Is there any room for individuality?

[hurst]

gogogirl:

What is the purpose of being part of a church or parish, when people can’t even practice the faith at mass. Why can’t we pray and be religious without all the interference from an organized church.

The church is the foundation of the Truth in the world. It is like a big ship at sea. Anyone in the Navy can tell you that there are a lot of annoyances on a ship. But it is safer to remain than to jump ship and contend with the waves in a private dingy. Besides, we can do penance for our past sins by bearing with one another in patience and love.

gogogirl:

I am a very spiritual person. I pray constantly. I just wonder why I have to go to Mass, go to confession, do x, y, and z in order to cleanse my soul.

Out of obedience to God through His Church on earth. It is the normal way for sanctification.

gogogirl:

I say silent prayers all the time but I don’t make the sign of the cross.

It is a mark of love and reverence for what Christ did on the Cross, and also a confession of faith in the Holy Trinity. From antiquity the Christians practiced the sign of the cross as a part of their lives. It is also a means to drive away evil.

gogogirl:

I thought we reached out to others and went to church in order to gain assistance in our path to holiness.

Part of that is the obedience and giving supreme honor to God.

gogogirl:

All that does is distract me and magnify my imperfections and lead me further away from holiness than I have ever been in my entire life.
… Now that I am Catholic, people expect me to go to communion every time.

This is where they are wrong. You are not required to go to Communion every time you go to Mass. Yes, it is encouraged, but only if you are in the state of grace.

gogogirl:

Well, with what is in my heart, I don’t feel that it is acceptable to partake of the body and blood of our lord and savior. Not going to communion is like wearing the scarlett letter A.

While it is true that people may “suspect” you of being in sin if you don’t go, it would be worse to go just to avoid causing people to think that. They should rather be even more compassionate, and commend you for not offending. We must not receive if we are conscious of unconfessed grave sin. Instead, we should pray for spiritual communion.

hurst

 

[malachi_a_serva]

gogogirl:

asked if I wanted him to make it easy. I said sure, I guess. Then he proceeded to absolve me without ever hearing me say a word about my actual sins.

I wonder if the is the priest that told me “sh*t happens” (for those who know my story).

just adding a little humour…haha.

 

[hurst]

gogogirl:

I was seriously burned by the priest while going through RCIA. The learning that I did prior to beginning RCIA is the only thing keeping me from walking away. Many people would recommend that I seek another priest but we live in a rural area where that is not easily possible. My first confession went something like this:

I was a little nervous. After all, I had 29 years worth of sins to confess. I asked the priest where I should begin and was asked if I wanted him to make it easy. I said sure, I guess. Then he proceeded to absolve me without ever hearing me say a word about my actual sins.

That is such a disservice to you. You basically made the equivalent of a confession consisting of forgotten sins. While it is valid insofar as you meant to confess all your sins, you do not benefit as much in spiritual growth.

gogogirl:

I tried to go to confession pretty regularly after I first joined but it almost seemed as though it was a joke. I try pretty hard to stay away from the mortal sins so I can avoid confession.

Nowadays it seems that the lay person has to instruct the priest, or at least convince him to hear your sins. Ask him to humor you a bit as you recount past unconfessed/forgotten sins in order to obtain grace to overcome your tendency by exposing the root and origin. The goal is to cleanse your heart. Absolution breaks the bond of sin, but there remains penance to be done, satisfaction to be made.

hurst

 

[RiverRock]

If this is Paris, you don’t need a priest, you need a good doctor. So, Go—Go,go,go to one, and soon.

If this is NOT Paris, please accept my apologies.

 

[gogogirl]

VociMike:

Oh, BTW, I don’t see anything wrong with reading your horoscope for giggles, any more than breaking a wishbone, or wishing on birthday candles or reading the fortune in a fortune cookie for giggles.

The catechism specifically states: “2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.”

It does not sound like there is room for interpretation. In the Catechism, this is listed under the first commandment. It does not say that you can look at it for fun. To do so, would be in violation of the first commandment. Violating the commandments is a mortal sin correct? Thus, I must go to confession.

There are many mundane things that I did at one time that are no longer acceptable. Of course, there are some not so mundane things that I have done but it is quite obvious to me that they are against natural law. I didn’t get the name gogo for being a saint.

