"Radicalized" Catholics?

[Joseph]

We hear so much in the news of young Muslims becoming “radicalized”. Is there even a positive or good sense of that word? If so, what would a “radicalized” Catholic (in the good sense of the word, of course) be like? What might cause one to become “radicalized”?

 

[Rence]

There are radicals in every religion and culture, and are never representative of that religion or culture.

For me, a radical Catholic is one who has said any, a combination of, or all of the following: (and yes, this is what I’ve heard from some “Catholics”)

1. I’ve heard radicals say that all of our civil laws should be changed, added to, or subtracted to – and tailored to the rules of the Church. And breaking those laws should have severe punishments enforced by the law, up to and including jail time and/or corporal punishments, without limits.
2. I’ve heard radicals say that there should be a modern-day Inquisition, and enforced by civil authorities, up to and including jail and corporal punishment, without limits. They envisioned civil authorities rounding up people who are baptized Catholic, or of a Christian denomination (because they are heretics), subjected to questioning and punished accordingly.
3. I’ve heard radicals say that all Christian denominations should be annexed by the Catholic Church, “by force, if necessary”, so that they are now Catholic and no other denominations exist, up to and including jail time and corporal punishment, without limits.
4. I’ve heard radicals say that children are the property of their parents and should be forced to be Catholic and adhere to Catholic rules and regulations. For example, the CCC states that confirmation has to be consensual and that the candidate has to be ready, but some radicals believe in forcing children in the event they are not ready or do not want to complete confirmation.
5. I’ve heard radicals say that NFP can only be used for serious reasons such as the woman’s life being in immediate danger (and apparently no excuses on this forum were sufficient enough), and that poverty, being emotionally and mentally overwhelmed, or other family concerns isn’t a good excuse because it’s just money (for example) and having more children is worth the sacrifice of living in smaller environments, not being able to pay bills, etc. because “God will provide”. And while I completely understand some people (not radicals) raising their family with this type of faith, I don’t think others who use “responsible parenthood” as described by JPII are wrong or don’t have enough faith, and what I call radicals don’t allow for what JPII took the time out to spell as guidelines and poke their noses in other families’ affairs. I mean, can you imagine being confronted by someone you hardly know about why you haven’t had another kid in the past year, just because they see you at Church weekly? Weird…
6. I’ve heard radicals say that NFP isn’t allowed when you’re “done having children” for any reason – and that you have to just be celebate and not sleep with your spouse.
7. and one of my favorites, I’ve heard radicals say that every earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, disease, etc, is a direct work of God to punish people of different religions and/or those who aren’t devout enough Catholics.
8. And I’ve heard radicals say that Catholics aren’t really Catholic if they don’t believe every single thing, and live as ordered as every single thing in the CCC or encyclicals and Bible, and should just leave the Church and be done with it. Which is contrary to Catholic teaching to begin with and a big no-no teaching…

That’s a good start anyways

 

[mark_avery]

Being radical is a personal decision,between you and god,and only that way,WHEN YOU HEAR our lord that is!
They above mentioned,are not really in keeping with the way of JESUS,but also having said that,there are a few that are not so much radical,but reverent!

hope not to offend!

 

[Joseph]

Thanks for your responses. My question may not have been clear. (I may be trying to work the question out in my own mind as I write it.)

I guess my question is in the use of the term “radicalized” in the positive sense, not in the negative sense. That is: If someone were truly living the Christian life in a “radical” way, what would that person be like? look like? Is Mother Theresa the only model for living life in such a radical way? In today’s environment, what would it take to help people, especially young, come to such a faith as to live their lives in a radical way.

 

[Gregory_I]

The “root” of the word radical is “Radix” which means “Root.”

THerefore a “Radicalized” Catholic is cimply a Catholic faithful to the fundamentals of the faith, and in that sense, is a true Catholic fundamentalist.

Rmember, the word “Fun” is in fundamentals!

I would say that no one should call themselves Catholic who is not prepared to give the full assent of faith to every dogma taught by the church, as well as every Theologically certain doctrine (Contraception for example).

If you don’t like the heat, stay outta the kitchen.

 

[Rence]

Thanks for your responses. My question may not have been clear. (I may be trying to work the question out in my own mind as I write it.)

