The joylessness of Catholicism by the numbers

[TimothyH]

This is a very good thread, very interesting.

Brother brought up the how when we think we are important we can become didactic. I see this in RCIA - it is very rote and didactic - Church history, the seven sacraments, the parts of the Mass, etc. Maybe we have become a triumphalist Church instead of remembering that we are an institution where people are to have a profound encounter with a person, Jesus.

I asked someone who had just been received into the Church if they had been taught in RCIA how to pray. She said that they didn’t even mention prayer.

-Tim-

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.

 

[OraLabora]

This is a very good thread, very interesting.

Brother brought up the how when we think we are important we can become didactic. I see this in RCIA - it is very rote and didactic - Church history, the seven sacraments, the parts of the Mass, etc. Maybe we have become a triumphalist Church instead of remembering that we are an institution where people are to have a profound encounter with a person, Jesus.

I asked someone who had just been received into the Church if they had been taught in RCIA how to pray. She said that they didn’t even mention prayer.

-Tim-

I agree this is a fascinating thread. I have to say that looking back at my own Catholic experience, I left the Church after high school for the reasons Clem mentioned. Not so much as it directly affected me as I was born just before Vatican II and though raised in a Catholic parochial school, the teachers were all laity and not religious though I also had good and bad teachers. However my mother’s generation went through an education by strict nuns and it was not always a pleasant experience and many of her generation, herself included, were scarred by the experience. I suspect in those days religious didn’t always become religious for the right reasons. As my mother related, some nuns were just plain mean and sadistic. I have no reason to doubt her account; she was a person of simple faith until her death 13 years ago, and had no axe to grind. But you could tell that some of the wounds she received cut deep.

Fast forward, and I returned to the Church in 1997 at age 39. At that time I thought too that simple obedience, and strict adherence to doctrine, would “save” me (and largely save me from myself, or my sinful ways). It worked for a while. For quite a long while actually, maybe 10 years or so. “I” wasn’t like that publican over there. I went to Mass every Sunday, gave generously to the parish, argued for the faith with Evangelicals (including my wife), and essentially became one miserable SOB to be around.

I even became a Benedictine Oblate and tried to live the Rule like a rule book rather than a guide for life.

And then I fell back into the main sin that dogged me all my life. Definitely a hard landing. Nearly divorced over it. In grief my wife wrote a long letter to my spiritual director.

Then the most amazing thing happened. Out of the blue, she forgave me. Unconditionally, recognizing her role as well (it takes 2 to tango…)

That’s when I realized that what mattered was a transformational relationship with Christ. Perfect observance of the rules, “simple obedience”, if not accompanied with inner transformation is just window dressing. I think the Rule of St. Benedict’s 12 degrees of humility addresses that. It’s not that simple obedience is wrong. It has its place on the start of the transformational journey. But we mustn’t make the mistake of assuming that if we can achieve that, our work is done.

Because trust me, a hard landing is on its way. It will happen. You will have your dark night of the soul when you realize you’ve alienated loved ones, and that at the core of yourself, you’re unchanged. Worse, you’ve gone from being what the Holy Father calls a “sourpuss”, to a badly fallen sourpuss.

So what then? That’s when the transformation begins. You realize YOU are the publican in the other pew. You can do nothing other than to reach out to Christ in all humility (and humiliation) saying “here I am Lord; please take me as I am because I’m helpless without you”. That moment came for me in a ancient chapel on the grounds of a monastery in France that I had escaped to, in order to wrap my head around an impending divorce (which ended up not happening… see above). I realized that I was 100% dependent on His mercy. I couldn’t do this on my own. What He wants is not perfect observance of the rules, but a realization of who we are, our broken nature, so that we put our trust in his unconditional love, and begin doing the best we can do with the broken material we have to work with, our fallen selves, fully aware that we will get up and fall again many times on the road ahead; but hopefully with time and healing, the time between the falls become longer as we learn to return the unconditional love we have received. It’s what He came for: to redeem us. Not to browbeat us into become perfect observers of the rules, policed by perfect policemen.

