Friend says he's happier not going to Mass

[Sophia]

depends why he thinks he should feel guilty. is someone unnecessarily shaming him? or does he just want to live a sinful carefree lifestyle and do htings that the church says we shouldn’t do?

Shame and guilt are the cornerstone of Christianity. You are “required” to consider yourself as a “sinner”, and no matter what you do, you cannot avoid that you, on your own can never “earn” your way to get to heaven. Anyone who get over that kind of self-deprecating attitude feels much better.

It is not that people prefer to conduct a sinful life, it is that they do not accept that normal lifestyle is “sinful”. If one does not intend to harm anyone else, their life is without intentional “sin”. Augustine came up with the concept of “total depravity” based upon the idea of original sin, and even though Catholicism does not subscribe to this concept in a verbatim fashion, it is “there”… “you are all sinners, and cannot escape this on your own”.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Guilt isn’t pleasant, nor is it meant to be. That’s one reason that Confession, properly approached, is so wonderful. There’s a very clear “you are forgiven and no longer need to feel guilty” message to it. Of course, many people don’t approach it properly, and those more concerned about what they need to confess as opposed to the mercy that they receive may look at Confession as a place of agony rather than a place of relief.

Ultimately, our job is to show the joy that can come from living the Catholic life. If you like Mass, people will wonder why. If you enjoy Confession, people will really wonder why. The same goes for prayer, adoration, penance, etc. We need to find the joy in these if we are to help others find any joy themselves. Otherwise, we won’t know what to say or will sound completely fake when we say it.

they believe that if a person sins then they go directly to God…and if they are contrite then God remembers that sin no more…so in that regard they don’t have that feeling of guilt and shame as some Catholics experience

As a former Protestant, Protestants still feel guilt. There’s plenty who experience “weekly altar calls” because their sin weighs so heavily on them that they’re confused about if they were genuine, expressed faith correctly, etc. I certainly went through one of those times and would have loved to have something more definitive, like Confession.

 

[Bon_Croix]

I find almost no hint of a culture of guilt and shame in the Catholic Church. Rather, just the opposite. I find a culture of mercy (confession is the most profound part of that culture in the church). Albeit, I know that justice and mercy are components of God’s kingdom; I also know that justice is grounded in mercy.

Anyone practicing ungrounded justice within the church or elsewhere will likely have much to answer for. In other words, the hard hearted are not typical of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[MercyWarrior88]

Peace! Let me just share with you what Padre Pio said about the mass:

“If we only knew how God regards this Sacrifice, we would risk our lives to be present at a single Mass.”

 

[Roseeurekacross]

satans got a good hold on your friend. The prince of lies at it again

 

[brian_custer]

i wish i had the abilityto sleep past noon on sunday

it takes such little self-discipline to attend noon Mass

folks in my parish routinely show up @ 1230 for 1200 sunday Mass

i used to be mad about it

but now just say “at least they are trying”

tell your friend to “try” to go to Sunday Mass

what else does he’d’ve 'd gotten better to do ?

good grief; how late can you sleep on Sunday?

 

[semper_catholicus]

I bet he isn’t actually happy. Shame is actually a virtue.

 

[Rob2]

. What would you say to someone who told you that?

Sometimes words are so inadequate and it is better to listen .

You could take your friend in your heart whenever you go to celebrate the Eucharist .

 

[Gorgias]

What if he would not do anything self-harming, and realizing that leads to a much more fulfilling life - here and now!? (Normal sexual practicing would come under this rubric, which is not just harmless, but actually beneficial to the practitioners - even though it is declared to be “mortally sinful” by some believers.)

Well, that would lead us to a discussion of why Christians believe that immoral acts are harmful. I suspect that the scope of our analyses of ‘harm’ would differ.

On the other hand if he were knowingly practicing something that is harmful to his health (smoking or taking other drugs) but considering that it is worth it? “Whose life is it anyway”???

The other question to ask, then, is “am I my brother’s keeper?”…!

Cain was right: “We are not our brothers’ keepers!”

Aah, but that’s not God’s response – implicitly, the answer is “yes, you are!”

After all you don’t want others to it unto you - as the Golden rule stipulates.

That’s a matter of prudential judgment, isn’t it? If a loved one is headed for danger, don’t we want to help them, rather than just shrug and say “meh”? Wouldn’t we want a helping hand, ourselves?

