The Confusion of Catholicism

[Abu]

Thorolfr #799
Quote:
St. John of the Cross (1542-1591; a doctor of the Church) states in his classic work, The Dark Night of the Soul, Book 1.Chapter 1.Section 2: “It should be known, then, that God nurtures and caresses the soul, after it has been resolutely converted to his service, like a loving mother who warms her child with the heat of her bosom, nurses it with good milk and tender food, and carries and caresses it in her arms. But as the child grows older, the mother withdraws her caresses and hides her tender love; she rubs bitter aloes on her sweet breast and sets the child down from her arms, letting it walk on its own feet so that it may put aside the habits of childhood and grow accustomed to greater and more important things. The grace of God acts just as a loving mother by re-engendering in the soul new enthusiasm and fervor in the service of God.”
stjamesschooloftheology.com/…inine-imagery/

St. John of the Cross was only a saint and a doctor of the Church, so perhaps he didn’t know proper doctrine that he should only talk about God as Father…

This illustrates clearly that God is NOT ever addressed as female, and is NOT female, but His male reality is expressed in many loving ways by the faithful who appreciate God’s Fatherhood.

 

[Abu]

OneSheep #459
And if you shut people off, discontinue conversation, tell people they are taking a position contrary to Catholic faith, are you in right relationship with Christ? Is this what Christ asks of us? No, guanophore,
#482
I have put forth Catholic teachings that support the definition I presented of communion, namely CCC790 and 791 which base communion on Eucharist, but you have not supported your view, that communion is based on complete acceptance of all Church teachings.

Now do you assent to the Church’s definitive teaching clearly given in post #793?
**Can. 205 **Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

 

[Abu]

paziego #871
So Aristotle had nothing to do with the invention of science, nor did the Arabs? You are rewriting history.

False.

SEE: catholicleague.org/catholicism-and-science/
Catholicism and Science
by Rodney Stark
(from Catalyst 9/2004)
Excerpt:
‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe—the so-called Dark Ages.

‘The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.’

ALSO: Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr.:
“Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.”

Woods breaks the history of the Church and Western civilization into chapters that treat the Church from its beginning through the so-called Dark Ages up to the present day. He demonstrates that Western institutions, though often originating in Athens and Jerusalem, were developed into a Catholic culture in a process that accelerated from the early Middle Ages right up to the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
*The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy *(Lanham, Md.; Lexington Books, 2005)].

 

[Abu]

PumpkinCookie #896
Catholicism, for me, proclaims with infallible certainty on all manner of things which seem to me to be doubtful, dubious, controversial, and non-obvious. And, their argument for their authority to make such proclamations is circular and thus unfounded.

False. There is no circular argument – this is a most common error, unthinkingly repeated.

There is nothing circular about the reality of papal infallibility which was given by Christ to St Peter and his successor popes.

You have been hoodwinked by imbibing a false circular argument. Jettison such a fallacy and learn the truth.

The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God.

The spiral argument is logical and complete:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger – His many miracles.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

The writings of these facts—the Gospels – are comparable with other ancient documents from writers such as Caesar, Tacitus, Thucydides and others, they are all reliable as history.

Historically, they prove that the messenger sent from God worked many miracles to support His mission and teaching to the extent of forgiving sins. God as Truth cannot provide such power to prove falsehood, so the claims of Jesus are true, culminating in the fact of His resurrection from the dead.

So from the reliability of the Gospels as history, we now know that:

1. An infallible Church was founded by the Son of God
2. That infallible Church teaches that the Bible, as She has given us, is the inspired Word of God.

She teaches by Her Sacred Scripture, Her Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium.

 

[guanophore]

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.

God created them with the privilege to decide for the human race. Had they chosen otherwise, that consequence would have been extended to all of mankind.

He is the Creator. Can He not decide what He wants to do with/for His creatures?

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,

Actually, we don’t know even then. When the days of our lives on earth are fulfilled, we die, and after that, the judgement. That being said, He has given us His very great and precious promises, that we may have the confidence of faith.

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.

Yes, we have the choice to rebel against Him all our lives, but it is not because we are in an imperfect state. Adam and Eve were created in a perfect state, and they chose to rebel against God. We are subject to it because we are created with freedom. He created us in love, so we have the freedom to reject His love.

 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.

6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Gen. 4:7

If we did not have the continued choice to sin, then we would not be truly free.

I do not know what you mean about “above the margin”. Either we are in a state of grace, or not. We cannot earn our way to heaven by “staying above a margin” of some kind. We are in right relationship with Him, or we are not.

