality(dukkha).

But what are we to make of this claim when we do not merely “tanha”, desire selfishly, but, not merely have compassion, but are willing to undergo dukkha for the sake of another’s tanha? I think that is about as close to the mystery of agape (Greek:ἀγάπη) as Buddhist vocabulary allows. It’s the closest I think I can get with only a few hours of review.

Buddha, insofar as he goes, is largely correct. Selfish desire is an evil. But it’s not because selfish desire gives us the illusion of the self existing. It’s because there is a higher form of desire - the desire for the other’s wellbeing. (Not only the desire of the cessation of suffering, but also the desire of their exaltation.) This is what Christians call “love”, or “agape”. This is what Jesus did for us. This is what He wanted to teach us.

This is why, I think, you are having trouble understanding Christians. Perhaps this idea has not been thought out clearly - that it is good to exalt others, to raise them up. I have certainly not thought enough about this good myself.

 

[kdfphd]

There are different types of Catholics:
Some expect that the Church is instituted to tell them what to do and if they do it they will go to heaven and stay out of hell. This gives them good solace because it eliminates much of the thinking. These people hear various rules made by other people who seem to have all the contact with the Holy Spirit. We call these people priests, bishops, and even pope. The risk of self direction is minimized and they simple try to keep all the rules and tell God that they are sorry when they break one of these rules. They have the choice to keep the rues so they know that they are at fault if they do not. It makes no difference to them if the rule itself is God’s rule of the rule of other humans.
There are other Catholics who recognize that their very existence is a freely given gift from God who desires our friendship so that we may share His love for all eternity. These people try to be friends of God and do what friends do. They respond more to the Holy Spirit who, according to the promise of Jesus, will constantly guide us if we chose to allow it. Actions are based on the love of God as inspired by the Spirit and are consistent with the concept of intensifying the friendship with God. These people have conflicts because, like everybody else, they have free will and sometimes they do things that are not consistent with the friendship their share with God. Like all other kinds of friendships, conflicts arise and are disturbing. Unlike all human friendships, reconciliation will always be offered by their friend, God, and the friendship renewed. These periods of strained relationship is unsettling. The stronger the friendship, the more intense is the disappointment.
I think that true God lovers have more conflicts because there is more intensity because the emotions that control their activity come more from the heart than from the outside.

 

[RuthTherese]

The thing is, the Catholic church, like every other religion that’s ever existed, is made up of humans. We make mistakes. We sin. And I don’t really think that anyone completely “fits in” with the church, because it’s a standard for us to aspire to.

We look at the saints and we remember them because of the lives that they led. They aren’t perfect, by any means. Not even close. But what we do know is that they lived their lives by example. They did what they could to show love in their actions. These people are our role models for a reason.

You’ll always run up against Catholics who are Catholic in name and don’t act the faith. But you’ll also find people who are doing the best they can to live in faith. And living a holy life looks different for different people; a housewife’s life is so different from a cloistered nun’s. They both have different roles to play. Holiness is kind of relative. You need to work with what God gave you. And realize that you only have to be responsible for living your own life first. If you can love yourself and accept that God loves you, then you can love the other people around you.

Having the idea of “one, true religion” is a bit misleading, depending on how you view religion. We have our faith. We have the “tools” that help us love God more in the form of prayers, sacraments, but in the end, it all comes down to the individual. God loves you no matter what. He’s just waiting for us to accept that love and come to Him.

 

[Lucy107]

I’ve never heard your definition of suffering before.

It’s a standard Buddhist definition.

If suffering was only the reaction to pain, and not the pain itself, why would it present such a problem - well, for you?

Because of a misguided identification with the body/the material.

So I can only assume you’ve never experienced the feelings of horror, disgust, fear, hatred, etc?

What has that got to do with anything?

PM me if you want me to give you a full taste of the evil that exists in this world (and possibly ruin your life). (I cannot post these websites publicly because of their extremely disturbing content. Y’all have been warned.)

