The joylessness of Catholicism by the numbers

[AlexV]

One wonders when Catholicism became a matter of looking up exactly what was is to do in a given situation and finding a definitive answer that was to be followed, with the failure to do exactly what one finds in the book a case of either 1) mortal or 2) venial sin.

Reading these threads, one sees a real stratum out there of such legalism on things that historically were never the subject of such legalistic rigor. Second Confiteors. Holding hands at the Pater noster. Kneeling for communion. Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle. What counts for what obligation. Eating meat on a Friday outside Lent in a jurisdiction that has abrogated the law to abstain.

I suspect this trend is a pendulum reaction to the anything goes mentality so prevalent in some quarters; some people certainly can’t manage unless everything is spelled out in forma specifica, with no shades of grey anywhere to spoil the black and white world they find comforting. Often this obsessive compulsion is linked to a poorly informed understanding of papal/episcopal authority.

But here’s a piece of advice to such Catholics: your attitude may well do harm to the goal of evangelization. Your attitude may drive potential Catholics from your chapels and churches. Your attitude may well convey the impression to such individuals that they would want no part of such a practice.

 

[Rivers23]

Well, we’re not protestants, we have to go by the book the Church gave us to follow.
It’s not about legalism, it’s about being so lukewarm that people at the mass don’t even know that the dogma of their Church is that Christ’s body is literally present in the eucharist and that maybe they could bow their head a little instead of assuming the same posture they assume when waiting for a bus.

The Church is not a marketing company, it’s not in a popularity contest either. What potential catholics do we want to draw in? The ones that come because it’s cool and not so demanding to be one because mass is a fun get-together or the one that doesn’t care about that but only cares about Jesus and thus genuflects when passing the tabernacle because he knows that it is one of the most holy places in a church?

Instead of looking to simplify certain practices to make the Church attractive to potential believers, we need to concentrate on knowing God’s word and Christian theology, so that we may use that to counter the nihilism that is modernism. If people want to dance and party in a church, let them join one of the hundreds of protestant dominations. The Church of St. Peter has the duty to enact reverence and genuine faith, not some cool trend because people prefer this and that.

 

[AlexV]

Thanks for illustrating my point. I didn’t say a word about dancing; modernism; lack of faith in the Real Presence; any of those dramatic conclusions.

There’s such a thing as balance. Fundamentalism is Protestant in its roots too.

 

[vames]

Reading these threads, one sees a real stratum out there of such legalism on things that historically were never the subject of such legalistic rigor. Second Confiteors. Holding hands at the Pater noster. Kneeling for communion. Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle. What counts for what obligation. Eating meat on a Friday outside Lent in a jurisdiction that has abrogated the law to abstain.

I suspect this trend is a pendulum reaction to the anything goes mentality so prevalent in some quarters; some people certainly can’t manage unless everything is spelled out in forma specifica, with no shades of grey anywhere to spoil the black and white world they find comforting. Often this obsessive compulsion is linked to a poorly informed understanding of papal/episcopal authority.

Very true.

From a historical perspective, I see this trend as an expression of a certain (more or less conscious) hope. You know, when “lex orandi, lex credendi” is understood like this: “if after VII so many Catholics have became lapsed/cafeteria/practical atheists, it must be only because the Mass was modified and so many rules were relaxed - so if we bring back the old Mass and re-impose all the old prayers, rules, postures, gestures and disciplines, people’s faith will become again identical to the faith of pre-VII people; problem solved”.

 

[angell1]

Very true.

From a historical perspective, I see this trend as an expression of a certain (more or less conscious) hope. You know, when “lex orandi, lex credendi” is understood like this: “if after VII so many Catholics have became lapsed/cafeteria/practical atheists, it must be only because the Mass was modified and so many rules were relaxed - so if we bring back the old Mass and re-impose all the old prayers, rules, postures, gestures and disciplines, people’s faith will become again identical to the faith of pre-VII people; problem solved”.

i agree with you, i doubt it works that way. if anything, the relaxing of rules should have brought more people in. human beings seem to hate rules.

anyways, i think balance ie necessary, not so rigid that little things become a big deal, meanwhile not comprimising the faith to make people feel good.

 

[Rolltide]

One wonders when Catholicism became a matter of looking up exactly what was is to do in a given situation and finding a definitive answer that was to be followed, with the failure to do exactly what one finds in the book a case of either 1) mortal or 2) venial sin.

