Conservative Catholics clueless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donald45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mosher:
Given … but that doesn’t answer my question. There seems to be a wholesale rejection of the use of corporal punnishment. I think that perhaps if we were to return to a day in the secular and ecclesial world where more real discipline was used we may find society changed for the better in at least a small way.
Click to expand...
In my case, I was referring to priests throwing objects at the altar boys or whacking them with a stick for slight transgressions.

To me, as MysticRose was talking about, if you have a healthy attitude with the children, this need not be used.

I found out the hard way that what works with one son doesn’t work with the next. There will come a day when those “children” are big enough to literally beat me up, so by then if I haven’t captured their hearts, I will have nothing because it’s only a matter of time.

For young children, I think sometimes a paddling or even a sudden whack on the behind can be healthy. For example, one of my biggest fears are children who think it’s funny to run away from mom and dad when they are called – you know the type. Two-three years old and they get their first really good mommy-chase-me-around-the-store and mommy is so embarrassed she laughs. From my perspective, that same scenario may play out next to a busy street, and so my children learned in one or two attempts, max, not to run away when they were called.

I completely agree with Dr. James Dobson, though, that corporal punishment should ONLY be used in cases of willful disobedience. In other words, you call and they run away, knowing they are expected to come.

Too many authorities, I think, including parents and teachers, misinterpret innocent cluelessness for willful defiance. For example, I got into terrible trouble when I offered to help explain something to my math teacher, not understanding that she would perceive that as an insult. In my case, I was punished repeatedly by nuns for “you know verrry well what you said young man” when honestly I didn’t. That is abuse, is unneccessary, and taught me nothing other than to distrust and have an unhealthy, paranoid fear of authority. I would simply answer their questions and do what they asked, and suddenly I was in trouble. I has zero evil motives during my entire grade school career, and I even won contests making our school win over the entire archdiocese of Chicago in math in seventh grade and otherwise excelled in every academic endeavor, and yet the teachers had me labeled as “wanting attention even if negative.” Bull-- I never ever ever wanted negative attention and it makes me puke every time a kid is labeled that way.

Alan
 
I find Mr. Cuneo’s comments to be a sad commentary on many Catholics in America today. I deal with this all of the time where I am at.

Let me qualify what I am about to say that by Conservative Catholics, I believe Mr Cuneo to be refering to what most of us here would call Orthodox Catholics. I am sure that he knows the distinction between Conservative and Traditionalist.

I find Mr Cuneo’s remarks to be very arrogant. Why is it that Catholics (the liberal ones) today think of themselves as so much more enlightened and smarter than “those pre Vatican II Catholics.” Did Vatican II ever make the claim that Catholics up to that point in time were ignorant. No, it did not make that claim as many liberal Catholics do today.
 
It would help, I think, not to employ political
categories, when discussing theological realities.

Two useful words:
-orthodox
-heterodox

If a person insists on employing “conservative” I would
ask people to “unpack” this word:

conservative ------> to “conserve” that which is
worth saving and ---------> to be open to genuine
progress i.e. not change, for the sake of change.]

Just my thought,

reen12
 
Consider the phrases one hears, from time to time:

“hide-bound Traditionalist” !
and
“wild-eyed radical” !

Depends on who’s employing these unlovely and
judgmental phrases.

While I have a deep love of the Tridentine Mass - even as
a kid, I thought it odd, that the prayer for the day was
read in…Latin. [people rustling thru their missals, to
locate just the right color ribbon that “marked the spot”
for ‘today’s prayer.’]

So, while I would like to “conserve” many of the parts of
the Tridentine Mass, “genuine progress” might constitute
rendering parts of that Mass into the venacular…which,
if I understand same correctly, had been the notion of
the Council Fathers - to* begin* with.

Of course:

“What constitutes ‘genuine progress’?”

would then become the bone of contention. :rolleyes:
There’s an old saying: God spare you from living in
“interesting times.”

We have not, IMO, been…spared. 🙂

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
It would help, I think, not to employ political
categories, when discussing theological realities.

Two useful words:
-orthodox
-heterodox

If a person insists on employing “conservative” I would
ask people to “unpack” this word:

conservative ------> to “conserve” that which is
worth saving and ---------> to be open to genuine
progress i.e. not change, for the sake of change.]

Just my thought,

reen12
Click to expand...
Hi reen,

The problem with your suggestion is that it is possible to be “conservative” or “traditionalist” and NOT be “orthodox” just as it is possible to be “progressive” and not be heterodox.

