Is there any room for individuality?

[Pondero]

People have been very kind to you on this board, listening to your complaints about the RC church which you have joined.

I am a convert myself of many years standing, and I never once had the same doubts you say you have. With my experience of human nature, I have to ask myself the question. Are you for real, or are you a troll? I don’t know, but I just have my suspicions.

Only you know the answer to that question.

 

[hurst]

gogogirl:

This would lead me to believe (possibly in error) that everything in the Catechism is defined dogma with no room for interpretation.

Not all teaching requires the same level of assent.

I think you would benefit greatly from Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, which goes through the teachings of the Church, specifically stating which ones are dogmatic, and which are opinions, etc., and why and how we must believe each of them. There are some things which are open to viewing with alternate interpretations.

hurst

 

[MParedon]

I don’t know if I can help…but I’ll try.

I am actually suprised that this hasn’t been talked about. But the question is…“Is the Eucharist really what the Church says He is, or not?”

Your future actions really depend on your answer.

As for your feelings. I think I can sympathize, I’m a cradle-Catholic who turned nominal for a looooooong time but I didn’t even know it or understand the ramifications because I was so poorly catechised. I felt darn well manipulated when I started finding out things.

In the end I have more charity in thought to those CCD, VBS, and CYO teachers because they were volunteers who were doing their best and most probably badly catechized themselves. These teachers and even the priest seem so earnest and intent on helping one Love Christ and our neighbor that they are scared the ‘hard truths’ will be an obstical to us. The opposite is true. By giving us ‘soft truths’ in order to keep us in the Church, they basically have inoculated us against the Church making it easy to leave with an unsettling feeling of missing something.
And on the other side of the coin they also create resentment in us because we feel like they picked and chose parts of Catholicism and basically didn’t give us the whole enchilada in order to be able to make a free and informed decision for ourselves.

Yes, that hurts. At the same time we need to acknowledge not only their good intentions but it would also be helpful in curbing our anger by realizing how we aren’t the best teachers, catechizers in the world either. We tend to hold others to higher strictures that we don’t even try to attain for ourselves sometimes.

(I want to apologize for my bad spelling but I’m in a tad of a rush) I’ll post this but follow up with another post…

 

[reen12]

quote: hurst

Curiosity itself is a vice.

It is ??

Hmmmm…and here I was, thinking it was a grand
attribute. [Salk, Banting, Jenner…call your office. ]

A child is - rightfully - praised for intellectual curiosity.

A researcher in science says: If I combine this with
that…plastics, polyester, etc.

---

What does Buddhism teach? [Paul: I become all things
to all men…]
[Certainly, evangelization has greater effectiveness, when
the culture of the people, being evangelized, is understood.]

If we confuse “idle curiosity” with intellectual curiosity…
we’d still be waiting for insulin, antibitotics, CAT scans,
MRI’s.

Our young people are not growing up in a vacuum:

TV and the internet give them access to all types
of realites, redolent of the modern age. We had better
convey to them what the New Age consists of, for
instance, so that when they encounter same, they
will comprehend what that reality is…no matter what
guise it appears in.

Knowledge is not only useful - it is essential, in this time
of wide access to the wider culture…*via *technology.

---

Eve was curious: what will happen, if I eat this apple?
Will I become like God?

Her curiosity led her into “sin.” An act in direct
contradiction to that which God had forbidden.

What other “realites” -products of ‘curiosity’ - are
also in direct contradiction to God’s laws?

Students need to be grounded in the faith so that
they can* recognize* these departures from God’s
law. The fact that some ‘objects of curiosity’ involve
breaking God’s law - has to be conveyed. I have no
problem with that.

Making moral distinctions…in terms of where “curiosity”
may lead [bioethics]…is one thing. Seeing curiosity
as a whole, as a “vice”…I…don’t*…think*…so.

I doubt that God has a problem with…polyester.

[BTW, I looked briefly, at the link you provided.
To state the three words: curiosity is a vice -
and then link to a given article - is not helpful, IMO,
in terms of fostering clarity of thought, on the
subject. I rather doubt that Thomas would have
a problem, with what I’ve written. I think I’ve stated
the same thing, in less complex terms.] :tiphat:

reen12

 

[MParedon]

It feels like you are being dowsed with cold water when confronted with the little nitpicky rules, doesn’t it? I mean those little rules are so insignificant, why have them!!!

But wait, step back for a second. (I’ve resently come across this epiphany myself so I’m kinda excited about it )
…if these little nitpicky rules are so small and insignificant, why oh why do they make me so upset by following them? Why? Why isn’t it easy to let go of those habits and not think about them? Are they more important to me than I originally realized? Am I not that attached to them but scared that there might be endless similar rules and I won’t be able to claw myself out of the lifeview that I had before…and I really don’t want to??

---

Now please understand, I used to read horoscopes for a laugh all the time, I used to find nothing wrong with going to a non-Catholic service. I would’ve been horrified at any strictures or caution against doing so. I still do yoga for excersice.