Reading these threads, one sees a real stratum out there of such legalism on things that historically were never the subject of such legalistic rigor. Second Confiteors. Holding hands at the Pater noster. Kneeling for communion. Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle. What counts for what obligation. Eating meat on a Friday outside Lent in a jurisdiction that has abrogated the law to abstain.

Well leavened vs. unleavened bread for a time was a major issue in the Catholic Church, and was a factor (though not the primary one) in the split with the Orthodox. These types of issues over liturgy were a major issue at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, because there were so many versions of the liturgy that it was becoming problematic for the church. Likewise, this was an issue of the Gregorian reforms in the 1100s, the Cluny Reform Movement of the late 900s, and the Iconoclastic Controversy of the 700s. These issues go back a LONG way, right back to the Council of Jerusalem in the Bible, where the debate centered on whether Gentiles had to follow the old Mosaic laws. If you think Christianity was ever free from these issues, you are mistaken. The problem is finding the balance between being too legalistic, and being so lax that genuine doctrinal issues develop (which has, in fact, occurred time and time again).

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

One wonders when Catholicism became a matter of looking up exactly what was is to do in a given situation and finding a definitive answer that was to be followed, with the failure to do exactly what one finds in the book a case of either 1) mortal or 2) venial sin.

Reading these threads, one sees a real stratum out there of such legalism on things that historically were never the subject of such legalistic rigor. Second Confiteors. Holding hands at the Pater noster. Kneeling for communion. Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle. What counts for what obligation. Eating meat on a Friday outside Lent in a jurisdiction that has abrogated the law to abstain.

I suspect this trend is a pendulum reaction to the anything goes mentality so prevalent in some quarters; some people certainly can’t manage unless everything is spelled out in forma specifica, with no shades of grey anywhere to spoil the black and white world they find comforting. Often this obsessive compulsion is linked to a poorly informed understanding of papal/episcopal authority.

But here’s a piece of advice to such Catholics: your attitude may well do harm to the goal of evangelization. Your attitude may drive potential Catholics from your chapels and churches. Your attitude may well convey the impression to such individuals that they would want no part of such a practice.

Interesting points.

 

[RedFox0456]

i agree with you, i doubt it works that way. if anything, the relaxing of rules should have brought more people in. human beings seem to hate rules.

anyways, i think balance ie necessary, not so rigid that little things become a big deal, meanwhile not comprimising the faith to make people feel good.

Human beings may hate rules, but changes, even though they were valid, can lead a person who isn’t well catechized to question the validity of Church teaching, etc. This was, I suspect, further exacerbated by the disagreements that seemed to emerge among Catholics who disagreed about the conclusions of Vatican II.

The Church is definitely right to study doctrine so we do have answers to even the fine points, but you are correct that we shouldn’t be chastising people who fail to know every detail.

 

[the_phoenix]

Smile …
God loves you!

 

[Neofight]

One wonders when Catholicism became a matter of looking up exactly what was is to do in a given situation and finding a definitive answer that was to be followed, with the failure to do exactly what one finds in the book a case of either 1) mortal or 2) venial sin.

Reading these threads, one sees a real stratum out there of such legalism on things that historically were never the subject of such legalistic rigor. Second Confiteors. Holding hands at the Pater noster. Kneeling for communion. Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle. What counts for what obligation. Eating meat on a Friday outside Lent in a jurisdiction that has abrogated the law to abstain.

I suspect this trend is a pendulum reaction to the anything goes mentality so prevalent in some quarters; some people certainly can’t manage unless everything is spelled out in forma specifica, with no shades of grey anywhere to spoil the black and white world they find comforting. Often this obsessive compulsion is linked to a poorly informed understanding of papal/episcopal authority.

But here’s a piece of advice to such Catholics: your attitude may well do harm to the goal of evangelization. Your attitude may drive potential Catholics from your chapels and churches. Your attitude may well convey the impression to such individuals that they would want no part of such a practice.

I empathize with you on this topic. In many cases our brothers and sisters seem to place the love and mercy of a God behind legalism as stringent as the Pharisees Christ tried to reason with.

It is encouraging to see someone like his Holiness Pope Francis gets it.

 

[JReducation]

One wonders when Catholicism became a matter of looking up exactly what was is to do in a given situation and finding a definitive answer that was to be followed, with the failure to do exactly what one finds in the book a case of either 1) mortal or 2) venial sin.

