Do we live in fear and shame over our purity rules?

[camerong]

In another thread, I asked Leela, an atheist, to avoid responding to a Catholic asking how to stop being impure because she was insisting that our views of purity are false. She very graciously acquiesced, responding:

Leela:

Fair enough. I only wanted the young man to love himself so he can better love others instead of living in self-destructive fear and shame as I am sure you do too, but as my thoughts and questions are not helpful, I will bow out.

I would like to continue this discussion, as it is a common concern about Catholics among non-Catholics. My personal experience is that, since becoming Catholic, I feel much less fear and shame than before–in part because Catholicism has encouraged me to cease destructive behaviors that, though I hated before, I was unable to resist. Catholicism, however, has also relieved my guilt and fear when I do fall because I feel like I can only now fully accept forgiveness, through confession and the Eucharist.

I would like to hear others’ thoughts. My anecdotal observation is that very few practicing Catholics feel MORE guilt and fear than they did when they were non-Catholics, and most experience less.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I think that this is an important topic and one that causes a lot of struggles for many people. All too often the perception of the Catholic church and Her view of sex and all things related to it is that She is repressing and “needs to get with the times.” I will admit that many times, I viewed it in a similar light. Not that I was calling for an overhaul of the teachings of the church, but I had a hard time understanding why the church held the beliefs and teachings that she did.

It was not until I discovered the Theology of the Body and dove into that teaching that I came to understand more fully the true meaning of purity and chastity. It is engrained in who we are as male and female. It is about the level of respect that we hold for ourselves and each other. God created us “naked and without shame” and due to the fall, we have turned away from this and viewed the body in a completely different light. But if we take a step back and look upon our bodies as the gift that it is from God we can see the sheer beauty that He has given us. Male and female He created us and for good reason. The male body, taken by itself, does not make sense. The female body, when taken by itself, does not make sense. But in light of each other, they make sense.

The Church’s teachings on chastity and purity are not meant to repress us, they are meant to set us free. They are meant to give us the full freedom of our sexuality as God intended it. He created sex for us to bring forth a new creation into this world and to unite a husband and wife. Just as Christ gave of Himself for His bride, the church, so to do we give totally of ourselves for our spouse. Being chaste and pure for your spouse is more than just not having sex before you are married, more than just not masturbating, more than about misuses the gift of sexuality that God has given to us. It is about the respect and dignity that we have for ourselves and our spouse.

The Catechism has this to say:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift

(bold mine)

The part in bold speaks volumes about the virtue of chastity. It is not all about sex, it is about integrity (respect) of the person and the gift of chastity. What a powerful statement when it is seen in this light. It is so closely related to purity as is shown again in the Catechism:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

Again we see it mentioned that purity is centered upon the dignity of the persons as it was with chastity. It is about who we are as male and female. Once we understand how to incorporate these virtues in our lives and live them as they were meant to be, we will come to have a fuller understanding of the love that God has for us. We will more fully understand and be able to give of ourselves to our spouse in the marital embrace. If we are not married, it will teach us how to temper those desires, the disordered desires, and will give us the strength to use these virtues to guide our daily lives, centered on Christ and His love and sacrifice for us.

Are these teachings easy to understand? Looking through a secular lense, no they are not, they are teachings that are hard to comprehend and even more difficult to agree with at all. However, when we take off the secular blinders and open up our minds to the true meaning of why God created us male and female. The true meaning of our sexuality. The true meaning of chastity, modesty, and purity, we will have a greater understanding of how we have been called to live out our sexuality in accord with the original master plan.

 

[kage_ar]

Do I feel sorrow when I sin - yes! Sorrow and guilt are not the same.

Do I take it to Jesus in Confession - yes!!!

 

[06convert]

Fear of hell? Yes, I don’t want to go there. Do I feel shame? Yes, I if I did something wrong.

Before becoming Catholic I was pretty much a non-believer. I had the do whatever makes you happy mentality.

But I discovered that there is more to life than to live for temporary pleasures. I discovered that we are intelligent human beings capable of sacrificing ourselves to do the right thing. That the reward for doing the right thing is better than doing what makes us “feel good”.