My catechism is 845 pages long with small print. I have not been able to read it all the way through yet but as I do, I keep finding more and more things that I cannot do without violating a commandment or some other church law. Some of what is written makes no sense to me at all. I don’t have a concrete example but it seems as if you have to be a canon lawyer to understand all this stuff. Like I said, I did approach my priest but he blew me off.

 

[hurst]

gogogirl:

I don’t want anyone to agree with me. I want to understand why this is not the case.

The problem I have is with all of the nitpicky little rules. I used to read my horoscope just for the fun of it. I do not put stock in stuff like that but it is fun to get a good laugh now and then. Now, I don’t feel like I can do that in good conscience because of what the Catechism says.

True, you cannot do that in good conscience. It is about the virtue of modesty, too, which preserves one from the occasions of sin.

gogogirl:

Somebody else that posted made me realize that part of my other problem is the fact that I feel that I was coerced into joining the church. My husband would not let me be part of his prayer life because I was not Catholic. I would ask him questions and he would just refer me to a book.

A good way to see this is that you do need to make it part of your own belief, and reading a book can help.

gogogirl:

My MIL is supposedly a devout Catholic but she is trying to push me into using ABC.

That exposes her as someone not devoutly Catholic.

gogogirl:

I felt like I had to join the church to win the approval and openness of my spouse.

If you become a saint, even that will not guarantee approval. Ultimately, trying to please God will only be welcomed by others who are trying to please God. Trying to please people doesn’t always work, anyway.

gogogirl:

There is no way that I can ever leave the church openly because if I do, that will create a giant rift in my marriage. If I leave, it will be in my heart.

That is worse than doing so openly, for then you are a hypocrite.

gogogirl:

I posted here hoping to get some answers and clarification because I had a poor experience with RCIA and our parish priest.

Being Catholic is ultimately about being obedient. This means it is important to have good role models and superiors. But nowadays, the Church is filled with disobedient pastors. Fortunately, we have the technology to know our faith regardless. Furthermore, we need the penance of enduring such pastors, since we all live quite disobediently already within the framework of our own society.

After all, how many people do you obeserve obeying the speed limits, following the copyright laws on software, observing their workplace policies, or any of the tons of little rules and laws we are subject to even outside of the Church? So while it is a scandal that our pastors are darkened who should be giving us light, we can hardly say we deserve better. Let us accept our sufferings as less than our sins deserve, and believe that God allows it for our amendment.

Judith 8:27 But esteeming these very punishments to be less than our sins deserve, let us believe that these scourges of the Lord, with which like servants we are chastised, have happened for our amendment, and not for our destruction.

hurst

 

[hurst]

VociMike:

Oh, BTW, I don’t see anything wrong with reading your horoscope for giggles, …

On the flip side, would you consider it wrong to publish them in a newspaper or website you owned?

But there is something wrong with it. And I am glad it is made concrete, because I can use that as a basis for turning down others who wish me to support it, without it having to be my own personal opinion.

hurst

 

[hurst]

gogogirl:

I keep finding more and more things that I cannot do without violating a commandment or some other church law. Some of what is written makes no sense to me at all. I don’t have a concrete example but it seems as if you have to be a canon lawyer to understand all this stuff. Like I said, I did approach my priest but he blew me off.

In the end, we must give our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength to our God Who created us. It is that simple. If we are not doing so, then our holding back will be found in the commission of some sin. And omitting something we should be doing is also a sin at some level.

But even though it is apparently impossible for us to avoid all venial sins, we can avoid all mortal sins.

If there are child saints who endured wicked parents, then there is hope that you can endure also, even without saintly examples living around you. Perhaps you are to be an example to them? Would you if God made you able? It would surely entail much suffering, rejection, ridicule, censoring, and other such obstacles. But such is the glory of God, Who endures all for the joy it would result in.

hurst

 

[VociMike]

gogogirl:

The catechism specifically states: “2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.”

It does not sound like there is room for interpretation.

Are you really “consulting” the horoscope, that is reading it for supernatural guidance or information? Or are you reading it for fun, as you said. Are you seeking power over others? Are you actually trying to divine occult knowledge? It is clear from your description that you are not. There is the difference.

You should email Jimmy Akin and ask him about this. He seems to be very good at analysing such issues.

Further, not every violation of a commandment is a sin, much less a mortal sin. The extent the offense, along with the extent of your knowledge and your consent, are key here.

