The Confusion of Catholicism

[PumpkinCookie]

Furthermore, I do not need the gospels to motivate me to love others and to act on that love. In fact, one of the reasons I left Catholicism is because none of the practices, devotions or masses did anything to make me grow as a person.

I have thought extensively about the role of various church-related activities in my personal development. I must give the Catholic Church credit for inventing ritualized confession. I went to confession once per month every month for decades, and I do think it helped me form a more robust conscience and was psychologically therapeutic. I largely agree with Catholic morality in general, and still practice frequent examinations of conscience. I do think it helps to know that another human being is listening and witnessing your repentance. I repent of my sinfulness all the time, but I can’t prove it to myself easily like I could when I used to go to confession. I miss the clear and ritualized demarcation between “unrepentant” and “repentant” though I know now that it was ultimately a fantasy.

Now, in order to prove my repentance to myself, I try harder to make amends or do some extra good deeds. I suppose this is ultimately more useful, but it is certainly less definite. Regarding everything else, I also found it meaningless.

 

[paziego]

I have thought extensively about the role of various church-related activities in my personal development. I must give the Catholic Church credit for inventing ritualized confession. I went to confession once per month every month for decades, and I do think it helped me form a more robust conscience and was psychologically therapeutic. I largely agree with Catholic morality in general, and still practice frequent examinations of conscience. I do think it helps to know that another human being is listening and witnessing your repentance. I repent of my sinfulness all the time, but I can’t prove it to myself easily like I could when I used to go to confession. I miss the clear and ritualized demarcation between “unrepentant” and “repentant” though I know now that it was ultimately a fantasy.

Now, in order to prove my repentance to myself, I try harder to make amends or do some extra good deeds. I suppose this is ultimately more useful, but it is certainly less definite. Regarding everything else, I also found it meaningless.

I also attended confession regularly, but it did not have the same effect on me. I feel it fooled me into thinking I was a good person. In reality I was losing my own conscience and having it replaced by an artificial, external one.

Perhaps I was too scrupulous, but I felt that with confession you are forced to look at everything which might have made you annoyed, and to blame yourself for every negative emotion you might have. But sometimes the objective facts are that a person has harmed you and feeling resentful is a natural reaction. That does not mean you should hold a grudge or cultivate a hatred, but it would be nice if someone would acknowledge that sometimes you can be a victim. That is something I never experienced in confession.

Sure, going to confession made me feel better than before. If you have problems or actions weighing on your mind then it feels good to ‘cleanse’ them by confronting them head on, and confession gives us a safe space in which to do that. But for the psychological benefits I believe it is better to talk to a friend, who will see your side of the story. As I said, in confession you get an impartial hearing, but the hearing can only be as impartial as your account of the events. If you are already blaming yourself excessively then the priest won’t have an impartial account to go by. I do agree that feeling like you are doing something about yourself feels better than doing nothing - in general being active feels better. But then again, a lot of the issues I would bring up in confession would be spiritual, so I would feel bad about stuff which is actually not real.

I never found confession to produce a lasting effect on me. The holier I thought I was the less I could relate to other people. It severed ties between me and the world too much, and caused me to have an ever-narrowing spirituality. The change was never profound, however. Confession never changed who I was for the better, it just made me feel better about many things which I now know aren’t even anything to worry about and don’t make a bad person. On the other hand, I tried meditation once and I was a calm and agreeable person for a whole week after that, and I even found it easier to concentrate while reading. It has also helped me overcome some hang-ups and I feel more comfortable about being myself. I have always had a tendency to judge myself harshly, so the problem may be with me rather than confession. But confession was not able to help me overcome the harsh way I treated myself. I now take a more vague approach to what “I” means, and it has really benefited me; I no longer bear a grudge against myself, whereas Catholicism encouraged me to.

Similarly, when I look at myself and others now I factor in psychology and personal history. I realise that if a person has been treated badly, by themselves or others, scrupulosity and judgement cloud the issue and take away from the compassion a person should receive. At the very least it should mitigate their level of guilt, if we want to frame it that way. I feel this is a more mature and just way of ‘judging’ myself and others. To genuinely be healed you need to look deeper into the psychology of a person than confession allows. Priests do not have the time nor the training to provide therapy. That is why confession can only be a stopgap measure which will never change the heart of a person. It is potentially damaging because it makes you think it is enough - you get the validation we all crave, but you don’t get the self-awareness. As with all things religious, it presents itself as the ultimate, and it is therefore impossible, or at least sinful, to think of it as insufficient. This can prevent a person from seeking the help they need from the appropriate source, and is generally an impediment to becoming wise, since you never get to know yourself.

 

[OneSheep]

Unfortunately I have not been able to find any evidence to support your statement here. It seems that the book was printed with an imprimi potest, and never received the nihil obstat, a declaration of no objection or imprimatur. It may be that the authors did not get the approval of their local bishop to print their book.

Good Morning, guanophore!

I will look at the book again, but I know I did not come up with the statement OTA. I can look at the book this weekend and get back to you.