 

[help1]

This…and your friend doesn’t have to feel guilty because well, we’re all guilty. I really just don’t think of it as guilt but admitting inferiority, since sin is pretty much inavoidable at some point. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to stop ourselves from sinning? Of course not…but we also need to be honest with ourselves! We have all sinned at least once, that’s natural. Your friend shouldn’t feel guilty for being a human, he should enjoy worshipping God because really it’s a joyful thing. It’s a hierarchy but it’s a loving hierarchy. What’s great about God is he’s the best kind of hierarch/boss/superior. He knows we’re all sinners but he loves us anyway, so much so that he sent his only son to get brutally murdered so that we could be secured a spot in paradise. I personally enjoy worshipping him for this reason

It’s really simple. You can enjoy it or you can not, but you have to do it either way. May as well enjoy it, besides I have a hard time imagining God doesn’t want us to enjoy praising and worshipping him. Of course, this doesn’t mean it’s time to break out in dance…rather there’s a joy the humble brings. It’s that sacred, beautiful way of worship that we’ve always done…the right way…and it’s peaceful. If everyone was dancing and screaming it wouldn’t be.

 

[redbetta]

I’m wondering how your friend was raised or educated about Catholicism? It is often parents who create the “culture of guilt” when they poorly catechize their kids.

 

[PetraG]

…he’s pretty much lost his faith and says ever since being removed from the culture of guilt and shame he’s so much happier…

I guess I’d ask what sort of things he used to feel guilty about that he no longer feels guilty about.
There are people who don’t understand that guilt is a smoke detector, not a fire extinguisher. It does work better when you stop using something incorrectly. Of course it does. If you just stop using it at all, though, you still have the problem of not making use of it for its intended use.

Many Catholics were taught Mass is valuable without learning how to make use of it, so to speak. They don’t know how to conduct themselves so that it is the source and summit of their lives. They see it as an obligation and only an obligation, and of course that doesn’t allow the Mass to give life as Mass is intended to do. It is kind of like forcing people to buy nutritious food but they never learn how to cook it or eat it. They find some other way to stay alive and when they quit buying food they never knew how to prepare or consume, of course they feel better. They don’t know what they’ve rejected. They only know how much futile effort they’ve stopped.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Mass doesn’t make him feel that way. It’s only an hour once a week. He makes himself feel that way. He has to look within. Maybe you, as his good friend, can help guide him in that process.

 

[Sophia]

Well, that would lead us to a discussion of why Christians believe that immoral acts are harmful. I suspect that the scope of our analyses of ‘harm’ would differ.

It might be an interesting discussion, but I am sure that we would have a very hard time to find a common ground. I think that not only the definition of “harm” differs, but also definition of “immoral”. Harm - in my vocabulary means either physical or emotional harm. And no consensual act (to which every afflicted party agrees) can be labeled either moral, or immoral, it is strictly amoral. I am sure your opinion differs. But that is hardly surprising.

Aah, but that’s not God’s response – implicitly, the answer is “yes, you are!”

I let God give his response. No one is qualified to speak for God, and he is so silent that it is deafening. Let me give you a very short analysis. Take an arbitrary agent, who has the power to allow or prevent any act at his discretion. If that agent allows an act, then we can only conclude that he did not disapprove of that act. He might approve of it, or be neutral toward it. After all, only an idiot would allow something that he definitely does NOT wish to happen. And any reference to “free will” is nonsense. No sensible parent would allow a toddler to play with a loaded gun - in the name of “free will”.

So we can conclude that God does not care about murder, genocide, abortions, sexual acts or any other human act. Not just the ones that are beneficial, but also the neutral and detrimental ones are beneath his “radar”.

That’s a matter of prudential judgment, isn’t it? If a loved one is headed for danger, don’t we want to help them, rather than just shrug and say “meh”? Wouldn’t we want a helping hand, ourselves?

Only to a certain degree, and I already analyzed this in my post you responded to. No need to repeat it. But if I would know (omniscience) that an act is lethal if permitted to happen, then I would prevent it - and to hell with the “free will” of the person who attempts to perform it. And God does not interfere, even if our act “condemns” us eternal torture… which means - in YOUR parlance - that he just shrugs and says: “meh!”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I “feel” happier when I can lounge in bed late on Sunday, do a crossword puzzle, have a mug of tea.

We don’t attend Mass because of how it makes us feel, we attend Mass because we love God.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Lots of things make you happy in the short term but unfulfilled in the long term.

 

[margaret42]

Does he seem interested in faith at all?