It seems that I simply don’t automatically reach the same conclusions as you.

I do not understand… what is a “conditioned existence”, as you understand it?

“Conditioned existence” is when one is subject to change, subject to suffering.
Also known as “samsara.”

But if by this you mean “God created evil” or “God condones of evil”, we would most sharply disagree. As would Gautama, or the Hindus.

If God doesn’t create/allow that which is popularly called “evil,” then where did it come from?
Are there things in God’s Universe that God doesn’t do and doesn’t have control over?

Really? You want to argue for a Mormon god?

But the reason evil exists, for an Easterner, is because of the illusion that I actually have needs that are not being met (tanha, desire), when really, I do not exist as an individual entity separate from reality itself (anatta, non-being).
Because I want things (tanha), I believe that I exist(dukkha), and that I exist apart from reality(dukkha).

Not all “Easterners” believe that. It seems that what you’re describing is a variation of Advaita Vedanta.

Where did you read the above about Eastern thought?

This is why, I think, you are having trouble understanding Christians.

I don’t know.

This is standard Theravadan outlook.
I agree with it, and it doesn’t seem to be in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Lucy107]

Pope John Paul II wrote an apostolic letter, Salvifici Doloris, On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering.

I looked it up. Thank you! I didn’t know such texts existed.

So there is a doctrinal point, and not just some popular common-sense notion that aging, illness, death, poverty, hunger etc. somehow don’t belong here. As I suspected!

It’s a lengthy text, it will take me a while to study it.

But yes, thank you!

But even if we understand the concept of redemptive suffering, and have faith in God, many of us will still not be able to suffer well (you should see me when I have muscle spasms in my back!). The merits of our faith cannot rightly be judged by the way we often put it into practice, weak creatures that we are.

Like I said, I have some Buddhist (and Hindu background), and they have a very different approach to the problem of suffering, as well as to the problem of evil as Western civilization.

They’re kind of “Yes, well, what did you expect?” And I tend to go along with that. But maybe I am missing something, and maybe that attitude to pain and suffering is not compatible with Catholicism.

Just an aside, you mentioned Slovene in your post, and I am Slovenian on my mother’s side, although I do not speak the language. Good to meet you, and God bless you!

Thank you!

What did Jesus Really Teach? – Richard Rohr

Interesting. What he says sounds familiar.

“Pain” is inevitable, and any meaningful life will see some thrown its way.

“Suffering” is a mental construct, and here I’m not talking about whether something physically hurts. I’m talking about whether we perceive ourselves to be victims or martyrs and being dealt a losing hand.

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but I saw the first several posts and really like the OP’s ideas about it from that so far.

What does it say about Catholics if we’re angry about this and suffering from that? Jesus told us that bad things would continue to happen in the world, and yet if we have His peace, it will take us through times of both worldly comfort and worldly testing.

Like Rohr notes - the reception of Christianity among Christians as long as Christians were still persecuted and a minority, is quite different from its reception once Christians rose to positions of worldly power.

(paraphrasing) “Many people have the view that most Christian denominations are exclusionary, like a country club” – my experience exactly.

As someone who was born and raised as an outsider among Catholics, it often occurs to me that some Catholics don’t adequately value what they have in Catholicism. Many seem to be feel quite entitled.
As an outsider, I got a very different picture of Catholic doctrine and application. And this picture is sometimes in stark contrast to those who are “rightful Catholics.”

My son tells me that I have a “utilitarian approach” to religion. I agree. Why should I be Catholic and do Catholic stuff and all, if it’s not going to do something for me?

Absolutely.

 

[Lucy107]

The thing is, the Catholic church, like every other religion that’s ever existed, is made up of humans. We make mistakes. We sin. And I don’t really think that anyone completely “fits in” with the church, because it’s a standard for us to aspire to.

I guess I just haven’t overcome the trauma I experienced growing up as the only non-Catholic among Catholics.