 

[VociMike]

hurst:

On the flip side, would you consider it wrong to publish them in a newspaper or website you owned?

I would have to first attempt to determine how many people actually used them for occult purposes. Don’t newspapers now usually print disclaimers that they are for entertainment only? I would be inclined not to publish them, but if a large number of subscribers wanted them for entertainment value, I’d have to consider the issue more deeply.

But this is not at all the same as one person who reads them and makes it clear that she does so for laughs.

But there is something wrong with it. And I am glad it is made concrete, because I can use that as a basis for turning down others who wish me to support it, without it having to be my own personal opinion.

hurst

I just don’t believe it is wrong in the particular case she describes.

 

[gogogirl]

RiverRock:

If this is Paris, you don’t need a priest, you need a good doctor. So, Go—Go,go,go to one, and soon.

If this is NOT Paris, please accept my apologies.

I finally got the time to go read the Paris thread that everyone is referring to. Please accept my apologies for not sorting through the forums and reading that thread before posting. I can definitely see some similarities between the thread I began and hers. After getting angrier and angrier, I tried to step away for a while, consult the Catechism and come back to clarify myself. I did not finish reading the entire Paris thread. I don’t think I have a problem with spirituality. I am just trying to figure out how to take the strong spirituality that I have and apply it to the Catholic Church without losing my identity as an individual.

 

[VociMike]

gogogirl:

My catechism is 845 pages long with small print. I have not been able to read it all the way through yet but as I do, I keep finding more and more things that I cannot do without violating a commandment or some other church law.

And yet St. Augustine said “Love God and do as you will.” Do you understand the meaning of this? Being Catholic is not about a long list of “don’ts”. It is about living a life in conformity with the will of God. Read the Catechism seeking to understand the will of God, not looking for a list of “don’ts”.

 

[gogogirl]

hurst:

That is worse than doing so openly, for then you are a hypocrite.

You are absolutely correct in that. I attended mass for about 10 years before giving in to the pressure and joining. My line of thinking is that I can continue to go to mass as I have done for years without the benefit of being Catholic.

hurst:

Being Catholic is ultimately about being obedient. This means it is important to have good role models and superiors. But nowadays, the Church is filled with disobedient pastors. Fortunately, we have the technology to know our faith regardless. Furthermore, we need the penance of enduring such pastors, since we all live quite disobediently already within the framework of our own society.

Thank God for technology and books. I read several of the Hahn books (*Rome, Sweet Home * and *Life Giving Love * before converting so I was shocked at how our pastor handled RCIA and confession. Before going in for my first confession, I read Scott Hahn’s Lord, Have Mercy: The Healing Power of Confession and was actually prepared to list my major sins such as adultery, fornication, and the use of ABC to name a few. I had done a thorough examination of my conscience. When he asked if I wanted him to make it easy, I thought he was going to ask me questions or guide me not just give me a blanket absolution.

 

[Sherlock]

gogogirl:

I finally got the time to go read the Paris thread that everyone is referring to. Please accept my apologies for not sorting through the forums and reading that thread before posting. I can definitely see some similarities between the thread I began and hers. After getting angrier and angrier, I tried to step away for a while, consult the Catechism and come back to clarify myself. I did not finish reading the entire Paris thread. I don’t think I have a problem with spirituality. I am just trying to figure out how to take the strong spirituality that I have and apply it to the Catholic Church without losing my identity as an individual.

One of the things I have always found fascinating about reading the lives of the saints was how individual they all were. There’s no question about “losing one’s identity”—nothing can be further from the truth! When you increase in holiness (becoming more and more saint-like) you become MORE of the human you were meant to be, and that includes all of the distinct gifts and quirks and indivual traits that we all have. The saints are proof of that. Their personalities are as distinct as their fingerprints—we are all unique ans special in God’s eyes, not robots. St. Francis of Assissi was a totally different personality than, say, St. Therese the Little Flower. And she was totally different from the brilliant St. Theresa of Avila. And she was different than St. Joan of Arc…

Anyway, it sounds as if your introduction to the Church has been less than pleasant, and is complicated by the poor behavior of those around you. Remember: it’s your holiness, your soul, at stake.