 

[Gorgias]

It might be an interesting discussion, but I am sure that we would have a very hard time to find a common ground. I think that not only the definition of “harm” differs, but also definition of “immoral”.

I agree. On both counts.

Harm - in my vocabulary means either physical or emotional harm. And no consensual act (to which every afflicted party agrees) can be labeled either moral, or immoral, it is strictly amoral. I am sure your opinion differs.

Yeah. It does.

After all, your definition of ‘harm’ turns it into an issue of perception, rather than of reality. After all, by your assertion, ‘harm’ is merely a matter of ‘subjective consent’, and not of ‘objective damage’.

I let God give his response. No one is qualified to speak for God, and he is so silent that it is deafening.

I would suggest you re-read the account in Genesis 4 in which this dialogue occurs. The suggestion that a person is not his brother’s keeper is met with God’s disapproval – not with His agreement.

Take an arbitrary agent, who has the power to allow or prevent any act at his discretion. If that agent allows an act, then we can only conclude that he did not disapprove of that act. He might approve of it, or be neutral toward it. After all, only an idiot would allow something that he definitely does NOT wish to happen.

Weren’t you the one – just a couple posts ago – who posited that we owe people the right to do what they wish, even if we disagree? And now, you posit that allowing people to do something means we agree with it? C’mon @Sophia… be consistent, huh?

So we can conclude that God does not care about

No… you conclude that. The rest of us disagree. Big difference…

But if I would know (omniscience) that an act is lethal if permitted to happen, then I would prevent it

In the context of God’s intent, what is ‘lethal’ is the suppression of “free will.” Obstructions to free will are lethal; allowing free will is not.

 

[Sophia]

After all, your definition of ‘harm’ turns it into an issue of perception, rather than of reality. After all, by your assertion, ‘harm’ is merely a matter of ‘subjective consent’, and not of ‘objective damage’

Well, no. You are mistaken. The damage may be objective, but the person may not “mind” it. Smoking is a very good example. If the person is ignorant of the outcome then it is a good idea to give a warning. Of course God does not do that.

I would suggest you re-read the account in Genesis 4 in which this dialogue occurs.

Sorry, you are mistaken if you think that the Bible quotations mean anything to me. I read the text and draw my own conclusions.

Weren’t you the one – just a couple posts ago – who posited that we owe people the right to do what they wish, even if we disagree? And now, you posit that allowing people to do something means we agree with it? C’mon @Sophia… be consistent, huh?

I am consistent. The interference is acceptable if the person is ignorant. If, however, the person explicitly wishes not to be interfered with, then that wish is to be followed. (It is very sad that I have to explicitly enumerate ALL the disclaimers every friggin’ time I make a post.) I rely on a minimum of understanding and some memory between two posts. Is that a bad approach on my part?

No… you conclude that. The rest of us disagree. Big difference…

I am aware of that. But my approach is rational and you did not bring up a rational objection to the principle: “if you allow an act to happen, then you did not disapprove of it.” (Which means either approval or staying neutral). This is really a very simple logical conclusion. And God might be “almighty” (whatever that means) but he is not above the laws of logic. Not even God can refute the concept: “a number is either positive (approves), or negative (disapproves) or zero (neutral)”. There is simply no other option. The law of excluded middle is beyond God’s power to ignore.

In the context of God’s intent, what is ‘lethal’ is the suppression of “free will.” Obstructions to free will are lethal; allowing free will is not.

Again, it might be more convincing if God himself would affirm this concept. Especially since the word “lethal” is just another meaningless concept when it comes from your mouth. But if we make a logical conclusion based upon the strict noninterventionist policy of God, you actually might be right. Of course that would declare God to be on par with the worst sociopaths and psychopaths. I cannot visualize you (both in general and in particular) to allow a terrorist to put some lethal chemical or biological concoction into the water supply of a huge city. But, then again, I have been proven wrong so many times… maybe you would allow this act to happen - in the name of the “free will” of the terrorist. And you would not prevent abortions either. Or rapes? Or genocides?

 

[Sophia]

Continued from above…

Let me make a suggestion. When having a conversation with a rational person, drop all the references to “holy writs”, “magisterium”, “revelations”, “the church” and other faith-based arguments. They are all meaningless, unless they can be substantiated upon fully rational grounds. You will not waste your time, or the time of your interlocutors by bringing up meaningless assertions. If you have no rational arguments to make, simply state this fact (explicitly, please!), and a polite disagreement will be the outcome. Nothing wrong with mutual but polite disagreement.