The discussion in this thread, as I read it, is not about orthodox vs heterodox, but about those who hold a more traditionalist stance. There are those who are orthodox at many points along the spectrum and there are those who are heterodox although they are more likely to stand at the fringes of one side or the other.

I personally find it very distressing that we continue to use these meaningless categorizations as if individuals fit 100% into ANY group. I have yet in my lifetime to find any two people with identical viewpoints across a spectrum of beliefs. If people were homogeneous like that there would be enough correlation that I would be able, with a high degree of statistical accuracy, to predict what they thought and how they would react to any given situation. We all know of course that that just isn’t the case.

To use an analogy I’ve used before, I just can put people into a box defined as “Catholic Republican who likes purple and despises brocolli.” I’m sure there are conservative Catholics who genuinely are clueless; but I’m equally sure that there are “liberal” or “progressive” Catholics who are clueless, just as there are Baptists, Muslims, and Hindus who are clueless.

“Clueless” is a human condition that is not confined to ANY group; it exists across the spectrum of humanity. I personally call myself Catholic, with no modifiers, and personally apologize to any of my friends anywhere on the spectrum who feel insulted or unaccepted by those on the “other side”. I weep with your pain and sorrow that our Catholic “family” acts just like our blood familes in our ability to hurt each other.

<Sigh…stepping off soapbox>

May God’s peace be with all of us.
 
quote: ncjohn
Hi reen,

The problem with your suggestion is that it is possible to be “conservative” or “traditionalist” and NOT be “orthodox” just as it is possible to be “progressive” and not be heterodox.

The discussion in this thread, as I read it, is not about orthodox vs heterodox, but about those who hold a more traditionalist stance. There are those who are orthodox at many points along the spectrum and there are those who are heterodox although they are more likely to stand at the fringes of one side or the other.

I personally find it very distressing that we continue to use these meaningless categorizations as if individuals fit 100% into ANY group. I have yet in my lifetime to find any two people with identical viewpoints across a spectrum of beliefs. If people were homogeneous like that there would be enough correlation that I would be able, with a high degree of statistical accuracy, to predict what they thought and how they would react to any given situation. We all know of course that that just isn’t the case.

To use an analogy I’ve used before, I just can put people into a box defined as “Catholic Republican who likes purple and despises brocolli.” I’m sure there are conservative Catholics who genuinely are clueless; but I’m equally sure that there are “liberal” or “progressive” Catholics who are clueless, just as there are Baptists, Muslims, and Hindus who are clueless.

“Clueless” is a human condition that is not confined to ANY group; it exists across the spectrum of humanity. I personally call myself Catholic, with no modifiers, and personally apologize to any of my friends anywhere on the spectrum who feel insulted or unaccepted by those on the “other side”. I weep with your pain and sorrow that our Catholic “family” acts just like our blood familes in our ability to hurt each other.
Click to expand...
Your observations contain a wisdom that my own have
lacked, John.

Well said and thank you for same,

Best regards,

reen
 
John,

I’ve managed to recover from a spasm of humility: 😃

quote: ncjohn
The problem with your suggestion is that it is possible to be “conservative” or “traditionalist” and NOT be “orthodox”…
Click to expand...
How about:

quote: ncjohn
…it is possible to be “conservative” or “traditionalist” and…
Click to expand...
an “apostate.”

Sign me up for that cruise!

The Church’s term, not mine…😦

reen
 
40.png
reen12:
John,

I’ve managed to recover from a spasm of humility: 😃

quote: ncjohn

How about:

quote: ncjohn

an “apostate.”

Sign me up for that cruise!

The Church’s term, not mine…😦

reen
Click to expand...
Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

Now,

reen,

even I am not an apostate.

I don’t repudiate, for instance, God’s existence, so I don’t totally repudiate the Christian faith. Thus, as a former-“traditional-Christian”, I would not qualify as apostate,

and (I would think),

neither would you.

😃
 
Well, the trouble is, Ahimsa, that I’ve just ordered a dozen
books on the Noahide movement and Judaic thought.

I appear to have arrived at the following:
*

Christ probably is God/Messiah.
Yet, I feel “at home” with Judaism

The spiritual and emotional pain, that Christianity has
brought me, doesn’t seem worth the effort, anymore.

I am certain God exists. [The OT is full of descriptions of
Him as Savior - and merciful to those who call on Him.]