This is an interesting human standard used to determine divine truth. It is completely subjective and based on an individual’s personal experience

It reminds me of what the Mormon’s say when we ask them how they know that the Book of Mormon is of God. The say to read it, and when you feel the “burning in your bosom” you will know.

We read, see, hear everything through the eyes of our own individual experiences, so there is no escape from subjectivity. Everyone experiences Love a bit differently, and the statement respects that. This respect, in itself, communicates love. Note: I am not saying that there is no place for sharing experiences that may expand the views of someone else, but I humbly keep in mind that even the experiences I share will be received with subjectivity.

Objectivity, for the most part, is an illusion. Even those of us schooled in the sciences, like myself, know that great pains can be made to remove the factor of subjectivity, but very often we are unsuccessful.

Employing one’s subjective perceptions of what “seems unloving” one can just dismiss the words that are being said.

God forbid that one might hear something in love that does not feel warm and fuzzy!

You see, you are helping make my point. When I say, “God loves unconditionally” this statement may in itself sound very unloving to you. Indeed, “warm and fuzzy” may sound great to some people but not to others. So, by this methodology, if “warm and fuzzy” or “unconditional” sounds unloving to you, feel free to say that my words do not reflect God.

Such an approach seems to dismiss the hermeneutical principles of the Catholic church.
it relies completely upon subjective perception. I suppose , after reading your recommended book, one’s perceptions will be cleansed to the point where they overshadow the Teachings of the Church?

If a Teaching of the Church does not demonstrate that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, then it does not reflect God. You see, I could have substituted “loves at least as much as the person who loves us most”, with “loves/forgives unconditionally”, and that would have inserted my own personal knowledge, based on my prayer life. However, such a view may conflict with Paziego’s experience of love. The way I worded it to him is a little gentler. I am writing this for his eyes too, right now.

This approach seems to presuppose that love is equivalent to salvation, and that our perceptions/image of God should be the foundation used to discern what is true, and what is not. It is a curious approach from a person recommending a book that focuses on how our image of God has been wounded and warped.

I agree, the approach is a bit curious, but hopefully I explained it. You see, part of the reason why I answered his question in the way I did was because in his previous post he brought forward some scripture that appear to depict God in unloving ways, and it was great that he brought those forward. Yes, our image of God as very loving should be foundational. God as I know Him “always waits for us, always understands us, always forgives us.” (Note: I did not say God is always “ready” to forgive us. That insertion makes a completely different statement.)

Have a blessed day!

 

[guanophore]

Furthermore, I do not need the gospels to motivate me to love others and to act on that love. In fact, one of the reasons I left Catholicism is because none of the practices, devotions or masses did anything to make me grow as a person.

Interesting, this is why I left the church also. I felt like I was going through motions - “having a form of Godliness without the power thereof” 2 Timothy 3:5

I had never had a personal encounter with the living Christ, and I was surrounded by bad examples of the faith.

Are you saying that all religions have some measure of truth, but that Catholicism is the complete truth?

This is what the Church teaches about herself.

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

2104 “All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.” It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians “to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith.”

Yes but Catholicism is not the only religion which has had martyrs and scholars. Why accept its claims in the first place? I am also doubtful about the accounts of many of these martyrs and saints.
I am willing to accept authority, but I must have god enough reasons first.
Besides, having lots of martyrs in your history does not make a religion true. And if you want to talk about “fruits” there is plenty to criticise about Catholic history as well.

I don’t care if individual people live up to the teachings or not. I care about whether the teachings themselves are true, or at least reasonable and useful.

We must look at this practically paziego. The Catholic Church claims to be a divine institution, her Head being Christ, and ensouled by the Holy Spirit. She claims to dispense sufficient grace to enable all who are members of her to live upright, according to the commandments of God and able to produce the fruits of the Spirit who animates them. If individual people cannot, and do not, live up to the teachings, does that not invalidate them?

 

[guanophore]

. But I also do not believe the account of genesis literally, and I think this position undermines the idea of original sin.
In fact, I don’t see the sense in a sin you inherit which puts you in a condemned state automatically. I know the claim is that we are living with the effect of original sin and not with the guilt, but if original sin can send you to hell then it seems we really do inherit the guilt.

We inherit the consequence. Adam and Eve made a choice that affected all humanity. God gave them that ability and privilege.

There is no concept of spending your earthly existence making up for an irrevocable imperfection, as is the case in Christianity.

This is an odd thought. I have never heard anything like this before.

Where in Christianity do you find any support for the idea that humans can do anything to “make up for the irrevocable imperfection”? It seems to me the opposite!

Nor is there any obligation to love God under the threat of going to hell, which is absolutely not a loving attitude.

Love gives freedom. If the soul is not free to be separated from God, then we are just puppets.

The bottom line is, I don’t believe the world being imperfect is my fault. Since I live in an imperfect world and am imperfect myself, I often contribute to this imperfection. But I can’t bear the blame (if it even is a question of blame) for the context I was born into. Nor can I inherit the blame of any person who is responsible. This is simply not justice.

