Sometimes, I think the charismatic people try to hard

[foolishmortal]

Sometimes, restrictions in expressing yourself can be more intense an experience. It’s like traditional standards of art, women being less liberated than men, farm boys staying on the farm and not pusuing fancy jobs and degrees, Catholics being less liberated in places like England or early America, etc… It seems, the more free you are to redefine society and express yourself, the less happy people get and the less beautiful society is. I don’t think life is that rosy for those in charge. We want what they have, but having liberties spreads you out too thinly. You really don’t have the pleasure of the power you think you would.

I bet older sons in farming families didn’t really have a blast ordering their brothers around. Sure, the power trip might be a drug for a while, but most would probably like the Easy Button on those commercials that used to be on tv. Well, at least being the top dogs in the background would be like that. Oftentimes, it’s the ones in the background that pull the strings, anyway–the woman that turns the man’s head, for example (some women get beat and some religious get persecuted, but their humbled position would make them better off inside than their dead-inside bullies, but I apologize if that’s offensive). For another example, you think the secret societies would be so powerful in the world if they were elected officials trying to be and/or look in charge of so many things?

I’m not saying I don’t want the underground Catholics and other persecuted people in China to be unharassed, but civil rights and success in a society can spell doom for a liberated people. They start getting soft and embarrass themselves. I love all the art, architecture and music that has developed in the Church until the “spirit of Vatican 2”, but would we have been a spiritually healthier, happier and more disciplined faithful remaining a persecuted pilgrim church?

 

[Trishie]

I think I’d prefer all to live the gospel and the Sacraments without oppression. Oppression, in any case, usually if not always involves sin against others. The less sin the better!

 

[foolishmortal]

I guess I may have confused people where I’m going. Well, when I’m saying the rosary, I sometimes raise my arms in the air. Of course, feelings don’t dictate the condition of the soul or if the Holy Spirit really moved you to do that, but it’s less self-suggestive when you do traditional worship and not working at it like an insomniac trying his/her hardest to fall to sleep. Am I onto something. I do stream of thought writing on forums and it lacks an integrity that you get when you write an essay, which has a tried and true form. St. Francis followed a tried and true form. He lived like Jesus and his apostles did.

For a worldwide church that’s free and with a hierarchy, which was established by God, and non-persecuted people free to learn how to make beautiful works that inspire, though some may have just needed the money the popes were offering, regular people who have money and high culture to respect God, the way things were were tried and true for that context. Still, the pope that welcomed St. Francis, and people like Lady Jacobi (sp?), saw his behind-the-scenes inspiring life the better life for those who can do it. I’m sure even St. Francis would have liked to have not been the leader sometimes. I bet his humility made him prefer to be not special and under another’s leadership, but God chose him to be a leader and he said “Yes” and his mission of fixing the Church made him have to be in the spotlight.

It’s all about restrictions keeping virtues in. Though some situations require standing out, it too, like St. Francis or St. Maximillian Kolbe, brings difficulties that don’t come with having a house, kids and enough money for idle thinking. Though they were more than happy to suffer much to serve the Lord, I bet they wish they had a partner in the mission that was as inspired to do the same and had the same level of faith in God. They did have ones that were pretty close, though.
Regarding art and architecture, St. Francis was better off keeping things simple, because he could, but I don’t think he would approve what went on in the Spirit of Vatican 2. He would build churches and their interiors as beautifully as he could with found objects and make them theologically beautiful as well (no weird geometric shapes and stained glass windows that look like they were designed by people in places for the mentally unstable). He would have Jesus on the cross as well. The liturgical music would not be rockin’. It would be as reverent as possible, harmonizing interior worship with exterior worship and the signs of each. In other words, it would be simple and not tacky. The world-weary need such humble displays at times, but I think we need more out of this world in a way our subconsciousness recognize as heavenly kind of architecture, art and music that truthfully informs our Faith in more ways than is evident. Opening up this all to any artistic expression has lost that where it’s been employed. Many more than some who got abused by bad-acting priests stop respecting the Faith and God, who created it and us, because we already live at our level and God brought down to our level is nothing special. He did have a human nature like ours (elevated since his death like ours will be, if in heaven after the general judgment), which allowed him to experience humanness, but, in having a divine nature, he still had awesome powers he used when necessary, which awed his world-weary followers, who need that in the beginning. He restricted himself to the point of being abused and killed by his own creatures.

I am not for domestic violence, but they have a better chance at not being idle and watching stuff like Desperate Housewives. They and those children who are capable of meriting by offering up suffering, may be able to avoid purgatory easier by offering up the suffering, though the evil done them, like done to underground Catholics, must be stopped. Grace comes out of hardships and evil. We may be due for some of that grace as a people in the West. It may come by radical Muslims, who aren’t sick in the area of population control, populating it, where we’ve declined in numbers by many unjust freedoms.

Am I wrong in all this? I’m no theologian

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Hi, Thx for raising some good points. I get a bit of what you mean. I’ve been up all night on the forums and it’s 6am now so my mind is drifting a little. I’ll just say a few things. We do have too much freedom in our democracies today. No one is ever responsible for what they do - its someone elses fault too. I won’t attempt to answer all your questions, just try to offer a solution. The cause of every evil in the world is sin. Think about it. Is there any bad thing that is not a result of sin? No.
The answer to solving all the worlds problems is personal sanctification. If we all strove to be saints all the problems would quickly disappear. Was there 10 righteous men in Sodom. No, and so it perished. Our Lady asked us to pray and make sacrifices at Fatima or there would be severe punishment as we’ve seen. We just have to worry about ourselves and strive for sanctity first. If we do this much good will come of it for us and all. God bless