The joylessness of Catholicism by the numbers

[JReducation]

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.

In the writings of St. Francis of Assisi he said about himself, “I am what I am before God . . . nothing else.”

I believe this is what you mean.

I can remember no cruelty in the nuns or monks who taught me.

You were very fortunate. Unfortunately, that was not the norm. Cruelty was the norm.

I have to say one thing, not in defense of the cruelty, but something that may help understand it. That is that many parents were no less cruel with the children than were the sisters or brothers who taught them. It was a culture that seemed to believe that the only way to get compliance was through force. We have to remember that these men and women were products of their culture. They did not grow up in bubbles.

One thing that I found especially interesting was that the religious (male and female) who came from the Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish religious communities were less punitive. Those sisters were very maternal.

As a religious, my experience with sisters and brothers who came from Irish backgrounds or Irish communities left me perplexed. I’ve always had a image of the Irish as a very joyful people. But their religious sisters were rather grumpy. LOL

The most joyful Catholics that I have met are Africans. They’re very sweet too.

 

[TimoteoGiuseppe]

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.

Seriously? Are these First World Problems? Look out the window, friends. There is famine, hate, and injustice. And you worry about whether reading “Gone With the Wind” or dining at IHOP on Sunday is a mortal sin? If this is what we make of our faith, then we’re in trouble. How would Jesus respond to this list you’ve taken valuable time to create? There is a world outside your comfortable home in need of saving. Get to it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Seriously? This thread is unbelievable. Are these First World Problems? Look out the window, friends. There is famine, hate, and injustice. And you worry about whether reading “Gone With the Wind” or dining at IHOP on Sunday is a mortal sin? If this is what we make of our faith, then we’re in trouble. How would Jesus respond to this list you’ve taken valuable time to create? There is a world outside your comfortable home in need of saving. Get to it.

And how dare you judge me OR my circumstances because I’ve reported on what I’ve seen here?

Thank you for showing me the door.

 

[johnnyc176]

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.

Careful Mike your triumphalism is showing.

Interesting that this thread was started in the Traditional Catholic forum.

 

[JReducation]

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.

None of these things are sins. They are not contrary to the Commandments. I’m not sure who said they are sins, but they are mistaken.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Even the saints can often be very scrupulous. We don’t go by what the saints claim to be sins, unless the Church endorses their claim. A saint may say that dancing is a sin. However, if the Church does not say this, then the saint is to be taken in context and assumed mistaken. No one, not even a doctor of the Church has the authority to label something a sin. Only the Holy See has this authority.

Saints and doctors can teach us the systems that the Church uses to discriminate between what is good, sinful and neutral. That’s fine. They can teach us what the Church says about sin and virtue. But they cannot make laws that do not exist in the Church, not even moral laws.

What makes these men and women saints, among other things, is their incredible humility. They know that they can’t impose laws on the faithful. When they share their thoughts on morality, they are very clear in their minds what is their opinion and what is formal teaching of the Church. They are also very clear that they have no authority to add to what the Church teaches, detract from what the Church teaches or impose what the Church does not impose.

Very often, if a saint is a spiritual director, he or she may impose restrictions on his subject. This is fine. The Church allows for this. This is for the good of the individual. What I can see happening is that the subject runs with what the spiritual director has given him or her and spreads it about that this is for everyone, which is not always the case. One spiritual director that was often quoted out of context was JeanVianney. He would say something to an individual and that person quoted it as if it were meant for the whole Church to Jean’s chagrin and discomfort.

 

[LightBound]

None of these things are sins. They are not contrary to the Commandments. I’m not sure who said they are sins, but they are mistaken.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Even the saints can often be very scrupulous. We don’t go by what the saints claim to be sins, unless the Church endorses their claim. A saint may say that dancing is a sin. However, if the Church does not say this, then the saint is to be taken in context and assumed mistaken. No one, not even a doctor of the Church has the authority to label something a sin. Only the Holy See has this authority.