 

[VociMike]

Sherlock:

One of the things I have always found fascinating about reading the lives of the saints was how individual they all were. There’s no question about “losing one’s identity”—nothing can be further from the truth! When you increase in holiness (becoming more and more saint-like) you become MORE of the human you were meant to be, and that includes all of the distinct gifts and quirks and indivual traits that we all have. The saints are proof of that. Their personalities are as distinct as their fingerprints—we are all unique ans special in God’s eyes, not robots. St. Francis of Assissi was a totally different personality than, say, St. Therese the Little Flower. And she was totally different from the brilliant St. Theresa of Avila. And she was different than St. Joan of Arc…

This is an excellent point. If anything, I think one could argue that continual, habitual sin tends to mask one’s individuality as the sin dominates and distorts one’s personality.

 

[Sherlock]

gogogirl:

You are absolutely correct in that. I attended mass for about 10 years before giving in to the pressure and joining. My line of thinking is that I can continue to go to mass as I have done for years without the benefit of being Catholic. .

But if you are not Catholic, you would not be able to partake of the Eucharist (as “Communion” is also a statement of just that, communion with the Church, and lying via your actions would be a very bad thing to do).

gogogirl:

Thank God for technology and books. I read several of the Hahn books (*Rome, Sweet Home * and *Life Giving Love * before converting so I was shocked at how our pastor handled RCIA and confession. Before going in for my first confession, I read Scott Hahn’s Lord, Have Mercy: The Healing Power of Confession and was actually prepared to list my major sins such as adultery, fornication, and the use of ABC to name a few. I had done a thorough examination of my conscience. When he asked if I wanted him to make it easy, I thought he was going to ask me questions or guide me not just give me a blanket absolution.

Ouch…it sounds as if you have an indifferent, liberal priest at best, a heterodox one at worst. I would try finding a decent, orthodox priest who takes his spiritual fathership seriously.

 

[BlindSheep]

hurst:

It is true that we must not participate in the religious services of other faiths.

As far as I know, we can attend(not participate in) them - after all, we can go to a protestant wedding, can we not? Can we go to a mosque for research purposes? Go to a temple for sightseeing purposes? Really, are you telling me if I attend a wednesday service at a Baptist church with some friends, I’ll roast in hell for it? Mind you, I’m not saying become a Baptist or even consider it, I’m just talking about physically being in the building. Could you give me a reference for this?
Here’s something I found:catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?quest=639
Question: My wife and I were married in the Catholic Church 16 years ago. Some 5 years ago, we left the Catholic Church for a non-denominational evangelical “bible church.” I have since returned to the Catholic Church while my wife has not, and probably will not. Most of the time we go to her church on Saturday evening and then I go to mass on Sunday. Are Catholics allowed to participate in a Protestant service including breaking bread with them (knowing it does not contain the real presence)? If so, does this service ever count toward my “Sunday obligation”? Answer: It is fine to participate in a Protestant service and to affirm what is true there, but Catholics are not allowed to participate in communion, precisely because it communicates the false impression that Catholics and Protestants “believe the same thing” about the Eucharist and are in full communion. This is simply not so. Catholics celebrate a communion which both intends to consecrate the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus and which, in fact, does so. A Bible church neither intends to do so, nor (since it does not possess valid orders) could it do so if it wished. For this reason, this service also does not count toward your Sunday obligation, since the Sunday obligation is not to attend a “service” but to attend Mass, where the Eucharist is celebrated.

It is true we should not be “curious” about other faiths. However, it is appropriate to be informed of what others believe in order that we may understand them and relate with them compassionately. But we must already be firmly rooted in our own faith.
hurst

How can a person learn something without first being curious about it? Do you mean it would be a sin to study different religions in a sociology or philosophy class, or read a book about African mythology? I don’t mean “curious” as in “thinking they might be better than the Church”, just as in “wondering what they believe”.
I think I am about to pull a “ParisBlues” act myself. I am starting to understand how she felt. The rules seem to be multiplying.

 

[hurst]

BlindSheep:

As far as I know, we can attend(not participate in) them

If you can avoid giving scandal, then it is permitted to merely “attend”.

BlindSheep:

• after all, we can go to a protestant wedding, can we not? Can we go to a mosque for research purposes? Go to a temple for sightseeing purposes?

In the past, it was simply and concretely forbidden. But now it is allowed under various conditions.