I guess my question is in the use of the term “radicalized” in the positive sense, not in the negative sense. That is: If someone were truly living the Christian life in a “radical” way, what would that person be like? look like? Is Mother Theresa the only model for living life in such a radical way? In today’s environment, what would it take to help people, especially young, come to such a faith as to live their lives in a radical way.

I don’t know a positive sense of the term “radical” or “radicalized”. And you used a ‘radical muslim’ as an example, and that’s not a very positive image… I only know this definition of “radical” from Websters:

a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

I think (correct me if I’m wrong) what you’re asking, is what would an ultra-conservative Catholic look like? Not sure. I don’t know any in real life. But if you hang out on the traditional forum, you might get a sense as to what they look like and how they function IRL.

 

[Abba]

Thanks for your responses. My question may not have been clear. (I may be trying to work the question out in my own mind as I write it.)

I guess my question is in the use of the term “radicalized” in the positive sense, not in the negative sense. That is: If someone were truly living the Christian life in a “radical” way, what would that person be like? look like? Is Mother Theresa the only model for living life in such a radical way? In today’s environment, what would it take to help people, especially young, come to such a faith as to live their lives in a radical way.

I think that I am being ‘radical’ when I say, especially to a group of Catholics, something that is Catholic teaching or doctrine but is not ‘mainstream’ yet, I say it any way come what may. Also, when I ‘confront’ people in their comfort zone who have rationalized Catholic teachings. I would call this being ‘radical’ because you shake people up and they look at you and think. It’s radical.

 

[Gregory_I]

I think that I am being ‘radical’ when I say, especially to a group of Catholics, something that is Catholic teaching or doctrine but is not ‘mainstream’ yet, I say it any way come what may. Also, when I ‘confront’ people in their comfort zone who have rationalized Catholic teachings. I would call this being ‘radical’ because you shake people up and they look at you and think. It’s radical.

I love it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. I’ve heard radicals say that all of our civil laws should be changed, added to, or subtracted to – and tailored to the rules of the Church. And breaking those laws should have severe punishments enforced by the law, up to and including jail time and/or corporal punishments, without limits.

Whats so radical about that? That’s mainstream thinking in a lot of the world. I don’t think that anyone is a fan of laws that allow the murder of babies, laws promoting homosexual marriages, laws keeping children from praying school, etc. So it’s not as if secular society is getting a ringing endorsement in the legal area. So why shouldn’t we seek to have Catholic laws codified as they were for centuries?

Historically that position is the norm.

1. I’ve heard radicals say that there should be a modern-day Inquisition, and enforced by civil authorities, up to and including jail and corporal punishment, without limits. They envisioned civil authorities rounding up people who are baptized Catholic, or of a Christian denomination (because they are heretics), subjected to questioning and punished accordingly.

That’s the historical norm as well. Heretics mislead the faithful. How many souls are in hell because of heretics? Seems to me that a heretic is more dangerous than any thief or robber, after all his crime has eternal effects. His victims suffer forever. Why should heretics be treated better than any other criminal?

1. I’ve heard radicals say that all Christian denominations should be annexed by the Catholic Church, “by force, if necessary”, so that they are now Catholic and no other denominations exist, up to and including jail time and corporal punishment, without limits.

Doesn’t this ultimately fall under the same rubric as #2?

1. I’ve heard radicals say that children are the property of their parents and should be forced to be Catholic and adhere to Catholic rules and regulations. For example, the CCC states that confirmation has to be consensual and that the candidate has to be ready, but some radicals believe in forcing children in the event they are not ready or do not want to complete confirmation.

My understanding, imperfect as it may be, is that Confirmation immediately follows Baptism in the Eastern Church and Pope Benedict has spoken about changing our practice of waiting until the age of reason. Maybe I misunderstand. But it hardly seems radical have a confirmation without consent. Am I wrong here?