Saints and doctors can teach us the systems that the Church uses to discriminate between what is good, sinful and neutral. That’s fine. They can teach us what the Church says about sin and virtue. But they cannot make laws that do not exist in the Church, not even moral laws.

What makes these men and women saints, among other things, is their incredible humility. They know that they can’t impose laws on the faithful. When they share their thoughts on morality, they are very clear in their minds what is their opinion and what is formal teaching of the Church. They are also very clear that they have no authority to add to what the Church teaches, detract from what the Church teaches or impose what the Church does not impose.

Very often, if a saint is a spiritual director, he or she may impose restrictions on his subject. This is fine. The Church allows for this. This is for the good of the individual. What I can see happening is that the subject runs with what the spiritual director has given him or her and spreads it about that this is for everyone, which is not always the case. One spiritual director that was often quoted out of context was JeanVianney. He would say something to an individual and that person quoted it as if it were meant for the whole Church to Jean’s chagrin and discomfort.

Your last comment reminded me of how St Pio’s advice in the confessional is also often mistaken to be for everyone instead of the individual penitent who was seeking direction from Padre.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Your last comment reminded me of how St Pio’s advice in the confessional is also often mistaken to be for everyone instead of the individual penitent who was seeking direction from Padre.

That explains so much…

 

[felsguy]

Cruelty was the norm.

My memories of growing up in the 40’s and 50’s in the shadow (literally three doors away) of the convent wherein lived the nuns who taught me for eight years in parochial school place me somewhat in the middle of the two experiences posted here. I hesitate to use the word cruel because of the motives it suggests but stern, severe, even scary or terrifying at times are adjectives that certainly apply.

Hope this doesn’t cause me nightmares tonight

I can remember no cruelty in the nuns or monks who taught me.

 

[JReducation]

My memories of growing up in the 40’s and 50’s in the shadow (literally three doors away) of the convent wherein lived the nuns who taught me for eight years in parochial school place me somewhat in the middle of the two experiences posted here. I hesitate to use the word cruel because of the motives it suggests but stern, severe, even scary or terrifying at times are adjectives that certainly apply.

Hope this doesn’t cause me nightmares tonight

After I said “cruelty” I thought about it, but the time expired and I couldn’t edit my post. As I thought more and more about it, I don’t think the intent was to hurt.

As I said before, the sisters were a product of their culture. Many people believed that compliance was achieved by force.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel once gave a very good analysis of what was happening in American convents in those days. I can’t quote him, because I can’t recall every word. But basically he said that women religious were often subjected to very inhumane and oppressive forms of authority. They were made to believe that this was God’s will. They didn’t complain or appeal to higher authorities in the Church. They just shut up and put up. Some became saints, because they suffered with great resignation and trust in God. But some became very bitter and angry women. Children were easy and safe targets to vent their anger.

I have always said that we have to be careful what we ask for. We hear people whining about the shortage of large numbers in novitiates. The truth was that many people were admitted who did not belong in the religious life. The only way to mold them was to use power rather than discernment and guidance. Had they used discernment and guidance, there would have been less religious. But these religious would have been of better quality. I wonder if we would have had less abuse of children and less anger. The truth is that so many who were educated in Catholic schools turned out to be very angry people.

There is a lot of exaggeration when it comes to what actually happened in Catholic schools. It’s not all as they paint it on TV. But there is a lot of truth as well. These men and women did not challenge the culture of their day when it came to the treatment of children. They went right along with it.

The one religious community that did challenge the culture of the time was the Salesian community. That was because John Bosco challenged how the culture of his day treated children. He commanded his sons and daughters to be gentle.