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

In freedom of choice, there are consequences to every choice. God created humankind for fellowship with Himself. Fellowship that is coerced is not true fellowship, but slavery. Since we are created to be in communion with Him, choosing not to do so will have unpleasant consequences. Nevertheless, He allows us this choice.

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.

God knew what He would do to redeem mankind from the beginning, and He knew that we would fall short even if we chose HIm, so He provided a way for us to escape the consequence, and the penalty, by paying it Himself. Truthfully, I do not know why God chose this method to fulfull our freedom. He could have done otherwise, or done it in any other way He chose.

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.

I guess that depends upon whether you are made to eat salty food.

God desires that all men be freed from sin,and the consequences of sin. He has provided a means for this to happen. People can choose to die in their sins.

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.

I am not sure what this means. How does being forgiven for sins equat to being a “good person”? I think that God created man as good, so I think you were good before you went to confession. Do you think that good people cannot do bad things?
Do you see why I am confused?

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.

Not too scrupulous, but poorly catechized, perhaps. Yes, we should do a good examination of conscience. yes, we should look at things that make us annoyed because the things that annoy us are usually those things in ourselves we don’t like. But blaming ourselves for ever negative emotion has no place in Catholic theology. In fact, emotions need not be any part of confession at all. Self blame is certainly nowhere found in Catholic teaching.

But sometimes the objective facts are that a person has harmed you and feeling resentful is a natural reaction.

Certainly. And feelings are not sins.

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.

Yes, it would be helpful, and might support healing. It may be a shortcoming of the priest. Some priests are good at acknowledging that one has been hurt, and that hurt is not a sin.

 

[guanophore]

. 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.

It sounds like you would have benefitted from some competent spiritual direction in addition to confession.

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,

This is certainly and interesting dynamic. I am not sure you can say that there has been no lasting effect. You have no way of knowing how the trajectory of your life may have been changed. I do agree, though, the holier we think we are, the more it interferes with our relationship with others. Being free from sin makes us clean, but does not necessarily make us holy in the sense that we produce the fruits that befit repentance.

I am not sure what you mean by “it severed ties between me and the world too much”. In one sense, it is an advantage to be severed from that which separates us from God. On the other hand, we are called to live in the world, though not of it.

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.

Isn’t that good? It seems good.

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.

The problem is often with ourselves, but that does not mean you couldn’t have used some better spiritual direction at the tiem. Most of us have a tendency to judge ourselves too harshly. We then project that harshness on to God, or the Church., or others, or all the above.

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.

I am not sure this is a fair accusation against Catholicism. But it does sound like your personal experience of the faith was insufficient to heal you of your self grudging. Bearing grudges against yourself is not Catholic.

Similarly, when I look at myself and others now I factor in psychology and personal history.

Is there some reason you believe Catholics cannot or do not do this?

To genuinely be healed you need to look deeper into the psychology of a person than confession allows.

The sacrament does not prevent a person from looking deeper into themselves. On the contrary, it enables them to become free of that which they discover. It is regrettable that you did not learn to look deeply into your own psychology at the time, but that is not a limitation of the sacrament, ,or the faith.

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.

I submit that a person cannot make a good confession unless their heart has already been changed. But I do agree with you, that most priests are not trained to provide therapy. Spiritual direction is not therapy. But that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the sacrament. Not only is a person’s heart already changed when they enter, but the grace of the sacrament further changes them. The heart must continue on the journey to change, of course.

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.

Validation is important. Receiving forgiveness is important. But it is a starting point, where we begin again to become what we are created to be. We must continue to bear the fruits that befit repentance. It is not accurate to say we don’t get self awareness through the sacrament, because we do. It is a cumulative process, and we don’t get it all at once.

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.

I don’t think you will find anytihng in Catholic teaching that purports that confession is the “ultimate”. Of course it restores us to a state of grace, but while we are in this life, we may need to continually avail ourselves of this grace. Being forgiven does not imply the journey is at an end!

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.

I suppose that depends upon the person. If indeed you were so poorly catechized as to think the sacrament of confession meant you needed no more examination of conscience, then I guess that is an impediment. The shortcoming is not with the sacrament, but the lack of proper teaching of the meaning.

 

[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.

What you seem to be saying is that God is unable to break through our limitations and reveal Himself to us in such a way that our own subjectiviteis are block Him. What a weak God!

Yes, in confession we are not really given the tools to forgive at a deeper level.

Can you provide any support for this position? It seems to me that the opposite is true. In the daily readings this week, Jesus teaches us about forgiveness and how deeply it must go.