So, I guess I put it like this:
Jesus, if you are God, Son of God, Messiah,
have mercy on Your little sheep. You have
been with me, these 6 decades, and You know
what is in my heart. You’ve been with me,
through all of these experiences, and understand
why I think and feel, as I do.

I can pray to Your Father, but I am too injured - in
heart, mind and soul - to pray to You.

As my tag line reads:

As it is, I pray to the God I have known and loved
since childhood.

If I understand this, the God Who made me understands.

reen*
 
Hi there Axiom and quoting from your Post…
There were other differences apart from the language. The reverence. The dignity. The emphasis on sacrifice. The priest facing east with the congregation, one with them praying toward God, not facing them as an audience to a memorial.
The depth of people’s devotion was attested in their belief, nowadays apparently most Catholics don’t really believe in the Eucharistic presence. This has been brought about by
Click to expand...
I think probably what has happened is that we were conditioned pre Vatican2…change is always hard to negotiate…and conditioning even harder.
  1. Poor liberal teaching.
  2. Not ACTING as if King Jesus was present. Decline in benediction. Decline in Eucharistic Adoration. Locked Churches contrary to Canon Law. Removal of the Tabernacle to a hidden corner. Celebration on bare tables. No kneeling to receive. Unvested eucharistic ministers.
Click to expand...
On reading about the various Councils, it seems that historically after each there was a period of general confusion in The Church…including misinterpretations of the actual Council…all this was ironed out over time. I think your points above are quite valid - but if we repeat history, as we usually do, these will be eventually corrected…but it will take time. I do not doubt at all that our heirarchy insights the problems in the general Church at each point in time.
Many people stopped attending masses simply BECAUSE the reverence and meaning were reduced. Similarly, liberalism taught that outward observance was not important. This was a message that quickly got across as more and more people stayed at home.
Click to expand...
I’m an Aussie…and here the fall in Mass attendance is because the general Catholic was very confused re Vatican2. I have heard more than once it was the protestanization of Catholicism…not so! We are all journeying including The Church as a whole. These things will fall into place eventually I am convinced…also our history is dotted with problems at each point and these are eventually sorted out. Journey.
People are practical. If receiving the sacrament is not strictly necessary. If its reality is reduced, then people will say - if its not that important, I won’t bother.
Click to expand...
Perhaps their is truth in your statement…there are ways to pass one’s concerns onto one’s Bishop - channels for doing this.
I tend to agree that as yet The Church is not addressing adequately the real problems ‘out here’ as it were…the crux of the matter is ‘not yet’.
The “threat” is that if one puts veniality and sensual lusts above devotion, then there is some significant loss. Start teaching that everything is optional, and you’ll still receive mansions in paradise, and you’ll find that, contrary to expectation, people believe LESS, and become less committed.
Click to expand...
I dont agree with you in this…some perhaps, but not all in general. And it is up to those of us who have retained spiritual insight to try to correct incorrect attitudes prayerfully wherever we stumble over them…and as I mentioned, pass concerns up the line.
Intellectuals and highly spiritual people may not need practices such as communal fasting to develope and entrench their faith. BUT MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE DO. This is the big mistake of Liberals and intellectuals who say “People shouldn’t need fasts, pictures, beautiful churches, celebrations.”
Click to expand...
Well I am certainly no liberal…and proclaim the spiritual benefit of fasts, pictures if that is one’s lean, beatiful churches and meaningful celebrations.That is my personal taste, but then I dont expect ALL to share my personal taste…and I hold that there is room for all persons and tastes within The Lord’s Church. We simply need to find the way to accommodate the various spiritual devotions of all.
  1. Reunite people with their Faith and its reality by making SPECIFIC demands on them.
  2. Develop a sense of community belonging among Catholics.
  3. Make people think about the reality of the Eucharist and of Christ’s sacrifice.
  4. Act as a WITNESS to non-Catholics, that show Catholics take their faith seriously, and are prepared to give up things for their faith. Even now everyone still knows about Catholics eating fish of Fridays. It was an effective witness.
Click to expand...
Good points…are you passing them along the line to your Bishop?
…
Yes, the old catechism was taught by rote. That was bad. But the alternative, where the Catechism is hardly or wishy-washily taught is worse.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I cannot insight your point.
I hope you are passing your insights and concerns up the line to your Bishop. This perhaps is why The Lord has given them to you?