 

[marywarfield]

I’m just having a terrible time relating to the complaints in this thread.
Obviously. I can’t see the “joyless ness”. I’m close
to sixty, been attending the Church all my life,
both Melkite and Roman, my parents were Catholic as
well as my grandparents and in laws, probably because
we qualify as legalistic joyless types and never
bothered to look outside our own faith when marrying.
My children attended a terrifically traditionally Catholic
school complete with the rarity in the late 90’s of being
taught by actual nuns and priest not so much laity.
The school principal was the mother superior with
a vow of silence! She was happy as a clam lol and the
kids lived her and all their teachers.
I admit that in 2003 I did meet a priest who was
mean just plain mean. But he was a vacation relief
priest who we never saw again. But yes I did meet
one mean priest in my lifetime.
I have never witnessed any of this stuff y’all are
complaining about but sorry you have been unhappy
with your experiences in Catholicism.
But you know what? Jesus never said: "For a
good time, follow me."I’ve actually worried that
we weren’t suffering enough in my family but then
again it does take a certain disposition.

 

[oneofmany]

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.

I agree with you but after the preacher made such a big deal about communion being just a symbol and nothing more when on the big screen it clearly said body and blood I wondered why anyone would want to go.

I went to a non-denominational church with my hubby before we got married (he was a fallen away Catholic) and he said yes, they do have to do mental somersaults to approach communion. He came back to church after we married. That preacher said they had open communion and anyone could come forward that wanted to.

That church had a lot of singing and music since they had talented people but they also had rules and a form of worship they did each week. I don’t think any church ever gets away from that.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I find Catholicism joyful. Maybe it’s just me, but obedience makes life a lot easier for me. The Church in her wisdom lays down the rules, and I seek to understand and follow. It may sound strange, but obedience is in fact liberating. There is a certain reassurance that the Church knows what she is doing, and that these rules can never be wrong. It frees me from my ego and gives me the freedom to contemplate and decide on the issues that really matter. Unfortunately, I am a sinner, and I continue to struggle with my own pride. It is something I am working on. Truly, I thank the Lord for giving us His Church.

 

[LovedMyAlydar]

Most of the nuns were cruel? Really. Growing up in the 60’s and early 70’s, my nuns were far from cruel. We had one that was a pill but then there is one in every bunch. Most were the sweetest ladies around, both the young and the old. We kids would ride our bikes to the convent just to visit with the sisters. Cookies, milk, some pretty plants and gardening tips. They were like aunts and grandmas to us kids. Nothing but good, happy memories of these wonderful ladies. My great aunt as well. She was a sister and was a sweet kind lady. None of these ladies can I ever remember venting their frustrations on children.

To make a statement saying: “You were very fortunate. Unfortunately, that was not the norm. Cruelty was the norm.”, is way off base. I would say it was the exception, not the norm.

And then to say: ** “That is that many parents were no less cruel with the children than were the sisters or brothers who taught them. It was a culture that seemed to believe that the only way to get compliance was through force. We have to remember that these men and women were products of their culture. They did not grow up in bubbles.”**, wow, that is a whopper.

So parents expected their kids to obey them. And the nuns expected you to be obedient in school. Is there a problem with that? Doesn’t God expect obedience? What got Adam and Eve in trouble? Not being obedient to God and doing something they were told not to do? And, what did God do? Was he kind to them for this act? Did He give them a second chance? No, he banished them and made them mortal. I guess this makes God abusive as well?

I thank God for the education and upbringing that my parents (very strict) and my good sisters (very strict) gave me. They made me the person I am today. They instilled in me a love of my faith and my Lord. I never left my faith or felt that it was too restrictive. It is what it is. My parents and sisters helped me to grow up a responsible, happy person. I am not bitter about my years in Catholic schools, from 1 grade until 11th. Those were some of the happiest years of my life.

Somehow the word discipline is a dirty word anymore. Strict and discipline do not mean abuse. You can be strict and discipline someone without being abusive.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with Filii Dei that Catholicism is very joyful. There are Catholics who are not joyful people. They lack a balance and they see only what is wrong, evil, sinful and destructive. Yes, it is true. There is much that is wrong in the world. It has always been there. Humanity seems to trade one evil for another.

However, the Gospel is a message of great joy. It announces that despite our efforts to destroy ourselves, God continues to call out to us. When we don’t respond, he breaks into human history and comes looking for us. This is a message of great joy.