A person who does not grasp this depth has not yet entered into the depth of the sacrament. that is not a shortcoming of the sacrament.

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.

The sacrament does not occur in isolation, but in the context of a life of prayer and examination of conscience. It is sad to see that you were not adequaely catechized about the sacrament either, but it does explain a lot.

 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.

This is a very subjective view of the Fall. If God was unforgiving, they would have been deprived of their lives immediately. Instead, He loved them so much, He did not want them to enter eternal life in a state of separation from Him, so he banished them from the garden, and guarded the tree of life, lest they be separated from Him in their sins.

Requiring that people take responsibility for their sins is not “blame”. Blame has no useful purpose.

What I see is that whenever we do anything hurtful to ourselves or someone else we don't know what we are doing.

There are many sins that happen through ignorance. But to narrow human experience to this is incomplete. Humans can, and do, willingly and knowingly reject God, and participate in evil.

 

[OneSheep]

Now do you assent to the Church’s definitive teaching clearly given in post #793?
**Can. 205 **Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Thank you, Abu, for bringing this forth. “All of the above” is the answer. You can look at post 809, the words of Pope Benedict XV applied when “push came to shove” so to speak, that is, when Catholics who share the same table start pointing at each other and saying “not Catholic” a deeper pastoral emphasis kicks in.

O_milly also did a great job on his post 882, just in case you missed it. It is definitely worth a read.

 

[Abu]

Paziego #902
Firstly, the Catholic church is not the only institution or group claiming to teach the ultimate religious truth. Naturally, there must be a reason why Catholics turn to Catholicism in the first place in the belief that it is genuinely from God. Similarly, Buddhists, Muslims or Sikhs all must have reasons to believe that their faith is the correct one to follow.

The inescapable difference is the reality that Jesus of Nazareth not only clearly built His own Church, but established His Godhead by His many miracles, His Resurrection, and His Presence among His Chosen until the end of time.

The question we need to ask first is “which of the many groups, if any, is the one that should command our obedience?” How can we know? Surely this question must come first?

The right question.

Christ established ONLY ONE Church – the Catholic Church. Did you not know that?
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

No other sect or religion was founded by the Christ.

No other religion can produce the reality of the miracles worked through Christ’s own Church. The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Well, this is indeed the conclusion I have made from my own observations, and Jesus also proclaimed a version of this in His “forgive them for they know not what they do”. My philosopher son pointed out to me the difference between affective knowledge and propositional knowledge. We can know that something is wrong (propositional) but still not know what we are doing (affective) as Jesus observed from the Cross. This is the same observation I make. “Knowing what we are doing” especially includes knowing the value of those we want to hurt, which is a big part of what those who crucified Christ were lacking.

Thanks for passing this on to me. It is interesting that someone who lived millenia ago made the same conclusion that I did, though I am saying that very tentatively.

 

[simpleas]

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…

Yes I am thinking confession alone is not always effective for all. There is no time for consultation and discussion, it is the place to be forgiven through a priest for the sins we know we have committed that is all. Our parish is working on developing ideas to bring confession into the church again. Since you are in the UK, have you heard about the mercy bus?

 

[paziego]

False.

SEE: catholicleague.org/catholicism-and-science/
Catholicism and Science
by Rodney Stark
(from Catalyst 9/2004)
Excerpt:
‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe—the so-called Dark Ages.

‘The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.’

ALSO: Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr.:
“Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.”

Woods breaks the history of the Church and Western civilization into chapters that treat the Church from its beginning through the so-called Dark Ages up to the present day. He demonstrates that Western institutions, though often originating in Athens and Jerusalem, were developed into a Catholic culture in a process that accelerated from the early Middle Ages right up to the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
*The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy *(Lanham, Md.; Lexington Books, 2005)].

Oh please, like a website called catholicleague is not going to be biased. I have read books and articles claiming the same thing about Islam and Hinduism. You shouldn’t trust any of the claims.

realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

Even if all that were true, which it is not, the developments are not necessarily because of the church.

 

[paziego]

The sacrament does not prevent a person from looking deeper into themselves. On the contrary, it enables them to become free of that which they discover. It is regrettable that you did not learn to look deeply into your own psychology at the time, but that is not a limitation of the sacrament, ,or the faith.

I believe it does. I have never seen an examination of conscience guide that went especially deep. At the very least, it does not encourage a person to look deeper. The sacrament is not based on psychology and, as you say, is not therapy. This means it is a limitation of the sacrament.