It was not an easy realization. When I boarded the plane home from France I thought my marriage was finished and my life was in tatters. It’s no small miracle of His making that this didn’t happen, and my wife and I, since that moment, have enjoyed over 3 blissful years, the best years of our marriage in fact, madly in love with each other like a couple of teenagers!

 

[felsguy]

Something went (is) 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.

Very well put

 

[marywarfield]

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.

Not sure that much of that exists. An example
would be nice. If say someone recites a rosary
to satisfy their own observance? Obviously
that could not occur very long unless the Rosary
is less than we hold it to be.

Mass Attendance for one’s own observance?
Again the Mass would be a weak thing indeed
if one could do that for very long.

An example would be helpful. Otherwise we càn
end up stating “it is only what we ourselves make
it to be”. Again a very sel directed result.

 

[clem456]

Not sure that much of that exists. An example
would be nice. If say someone recites a rosary
to satisfy their own observance? Obviously
that could not occur very long unless the Rosary
is less than we hold it to be.

Mass Attendance for one’s own observance?
Again the Mass would be a weak thing indeed
if one could do that for very long.

An example would be helpful. Otherwise we càn
end up stating “it is only what we ourselves make
it to be”. Again a very sel directed result.

My wife’s birthday was last week. The rules say I must remember to buy her a present or find a place to sleep outdoors (or something to that effect).
In one scenario, I may buy her a present, cause that’s what the rules expect, and I want to satisfy the rules so that I stay in compliance. I want to avoid punishment and I act on the rules for the sake of satisfying my legal obligation. IN fact I might hand her the present, and then leave for the casino.

Is that love? Of course not, I am being legalistic, making a god of observing the rules just for the sake of being observant. If I love my wife, hopefully that love will pour out in the form of a gift, plus the gift of my time, attention, whatever else I can give. I act for her sake, hopefully with a complete gift of self, not for the sake of minimally satisfying a legal obligation. Love gives the rule it’s life and turns it into more than it could ever be of it’s own.

 

[marywarfield]

My wife’s birthday was last week. The rules say I must remember to buy her a present or find a place to sleep outdoors (or something to that effect).
In one scenario, I may buy her a present, cause that’s what the rules expect, and I want to satisfy the rules so that I stay in compliance. I want to avoid punishment and I act on the rules for the sake of satisfying my legal obligation. IN fact I might hand her the present, and then leave for the casino.

Is that love? Of course not, I am being legalistic, making a god of observing the rules just for the sake of being observant. If I love my wife, hopefully that love will pour out in the form of a gift, plus the gift of my time, attention, whatever else I can give. I act for her sake, hopefully with a complete gift of self, not for the sake of minimally satisfying a legal obligation. Love gives the rule it’s life and turns it into more than it could ever be of it’s own.

Yes that would be legalistic as your wife’s birthday has no Real Presence
other than what you and your wife give it.
However, when it comes to legalistic Mass observance is the life
of the Mass dependent on what you give it?
Do you not think that those truly understanding the reality of Mass would
doubt the possibility that Mass could be attended only legalistically
for any significant length of time? Can a person faithfully attend and
receive without any effect at all EXCEPT what he himself decides?

 

[on_the_hill]

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

One word: The Internet.
It’s not Catholicism. It’s everything. The ability to find everything about anything had made it possible for everyone to be an expert. Look at any How To forum (auto repair, woodworking, Catholicism, child rearing, etc.) and there are people who are OCD about making everything perfect that they devote every waking moment to study when they could actually be doing the things they purport to want to do.

So I submit that it’s not catholicism that’s become legalistic, but everything in general.

 

[FAB]

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.

There is a struggle going on with many within the Church. It is one that has to be balance by clergy. There are absolutes of which the Church cannot change, issues of right to life at all stages of life, note just the unborn, same sex marraige and so on.
There are however many shades of gray. It’s the pastoral world that I believe most clergy try to work in. We have to follow the rules (the Canon) but yet have to see the rules being followed are not doing harm. There is some room to excercise proper prudence in the care of God’s people.