But now after a while of just giving up on most of it based on faith and trust in the Church, I can see in hindsight some things that are right about these nitpicky rules. There are reasons for these rules but we might not be at a point in our faith that they make sense to us.

As for horoscopes, in the formation of your conscience, even a slight and superficial influence towards superstition is a bad thing. If you try abstaining from it for a long long time and then surround yourself with friends that will go over a horoscope and laugh and have fun over it…believe me, you will notice the change in yourself.

As for not participating in non-Catholic services. I believe (and someone correct me if I’m wrong). Catholics are allowed to go but not participate in communion. We are cautioned against it for many reasons, some of them being…causing scandal and confusion and also being subtly indoctrinated to non-Catholic teachings. You may think that you are immune to these things, but really, reading your own posts, you have a self-admitted tenuous hold on Catholicism now, think how it would be if you attended non-Catholic services? You might feel so wonderful and fullfilled, the road clear and bright…but back to my first question about the Eucharist? You might push that to the back of your mind in favor of this wonderful fellowship experiance?

As others have said the philosophy of yoga is non-Christian, it introduces and inforces non-Christian thought and mindset. Even subtlely that is not the best thing in the world. As for excercise without na-mas-de’ing, etc…I believe it is acceptable.

As for ecumenalism, just look up JPII’s writings and rest in those. I really wouldn’t worry about the Church being non-ecumenical. Maybe some of the parishioners are not but the beauty that you can have comfort in, is that the opinions and strictures of parishioners don’t make it into Catholic doctrine.

Ok…I’m almost through I promise

 

[MParedon]

As for not going up to Communion. Well let me tell you sista . I’ve recieved Communion very few times since I’ve become a practicing Catholic again. Mostly due to not being formed well as a Catholic growing. My biggest sin I will share…da da dum…missing Mass, just because I’m darn well lazy. In my parish too, EVERYONE seems to go to recieve. Sunday, even this older couple were a bit perturbed that they had to scoot over me to get through the pew, but I severely doubt it’s because I was a ‘sinner’ it was mostly because they were a bit arthritic and I was in the way.

But it doesn’t really bother me because I come to it from a different perspective (dangerously close to pride which I’m working on) but it might really really really help you.

I view it as showing others that

‘HEY, here’s this girl who takes Confession seriously…maybe I should think twice about going to recieve, or atleast make a little better examination of conscience, etc’

It’s sort of an evangelisizing tool that I use (but don’t worry I don’t skip confession in order to do this, I just make the best of this situation when it happens)

As for feeling a sinnner, etc…

I’m quite pragmatic about it. Actually I’m a bit resentful sometimes that sins aren’t actually discussed, because Sins hurt me. They do! I love that I can recognize something that has the potention to hurt my ownself and I can avoid it. Or atleast try to.

It can feel overwhelming sometimes, it really can. But it depends on where your focus is. Like someone else posted about not seeing the forest for the trees. You are trying to swallow this whole Catholic thing whole, when even Peter failed badly so many times even at the very beginning. Don’t let the possibilities of failure deter you. Don’t let all these small things pile up on you like a ton of crushing feathers. Don’t let these things win before you’ve even started.

 

[gardenswithkids]

gogogirl:

… 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.

It sounds like he made it easier for himself, not for you. The confession of a pretty young go-go girl with sins against chastity might be difficult for some priests to hear. Friends sometimes tell me things I’d rather not know about them, and I wonder if some priests might feel that way about hearing confession–not that it excuses them from neglecting this sacred duty!

Not all priests have the same devotion to or talent for hearing confession. Some confessors are very gifted at it, and I strongly suspect Scott Hahn has access to a very good confessor. If you feel so inspired, try another one, and maybe even ask for someone to recommend a good priest in line with the Church teachings.

I go to a different parish usually for my confessions. The priest there is devoted to this sacrament; he sets aside time for it on the weekdays and is often alone there just waiting to listen and absolve. He has been a blessing to me. He offers no particularly spectacular insights, but he’s a holy old man whose willing to listen.

 

[hurst]

BlindSheep:

Hurst -
#1 Just 'cause Aquinas said it, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so.

Curiosity is considered a vice even apart from Aquinas saying it, but I agree the definition you use makes a difference. Nowadays you may very well find some psychologists giving it a positive definition. So now it may be that the word itself is ambiguous, even as other terminology has also.

BlindSheep:

#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.

I think you missed it, then. The format begins with objections, and is followed up with answers. The point, it seems to me, is about when being studious is a sin. Those cases of when seeking knowledge is a sin are generally classified under the term “curiosity”.

BlindSheep:

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.

I re-read it, and I would say that it talks about inordinate study, not inordinate curiosity. Curiosity is inordinate study. But again, popular usage seems to view it as a good thing.

It has, perhaps, become an issue of semantics. But I would prefer to restrict its use to the negative meaning. The positive meaning can just as well be called “studiousness”.

hurst

 

[gogogirl]

Thank you all for your time and effort in addressing my questions. Several people have sent me private messages recommending that I stay away from this forum for a while. I am going to take that recommendation and do some more book reading. You all have given me quite a bit to think about.