1. I’ve heard radicals say that NFP can only be used for serious reasons such as the woman’s life being in immediate danger (and apparently no excuses on this forum were sufficient enough), and that poverty, being emotionally and mentally overwhelmed, or other family concerns isn’t a good excuse because it’s just money (for example) and having more children is worth the sacrifice of living in smaller environments, not being able to pay bills, etc. because “God will provide”. And while I completely understand some people (not radicals) raising their family with this type of faith, I don’t think others who use “responsible parenthood” as described by JPII are wrong or don’t have enough faith, and what I call radicals don’t allow for what JPII took the time out to spell as guidelines and poke their noses in other families’ affairs. I mean, can you imagine being confronted by someone you hardly know about why you haven’t had another kid in the past year, just because they see you at Church weekly? Weird…

1. I’ve heard radicals say that NFP isn’t allowed when you’re “done having children” for any reason – and that you have to just be celebate and not sleep with your spouse.

The guidelines call for just, serious and grave reasons to practice NFP. I am not sure that being poor, busy, or not wanting more children counts as a just, serious, or grave reasons. I’m also pretty sure that sex isn’t licit even between spouses if its not open to procreation. Our western culture may make everything about sex, but the ancient ways of the Church supersede our cultures hedonistic sexual obsessions.

1. and one of my favorites, I’ve heard radicals say that every earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, disease, etc, is a direct work of God to punish people of different religions and/or those who aren’t devout enough Catholics.

Isn’t that more along the lines of just plain silly?

1. And I’ve heard radicals say that Catholics aren’t really Catholic if they don’t believe every single thing, and live as ordered as every single thing in the CCC or encyclicals and Bible, and should just leave the Church and be done with it. Which is contrary to Catholic teaching to begin with and a big no-no teaching…

Yeah, well, people who don’t can still call themselves Catholics, but whats the point? This isn’t a cafeteria.

It seems that a lot of the things you are talking about are only radical from a pretty far left viewpoint. One which more traditional Catholics might find to be radical themselves. My point being that radical is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We hear so much in the news of young Muslims becoming “radicalized”. Is there even a positive or good sense of that word? If so, what would a “radicalized” Catholic (in the good sense of the word, of course) be like? What might cause one to become “radicalized”?

To walk in to a town square and call out to the crowd saying “your life has objective moral and existential value; and your life was created for a purpose by a transcendent eternal being whom loves you and wants you to love each-other” , this would be a very radical thing to do; but it would also be perceived as a very crazy thing to do given today’s popular anti-religious ideologies.

There are many people in the world that are religious, but their religion is suppressed and silent accept perhaps in cases were they perceive it as socially or politically advantageous to express their religious views. But normally you would not know they were religious or even cared about religion. Religion is a dirty word, a cause for shame or embarrassment or even exile from the community. Openly religious people in the eyes of today’s society are crazy people. To be religiously radical is to have no shame in expressing ones religion and be willing to stand against what is popular regardless of social embarrassment, social exile, or legal consequences.

That is what it means to be radical.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rence

*There are radicals in every religion and culture, and are never representative of that religion or culture.

For me, a radical Catholic is one who has said any, a combination of, or all of the following: (and yes, this is what I’ve heard from some “Catholics”)

1. I’ve heard radicals say that all of our civil laws should be changed, added to, or subtracted to – and tailored to the rules of the Church. And breaking those laws should have severe punishments enforced by the law, up to and including jail time and/or corporal punishments, without limits.
2. I’ve heard radicals say that there should be a modern-day Inquisition, and enforced by civil authorities, up to and including jail and corporal punishment, without limits. They envisioned civil authorities rounding up people who are baptized Catholic, or of a Christian denomination (because they are heretics), subjected to questioning and punished accordingly.
3. I’ve heard radicals say that all Christian denominations should be annexed by the Catholic Church, “by force, if necessary”, so that they are now Catholic and no other denominations exist, up to and including jail time and corporal punishment, without limits.
4. I’ve heard radicals say that children are the property of their parents and should be forced to be Catholic and adhere to Catholic rules and regulations. For example, the CCC states that confirmation has to be consensual and that the candidate has to be ready, but some radicals believe in forcing children in the event they are not ready or do not want to complete confirmation.
5. I’ve heard radicals say that NFP can only be used for serious reasons such as the woman’s life being in immediate danger (and apparently no excuses on this forum were sufficient enough), and that poverty, being emotionally and mentally overwhelmed, or other family concerns isn’t a good excuse because it’s just money (for example) and having more children is worth the sacrifice of living in smaller environments, not being able to pay bills, etc. because “God will provide”. And while I completely understand some people (not radicals) raising their family with this type of faith, I don’t think others who use “responsible parenthood” as described by JPII are wrong or don’t have enough faith, and what I call radicals don’t allow for what JPII took the time out to spell as guidelines and poke their noses in other families’ affairs. I mean, can you imagine being confronted by someone you hardly know about why you haven’t had another kid in the past year, just because they see you at Church weekly? Weird…
6. I’ve heard radicals say that NFP isn’t allowed when you’re “done having children” for any reason – and that you have to just be celebate and not sleep with your spouse.
7. and one of my favorites, I’ve heard radicals say that every earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, disease, etc, is a direct work of God to punish people of different religions and/or those who aren’t devout enough Catholics.
8. And I’ve heard radicals say that Catholics aren’t really Catholic if they don’t believe every single thing, and live as ordered as every single thing in the CCC or encyclicals and Bible, and should just leave the Church and be done with it. Which is contrary to Catholic teaching to begin with and a big no-no teaching…