BlindSheep:

Really, are you telling me if I attend a wednesday service at a Baptist church with some friends, I’ll roast in hell for it? Mind you, I’m not saying become a Baptist or even consider it, I’m just talking about physically being in the building. Could you give me a reference for this?

lol. I am not saying you will “roast in hell” for simply being in the building. But if you have no compelling reason to be there, then you are giving scandal and putting yourself in a near occasion of sin.

Perhaps you work for a carpet cleaning business. Then you would have a good reason for going into the building - to clean their carpets.

Perhaps you are doing a research paper on their religious services. That might be excusable, too, if you don’t participate.

I read some documents on this issue in the past month or so, but don’t have a ready reference (sorry).

BlindSheep:

How can a person learn something without first being curious about it? Do you mean it would be a sin to study different religions in a sociology or philosophy class, or read a book about African mythology? I don’t mean “curious” as in “thinking they might be better than the Church”, just as in “wondering what they believe”.

Curiosity itself is a vice.
catholicprimer.org/summa/SS/SS167.html#SSQ167OUTP1

But if you have a legitimate reason for needing to know something, then it is ok to learn about it. Legitimate would be out of obedience or charity.

BlindSheep:

I think I am about to pull a “ParisBlues” act myself. I am starting to understand how she felt. The rules seem to be multiplying.

No need to take it like that. Every household has its established rules, meant to keep order and discipline. And they can change.

Consider it no more complex than balance. We have to get used to using our bones, muscles, and senses to keep our balance and stand when we are toddlers. Now that we are grown up, it is second nature. Even though all the muscles etc. are coordinated in such a way that we could never do so if we considered every muscle by itself, yet we can do so by directing all according to our sense of balance in opposing gravity.

Likewise, we could never maintain ourselves in the faith if we only thought about every single “rule”. But we maintain our faith by our sense of justice in opposing sin. The little rules have to be accomplished somehow. They have become complex in order to allow things in certain circumstances. It has always been like this, and it is governed by charity and justice.

But you can only do so much according to your knowledge. If you didn’t know something was “wrong” or inappropriate, then you can easily make up for it by seeking to understand why it is so, and resolving to abide by it as best you can.

hurst

 

[gogogirl]

BlindSheep:

As far as I know, we can attend(not participate in) them - after all, we can go to a protestant wedding, can we not? Can we go to a mosque for research purposes? Go to a temple for sightseeing purposes? Really, are you telling me if I attend a wednesday service at a Baptist church with some friends, I’ll roast in hell for it? Mind you, I’m not saying become a Baptist or even consider it, I’m just talking about physically being in the building. Could you give me a reference for this?

In the ask an apologist section, someone asks if it is ok to just attend a Mormon Baptism. The answer is no. I have provided the link.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88044

In the ask an apologist section there is also a question regarding room for disagreement with the church: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87006
Per the above mentioned question, “The more forcefully the Church teaches on an issue, the more imperative it becomes for a Catholic to believe it. So, while an informed and educated Catholic might disagree with something that is merely a theological opinion, all Catholics must believe defined dogma.” This would lead me to believe (possibly in error) that everything in the Catechism is defined dogma with no room for interpretation.

I found another post that may have already answered my own question regarding attending other churches: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=84524
This is what it says, “Since Lutheran baptisms are valid baptisms, you can attend the service and participate in those parts of the service that do not conflict with Catholic teaching (with the exception, as you noted, of Lutheran communion from which you must abstain). If you do not know enough about the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism to know what is and is not in line with Catholic teaching, I recommend simply attending as a guest who observes but does not participate in the service. As a guest, you may stand when the congregation stands and sit when they sit or kneel, but otherwise remain disengaged from the service.”

 

[BlindSheep]

hurst:

Curiosity itself is a vice.
catholicprimer.org/summa/SS/SS167.html#SSQ167OUTP1

But if you have a legitimate reason for needing to know something, then it is ok to learn about it. Legitimate would be out of obedience or charity.

Hurst -
#1 Just 'cause Aquinas said it, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so. (Ensoulment, anyone?)
#2 The link you give is talking about the “vice of curiosity”, but seems not to say what this vice is, so much as what it is not. The definition that comes to my mind for the word “curiosity” - the desire for knowledge - called “good” in this link. It seems, perhaps, to be referring to inordinate curiosity, or curiosity for bad reasons, more than just the desire to learn, it seems to me. But isn’t anything immoderate a vice: sleeping, eating, fasting, gardening, reading or what-have-you can all be vices if done too much, but that does not mean these things are evil.