Right. This is the difference between inheriting a consequence, and inheriting the guilt. We are not to blame for it, but we live with the consequences of it. Justice is made by God HImself, whose grace frees us from the bondage to the consequences.

It is similar to the offspring of the Pilgrims who migrated to America. The children did not choose to be separated from England, but lived with the consequences of their parents choices.

For this reason I also do not believe in atonement. It is not clear to me what this attainment of worthiness is or what justifies this whole sin-salvation mechanism.

This is probably grist for another thread.

 

[guanophore]

Objectivity, for the most part, is an illusion.  Even those of us schooled in the sciences, like myself, know that great pains can be made to remove the factor of subjectivity, but very often we are unsuccessful.

Especially, I would think, if we cannot acknowledge that there is an objective Source of Truth. If God really does not break into space, time, and human experience to reveal Himself to us, then there really is no objective Source of Truth.

You see, you are helping make my point.  When I say, "God loves unconditionally" this statement may in itself sound very unloving to you.

Not at all. I just do not subtract justice from love.

Indeed, “warm and fuzzy” may sound great to some people but not to others. So, by this methodology, if “warm and fuzzy” or “unconditional” sounds unloving to you, feel free to say that my words do not reflect God.

Your ideology has abrogated the justice of God, such that what can only qualifiy as “loving unconditionally” is that which is experienced by the reicipient is pleasant. But in fact, not all of love is pleasant, or experienced as nurturing. Christ offered the supreme act of love in giving His life on the cross to purchase our redemption. It was not a pleasant experience. He prayed from the cross “why have you abandoned me?” Does this sound like He experienced the standards you are proposing to evaluate love?

If a Teaching of the Church does not demonstrate that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most, then it does not reflect God.

Is it your contention that the Father stopped loving the Son when He was on the cross.

You see, I could have substituted “loves at least as much as the person who loves us most”, with “loves/forgives unconditionally”,

The problem lies in the inappropriate equation of love with salvation. God loves every person He creates. He loves us enought to die for us, while we are yet separated from Him. He loves us enough to appreciate our choice to reject Him. He will love us unconditionally even as we choose to walk through the gates of hell. It seems clear that you do not believe in hell, since that is one of the premises of the book you have been promoting, so I do not expect that pointing this out will have any beneficial effect for you, but for others reading the thread, it is important to recognize that it is love that allows humans to choose separation from God (hell).

God as I know Him “always waits for us, always understands us, always forgives us.” (Note: I did not say God is always “ready” to forgive us. That insertion makes a completely different statement.)

I don’t think it does, OneSheep. God’s choice to forgive us does not cause us to repent. What happens in repentance is that we avail ourselves of the forgiveness that already exists. If we choose not to accept His forgiveness, then we will die in our sins.

 

[OneSheep]

Guanophore has already said most of what I was planning to say about your suggestions.
The Ideas sound great in principle, but what if I am just reading my own thoughts into the text?

Good Morning Paziego!

As you can see above, I addressed guanophore’s concerns. Feel free to comment on my response. How on Earth do we refrain from “reading our own thoughts” into a text? It is impossible. Even a discipline to “be objective” is done from a first-person perspective, and its application is very subjective.

Perhaps the reality is that the Gospels are first and second century writings which reflect the morals and standards of their age. We are now reading them with out 21st century “hat” on, in the most charitable interpretation possible. But this is no guarantee that we are correct in our interpretation.

Well, I start with giving the writer the benefit of the doubt. If I feel that such a “benefit” is unrealistic, then I go ahead and give him the worst of the doubt. In those WCS, I keep in mind that everything in the Bible was written by human beings, and it was written long ago, as you say. There is no guarantee that what you are reading here, right now, from this paragraph, is being received by you in the way that I intended it to be read. Do you see why I think that a focus on words is so superficial?

Furthermore, I do not need the gospels to motivate me to love others and to act on that love. In fact, one of the reasons I left Catholicism is because none of the practices, devotions or masses did anything to make me grow as a person.

Bingo. Every year we go to mass with groups of teenagers forced to go to through the process of confirmation. Most are bored out of their minds. I look at those poor souls suffering and I think, “I am here because I see the full meaning of Eucharist, complete with knowing all the potential that Christianity has (and does) for making the world a better place, including saving our environment, ending war, ending poverty. I am here because while receiving the Real Presence I am making a statement that I am in communion with all Christians, and I am saying that I am one with all of humanity, indeed, all of the living world, all of creation. I am here because these people (adults) are my friends, and we celebrate together.”

Paziego, I do wish that those young people could look beyond the boring rituals and mediocre homilies and have enough experience of life and world to see a deeper meaning. However, such an wish is unrealistic. My oldest son, for example, saw nothing meaningful in Catholicism or the mass, and now in his thirties he is starting to find some meaning, and he has found a wonderful Franciscan parish that is packed with people, mostly gray-haired, but people very much alive in their faith. My son has dedicated his life toward service to others, by profession. Now, he is “getting it.” The meaning developed from the service, from his commitment to others.