Peace be with you.

 

[ExMotuAquinas]

hurst:

I re-read it, and I would say that it talks about inordinate study, not inordinate curiosity. Curiosity is inordinate study. But again, popular usage seems to view it as a good thing.
hurst

I would re-read it again if I were you. You are not entirely accurate in your presentation of Aquinas’ thought.

Aquinas writes at ST 167.2 ad 1: “Reply to Objection 1: Lust and gluttony are about pleasures arising from the use of objects of touch, whereas curiosity is about pleasures arising from the knowledge acquired through all the senses.”

To say that “curiosity” is merely “inordinate study” falls short of the mark. Curiosity is about taking please in inappropriate sense knowledge. As Aquinas notes in the corpus of the response, knowing sensible things can be sinful if that sense knowlegde is not directed towards something useful (an example of useful sense knowledge is the way we can come to the knowledge of God through his effects), or if sense knowledge can be directed at something that can lead us to sin (for example, looking at a beautiful woman can lead many men to the sin of lust). The proper end for sense knowlege in man must be directed towards either the upkeep of the body or towards intellective knowledge, whether that be speculative (e.g. philosophy, theology) or practical (e.g. studying materials to devise a better way to construct a house).

The innacuracy in your exegesis lies in this: “inordinate study” might refer to the amount of study one pursues. A married man who spends so much time studying at home when he is not at work and neglects his wife and children might be said to be engaging in “inordinate study.”

 

[hurst]

ExMotuAquinas:

I would re-read it again if I were you. You are not entirely accurate in your presentation of Aquinas’ thought.

Keep in mind I was only focusing on the aspect that the phrase “inordinate curiosity” didn’t make sense.

But, I re-read it again, including the previous section on studiousness.

Whether studiousness is a part of temperance?

Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): “We are forbidden to be curious: and this is a great gift that temperance bestows.” Now curiosity is prevented by moderate studiousness.

This seems to confirm my assessment that curiosity is inordinate study. But let us continue…

Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?

As stated above (Question [166], Article [2], ad 2) studiousness is directly, not about knowledge itself, but about the desire and study in the pursuit of knowledge

We see here that the virtue of studiousness is recalled.

On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of truth may be right or wrong.

Here it is shown that what is called “studiousness” can be wrong in some cases. My point is that those cases are where it is called “curiosity”.

ExMotuAquinas:

Aquinas writes at ST 167.2 ad 1: “Reply to Objection 1: Lust and gluttony are about pleasures arising from the use of objects of touch, whereas curiosity is about pleasures arising from the knowledge acquired through all the senses.”

And yet it requires study to acquire it… I see no contradiction to the generalization that curiosity is “inordinate study”.

ExMotuAquinas:

To say that “curiosity” is merely “inordinate study” falls short of the mark.

I think it can be accurate as an overview, based on what I showed above. It seems to be primarily an issue of temperance.

Do you at least agree that saying “inordinate curiosity” is at least as redundant as saying “a snowy blizzard”? My point was that curiosity was a vice already…

ExMotuAquinas:

Curiosity is about taking please in inappropriate sense knowledge. As Aquinas notes in the corpus of the response, knowing sensible things can be sinful if that sense knowlegde is not directed towards something useful (an example of useful sense knowledge is the way we can come to the knowledge of God through his effects), or if sense knowledge can be directed at something that can lead us to sin (for example, looking at a beautiful woman can lead many men to the sin of lust). The proper end for sense knowlege in man must be directed towards either the upkeep of the body or towards intellective knowledge, whether that be speculative (e.g. philosophy, theology) or practical (e.g. studying materials to devise a better way to construct a house).

You are certainly getting into it more here, and I welcome that.

In the previous section, he gives two ways it can be sinful:

1. 
   *] study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge
   *] by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate
   
   The second one itself can happen in four ways
   1. 
      *] withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation
      *] to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught (e.g. demons)
      *] to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God
      *] to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error
      
      To study materials for devising a better way to build a house could actually be a duty. But to say one is being curious therein would be improper.
      
      Is it not like people nowadays who are in the habit of saying “oops, I lied”, whenever they misstate something? In fact, they did not lie, but they seem to gloat in saying they lied. Thus, they are lying about whether they lied.:whacky:
      
      Anyway, if it is proper, then it should not be called “being curious” as if curiosity were good. But did not a Pope say modern society has lost the sense of sin?
      
      
      ExMotuAquinas:
      

      The innacuracy in your exegesis lies in this: “inordinate study” might refer to the amount of study one pursues. A married man who spends so much time studying at home when he is not at work and neglects his wife and children might be said to be engaging in “inordinate study.”

      But I did not mean for “inordinate” to mean “an inordinate amount”. I meant for it to mean “not properly ordered”.
      
      Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut; you seem well-versed on the Summa.
      
      hurst