I sometimes still feel like a helpless six-year old who is accused of things she doesn’t even remotely understand, but who understands that it is about something grave, given the tone of voice and look on the face of the accusers.

It seems that I sometimes emotionally revert back to those times, and then I forget about everything I have read in the Bible or the Catechism or The Imitation of Christ, or I just remember the fire and brimstone parts … Come to think of it, I don’t even seem to notice it when it happens. It’s only later, if I re-read my journal or posts on forums that I think “Well, what was going on with me here??”

God loves you no matter what. He’s just waiting for us to accept that love and come to Him.

I find it hard to believe that God loves me. I think that if anything, God merely puts up with me.

 

[TarkanAttila]

It’s a standard Buddhist definition.

Eh. We’re all wacky in our own way. :whacky: (To give a Catholic example, authority is a good thing to us; such a view would be looked on as lunacy in the United States.)

Because of a misguided identification with the body/the material.

Now, why shouldn’t we identify ourselves (at least partially) with our bodies?

What has that got to do with anything?

One wakes up from a nightmare when he is terrified of it. Any conception that this universe is wholly and entirely good is an illusion which can similarly be broken.

It seems that I simply don’t automatically reach the same conclusions as you.

PM me if you ever want to challenge that notion. Or just look up “shock sites”.

“Conditioned existence” is when one is subject to change, subject to suffering.
Also known as “samsara.”

Thank you for that.

So your Gautama, the Buddha, lacks any intellectual or emotional negativity with regards to things that most other people would consider negative? And his reason is because, to put it one way, these things come and go?

If God doesn’t create/allow that which is popularly called “evil,” then where did it come from?
Are there things in God’s Universe that God doesn’t do and doesn’t have control over?

Really? You want to argue for a Mormon god?

No. I am going to argue for a Thomistic God. Wherein evil really doesn’t exist as a separate entity. Similar to your position. The difference, however, is that “evil” is simply a defect, a lack, in something that would otherwise be good.

A body without its souls is something of an evil: a corpse. It terrifies normal people, because it is not as it ought to be. Binging is evil because it is an abuse of food, which is made to both revitalise the body and mind, and taste good. Binging is a distorted form of eating, a good.

Abuse, decay, death, anything which reduces a thing’s goodness, is objectively, intellectually evil. But of course they could not exist without the good thing to begin with, so evil is naturally parasitic and dependent on real things to “exist”, so to speak.

And your Gautama would agree with this, to an extent. Now how he thinks we get the idea that we are separate entities, or how we gain tanha, that is a mystery to me. Perhaps it was to him, too. But whatever causes tanha, it is external to what we really are, anatta. Am I wrong? So tanha and individualism are not actual things that belong to reality, anatta, but are distortions, illusions, things which seem to be but are not. And this idea, illusion, is about as close as Buddha gets to accepting the idea of sin or evil.

Am I wrong?

Not all “Easterners” believe that. It seems that what you’re describing is a variation of Advaita Vedanta.

Where did you read the above about Eastern thought?

Here is an article written by a Catholic philosopher name Peter Kreeft. Please tell me where it is wrong or where I have misinterpreted it.

It’s not uncommon to be taught here that Buddha taught the Four Noble truths, and that these truths also assume the goal of realising there is no self, in the sense of a thing among countless other things, as our senses would tell us - in the sense of an ego. But rather, all is the one thing that really exists, which one may call God or reality or atman, as long as one means that there is really no such thing but this one thing.

In other words, from what I’ve been taught, the West is very much under the impression that Buddhists are pantheists - that literally everything is “God”.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

This is standard Theravadan outlook.
I agree with it, and it doesn’t seem to be in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

I don’t get why exactly you posted this. It seems to be a general prescription of mindfulness - which to me merely suggests paying attention. (To what? I’m not sure what you were going for.)

I admit to being rather thick. Could you explain the relevance of this parable?

 

[Dorothy]

Where did you get this? Surely not from the Catholic faith.