Can anything “make us” grow as a person? Sure, we can hear all kinds of inspirational stuff, but actual growth comes from doing, from life itself. It comes from the choices and actions we do. Is this your experience?

So, what do I do? The diocese (after dealing with a lot of red tape!) has given my wife and I permission to take young adults on hiking trips where we will encounter God in nature. There will also be a service component. We will see how it goes.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

 I keep in mind that everything in the Bible was written by human beings, and it was written long ago, as you say.

Perhaps this is just one other aspect of the Catholic faith that you reject. Perhaps you do not accept the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God?

Bingo. Every year we go to mass with groups of teenagers forced to go to through the process of confirmation. Most are bored out of their minds.

It is tragic, I agree. Having taught the confirmation classes, I can relate to this grief.

  I am here because while receiving the Real Presence I am making a statement that I am in communion with all Christians

This seems to be another aspect of the Catholic faith you reject.

Can anything "make us" grow as a person?  Sure, we can hear all kinds of inspirational stuff, but actual growth comes from doing, from life itself.  It comes from the choices and actions we do.  Is this your experience?

This seems to be a very humanistic point of view. There does not seem to be any place for the work of the Holy Spirit in your construct.

 

[paziego]

We inherit the consequence. Adam and Eve made a choice that affected all humanity. God gave them that ability and privilege.

But what is just about making a penalty that is also an inheritance? God could have just penalised Adam and Eve, but instead he extended that consequence to all of mankind.

This is an odd thought. I have never heard anything like this before.

Where in Christianity do you find any support for the idea that humans can do anything to “make up for the irrevocable imperfection”? It seems to me the opposite!

Perhaps not in those words, but that is what “finishing the race” boils down to. It is not until your dying moment that you can know whether you are saved or not, because for as long as you are a moral agent you have the ability to commit mortal sin and fail to attain salvation. All your life you are being tested, and you are the subject of this test because you are in an imperfect state.

Our imperfection is irrevocable until our life is finished. Even when you are fresh out of confession and in a state of grace you still have the ability to sin, and disordered concupiscence. That means we are imperfect even then, and our lives are a constant battle to stay above the margin.

Love gives freedom. If the soul is not free to be separated from God, then we are just puppets.

Yes, but look at your two choices. The alternative to not loving God is eternal suffering. It’s not quite ‘freedom’, is it?

Right. This is the difference between inheriting a consequence, and inheriting the guilt. We are not to blame for it, but we live with the consequences of it. Justice is made by God HImself, whose grace frees us from the bondage to the consequences.

It is similar to the offspring of the Pilgrims who migrated to America. The children did not choose to be separated from England, but lived with the consequences of their parents choices.

Why didn’t god free us from the consequences straight away? Why not limit the consequence to Adam and Eve? He is God, after all. It is not beyond his power to do so. The result of original sin does not seem like a consequence, but like a penalty.
For example, if I over-salt my Bolognese sauce the consequence is that it will taste salty, but if I am caught robbing a bank I will be held accountable and punished. The result of original sin seems much more like a punishment than a consequence.

This is probably grist for another thread.

You are right.

 

[OneSheep]

Similarly, when I look at myself and others now I factor in psychology and personal history. I realise that if a person has been treated badly, by themselves or others, scrupulosity and judgement cloud the issue and take away from the compassion a person should receive. At the very least it should mitigate their level of guilt, if we want to frame it that way. I feel this is a more mature and just way of ‘judging’ myself and others. To genuinely be healed you need to look deeper into the psychology of a person than confession allows. Priests do not have the time nor the training to provide therapy. That is why confession can only be a stopgap measure which will never change the heart of a person. It is potentially damaging because it makes you think it is enough - you get the validation we all crave, but you don’t get the self-awareness. As with all things religious, it presents itself as the ultimate, and it is therefore impossible, or at least sinful, to think of it as insufficient. This can prevent a person from seeking the help they need from the appropriate source, and is generally an impediment to becoming wise, since you never get to know yourself.

What a thoughtful, candid post paziego, you obviously have the confidence not to fear vulnerability (anonymity helps, I know!). Yes, in confession we are not really given the tools to forgive at a deeper level. Generally speaking, there is not the time or climate in such a setting. Yes, for us adults to truly forgive at the deepest level, it helps to “look deeper into the psychology of a person”, even that of ourselves. In my own journey, the words of Christ from the Cross helped set that endeavor in motion.

When Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, He set in motion not only an entirely new Theology, but an entirely new Anthropology. The God of Adam and Eve (which neither of us take literally) did not look upon his creatures and forgive them for their acts. He saw their disobedience and blamed, punished, and banished. The God that Jesus showed us is a God who not only forgives disobedience but looks at a literal killing of Him (when we see Jesus, we see the Father) and says “I forgive you” for He sees that we truly have not a clue what we are doing.

And this is probably the greatest point of contention between guanophore and me. What I see is that whenever we do anything hurtful to ourselves or someone else we don’t know what we are doing. I think Guanophore sees this observation as “making excuses”, which is a common reaction. However, this is no by means an “intent” of the observation; it is an observation independent of any desire for justice. For me, it is a matter of awareness.