I submit that a person cannot make a good confession unless their heart has already been changed. But I do agree with you, that most priests are not trained to provide therapy. Spiritual direction is not therapy. But that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the sacrament. Not only is a person’s heart already changed when they enter, but the grace of the sacrament further changes them. The heart must continue on the journey to change, of course.

I sounds to me like you haven’t had the kind of experience I am talking about. I don’t know exactly what you mean by a change of heart, but I know you are not referring to the issue I had.

Validation is important. Receiving forgiveness is important. But it is a starting point, where we begin again to become what we are created to be. We must continue to bear the fruits that befit repentance. It is not accurate to say we don’t get self awareness through the sacrament, because we do. It is a cumulative process, and we don’t get it all at once.

We do not get real self-awareness from the sacrament. We look at ourselves from the church’s perspective, which counterbalances our subjectivity, but this is not self awareness. The church does not know you that well. Knowing you are a child of God is not the be all and end all of a persons personality.

I don’t think you will find anytihng in Catholic teaching that purports that confession is the “ultimate”. Of course it restores us to a state of grace, but while we are in this life, we may need to continually avail ourselves of this grace. Being forgiven does not imply the journey is at an end!

It is the ultimate in the sense that it is a sacrament, and is therefore established by God himself. It is the official channel (as all sacraments are) God has established for us to repent and grow as Christians, as I believe is taught.

I suppose that depends upon the person. If indeed you were so poorly catechized as to think the sacrament of confession meant you needed no more examination of conscience, then I guess that is an impediment. The shortcoming is not with the sacrament, but the lack of proper teaching of the meaning.

You need to reconsider that “poorly catechised” thing. It is patronising and simplistic. It also does very little work to explain anything. Are you not a muslim simply because you have been poorly madrassa-ised? Anyone can use that line.

I never said I believed we should stop examining our conscience after confession. On the contrary in fact. Have you ever heard “the more you confess, the more you confess”?

 

[paziego]

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.

It sounds to me like you were practicing Catholicism with a non-Catholic view on morality. I think that is a good thing. In Catholicism you have the example of church fathers attacking heresy and of desert fathers living lives of extreme hardship and detachment. These provide the ideal of what holiness is. But holiness is not “being a good person”, as you point out. I see that as a huge problem for Catholicism.

 

[paziego]

God created them with the privilege to decide for the human race.

As if that was any better.

Yes, we have the choice to rebel against Him all our lives, but it is not because we are in an imperfect state. Adam and Eve were created in a perfect state, and they chose to rebel against God. We are subject to it because we are created with freedom. He created us in love, so we have the freedom to reject His love.

If they are capable of failure they are not perfect.

In freedom of choice, there are consequences to every choice. God created humankind for fellowship with Himself. Fellowship that is coerced is not true fellowship, but slavery. Since we are created to be in communion with Him, choosing not to do so will have unpleasant consequences. Nevertheless, He allows us this choice.

The choice offered is coercive by design.

I am not sure what this means. How does being forgiven for sins equat to being a “good person”? I think that God created man as good, so I think you were good before you went to confession. Do you think that good people cannot do bad things?
Do you see why I am confused?

No, being forgiven does not equate to being a good person. But you would think that regular participation in the sacrament would gradually change you into a better person, sort of like a practise makes perfect.

What does it mean to say that God created man as good? Was Stalin good intrinsically because he was a man? There are two kinds of good. Good by virtue of being god’s creation and good in the sense of behaviour or living up to a standard.

Not too scrupulous, but poorly catechized, perhaps. Yes, we should do a good examination of conscience. yes, we should look at things that make us annoyed because the things that annoy us are usually those things in ourselves we don’t like. But blaming ourselves for ever negative emotion has no place in Catholic theology. In fact, emotions need not be any part of confession at all. Self blame is certainly nowhere found in Catholic teaching.

Isn’t acknowledging your sins self blame?
Some degree of self blame is healthy - we have to admit when we are wrong. But I think Catholicism is powerless to differentiate healthy self-blame from the unhealthy kind. Otherwise scrupulosity would not be such a big thing that keeps on surfacing, even on this forum.
Some saints had problems with scrupulosity, does that make them poorly catechised?

Anyway, scrupulosity is not the problem I had as a Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

It sounds to me like you were practicing Catholicism with a non-Catholic view on morality. I think that is a good thing. In Catholicism you have the example of church fathers attacking heresy and of desert fathers living lives of extreme hardship and detachment. These provide the ideal of what holiness is. But holiness is not “being a good person”, as you point out. I see that as a huge problem for Catholicism.