That’s a good start anyways *

**So if all of the above are radicalized Catholics, what would you call the following:

Catholics who don’t believe the Eucharist is real.

Catholics who believe in the right to an abortion.

Catholics who believe in the right to gay marriage.

Catholics who despise an all male priesthood.

Etc. Etc.

These are not radicalized Catholics?

Study your Catholic history and read your catechism before you answer. **

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…

These are not radicalized Catholics?

Study your Catholic history and read your catechism before you answer.

 

[Rence]

**So if all of the above are radicalized Catholics, what would you call the following:

Catholics who don’t believe the Eucharist is real.

Catholics who believe in the right to an abortion.

Catholics who believe in the right to gay marriage.

Catholics who despise an all male priesthood.

Etc. Etc.

These are not radicalized Catholics?

Study your Catholic history and read your catechism before you answer. **

No, I wouldn’t call these people radical catholics. I would call them Catholics who are trying to work their way through understanding about the teachings of the Church as they continue to grow and develop as Catholics. For example, just because someone doesn’t believe that the Eucharist is real now, doesn’t mean they won’t develop understanding and faith later…But you can’t force that process. Demanding that someone believe something right now, demanding that someone isn’t allowed to ask questions and demanding that someone just let the Church do the thinking for them isn’t conducive to bringing a Catholic in full communion with the Church. Some people get it and get it really easily. But that understanding and acceptance can’t be forced. It is a process that occurs over time and at different times through one’s journey.

In addition, just because someone isn’t on board with any or all of the above issues above mentioned, doesn’t mean they don’t follow them. It means they don’t agree with them, but still choose to obey the rules of the Church.

A radical Catholic would say, “believe and do, or get out”. However, the Church teaches that Baptism leaves an indelible mark on a person’s soul which makes that person Catholic forever, despite what they believe or don’t believe, and despite what they do or don’t do. Despite all these “rebellions?” the Church still calls every Catholic to work towards compliance, and teaches that all Catholics are responsible for helping “rebels” on that journey towards compliance. Therefore, telling a Catholic to “get out” or telling them they aren’t truly Catholic, because they aren’t in compliance in any way, shape or form, is rejecting that plate in the cafeteria that teaches continued growth, efforts to understand, efforts to be compliant, and just as important – the dutiful responsibility of Catholic peers to help their fellow Catholics (compliant or not) on that journey towards understanding. Rejecting this responsibility and taking the easy way out by telling someone to “believe or get out” is rejecting one’s responsibility as a Catholic and makes them no different than the rebel — because they are rebelling against Church teaching as well but have fooled themselves into thinking they’re the most perfectest Catholic evar and their neighbor can just “get out”. I hope that explains where I am coming from and what I’m trying to say…

 

[Gregory_I]

ACtually, a good example of historically “radicalized” Catholics were the Jansenists. They were not calvinist, contrary to popular opinoin, but anathematized Calvin, and took the most extreme view of Augustine’s theology that they could. THe First generation Jansenists sought to remain in the Church and be Catholic. THey never created any formal schism, and when ROme proclaimed certain tenets Heretical, they agreed.