 

[OneSheep]

Perhaps this is just one other aspect of the Catholic faith that you reject. Perhaps you do not accept the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God?

Of course they are not “inerrant” guanophore! They were very meaningful and pertinent when they were written.

This seems to be another aspect of the Catholic faith you reject.

Yes, it does seem that way to you.

This seems to be a very humanistic point of view. There does not seem to be any place for the work of the Holy Spirit in your construct.

Thanks for mentioning my failure to explain the Holy Spirit’s actions. The Holy Spirit (God) is ever-present, always active, always showing us the way, whether we see Him or not.

Note: In humility, I can hear someone say “your construct” and interpret “as we all have individual constructs” into your words. I hope that this was meant in your delivery, but I do get the impression that whenever you use the word “humanistic”, you are meaning “as opposed to Christian”, so I am not completely sure that my “hope” is well-founded.

I continue to thank you for the words “seems to” and “seems to be”. They are very much appreciated, and I am taking them as a sincere effort at charity.

 

[paziego]

Good Morning Paziego!

As you can see above, I addressed guanophore’s concerns. Feel free to comment on my response. How on Earth do we refrain from “reading our own thoughts” into a text? It is impossible. Even a discipline to “be objective” is done from a first-person perspective, and its application is very subjective.

Good Morning (afternoon) OneSheep,

You have a good point. We cannot fully remove ourselves when reading a text, although with training and experience we can avoid certain interpretation errors. I read obscure philosophy texts al the time, but with guidance and commentary I can fill in the gaps and appreciate the historical context. I will never take a commentator or translator as authoritative.

I used to lean a lot more towards the conservative side as a Catholic, so I can sympathise with Guanophore’s theology because I had very similar thoughts myself. Although nowadays I am the opposite.

Well, I start with giving the writer the benefit of the doubt. If I feel that such a “benefit” is unrealistic, then I go ahead and give him the worst of the doubt. In those WCS, I keep in mind that everything in the Bible was written by human beings, and it was written long ago, as you say. There is no guarantee that what you are reading here, right now, from this paragraph, is being received by you in the way that I intended it to be read. Do you see why I think that a focus on words is so superficial?

Ok, we shouldn’t focus on words, but the tone of passages I highlighted was not positive.

Are you saying that the New Testament is ambiguous?

Bingo. Every year we go to mass with groups of teenagers forced to go to through the process of confirmation. Most are bored out of their minds. I look at those poor souls suffering and I think, “I am here because I see the full meaning of Eucharist, complete with knowing all the potential that Christianity has (and does) for making the world a better place, including saving our environment, ending war, ending poverty. I am here because while receiving the Real Presence I am making a statement that I am in communion with all Christians, and I am saying that I am one with all of humanity, indeed, all of the living world, all of creation. I am here because these people (adults) are my friends, and we celebrate together.”

It is always the case, isn’t it? When something is not voluntary everyone resents it.

I like the way you view the mass. I never though about it that way before. Although I would get frustrated when we would be asked to pray for persecuted Christians , and maybe victims of high profile natural disasters, but no one else who was suffering. Especially members of other religions.

Paziego, I do wish that those young people could look beyond the boring rituals and mediocre homilies and have enough experience of life and world to see a deeper meaning. However, such an wish is unrealistic. My oldest son, for example, saw nothing meaningful in Catholicism or the mass, and now in his thirties he is starting to find some meaning, and he has found a wonderful Franciscan parish that is packed with people, mostly gray-haired, but people very much alive in their faith. My son has dedicated his life toward service to others, by profession. Now, he is “getting it.” The meaning developed from the service, from his commitment to others.

Have you read “7 Secrets of the Eucharist”? It is designed to help people gain a deeper appreciation for the mass. It is a quick read and very accessible. It is also very practical. I would recommend it for the situation you describe.

Good Goats looks interesting. I am looking at it on amazon as we speak.

Can anything “make us” grow as a person? Sure, we can hear all kinds of inspirational stuff, but actual growth comes from doing, from life itself. It comes from the choices and actions we do. Is this your experience?

Yes, I agree. There is no substitute for experiencing life if you want to grow.
Travel can make us grow, as St Augustine would no doubt point out. So can therapy, though it is better not to need it. Trying new things and meeting new people can also make us grow. Studying philosophy and discovering how little we actually know, but learning how to think, also makes you grow.

So, what do I do? The diocese (after dealing with a lot of red tape!) has given my wife and I permission to take young adults on hiking trips where we will encounter God in nature. There will also be a service component. We will see how it goes.

Blessings

It sounds lovely. Unfortunately where I live it is not easy to get away from the city. And even once you do the countryside is not that special. I hope to move somewhere more rural one day.

Paz

 

[OneSheep]

Especially, I would think, if we cannot acknowledge that there is an objective Source of Truth. If God really does not break into space, time, and human experience to reveal Himself to us, then there really is no objective Source of Truth.

However, God does indeed break into space, time, and human experience, as He did in the incarnation.