I will agree with you that there is a real tendency in these post for legalism. I have years of formation and there are things that as clergy I would not think of telling others that I see hear. I think that were you are coming from when you are talking about the leaglistic nature of many post. And Lord help you if you mis speak in an issue, the wrath of God may be prefered.

I also agree that kind of attitude will harm the church’s efforts in evangelization. What is worse, it that it is now in direct contradiction to the way Pope Francis is trying to Guide us.

 

[POJIUJH]

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.

Holding hands at the Pater noster.

Not granted, -at least in my country- it is a very weird, alienating thing to do.

Kneeling for communion.

This historically is a subject of “legalistic” rigor. This is a matter of reverence, which by definition must be absolute and cannot be partial. The universal posture of a person in the presence of God worldwide is to fall on your knees, at the very least. On your face preferably, only we must make do with our knees for the practical ability to receive.

Genuflecting when passing the tabernacle.

Unless a more reverent and practical way were possible, the main concern here would lie with the reason why a person wouldn’t do this.

Alex, by the way you have written you make it sound as though you’re not so concerned that the previous two options are available as instead of people who insist that one way is strictly superior. Why would this bother you so much?

My guess is that the small things that a minority of people might fuss over excessively isn’t really what is drawing your concern here, as it surely wouldn’t pass the who cares test to warrant you making a thread about it. I would hazard a guess that by the fact you mentioned kneeling for Communion and genuflecting as if they were minor things that you are convicted by seeing this expression of reverence that other innocent people are doing and that you are refusing to do.

My advice would be to get your act together. If you believe that Jesus is God and that the Eucharist is really His physical body and immediate presence, you wouldn’t see these as minor things. If He wasn’t veiled under the appearance of bread and wine, His brilliance would instantly kill us. Just because He is veiled, doesn’t mean we can conduct ourselves around Him any old way.

Just because some people prefer to act reverently to God doesn’t exactly make them legalistic or joyless. It could simply be that they aren’t filled with emotional joy around people that actively don’t give a damn about God yet insist that they do. These people are the ones discouraging converts. What they are following in genuflecting and kneeling is the spirit of the law, which is reverence. The spirit of the law always being stricter than the letter, not less, following common sense, as the spirit of the law simply applies to things that the letter hasn’t mentioned. It doesn’t contradict. It doesn’t add more. Both are excesses.

Converts are attracted by sincerity. Lukewarmness is the most repulsive thing to anybody, most of all God. A blind man on a galloping horse could see this.

 

[oneofmany]

Talk about joylessness, we went to a Baptist church on Christmas Eve since we were at my SILs and they belong to that church. WOW. how sad the service was. They sang some songs and the preacher said a few things then he spent more time explaining how their communion worked.

They have a big screen up on the wall and the bible quote about—“This is my body, this is my blood” was clearly on it but the preacher went into a long explanation on how communion was just a symbol and “nothing was magical about it.” He also reminded all those there that they needed to examine themselves on how worthy they were on receiving the communion but left it up to them to decide. Well if it’s just grape juice and a cracker who really cares?

Then they sang a few more songs and it was over. I really don’t know why they bothered and a lot of Protestant churches are like this. They don’t do much on Christmas, one of the most holy days of the year.

Thankfully, we went to our church later on Christmas Eve and had the whole Mass and communion worship. If I had only the Protestant service I would have not even felt like I went to church.

Some churches have drifted so far away from rules, the service doesn’t mean much.

 

[JReducation]

Talk about joylessness, we went to a Baptist church on Christmas Eve since we were at my SILs and they belong to that church. WOW. how sad the service was. They sang some songs and the preacher said a few things then he spent more time explaining how their communion worked.

They have a big screen up on the wall and the bible quote about—“This is my body, this is my blood” was clearly on it but the preacher went into a long explanation on how communion was just a symbol and “nothing was magical about it.” He also reminded all those there that they needed to examine themselves on how worthy they were on receiving the communion but left it up to them to decide. Well if it’s just grape juice and a cracker who really cares?

Then they sang a few more songs and it was over. I really don’t know why they bothered and a lot of Protestant churches are like this. They don’t do much on Christmas, one of the most holy days of the year.