Reading these threads, one sees a real stratum out there of such legalism on things that historically were never the subject of such legalistic rigor. Second Confiteors. Holding hands at the Pater noster. Kneeling for communion. Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle. What counts for what obligation. Eating meat on a Friday outside Lent in a jurisdiction that has abrogated the law to abstain.

I suspect this trend is a pendulum reaction to the anything goes mentality so prevalent in some quarters; some people certainly can’t manage unless everything is spelled out in forma specifica, with no shades of grey anywhere to spoil the black and white world they find comforting. Often this obsessive compulsion is linked to a poorly informed understanding of papal/episcopal authority.

But here’s a piece of advice to such Catholics: your attitude may well do harm to the goal of evangelization. Your attitude may drive potential Catholics from your chapels and churches. Your attitude may well convey the impression to such individuals that they would want no part of such a practice.

I think the problem that you’re finding in Traddom is one that you will also find at the other end of the spectrum. People at the ends, left or right, tend to be dogmatic. They have a tendency to assume an air of authority that has never been bestowed on them. When they do so, they come across as condescending, rigid, uncompromising, and sour.

Teresa of Avila once said, “God preserve me from sour saints.” The person to whom she was referring was an ascetic. There is nothing wrong with asceticism, except that this particular person was insisting that “tough” was the order of the day, because the Church was in crisis. It was true. It was the middle of the Reformation/Counter Reformation. But the person was focusing on the crisis and not on the Renaissance of the Church. Whenever there is a crisis in the Church, there is also rebirth. Sour saints can’t see the rebirth. They only see the crisis. Their solution to the crisis is rules and more rules.

We saw this before the time of St. Teresa of Avila. This was very much the scene during the 13th century. Francis of Assisi and Dominic Guzman struggled against these penitential movements that wanted to impose “toughness” on everyone.

This happens in the secular sphere too. Look at governments. When there is a financial crisis, the first thing out of politician’s mouths is tougher legislations.

Human beings thing that they can toughen up the rules, punish a few people, anathemize a few ideas and order will be restored. We know that this is not true. It does not work.

We have the Nuns on the Bus who felt that if they rallied the troops and intimidated the bishops, their place in the Church and their position would be secured. All that toughness has led nowhere. We have to the opposite on the right. All of the extreme traditionalists who think that the pope should have a massive excommunication ceremony in St Peter’s Square and that will put the fear of God into every Catholic. Wrong again. Just as wrong as the Nuns on the Bus. Intimidation only breeds contempt.

I think this is what makes Pope Francis so likeable. Everyone knows that he’s very traditional. But he does not intimidate. He is just the opposite. He encourages people to come closer.

Pope Benedict tried the same thing through his writings. If you read Jesus of Nazareth, he opens with an invitation to a dialogue. In his dealings with the SSPX, he opened as many channels as he could for a dialogue. He did the same with the Jewish and Islamic communities. The difference between him and Francis is that Benedict is a shy man and Francis is not. But neither of them tried to make use of intimidation to fix problems. Unfortunately, some people are not paying attention to the popes. All they’re doing is spinning the wheels on their buses.

 

[marywarfield]

Most saints found true joy although not without difficulties in
simple obedience. The Little Flower made a career out of it.
I doubt they found it “legalistic”.

 

[AlexV]

This isn’t about problems with “simple obedience.” It’s about mistaking every issue as grave, with nothing left in balance; it’s about people who can’t distinguish a hierarchy of importance to things and the fact that not everything under the Catholic sun has a definitive answer that dictates how a Catholic must act.

 

[JReducation]

Most saints found true joy although not without difficulties in
simple obedience. The Little Flower made a career out of it.
I doubt they found it “legalistic”.

To understand Therese, one has to understand Francisco de Osuna. It his theology of obedience that the Carmelite Reform embraced. Obedience is not about doing what one is told. That’s the external expression of obedience. That only comes with joy, if there is an internal disposition to detach, to let go. One not only lets go of one’s will, but also of one’s opinions and especially of one’s sense of self-importance. This ties in with what AlexV is saying.

When one hangs on to the idea that everything that one believes and everything that one says is important, because it’s important to me, there are two deadly risks. The first is that one becomes didactic. One ceases to meet the other person in his otherness. One looks to convert the other person, without knowing him (that’s his otherness). I have to know who he is and love him as he is, before I can draw him toward me.