Not at all. I just do not subtract justice from love.

Yes, and we can look at the scene of the stoning of the adulteress, the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the parable of the prodigal son, and the forgiveness of the unrepentant of the cross as examples of such justice. On the other hand, we can look at the story of the unforgiving servant, words of being “tossed into gehenna” and much of the Book of Revelations to see another example of justice. Yes, different spiritualities will manifest in different opinions of applied justice.

Your ideology has abrogated the justice of God, such that what can only qualifiy as “loving unconditionally” is that which is experienced by the reicipient is pleasant. But in fact, not all of love is pleasant, or experienced as nurturing. Christ offered the supreme act of love in giving His life on the cross to purchase our redemption. It was not a pleasant experience. He prayed from the cross “why have you abandoned me?” Does this sound like He experienced the standards you are proposing to evaluate love?

You left out the words “seems to” between the words “ideology” and “abrogated” and inserted the word “has”, guanophore. Yes, sometimes loving someone else involves some suffering, but it is not the recipient who suffers in an act of love. The whole idea of “purchase” is addressed here:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Is it your contention that the Father stopped loving the Son when He was on the cross.

You forgot to put a question mark at the end of that, but I will answer it as a question. My answer: no. Jesus our Lord had to show us that He loves us unconditionally, and he had to show his forgiveness while we were practicing the ultimate condition. There is much more there, but I agree, service to people can be painful when it is necessary.

The problem lies in the inappropriate equation of love with salvation. God loves every person He creates. He loves us enought to die for us, while we are yet separated from Him. He loves us enough to appreciate our choice to reject Him. He will love us unconditionally even as we choose to walk through the gates of hell. It seems clear that you do not believe in hell, since that is one of the premises of the book you have been promoting, so I do not expect that pointing this out will have any beneficial effect for you, but for others reading the thread, it is important to recognize that it is love that allows humans to choose separation from God (hell).

The book I mentioned does not eliminate the possibility of hell, and neither do I.

A priest (the scripture scholar) once told us his opinion. He said, “If anyone chooses hell, they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.”(Theology) I take this image very literally. In my view, there is no “gotcha” about the whole decision, where we are somehow misled into making the wrong choice. If a person chooses hell, it is going to be a very clear choice. As you know, I don’t see anyone making such a choice (though I must admit it is theoretically possible).(Anthropology) It seems to me that our theologies and anthropologies are a bit different.

I don’t think it does, OneSheep. God’s choice to forgive us does not cause us to repent. What happens in repentance is that we avail ourselves of the forgiveness that already exists. If we choose not to accept His forgiveness, then we will die in our sins.

Though your statement does not explain why the use of “ready” does not make a difference, I can agree with your statement. However, first of all, Jesus used the word “salvation” in terms of being free from slavery and living a life and being “perfect, as our Father is perfect” as stated in my Catholic Bible, pastoral edition, footnotes. In addition, when “salvation” is meant as “going to heaven” I again have the same opinion as the priest I quoted. If we are choosing hell, we are going there screaming and kicking against God. I definitely know an “I’m in your face” God, not an indifferent “tough luck, he should have known better” God. Do you see what I mean about images?

 

[paziego]

What a thoughtful, candid post paziego, you obviously have the confidence not to fear vulnerability (anonymity helps, I know!). Yes, in confession we are not really given the tools to forgive at a deeper level. Generally speaking, there is not the time or climate in such a setting. Yes, for us adults to truly forgive at the deepest level, it helps to “look deeper into the psychology of a person”, even that of ourselves. In my own journey, the words of Christ from the Cross helped set that endeavor in motion.

I am glad you have found something that helps you. Like I said, in my experience confession was about forgiving everybody else. But you have to learn to forgive yourself as well, and to take it easy on yourself.

When Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, He set in motion not only an entirely new Theology, but an entirely new Anthropology. The God of Adam and Eve (which neither of us take literally) did not look upon his creatures and forgive them for their acts. He saw their disobedience and blamed, punished, and banished. The God that Jesus showed us is a God who not only forgives disobedience but looks at a literal killing of Him (when we see Jesus, we see the Father) and says “I forgive you” for He sees that we truly have not a clue what we are doing.

And this is probably the greatest point of contention between guanophore and me. What I see is that whenever we do anything hurtful to ourselves or someone else we don’t know what we are doing. I think Guanophore sees this observation as “making excuses”, which is a common reaction. However, this is no by means an “intent” of the observation; it is an observation independent of any desire for justice. For me, it is a matter of awareness.

I believe what you are describing is known as “Socratic intellectualism”.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning (afternoon) OneSheep,

You have a good point. We cannot fully remove ourselves when reading a text, although with training and experience we can avoid certain interpretation errors. I read obscure philosophy texts al the time, but with guidance and commentary I can fill in the gaps and appreciate the historical context. I will never take a commentator or translator as authoritative.

I used to lean a lot more towards the conservative side as a Catholic, so I can sympathise with Guanophore’s theology because I had very similar thoughts myself. Although nowadays I am the opposite.