That’s why we are here. We have a higher calling. We aren’t savage animals that run around mating with everyone we meet, doing whatever we want until we die.

 

[1ke]

I would like to hear others’ thoughts. My anecdotal observation is that very few practicing Catholics feel MORE guilt and fear than they did when they were non-Catholics, and most experience less.

Yeah, I don’t really get that “Catholic guilt” joke, which seems to be told by Irish Catholics, so maybe it’s not a Catholic guilt thing but an Irish guilt thing. Kinda like having a Jewish mother! All my Jewish friends have guilt up to their eyeballs.

I don’t have any guilt or shame over anything. Nor do I see the Church’s teaching on chastity, purity, modesty, etc, as “rules.” They are objective truths about who we are, what we were meant for, and how we are to achieve happiness. I guess the yoke only chafes if you are pulling against it. Jesus said his yoke was light. I find it to be true.

 

[PassingThru]

Warning: *Non Catholic View Follows!

I think the key word is “practicing” in your OP.

I would imagine those who accept, and largely live by the Catholic Faith, probably feel no more guilt than any other given religion. Many of the posts here likely reflect that.

I think the Catholic Guilt is still alive and well because many (most?) do not fall in that category. Of the many Catholics I know, my wife included, a majority fall into the more “cafeteria” style, and I know they are far more prone to traditional Catholic Guilt type of behavior. (Bear in mind this doesn’t make anyone better or worse, just an observation!)

Take this and add in a more “monolithic” approach taken by the Church that clearly outlines all the lines that should not be crossed, and you end up with more “guilt”.

And as someone said, my Jewish family and friends could probably make a good argument that they have a superior Jewish Guilt! Our family get-togethers often involve the Catholics and the Jews joking about whos guilt is better!

So yes, I think the old joke still has some relevance, for sure. I also think there are times when it is a serious issue as well, as mentioned in the OP. In certain people, I am sure it has a very real detrimental effect. But this is true of any religion…

M

 

[Pug]

I wonder why this question is usually asked about purity, and not other topics? I am more likely to respond with fear or shame about topics that are social, like writing thankyou notes or picking my nose. “Shame” for me in a purity context would likely be triggered if I were to start having sex in public or something, making it very social. Purity issues alone haven’t historically caused shame feelings for me.

Feelings of shame and of guilt are not the same thing, I don’t think. Your thread title uses shame. So my answer is about shame.

I feel much less shame now than I did before I was Catholic. That could be a function of maturity, though, and not strictly my religious beliefs, though my religious beliefs clearly help me reduce feelings of shame.

 

[ruth_buttram]

About a year or so ago in St Paul Minnesota there was a controversy about homosexualioty and the Church.
Homosexual perishoners decided that they were going to wear a ribbon on their clothing which would identify them as homosexuals when they went to mass. The Bishop (of the Catherdral) denied them admission.
Fine. According to the cathechism homosexuality is on a par with masturbation as a sin. Both are venial and are deserving of the same negative reinforcments. If I were to wear a ribbon announcint that I was a masturbator and planned to keep on masturbating (as perhaps 95 per cent of your parishoners would have to do) would the bishop be obliged to remove me from the church and the sacraments.
What uis the practical difference between not allowing me in church to receive the sacraments and excommunication?
Thank You

 

[Pug]

About a year or so ago in St Paul Minnesota there was a controversy about homosexualioty and the Church.
Homosexual perishoners decided that they were going to wear a ribbon on their clothing which would identify them as homosexuals when they went to mass. The Bishop (of the Catherdral) denied them admission.
Fine. According to the cathechism homosexuality is on a par with masturbation as a sin. Both are venial and are deserving of the same negative reinforcments. If I were to wear a ribbon announcint that I was a masturbator and planned to keep on masturbating (as perhaps 95 per cent of your parishoners would have to do) would the bishop be obliged to remove me from the church and the sacraments.
What uis the practical difference between not allowing me in church to receive the sacraments and excommunication?
Thank You

I think you have reversed the word you meant. I think you mean that both having sex outside of marriage and masturbation are often grave/mortal sins. The Church says these are grave/serious. The word venial means small or little.