Thankfully, we went to our church later on Christmas Eve and had the whole Mass and communion worship. If I had only the Protestant service I would have not even felt like I went to church.

Some churches have drifted so far away from rules, the service doesn’t mean much.

We have to be very careful here. This may not mean much to you; but it means a great deal to them. The idea that one should be worthy to receive, even if it’s a symbol and not the actual body and blood of the Lord is not out touch with Catholic theology. Anything that is of religious significance, whether it’s a sacrament or sacramental, must be approached reverently. Just think about how we venerate the cross on Good Friday. It’s a symbol, not a sacrament. But we approach it with reverence.

My midnight mass was a perfect example. The music was beautiful. The rest of the mass was the mass. The sermon was AWFUL. The preacher got lost and he could not recover. I felt badly for him. He went on and on trying to recover his point, but it only got worse.

You may have been out of luck and gone to a very boring Baptist church. I’ve been to some that are very boring and to some that are very lively and the service and preaching are beautiful. It’s no different with Catholics. What makes the mass is the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Sometimes the music is awful and the sermon sedating. It’s the draw of the Irish. I guess.

 

[OraLabora]

Some churches have drifted so far away from rules, the service doesn’t mean much.

In general I agree with you on Protestant services at least in the non-liturgical churches. I went to my mother-in-law’s funeral in one such church and I found the lack of ritual deeply disturbing. Even my non-Catholic (evangelical Anglican) wife agreed. It was her mother, but also her mother’s wishes to have the service there, so we had to go with it.

That said I think that it’s important to distinguish between strict adherence to “rules” in daily life, and liturgy. The latter is basically about ritual and structure, yes some adherence to form is required. A carefully choreographed liturgy is a beautiful thing and can transport us at least momentarily into a heavenly experience, even at a simple, spoken 7 am daily Mass; but whether Mass is a solemn chanted affair on a major solemnity, or a regular weekday recited Mass at 7 am, they do need to be recognizable as a Mass. So in general on that aspect we agree.

I think though what AlexV was talking about here is an insistence that there has to be a black-and-white answer for everything, and boiling everything down to “is this a mortal sin?” One reads crazy things here about, for example, the Sunday obligation, like feeling guilty about missing Mass during a blizzard, or with a sick child, or having the flu, or inadvertently showing up a few minutes late. I’ve read crazy things like people having endured serious delays in travel on a Sunday and in spite of going through a long period without sleep and rushing through airports, others tried to impose the expectation that they still had to go out and try to find a Mass to fulfill the “obligation”. Or a poor young teen with raging hormones discovers (gasp!) masturbation and half the forum have already consigned him to hell and are bombarding him with all sorts of pious remedies to overcome this “mortal sin” that may not even be “mortal” in the circumstances, and certainly not something that can be determined outside the confessional between the teenager and a kind and compassionate priest. Or in another case a gentleman loses his beloved wife of many years and has a guilt trip laid on him without an ounce of compassion because he masturbates to overcome the frustration of losing his lifetime wife, lover and partner.

Any notion of prudential judgement or pastoral context is thrown out the window. Their “Catholic” God comes across as a tyrant and by focusing so much on breaches in the letter of the law, they are missing the meaning and true spirit of the law.

It’s such an issue that I frequently play with the idea of leaving this forum altogether. It’s just too depressing sometimes. I’ve always considered myself an “orthodox” Catholic but sometimes I think this site is pushing me to a more liberal attitude, at least at the pastoral level; we can never be perfect, and sometimes in our effort to will an unattainable perfection we end up coming across as miserable sourpusses to paraphrase the Holy Father. But then the Holy Father, with his deep pastoral concern, restores my faith in the Faith.

 

[Mike30]

Wow!. All those years back in the day. Highly regimented in many areas and in others not so much. Never felt joylessness in the Church and really never ran into anyone overly, what is the current preferred word, legalistic?

So I am really just a bit surprised and somewhat disheartened to find out that I missed out on such a sensationalistic aspect of Church history as everyone here obviously experienced.

Oh well, live and learn I guess.