The person who does not let go of his sense of importance, can’t do this very well. Only what he believes to be important is worth his attention.

In the Carmelite tradition, obedience comes from an awareness that whatever I believe is important, cannot be that important, because I am insignificant. Therese brings this freshness to the table. She brings this sense of littleness. Obedience comes from out of awareness of her insignificance.

This isn’t about problems with “simple obedience.” It’s about mistaking every issue as grave, with nothing left in balance; it’s about people who can’t distinguish a hierarchy of importance to things and the fact that not everything under the Catholic sun has a definitive answer that dictates how a Catholic must act.

This is something that Bl. John Henry Newman speaks about this, as does Pope Francis. Not everything is on the same rung.

 

[tawny]

To understand Therese, one has to understand Francisco de Osuna. It his theology of obedience that the Carmelite Reform embraced. Obedience is not about doing what one is told. That’s the external expression of obedience. That only comes with joy, if there is an internal disposition to detach, to let go. One not only lets go of one’s will, but also of one’s opinions and especially of one’s sense of self-importance. This ties in with what AlexV is saying.

When one hangs on to the idea that everything that one believes and everything that one says is important, because it’s important to me, there are two deadly risks. The first is that one becomes didactic. One ceases to meet the other person in his otherness. One looks to convert the other person, without knowing him (that’s his otherness). I have to know who he is and love him as he is, before I can draw him toward me.

The person who does not let go of his sense of importance, can’t do this very well. Only what he believes to be important is worth his attention.

In the Carmelite tradition, obedience comes from an awareness that whatever I believe is important, cannot be that important, because I am insignificant. Therese brings this freshness to the table. She brings this sense of littleness. Obedience comes from out of awareness of her insignificance.

This is something that Bl. John Henry Newman speaks about this, as does Pope Francis. Not everything is on the same rung.

As usual; well stated Br. JR:thumbsup:

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

This isn’t about problems with “simple obedience.” It’s about mistaking every issue as grave, with nothing left in balance; it’s about people who can’t distinguish a hierarchy of importance to things and the fact that not everything under the Catholic sun has a definitive answer that dictates how a Catholic must act.

Thank you.

I have been told (by various sources, some of whom ’back it up’ with quotes from the saints) that any or all of the following were sins:

Eating at a restaurant on Sunday
Driving on Sunday
Shopping
Living in a comfortable house
Dancing
Laughing
Smiling
Reading secular books
Not striving to become a blood martyr
Thinking about anything other than ‘religion’

If every day is Ash Wednesday, it ceases to have meaning.

 

[Seamus_L]

So who’s joyless ?

 

[clem456]

But here’s a piece of advice to such Catholics: your attitude may well do harm to the goal of evangelization. Your attitude may drive potential Catholics from your chapels and churches. Your attitude may well convey the impression to such individuals that they would want no part of such a practice.

When obedience to disciplines and traditions is separated from “listening with love”, the following conversation is typical of the harm we end up with. This is a facebook conversation between 4 of my Catholic school mates, names omitted. We started 1st grade in 1965 and had almost exclusively nuns teaching us.
Facebook post:

Just before Christmas break, I picked my grandson up from school, and he was singing “this little light of mine”… oh it immediately brought back memories of first grade. Mary …, and I, were singing that song in sister Mary …'s class. We got yelled at, and had to sit down, because we blew out our finger candle too hard. Imagine that!!! and to think I was so scared to go home that day, that I would be in big trouble. Ohhh the 60’s. … and the power of Catholic nuns.!!!

Comment 1

In retrospect, I really feel sorry for those nuns…so repressed and oppressed. It is no wonder they were so “grouchy”.

Comment 2

was also thinking the discipline we had back then… like I said, I was scared she was going to tell my mom something that simple, but back then it was huge! Now a days omg respect??? what is that!

Comment 3

I remember that . . . and was worried for you also. What an example of what a teacher should not do

There are other similar conversations illustrating the disdain people have for the perverted sense of Catholic tradition that prevailed then. I won’t bore the forum with more of it, we’ve all heard it.

In my Catholic high school class of about 80 graduates, I can count on one hand the number that are still Catholic, maybe 10 %. Many of these folks who came up in the 60’s have twisted memories of angry nuns and abusive priests, uncharitably enforcing rules at all costs. Where was the life-giving presence of Christ in this presentation?