WHere did they err then?

Well, ROme said that there were errors in Bishop Cornelius’ Jansen’s Book “Augustinus.” THey enumerated these errors and condemned them, somewhat informally.

THe Jansenists agreed that the errors were heretical, but maintained they were NOT in Jansen’s Book, but that the Jesuits were just mad that the Jansenists considered them a bunch of morally lax hypocrites; and since the Jesuits had the POpes ear at the time, they misled him out of anger into blaming the Jansenists for five propositions that they themselves deemed heretical.

So, the whole argument came down to whether or not the commonly held heretical views were or were not in a certain book.
lol.

A bit ridiculous, but I thought it was a good example of Catholic FUndamentalists.

It should be noted, I do not consider them heretics myself, because even though they kept putting off decrees, ultimately, when they had no more wiggle room, they did sign confessions anathematizing the so called “errors” of Jansenius, which they maintain he never held in the first place.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

A radical Catholic would say, “believe and do, or get out”. However, the Church teaches that Baptism leaves an indelible mark on a person’s soul which makes that person Catholic forever, despite what they believe or don’t believe, and despite what they do or don’t do. Despite all these “rebellions?” the Church still calls every Catholic to work towards compliance, and teaches that all Catholics are responsible for helping “rebels” on that journey towards compliance. Therefore, telling a Catholic to “get out” or telling them they aren’t truly Catholic, because they aren’t in compliance in any way, shape or form, is rejecting that plate in the cafeteria that teaches continued growth, efforts to understand, efforts to be compliant, and just as important – the dutiful responsibility of Catholic peers to help their fellow Catholics (compliant or not) on that journey towards understanding. Rejecting this responsibility and taking the easy way out by telling someone to “believe or get out” is rejecting one’s responsibility as a Catholic and makes them no different than the rebel — because they are rebelling against Church teaching as well but have fooled themselves into thinking they’re the most perfectest Catholic evar and their neighbor can just “get out”. I hope that explains where I am coming from and what I’m trying to say…

I’m confused by your two posts. Perhaps we are not reading or participating in the same set of threads in this forum. But I am curious, are you talking about CAF in your reference of Catholics telling other Catholics to “believe and do, or get out”? Or are you talking about another environment or information you have in your readings that this happens?

Peace.
,

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think there are things that Jesus would have us be radical about, that for some reason even if we say we’re on fire for Christ, they can seem to be a chore.

How about radical grace? Can you love without the need for the one loved to show appreciation?

Radical mercy? Just how forgiving is it possible to be?

Radical obedience – this is a good one. People say they Jesus would have them do this or tha, but then in an actual situation they make up their own way of dealing with, then try to explain away why they think thy know better than God.

Radical lack or presumption. No matter how much you believe anything, and I mean anything, it always pays to keep in mind that there is plenty more to learn.

Alan

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

First thing I though of when you mentioned “radicalized” Catholic was this you tube video by Michael Voris (Which unfortunately, he has removed) that stated that the best thing for America to do was to become a Catholic theocracy. Only Catholics would be allowed to vote and a Catholic Monarchy would be instated.

I don’t know if you consider that a “good” radical, but he certainly seemed to think it was a good thing to get rid of democracy.

He summarizes some of these views in this video where he responds to the criticism:
youtube.com/watch?v=Jhxd2pBym_g&feature=player_embedded

 

[Joel_PF]

We hear so much in the news of young Muslims becoming “radicalized”. Is there even a positive or good sense of that word? If so, what would a “radicalized” Catholic (in the good sense of the word, of course) be like? What might cause one to become “radicalized”?

Radicalized in the good sense? Well, there are many examples of that: the saints. They are truly radically Catholic. They radicalize the spirit of the faith (guided, of course, by the letter). I mean of course all saints, not only those who have been canonized.

But there is the bad radicalization as well: the modern pharisee. Always judging others, demanding extreme commandments of everyone, looking at the world and seeing everything as evil and beneath his pure soul, dreaming of imaginary utopias where society would be according to his will. Sometimes resorting to destructive behavior to achieve his goals. Guy Fawkes, anyone? They hold the letter above everything else, thus killing the spirit.