The sacraments are the greatest signs of joy that we have. Through each of them God reaches out to us and draws us closer to him. If we look at the Church’s history, it should bring us great joy and consolation. Despite human weakness, she is still there. Sometimes, the truths that she proclaims become obscured by sin. I think of it like a cloud in front of the sun. The sun has not gone away. But if we focus too much on the cloud, there is the danger of forgetting the sun. If we focus too much on the sin, there is the danger of losing sight of the holiness in the Church. We have to acknowledge the sin and acknowledge the holiness and the good.

People who focus only on rules and laws, but pay little or no attention to the beautiful truths and message behind those rules and laws are not Christians. They do Christian things like go to mass, pray the rosary, receive the sacraments, but they lack something very necessary to make them Christian. They lack attention to the Good News.

When I go to confession with the most wretched sin, I don’t go thinking that I have to confess in order to receive Holy Communion at the next mass. That’s legalism, not Christianity. When Paul speaks to us about approaching worthily he’s talking about an encounter between two people. We prepare ourselves for this encounter. There is a great joy in the thought that I’m going to confession, just as I would take a shower, before going to an important encounter. When I’m in the shower, I’m not thinking that it’s my duty to take a shower before going to a gala. No. I’m thinking about the gala. That thought puts a smile on my face. That thought encourages me to remember to wash behind my ears, put on my best deodorant and nicest shirt.

Those who go around pointing to who has gone to Communion and not gone to Confession have missed Paul’s message. Paul’s message is not meant to be pessimistic or sour grapes. “You can’t receive the Eucharist, because you’re in a state of sin.” His message is a joyful one. Paul’s message parallels Jesus’ parable about the wedding garment. We are invited to a feast where we will encounter God and his people in the most Holy Eucharist. Therefore, we should be so excited about it and so overjoyed that we come properly dressed. To come less than properly dressed is an insult to our host. We’re talking about dressing the soul, not clothing the body.

Not to come properly dressed signifies that we don’t value the invitation, much less the encounter and the person whom we’re going to encounter. That is sad.

The message has to be one of great joy. It’s not, “You can’t receive unless you go to confession.” That’s going to be a given, if the message is properly delivered.

The message is, “You’ve been invited to an encounter with the Living God. Dress yourself inside and outside accordingly. If you need a spiritual shower, go to confession. Make sure that you show up. Don’t pass up the invitation.”

This is just one way of living the joy of our faith.

 

[oneofmany]

This is probably what the Pope is talking about now. Bogged down in rules and not much else.

 

[bcuster]

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.

I agree with angell. I would like to add this: The balance is necessary, but not the watering down of the truth. When people ask us for truth, we need to be able to give it to them. The discipline gives a structure that is freeing so that we can love authentically. When the structure is shaky, this causes doubt, arguments, and disunity. Focus is taken away from the joy of the Gospel and energy is spent in endless struggle to define the structure. Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI have restated the structure of the Church–the teachings and practice of our faith. This leaves Pope Francis free to expand on the living out of the Gospel with confidence and joy.

 

[ccmcmg]

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 can say, right or wrong, that this happens. As a weak and weakly catechized Catholic joining a new parish (the diocese had directed us that the only option that the parish we HAD to join was the one in our area…I didn’t realize I could appeal this, long story) we were treated very harshly for things such as kneeling, and following the prescribed gestures of our country (US). We were CHEWED out by parishioners for kneeling at any time during Mass. We didn’t comment on their choices to worship, whether they were right or wrong. We did our thing (the Catholic Church thing), and did not judge them. This was not the only thing we were treated poorly about; the liturgical abuses in this parish were numerous as well. We felt driven away, and when we tried to turn to diocese in this manner, we felt pushed away. I take my full responsibility for falling away from the Faith at this point, but there was plenty of blame to go around.

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.

I think these comments are right on the money. Being lukewarm, and poorly educated about the Faith, about God, and the how/why we do things does a disservice to our Faith, to ourselves, and to our proper worship of God.