I also once shared more of guanophore’s perspective.

Ok, we shouldn’t focus on words, but the tone of passages I highlighted was not positive.

Are you saying that the New Testament is ambiguous?

Yes, for good reason. There are words of acceptance for two different spiritualities, as I think you can gather from my response to guanophore above. People have different images of God, but I think the Gospel is telling us that both images belong and have their place.

It is always the case, isn’t it? When something is not voluntary everyone resents it.

I like the way you view the mass. I never though about it that way before. Although I would get frustrated when we would be asked to pray for persecuted Christians , and maybe victims of high profile natural disasters, but no one else who was suffering. Especially members of other religions.

In our mass, we pray for persecuted Christians, but we pray for all victims of oppression and persecution. Maybe we should have a talk with your petition-writer?

Have you read “7 Secrets of the Eucharist”? It is designed to help people gain a deeper appreciation for the mass. It is a quick read and very accessible. It is also very practical. I would recommend it for the situation you describe.

Good Goats looks interesting. I am looking at it on amazon as we speak.

I will check out the “secrets” book. Keep in mind that the illustrations in Good Goats are a bit “cute”, and the book was written in a way to be very accessible to everyone. Also, I don’t think the book spends much time on the importance/reason for seeing God in the very way that we are being “healed” from. In other words, I think there is a purpose for seeing God as very punitive, as I once did.

Yes, I agree. There is no substitute for experiencing life if you want to grow.
Travel can make us grow, as St Augustine would no doubt point out. So can therapy, though it is better not to need it. Trying new things and meeting new people can also make us grow. Studying philosophy and discovering how little we actually know, but learning how to think, also makes you grow.

I agree!

It sounds lovely. Unfortunately where I live it is not easy to get away from the city. And even once you do the countryside is not that special. I hope to move somewhere more rural one day.

Paz

Yes, it does help to live at a scenic tourist destination where we are. PM me if you would like to come out and see some sights. We could put you up for sure. I know it’s hard to get away, but the offer is there.

Oh, as far as “Socratic intellectualism” goes, this is the first time I have ever heard the term. I am going to read more about it. I am not sure what is meant by the “virtue” aspect.

 

[paziego]

I also once shared more of guanophore’s perspective.

Interesting. Such changes are unusual.

I will check out the “secrets” book. Keep in mind that the illustrations in Good Goats are a bit “cute”, and the book was written in a way to be very accessible to everyone. Also, I don’t think the book spends much time on the importance/reason for seeing God in the very way that we are being “healed” from. In other words, I think there is a purpose for seeing God as very punitive, as I once did.

Don’t worry. I had a look at it and I can tell from the text that it is not a kids book.

Yes, it does help to live at a scenic tourist destination where we are. PM me if you would like to come out and see some sights. We could put you up for sure. I know it’s hard to get away, but the offer is there.

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately I don’t live in the US.

Oh, as far as “Socratic intellectualism” goes, this is the first time I have ever heard the term. I am going to read more about it. I am not sure what is meant by the “virtue” aspect.

There is an acceptable Wikipedia on socratic intellectualism.

Virtue is about good moral character, being sagely or holy. Think about the Catholic virtues, and contrast this with obedience to a prescriptive sharia or “ends justify means”.

From our trusty friends at Stanford,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.

Socratic intellectualism is not necessarily only about virtue. It can combine with one or both of the other approaches. The key thing is it claims we only do the wrong thing because we do not know what we are really doing.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I also attended confession regularly, but it did not have the same effect on me. I feel it fooled me into thinking I was a good person. In reality I was losing my own conscience and having it replaced by an artificial, external one.

Perhaps I was too scrupulous, but I felt that with confession you are forced to look at everything which might have made you annoyed, and to blame yourself for every negative emotion you might have. But sometimes the objective facts are that a person has harmed you and feeling resentful is a natural reaction. That does not mean you should hold a grudge or cultivate a hatred, but it would be nice if someone would acknowledge that sometimes you can be a victim. That is something I never experienced in confession.

Sure, going to confession made me feel better than before. If you have problems or actions weighing on your mind then it feels good to ‘cleanse’ them by confronting them head on, and confession gives us a safe space in which to do that. But for the psychological benefits I believe it is better to talk to a friend, who will see your side of the story. As I said, in confession you get an impartial hearing, but the hearing can only be as impartial as your account of the events. If you are already blaming yourself excessively then the priest won’t have an impartial account to go by. I do agree that feeling like you are doing something about yourself feels better than doing nothing - in general being active feels better. But then again, a lot of the issues I would bring up in confession would be spiritual, so I would feel bad about stuff which is actually not real.

I never found confession to produce a lasting effect on me. The holier I thought I was the less I could relate to other people. It severed ties between me and the world too much, and caused me to have an ever-narrowing spirituality. The change was never profound, however. Confession never changed who I was for the better, it just made me feel better about many things which I now know aren’t even anything to worry about and don’t make a bad person. On the other hand, I tried meditation once and I was a calm and agreeable person for a whole week after that, and I even found it easier to concentrate while reading. It has also helped me overcome some hang-ups and I feel more comfortable about being myself. I have always had a tendency to judge myself harshly, so the problem may be with me rather than confession. But confession was not able to help me overcome the harsh way I treated myself. I now take a more vague approach to what “I” means, and it has really benefited me; I no longer bear a grudge against myself, whereas Catholicism encouraged me to.