If someone truly felt that a particular grave sin is a great thing in their life and they planned on doing it regularly and they weren’t sorry, then they are in conflict with the Church teaching. If some of these people, knowing what the Church thinks, formed a group or a movement to wear ribbons or sashes announcing their position and planned to wear them at mass to make a point, then I can see this process culminating in someone eventually responding to that by denying them communion.

Also, I’d like to point out that if someone does *any *particular sin, that is not the same as thinking that sin is okay to do. Nor is it the same as actively planning on doing that sin again. Lots of times we are weak, we fall, and we know we are still weak, so we are afraid we will fall again. But we still view it as a fall. As St. Paul describes:
Romans 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

See? He wants to stop sinning, but he seems to keep doing things that with his mind he knows he does not wish to do. So you know, St. Paul (and me, too ) feels that in Jesus is the answer. He sets us free from slavery to sin. But still, we struggle and must set aside our old way and go a new way and live to God in Christ Jesus.

 

[OraLabora]

I think you have reversed the word you meant. I think you mean that both having sex outside of marriage and masturbation are often grave/mortal sins. The Church says these are grave/serious. The word venial means small or little.

If someone truly felt that a particular grave sin is a great thing in their life and they planned on doing it regularly and they weren’t sorry, then they are in conflict with the Church teaching. If some of these people, knowing what the Church thinks, formed a group or a movement to wear ribbons or sashes announcing their position and planned to wear them at mass to make a point, then I can see this process culminating in someone eventually responding to that by denying them communion.

Also, I’d like to point out that if someone does *any *particular sin, that is not the same as thinking that sin is okay to do. Nor is it the same as actively planning on doing that sin again. Lots of times we are weak, we fall, and we know we are still weak, so we are afraid we will fall again. But we still view it as a fall. As St. Paul describes:
Romans 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

See? He wants to stop sinning, but he seems to keep doing things that with his mind he knows he does not wish to do. So you know, St. Paul (and me, too ) feels that in Jesus is the answer. He sets us free from slavery to sin. But still, we struggle and must set aside our old way and go a new way and live to God in Christ Jesus.

Well said. I think on this forum my experience is that we often focus too heavily on the legalistic side, and don’t balance that against God’s mercy.

If we keep breaking the rules with no hope of mercy will will either fall into scrupulosity or despair.

Well, most of us will keep breaking the rules; maybe some we’ll overcome but others will dog us until our graves. But we know we can always count on Christ’s redemption and mercy.

 

[Pug]

Well said. I think on this forum my experience is that we often focus too heavily on the legalistic side, and don’t balance that against God’s mercy.

If we keep breaking the rules with no hope of mercy will will either fall into scrupulosity or despair.

Well, most of us will keep breaking the rules; maybe some we’ll overcome but others will dog us until our graves. But we know we can always count on Christ’s redemption and mercy.

Yes, we must never lose sight of Hope and Grace!

 

[ruth_buttram]

Go to my original thread and substitute the word “abortion” for either homosexuality or masturbation. Whjat then? The point is not that humans break the rules. it is the humans have always broken the rules reepeatedly, and seeminingly will always break the rules. Yet the church is very arbitrary in what it punishes and what it decides not to punish.

 

[OraLabora]

Go to my original thread and substitute the word “abortion” for either homosexuality or masturbation. Whjat then? The point is not that humans break the rules. it is the humans have always broken the rules reepeatedly, and seeminingly will always break the rules. Yet the church is very arbitrary in what it punishes and what it decides not to punish.

How so is she arbitrary? You first must realize that a sin, to be mortal, needs three aspects to be true: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. Perhaps you confuse the extenuating circumstances that make each case individual as “arbitrariness”.

Incidentally of the three items you named above, only two are sins. Homosexuality, that is, homosexual orientation, is not in itself sinful. Homosexual activity is however.

Yes, humans break the rules repeatedly. And have done so since the Fall. And will continue to do so until the final judgment. It’s why God sent His only Son as redeemer. It’s naïve to expect that more than a handful of us will reach sainthood on this mortal Earth. The rest of us will remain sinners until our deaths. The important thing is that we do not turn away from God, that in spite of our shortcomings, we try our best.