In the Catholic Church, True holiness is being in the State of Sanctifying Grace. This State is sharing in the life of God. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; Genesis 1: 26-27))

Because of natural freedom of choice, (Genesis 2: 15-17) one can commit various kinds of sin. It is the chosen Mortal Sin which is deadly when it comes to true holiness. Mortal Sin is a grave infraction of the law of God that destroys (rejects) the Divine life in the sinner’s soul. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889) Because true holiness is a spiritual state, it is a tad difficult to observe it in a physical blood and guts anatomy. The common method of observing “holiness” is to look at a person’s actions. Because we do not have the “eyes” of a supreme divine God, we do not always know if true holiness, that is the State of Sanctifying Grace, is present or not.

Link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Link to the Bible
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

 

[paziego]

In the Catholic Church, True holiness is being in the State of Sanctifying Grace. This State is sharing in the life of God. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; Genesis 1: 26-27))

Because of natural freedom of choice, (Genesis 2: 15-17) one can commit various kinds of sin. It is the chosen Mortal Sin which is deadly when it comes to true holiness. Mortal Sin is a grave infraction of the law of God that destroys (rejects) the Divine life in the sinner’s soul. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889) Because true holiness is a spiritual state, it is a tad difficult to observe it in a physical blood and guts anatomy. The common method of observing “holiness” is to look at a person’s actions. Because we do not have the “eyes” of a supreme divine God, we do not always know if true holiness, that is the State of Sanctifying Grace, is present or not.

Link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Link to the Bible
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

Yeah, but it is not a mortal sin to be a jerk. It is possible to be a jerk in a state of grace. Therefore a persons actions are not a reliable guide as to their holiness.

 

[grannymh]

Yeah, but it is not a mortal sin to be a jerk. It is possible to be a jerk in a state of grace. Therefore a persons actions are not a reliable guide as to their holiness.

Correct in regard to True holiness. Thank you.

Following the logic of Mortal Sin, being a jerk or an older than dirt granny does not have the power to remove one’s True holiness which is the State of Sanctifying Grace. Because True holiness, the State of Sanctifying Grace, is the state of one’s spiritual self… And because the spiritual soul is not visible, judging someone else is a crapshoot. Small note. It can be a good idea to evaluate one’s own True holiness. Is that holiness growing in love of God and love of neighbor?

 

[paziego]

Correct in regard to True holiness. Thank you.

Following the logic of Mortal Sin, being a jerk or an older than dirt granny does not have the power to remove one’s True holiness which is the State of Sanctifying Grace. Because True holiness, the State of Sanctifying Grace, is the state of one’s spiritual self… And because the spiritual soul is not visible, judging someone else is a crapshoot. Small note. It can be a good idea to evaluate one’s own True holiness. Is that holiness growing in love of God and love of neighbor?

This is where I see the problem. If the essence of the religion is to love God and your neighbour, then surely to be holy is to be loving and not a jerk. But the fact that is not the case suggests that Catholicism isn’t based on the two greatest commandments.

Besides, how many people do you know that participate in the sacraments but aren’t any more loving because of it? It seems a lot of people aren’t motivated by love for God or others, but find something to satisfy their own needs and egos.

 

[grannymh]

This is where I see the problem. If the essence of the religion is to love God and your neighbour, then surely to be holy is to be loving and not a jerk. But the fact that is not the case suggests that Catholicism isn’t based on the two greatest commandments.

I understand the problem. The source of the problem is that few people understand the State of Sanctifying Grace which is the True holiness of a person. The bigger problem is that few people understand the spiritual soul’s intellective freedom of choice.

At this point, I am guessing that the solution is to look at Catholic teachings as if they are pieces of a large puzzle. I usually start with the border pieces. Others pile together pieces that have similar colors. I start to do that when I have the bottom border in place.

What would you like to start with?

Besides, how many people do you know that participate in the sacraments but aren’t any more loving because of it? It seems a lot of people aren’t motivated by love for God or others, but find something to satisfy their own needs and egos.

How in the world would I know everything that happens 24/7 to all the people I come in contact with? Better question. Why would I want to know? I see people at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and I know that some of these people will help me with a church project. Do I really want to know how many one-night-stands are in their private life?

From a general view point, because of human nature’s freedom of choice, I am sure that sins happen and I am sure that love exists. Practically speaking, love actions can influence me. Do I know the real motives? Not really, because one’s State of Sanctifying Grace is not visible to human eyes.

As for Catholicism being based on the two greatest commandments, the visible Catholic Church on earth is not depended on its membership for its existence. Catholicism would exist if no one believed in it. This is because Jesus Christ is present in the Catholic Church.