It’s worth noting that these ex-Catholics are not reprobates or willful apostates. I think it is fair to say they were driven from the Church. Most left the Church physically right at graduation from high school, and had probably left in spirit at about the age of reason.
They have raised good families and recognize the value of discipline and respect. Many of them are Evangelicals or mainstream Protestants. Did the Catholic tradition, as it was presented to them, show the love of Christ to these people?

Something went terribly. tragically, wrong with our concept of Catholic tradition and obedience. When the primary memory of so many Catholic people raised in a traditional Catholic environment is guilt, punishment, repression, and loveless rules, something is terribly wrong. Those who wish for the “good old days” of Catholicism should be careful what they wish for. Thankfully, it’s a pointless exercise to go back anyway, we cannot go back, cause we are not God and we live in the present only. Tradition lives today, here and now, It should honor what God has truly given us, not our mistaken ideas of it. Christ continually makes it new and gives it life for every time and place.

 

[marywarfield]

To understand Therese, one has to understand Francisco de Osuna. It his theology of obedience that the Carmelite Reform embraced. Obedience is not about doing what one is told. That’s the external expression of obedience. That only comes with joy, if there is an internal disposition to detach, to let go. One not only lets go of one’s will, but also of one’s opinions and especially of one’s sense of self-importance. This ties in with what AlexV is saying.

When one hangs on to the idea that everything that one believes and everything that one says is important, because it’s important to me, there are two deadly risks. The first is that one becomes didactic. One ceases to meet the other person in his otherness. One looks to convert the other person, without knowing him (that’s his otherness). I have to know who he is and love him as he is, before I can draw him toward me.

The person who does not let go of his sense of importance, can’t do this very well. Only what he believes to be important is worth his attention.

In the Carmelite tradition, obedience comes from an awareness that whatever I believe is important, cannot be that important, because I am insignificant. Therese brings this freshness to the table. She brings this sense of littleness. Obedience comes from out of awareness of her insignificance.

This is something that Bl. John Henry Newman speaks about this, as does Pope Francis. Not everything is on the same rung.

I do not believe either if you are being quite clear.
If in reference to “legalism” you mean imposing
a need for all others to follow rules, then yes that
would be joyless and didactic.
But if you are referring to those who follow the
rules of the Church or strict pious practices without
imposing that obligation on someone else, you
are more in the realm of simple obedience.
If I insist on meeting every fast day and you
are unaware of it it may be simple obedience
I’m practicing. If you become, through no fault of
my own AWARE that I’m doing so, I do not become
legalistic, I’m just unfortunate to have been caught
out in simple obedience.
But if I in turn insist that YOU must therefore
meet each fast day then I’m being legalistic.
If you have caught me accidentally in simple
obedience, view it as legalism, and resent it,
you then have a problem with narcissism.

The point: one should not confuse spiritual
jealousy or obstinacy with a spirit of freedom or
compassion.

If you see someone crossing every t and dotting
every i but are not imposing that behavior on you
it would be best to just forget you saw it.

 

[clem456]

I do not believe either if you are being quite clear.
If in reference to “legalism” you mean imposing
a need for all others to follow rules, then yes that
would be joyless and didactic.
But if you are referring to those who follow the
rules of the Church or strict pious practices without
imposing that obligation on someone else, you
are more in the realm of simple obedience.
If I insist on meeting every fast day and you
are unaware of it it may be simple obedience
I’m practicing. If you become, through no fault of
my own AWARE that I’m doing so, I do not become
legalistic, I’m just unfortunate to have been caught
out in simple obedience.
But if I in turn insist that YOU must therefore
meet each fast day then I’m being legalistic.
If you have caught me accidentally in simple
obedience, view it as legalism, and resent it,
you then have a problem with narcissism.

The point: one should not confuse spiritual
jealousy or obstinacy with a spirit of freedom or
compassion.

If you see someone crossing every t and dotting
every i but are not imposing that behavior on you
it would be best to just forget you saw it.

A person can be legalistic without regard to another’s notice.
Legalism is idolatry of the law, traditions, or observances, outside the love of Christ. It is observance for the sake of satisfying one’s own observance, not for the love of Christ. Tradition, the written word, the law, are all dead outside the love of Christ. We obey because we love, or maybe more truthfully, we obey because we ARE loved by him, and desire to listen and return that love to it’s source.