God will reward a sincere effort even if it fails. We may be tempted by sins of the flesh for instance, and those who suffer great temptation in that area, but try hard and occasionally fail in the effort, will be recognized by God for each and every time we succeed, and He will help us back on our feet for those times we fail. Those who don’t have this particular temptation require no effort.

For those who do not face a particular temptation, and take pride in the fact that they have a clean slate for a specific sin, and like to rub the noses of us sinners in it, I like to think God has a very special place in Hell reserved for them. Or at least a good cleansing in Purgatory. For the sin of Pride, one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

[crazzeto]

This Athiests views come from a belief that anything other than self gratification equates to self mortification. Of course as Catholics we know nothing is further from the truth, in fact we know that the truth of the matter is that living a virtuous life leads to the greatest happyness in the greatest numbers of cases (no, we’re not foolish enough to believe in universal happyness).

By living a chaste, virtuous life we enjoy:

1. not having to deal with having a baby before we’re married
2. not having an unwanted baby, ever
3. significantly reduced risk of contracting any form of STD
4. reduced risk of failed marriage
5. increased happyness, by focusing on working for the good of the whole family unit, rather than our selves and individuals. With everyone else doing the same.

the list really could go on.

 

[Pug]

Go to my original thread and substitute the word “abortion” for either homosexuality or masturbation. Whjat then? The point is not that humans break the rules. it is the humans have always broken the rules reepeatedly, and seeminingly will always break the rules. Yet the church is very arbitrary in what it punishes and what it decides not to punish.

I don’t see that. It doesn’t seem arbitrary. It seems consistent. Any person who does a mortal sin and doesn’t repent, be it abortion, masturbation, homosexual sex acts, fornicating sex acts, adultery sex acts, incest sex acts, sex with an animal sex acts, slave trading, or whatever, all of these are not to present themselves for communion. Those that do have a change of heart, repent, and go to confession, etc., all of these may present themselves for communion. It is self-policed by the person who approaches for communion. That person is supposed to self-determine if they require confession before they approach communion. This seems perfectly consistent.

There are times, though, when a particular group or a person does certain public things that will trigger the rule that causes more than just self-policing, and may cause a priest to deny communion if you appear in his communion line. It is not specific to which mortal sin the person favors, not really. Rather, it is specific to the amount of public spectacle and or scandal the person creates. Triumphant masturbators could indeed stir up a public enough spectacle with ribbons and rallies to trigger the rule, but they don’t choose to. They could if they wanted, but they don’t. I don’t think this is arbitrary. It depends on what the person does publicly. That is a reasonable distinction. However, there is some element of arbitrariness that is introduced by the nature of how the Church is governed. Each bishop is in charge of his own territory, so enforcement could vary by bishop. They are following the same set of rules to do it, but each bishop is different and each individual sinner is different, perhaps in a way that is not publicly visible. It is not specific to homosexuals and ribbons, though, as I think you are supposing. It applies to other sins too.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

I honestly have a lot of respect for those who can abstain until marriage. I was talking to a young man in my college, and he is abstaining. I respect this a lot.

 

[ruth_buttram]

so judging from the replies it would seem that as sin is a sin under any circumstances, but in general it would be best not to tell the priest about it it opublicly because then it will be punished by the most severe punishment tohe church allows…denial of the sacraments.
also. does the church realyy equate the sins of madsturbation, homosexual behavior and abortion. Do klittle Johnny who , along with almost 100 per cent of all little joihnnies, discovers that his penis is good for other thing then what he has ben usung it for, and after he has been told of its sinfullness, deserve the same fate as one who has an abortion.
Seems a litel excessive…and silly, but of course the church, as with any institiution or individual, has the right to be silly.

 

[crazzeto]

so judging from the replies it would seem that as sin is a sin under any circumstances, but in general it would be best not to tell the priest about it it opublicly because then it will be punished by the most severe punishment tohe church allows…denial of the sacraments.
also. does the church realyy equate the sins of madsturbation, homosexual behavior and abortion. Do klittle Johnny who , along with almost 100 per cent of all little joihnnies, discovers that his penis is good for other thing then what he has ben usung it for, and after he has been told of its sinfullness, deserve the same fate as one who has an abortion.
Seems a litel excessive…and silly, but of course the church, as with any institiution or individual, has the right to be silly.