Similarly, when I look at myself and others now I factor in psychology and personal history. I realise that if a person has been treated badly, by themselves or others, scrupulosity and judgement cloud the issue and take away from the compassion a person should receive. At the very least it should mitigate their level of guilt, if we want to frame it that way. I feel this is a more mature and just way of ‘judging’ myself and others. To genuinely be healed you need to look deeper into the psychology of a person than confession allows. Priests do not have the time nor the training to provide therapy. That is why confession can only be a stopgap measure which will never change the heart of a person. It is potentially damaging because it makes you think it is enough - you get the validation we all crave, but you don’t get the self-awareness. As with all things religious, it presents itself as the ultimate, and it is therefore impossible, or at least sinful, to think of it as insufficient. This can prevent a person from seeking the help they need from the appropriate source, and is generally an impediment to becoming wise, since you never get to know yourself.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I personally haven’t been to confession in several years because I’ve also discovered that it was no longer helpful and I have no reason to suppose the ritual itself had a magical effect on my soul. It was, however, an important part in my development when I was younger. The absolution is, I agree, shallow and illusory, but for me it was the process of preparing for confessions on a regular basis that helped me form moral self-awareness. I do see how this process can cause psychological damage or undesirable effects, but fortunately there wasn’t a task master doting over me and telling me the “right” way to do confession. I think the regularity of it encouraged moral vigilance in me, although I can see how scrupulosity is a kind of excess vigilance. For me, morality has never been about “holiness” but about treating others and myself well. I never wanted to be “holy,” I just want to do the right thing. I think the kind of spiritual perfectionism you have mentioned you found in Catholicism is emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually harmful for sure. If confession encouraged moral perfectionism, I can understand why you believe it was harmful.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if my memories of Catholicism are “rose-colored” since I have become significantly less angry over the past year while making an attempt to forgive and gain some distance.

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I personally haven’t been to confession in several years because I’ve also discovered that it was no longer helpful and I have no reason to suppose the ritual itself had a magical effect on my soul. It was, however, an important part in my development when I was younger. The absolution is, I agree, shallow and illusory, but for me it was the process of preparing for confessions on a regular basis that helped me form moral self-awareness. I do see how this process can cause psychological damage or undesirable effects, but fortunately there wasn’t a task master doting over me and telling me the “right” way to do confession. I think the regularity of it encouraged moral vigilance in me, although I can see how scrupulosity is a kind of excess vigilance. For me, morality has never been about “holiness” but about treating others and myself well. I never wanted to be “holy,” I just want to do the right thing. I think the kind of spiritual perfectionism you have mentioned you found in Catholicism is emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually harmful for sure. If confession encouraged moral perfectionism, I can understand why you believe it was harmful.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if my memories of Catholicism are “rose-colored” since I have become significantly less angry over the past year while making an attempt to forgive and gain some distance.

Aristotle was right to propose the Golden Mean theory which helps us avoid unbalanced behaviour. Scrupulosity and laxity are extremes that do far more harm than good but just wanting to do the right thing is not a guarantee we’ll do it! The Church in her wisdom teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience but it has to be an informed conscience, i.e. based on consultation and discussion, not a shot in the dark! If we disregard centuries of human experience we’re heading for disaster and disillusionment…

 

[tonyrey]

…Socratic intellectualism is not necessarily only about virtue. It can combine with one or both of the other approaches. The key thing is it claims we only do the wrong thing because we do not know what we are really doing.

Ultimately all evil is due to ignorance because in the long run it harms us more than it harms others but it is culpable ignorance if we know our behaviour is wrong.

 

[grannymh]

I bet that my personal confusion about current Catholic teachings is due to these modern–get them while they are hot–ideas of skipping any interpretations of Catholic teachings which are annoying.

Especially those out-of-touch Catholic teachings that remind people that they are responsible for their actions and that there are serious consequences to Mortal Sin. It seems like the new “Catholic” teaching is that God doesn’t care about serious rejection because all nasty actions are the same ignorant choice so there is no responsibility and forgiveness is thus unnecessary.

Speaking about the Divine God, the current—do it yourself-- teachings surrounding the real Adam in Genesis 1: 26-27, have been trounced to the point that the Divinity teachings on the Incarnation are also headed for the trash pile. Ooops. Talking about a real first human Adam rejecting God and free choice are a no-no in today’s lovey-dovey one size tent fits all.

Maybe it is because I am older than dirt that I am confused. Back in the old days, God was God Who was not under any person’s thumb. If a person committed a Mortal Sin, that person needed to seek God’s forgiveness. It is God’s mercy which is His sign of His unconditional love. We need to make a free choice to accept or reject God’s mercy. We have the power to turn away from unconditional love.