Thank you for the comments…Peace…Barb:)
 
quote: BarbaraTherese
Click to expand...
Quote:
I do wonder about the depth of this devotion Reen…it was certainly ‘observable phenomena’ and those I was most in awe of left attending Sunday and weekday Masses with the mass exodus post Vatican2. I often wonder about that.
Click to expand...
Quoting Reen’s resonse…
Thanks for this observation, Barb. I’ve given it some thought.
How about this?
I have noticed that some of the elder Boomers that I know,
who haven’t attended Mass on Sunday, for forty years,
displayed…shock!..when they first encountered the
Novus Ordo.
Their sense of the sacred remains, from what I can observe -
which is why their religious sensibilties were in upheaval…
when they encountered the new “liturgy” at a funeral Mass
or at a Confirmation ceremony.
I truely, truely think that it was the catechesis - of the time-
and the ethos that surrounded same - that drove any number of
these indivduals from the Church.

Only one, that I am aware of, has embraced another faith.

And any attempt - at a cavalier dismal of their departure as:
-remarriage
-birth control
constitutes more than a little mis-reading, of the “signs
of the times,” in my estimation.

These souls loved God. Who will accept responsibility,
before Him, for these individuals?

Some of these persons seem to have an inarticulate sense
that the CC is the “true Church” “Holy Mother Church.”

Yet I find myself asking: What kind of Mother had she
been to them
Click to expand...
Hi Reen…I tend to agree with your comments…there are many reasons and justified reasons why people abandoned The Church post V2…I have just finished a Post to Axiom, which I hope will give the response which responds to yours.
The issue remains I think that no matter what the problem may be there are problems out here…and these problems need to be addressed and by The Church rather than seeking to condemn these people and say they are to blame, hence writing them off. But I think the Post to Axiom will give you my attitude.
Perhpas too often when a problem is isolated a seach goes on for the reason for the problem and a lot of buck passing ensues…rather, here is the problem - what can we do about it? …and I do agree that one may need to discern why the problem developed in the first place to find an adequate solution that will work…but what needs to be done is to be very sure that we do isolate the real core problem and not symptoms of a core problem.
I tend towards that people are very genuine and sincere…but often confused out of sight as to what they are supposed to believe and hence practise. Hence not really their fault…a need to clarify beliefs and how to put them into day to day practise.

Regards Reen…take good care out here;) …Peace…Barb

PS Thank you for the kid gloves!😃
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
In my case, I was referring to priests throwing objects at the altar boys or whacking them with a stick for slight transgressions.

To me, as MysticRose was talking about, if you have a healthy attitude with the children, this need not be used.

I found out the hard way that what works with one son doesn’t work with the next. There will come a day when those “children” are big enough to literally beat me up, so by then if I haven’t captured their hearts, I will have nothing because it’s only a matter of time.

For young children, I think sometimes a paddling or even a sudden whack on the behind can be healthy. For example, one of my biggest fears are children who think it’s funny to run away from mom and dad when they are called – you know the type. Two-three years old and they get their first really good mommy-chase-me-around-the-store and mommy is so embarrassed she laughs. From my perspective, that same scenario may play out next to a busy street, and so my children learned in one or two attempts, max, not to run away when they were called.

I completely agree with Dr. James Dobson, though, that corporal punishment should ONLY be used in cases of willful disobedience. In other words, you call and they run away, knowing they are expected to come.

Too many authorities, I think, including parents and teachers, misinterpret innocent cluelessness for willful defiance. For example, I got into terrible trouble when I offered to help explain something to my math teacher, not understanding that she would perceive that as an insult. In my case, I was punished repeatedly by nuns for “you know verrry well what you said young man” when honestly I didn’t. That is abuse, is unneccessary, and taught me nothing other than to distrust and have an unhealthy, paranoid fear of authority. I would simply answer their questions and do what they asked, and suddenly I was in trouble. I has zero evil motives during my entire grade school career, and I even won contests making our school win over the entire archdiocese of Chicago in math in seventh grade and otherwise excelled in every academic endeavor, and yet the teachers had me labeled as “wanting attention even if negative.” Bull-- I never ever ever wanted negative attention and it makes me puke every time a kid is labeled that way.

Alan
Click to expand...
Well stated
 
Donald45 said:
“Living as they do in an insular, 1950s-style Catholicism largely of their own making, conservatives in general seem almost willfully out of touch with the complex political and cultural dynamics of the contemporary church” (p. 57).

Let me know what you think. Does Cuneo’s comment contain some truth?
Click to expand...

All good lies do contain some truth.
And he is painting with a way too broad politically motivated brush.

god Bless, Wayne
  • (who would not be a papist today without Vatican 2 and John Paul 2… and the Bible.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top