I’m not sure from where, exactly you get any of what you just posted… If you sin, and you tell a preiest about it (in confession) then you are reconciled with the Church and are again allowed to receive the Eucharist.

If you choose not to, as you put it, then you are automatically not allowed to receive. The priest would have no idea, and certainly the preist having no idea isn’t going to deny you the Eucharist in the commuion line. But you’re only harming your self, God knows whether or not you should be receiving.

 

[Pug]

so judging from the replies it would seem that as sin is a sin under any circumstances, but in general it would be best not to tell the priest about it it opublicly because then it will be punished by the most severe punishment tohe church allows…denial of the sacraments.

I have been replying to you in the context of your original question, which was not about merely telling a priest you have done a sin. Your original question was about an organized group holding a planned public demonstration of dissent to Church teaching during a worship service. That is nothing like an individual person telling a priest about some sin he did in the past. If a Catholic tells a priest about something that happened in their past, he will listen and keep it a secret. This sort of thing happens all the time when a Catholic goes to confession. When they show up in his communion line later that day, he will give them communion. He will not deny them communion.

also. does the church realyy equate the sins of madsturbation, homosexual behavior and abortion. Do klittle Johnny who , along with almost 100 per cent of all little joihnnies, discovers that his penis is good for other thing then what he has ben usung it for, and after he has been told of its sinfullness, deserve the same fate as one who has an abortion.

First, Catholics do not view all sins as being equally serious. Catholics view some sins as worse than others. But no matter how awful a sin is, if it meets the criteria for a mortal sin, it is treated in a consistent manner regarding communion, which is what you asked about. You should confess that sin before approaching for communion. It is like a threshold. If it meets that, it requires confession before communion. But some sins are further over the threshold than others. Those sins may have much more dire consequences in our lives and the lives of others.

Now, concerning a young boy who one day finds out that masturbation is wrong, is he like an abortionist? No, typically he is not. Even though masturbation qualifies as a potential mortal sin, oftentimes it is not. Even after he knows something about its wrongness, he may still lack sufficient reflection and consent in his actions for it to be mortal. As he ages and grows in knowledge and self-awareness, the more likely it will be a mortal sin for him. God looks into his heart to tell. I cannot say just by looking at him. However, Catholics are instructed to examine their own behavior, and on that basis they approach for communion or not.

The abortionist has much less “chance” of it not being a mortal sin. There is very little chance that the abortionist spent every night of his life since early youth murdering people before he had any inkling it was a serious thing. Also, masturbation is often a sin of weakness, quickly repented of. Being an abortionist (I assume you mean a doctor who does them regularly) is a career choice of some longstanding duration. They are not very likely repenting of and reorganizing their priorities after each office visit.

 

[manualman]

There is a certain subset of catholic in the pew whose attitude towards God is “What’s the minimum I need to do to get into heaven?” Those folks do, indeed, often suffer from what used to be called “Catholic Guilt” and might have some unhealthy fear/shame issues. But asking the God of the universe what his minimum criteria for salvation is is about as ridiculous as asking your fiance “what’s the minimum effort I can put into this marriage and have you stay with me?” FAIL!

When you go beyond legalism and see catholicism as the relationship with God that it is, then all those “rules” change into beautiful guidance towards eternal bliss (and no small amount right here and now, either).

This is also why the Church hierarchy makes a big distinction between those that fail to personally live up to our faith (which is ALL of us, eh?) and those that attempt to lead others into ignorance and disbelief of the faith (sometimes claiming God as their inspiration). That second class of people is far deadlier to believers than the first. No surprise that they are treated differently. Let’s be very clear here. In the example cited above, nobody is denying entry to mass to a guy who got drunk and gave in to his homosexual urges at a bar one night. The restriction is against those who attempt to openly state their catholicism and at the same time their belief that a wrong is a right. Big difference.