 

[RedFox0456]

I do know a few people who are a bit… unkind. Most people I know, however, who have really given their lives to God are very happy. And very knowledgeable.

 

[OraLabora]

I do know a few people who are a bit… unkind. Most people I know, however, who have really given their lives to God are very happy. And very knowledgeable.

I would agree that’s true today; certainly among the Benedictines with whom I’m familiar.

But that hasn’t been the case everywhere in the past. In pre-Vatican II Quebec for instance, which had its own particular set of circumstances (very large, poor families, a nearly Jansenist local church, etc.).

I do think that today, those who are in religious life actually want to be there. There was a time however, when families were expected to give over son or daughter to the Church. At least in Quebec.

Also at that time many religious orders had strayed from their ideals; for instance it was never the intention of St. Benedict to have monks divided into choir monks and lay brothers (who did all the manual work, but kept largely uneducated), all were supposed to be equal. Vatican II restored the original intent of St. Benedict, and according to Brother JR did the same for many other orders as well.

I’m not one of those given to nostalgia for an idealized image of what things were like “back in the day”, nor am I one to hold on to grudges of the past. Our duty as the Church Militant is to move forward with our own conversions and to make us reflect what the Church is meant to be; that could mean taking from the past those elements that worked, but not hesitating to reform those that clearly didn’t, and I definitely believe that a Pharisaical adherence to rules is not one of the things we need to preserve.

 

[vames]

Then the most amazing thing happened. Out of the blue, she forgave me. Unconditionally, recognizing her role as well (it takes 2 to tango…)

That’s when I realized that what mattered was a transformational relationship with Christ. Perfect observance of the rules, “simple obedience”, if not accompanied with inner transformation is just window dressing. I think the Rule of St. Benedict’s 12 degrees of humility addresses that. It’s not that simple obedience is wrong. It has its place on the start of the transformational journey. But we mustn’t make the mistake of assuming that if we can achieve that, our work is done.

Because trust me, a hard landing is on its way. It will happen. You will have your dark night of the soul when you realize you’ve alienated loved ones, and that at the core of yourself, you’re unchanged. Worse, you’ve gone from being what the Holy Father calls a “sourpuss”, to a badly fallen sourpuss.

Fantastic post! Thanks a lot for sharing such an experience

 

[PaulinVA]

Everyone in the gospels (okay, almost everyone) kept the law. Bad people, good people, they all kept the law. Pharisees, Sadducees, holy people, unholy people.

What marked a holy person was that they were described as looking forward to or waiting for the Kingdom of God.

So, keeping the law (rules) might be a good thing, but it’s the orientation of our being that is important. Are we looking forward to entering the Kingdom of God, or are we consumed with the GIRM and types of sin?

 

[OraLabora]

Are we looking forward to entering the Kingdom of God, or are we consumed with the GIRM and types of sin?

The amazing thing is that if we let in His grace and mercy, we can get a foretaste of the Kingdom of God right hear on earth. Just a foretaste mind you. But in the same way, when we don’t let in His grade and mercy, we can equally get a foretaste of hell.

I can say that from being on both sides of that divide. I once thought that the “rules”, and pious observations, would be enough to overcome sin.

But in reality I was just trying to overcome it by my own willpower, and using the pious observations as a mask to hide the real me. Because I hated the real me. I was ashamed of the real me.

And I think that’s the crux of the matter: real conversion comes with self-acceptance with humility (accepting both the good and the not-so-good) and then entrusting ourselves… en"trust"ing ourselves… to God’s mercy. That’s when we can start to chip away at the cement mask and open a breach to let grace flow in.

 

[MikeDunphy]

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…

I do not mean to be critical of your friends, but telling a couple of boisterous first graders to sit down does not sound particularly harsh to me. And their fears that Mom or Dad would find out they had been naughty were more cute than chilling.

I was three years younger than you [still am]. I can remember no cruelty in the nuns or monks who taught me. Two nuns in particular stand out in my memory as models of goodness and gentleness. Thank you Sr. Winnifred and Sr. Constance Anne.

 

[TimoteoGiuseppe]

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.

Hallelujah! Amen! Can I getta witness?