You are so far off in left field it is amazing. Actually here is a shocker for you, the closer you become to God the more you suffer. Shocked?

Yes, it is so true. And, as we get closer to the Lord through the practice of our Catholic faith we begin to understand that suffering in union with Christ is valuable. In reading the life of St. Therese of Lisieux, “The Story of a Soul”, I first came to understand about joy in suffering, and suffering that we can’t change in union with Jesus helps us to grow spiritually.

It doesn’t mean we go out and look for suffering, because there are many sufferings we all have that are inevitable.

The better we get to know Jesus, the more we realize He makes it all worthwhile.

 

[JRKH]

Hello.

Ever since I can remember, I’ve been bewildered by Catholics having problems.
Let me explain:

I grew up as the only non-baptized child among Catholics. I’ve always envied my Catholic classmates and the adults their faith in God. I’ve thought that if I had faith in God (The Creator), I’d have no problems. That is, I thought that if I would believe in God, no task would be difficult, even if objectively, it may require a lot of effort, time, and other resources to accomplish. I’ve thought that if one has a special connection to God, the One Who Presides Over All, then everything else falls into place, and there is no reason to ever be afraid, worried, or despaired. Even if one is ill, homeless, and persecuted.

Given this, I’ve never understood how come some Catholics, and some Christians in general, complain about this or that, how they say they have problems in their faith, or are desperate about their life situation, and such.

I’ve witnessed emotions of extreme despair when a Catholic would say, “What are we going to do now, what are we going to do now?!” after a destructive hailstorm.

On one such occasion, I almost said to such a person, “What?? Don’t you believe in God??”

I just don’t understand how someone who is a Catholic can have problems or be so hopeless.

What am I missing here?

Hi Lucy…
Haven’t read through all the replies - just sort of glanced through - so please forgive if I repeat.

I kind of get what you are saying here.
Yes, we should be much more sanguine in our outlook. We should accept misfortune and suffering cheerfully for we have the great hope and promise of eternal life.
Not that we should think ourselves immune from suffering. Christ Himself tells us to take up our cross and follow Him. But God’s promise should help us put such suffering into proper perspective.

Yet we are imperfect in our faith… and so…like Job…we sometimes grouse and complain and question…

Maybe not the best answer, but … there it is…

Peace
James

 

[marlap2]

"I find it hard to believe that God loves me. I think that if anything, God merely puts up with me.

Now that you are going deeper, you have my heart. On behalf of those people who wounded you, and make you feel small or unwelcome, I apologize. I know what it feels like to feel ostracized, or not part of the party. As a convert, sometimes I would obsess over doing everything “right” as a Catholic. I was worried that I wouldn’t fit in. I was so busy looking at people around me, I didn’t reach out to Jesus as much.

I believe that God loves you very much! In your searching for him, you have HIS heart. I will take you to Mass today (spiritually) and may Our Lord continue to nurture and heal your broken heart.

When you look at the immense variety and personality of all the saints, you realize how different and diverse they are. Some “suffered” well, some had horrible tempers, some were as meek as lambs. They all fit in together in one way … they all Loved Jesus. So don’t worry about fitting in. You love Jesus in your own unique and undefinable way, and he’ll love you back.

Here’s a prayer for you:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dcemail/Best+Lent+Ever/Program+Emails/Take3/spacer.gif Pray:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dcemail/Best+Lent+Ever/Program+Emails/Take3/spacer.gif O Lord my God, teach my heart this day where and how to see you, where and how to find you. You have made me and remade me, and you have bestowed on me all the good things I possess, and still I do not know you. I have not yet done that for which I was made. Teach me to seek you, for I cannot seek you unless you teach me, or find you unless you show yourself to me. Let me seek you in my desire, let me desire you in my seeking. Let me find you by loving you, let me love you when I find you. Amen.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dcemail/Best+Lent+Ever/Program+Emails/Take3/spacer.gif —St. Anselm