 

[ccmcmg]

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 I’m learning. When something is affecting us, to us, it’s the MOST IMPORTANT THING; however, in the larger picture, whether or not people are holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer (something I’m adverse to) is not as important as larger things; what is important to me, is low on the chart to someone else. I have to trust in my leaders…priest, bishops, cardinals, the Pope, to define those things. Do we really think if the Pope can answer only one question, he should answer whether or not we should hold hands (or kneel!) during Mass, or whether or not homosexual marriage is accepted in the Catholic church?

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.

Quite true. When I become annoyed or disappointed by the arguments on CAF between things, that in the big picture, are not important to either God or the Church, I have to remember that even on the most inconsequential of things, people will fight and disagree, and even attack others, on things as small as where a comma should be placed, or in what order the flour, sugar, water and eggs should be mixed, as if their very lives depending on the whole world agreeing with them and crowning them king of whatever knowledge they are sharing. (oops, run on sentence…debate that one! LOL) However, I will argue long and hard when I feel someone is misrepresenting God, our Faith, or our People.

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.

At this point in my life, giving my life over to Christ, as I am trying to do, has made me more joyful, happy and at peace. But even some of our own saints have suffered greatly AFTER giving their lives over completely to God. Each of our paths are different. But I agree; if we have truly given ourselves to the love of the Lord, our lives will be happier, or at the least, (most?) end happier, which is the actual goal.

I find Catholicism joyful. Maybe it’s just me, but obedience makes life a lot easier for me. The Church in her wisdom lays down the rules, and I seek to understand and follow. It may sound strange, but obedience is in fact liberating. There is a certain reassurance that the Church knows what she is doing, and that these rules can never be wrong. It frees me from my ego and gives me the freedom to contemplate and decide on the issues that really matter. Unfortunately, I am a sinner, and I continue to struggle with my own pride. It is something I am working on. Truly, I thank the Lord for giving us His Church.

For me, today, Catholicism is joyful, because it is filled (for me) with the love for God. When I didn’t know or have the love of God that I have now, it felt not so joyful.

Having rules can be liberating. Boundaries create a better life; growing up, many of us looked at our friends who had no rules, no curfew, and envied them. Yet, often, those friends envied us, because with the rules, the curfew, came the idea that someone cared about our well being, what we did, where we were if we weren’t home on time, that meals were on the table at 6 PM and not left to our devices at all times. Growing up, we may have looked forward to being able to go to bed any time we wanted, having Oreos for every meal, or whatever it was we thought we could do as adults. Yet, how long did it take before we realized the consequences of having that ‘freedom’? We often then begin to impose those same rules we could not wait to escape on ourselves.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

Perhaps those who want to hold hands at the Our Father just want to have a connection with those around them. Even though I don’t really like holding hands at this time, I don’t see a big problem with those who do. Regarding kneeling for communion, well, I admire those who do this, because I’m not brave enough to do so. I attend the OF, and it just isn’t done very often, so one stands out when doing it. Perhaps those who kneel for communion really do love and respect Our Lord so much that they feel the need to show it to Him as much as possible. I don’t see this as legalistic at all. I don’t really see an issue with second confiteors. We’re sinners one and all, and it’s alright to admit this, all the while trusting in Our Lord’s profound love and mercy for us all.

 

[Cojuanco]

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.

Berating them, though, for blowing on a candle too hard would, however, seem to be overly harsh for first graders.

I can say at least from my uncle’s experience in the Philippines, that cruelty or at least overwhelming strictness was somewhat the norm, and this was largely reinforced in the home. My grandfather grew up in the Second World War, and was a cop in the middle of a military dictatorship. Society valued on the surface a certain rigidity. He could be very harsh, which is strange because now he’s always so gentle. I guess he realized his mistake. But back in the old days everyone was like that, especially after the War.

My uncle and much of my mom’s family went to Catholic school. There was a pattern in those priests and religious educated in America or primarily by Americans (mostly Irish Americans) tended to be very rigid, joyless types, while those who were educated in, say, Spain, or in the country tended to be more joyful, though still orthodox.