Traditions

[PJH_74]

I want to start off this post saying I have no intention to lambast the faith of and the way people express it. Mind you I grew up Catholic in a very Catholic family and a decent majority of cousins still go to church in some denomination or another. I have 8 years of Catholic schooling and my family counted a number of Priests as virtual members of the family.

I go to a Catholic church on occasion, but my spouse being a Lutheran Pastor, I generally go to a Lutheran Church. My prime prime motivation is that we go to church together. I’ve seen plenty of families that weren’t united in their faith (or lack of) expressions that results in the child never going to church as an adult. The Lutheran service is very similar to the Catholic and, most importantly, there is a belief in the presence of Jesus in the host. (I DO understand the difference with transubstantiation) Catholic legalism is also a big turnoff to me and I generally identify with the Franciscan approach to the Catholic faith.

So that said, I observe what appears to be an extensive worry about what is a strictly orthodox and what is not. A very recent post is a good example (again I’m not here to make fun of the person who posted it) which was asking if the caloric value of tea was enough to break a fast. Tea has a caloric value of 2. Another fretted over whether getting a item for a lower price due to a mismarked price, and customer service saying it was no problem, was a sin… There worry about discussing faith with non-Catholics and so on. To my mind these people quite faithfully observed their obligations, are very honest people, and take their allegiance to the church seriously.

But here’s the question I have. When does this boarder on pharisaical observation as opposed to spreading the good news and addressing levels of church attendance? I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like. One may have their issues about this person not being Catholic, but is isn’t there rejoicing in the fact that this person has come to Christ?

 

[Solomonson]

I’m going to respond to your postings in two parts:

I want to start off this post saying I have no intention to lambast the faith of and the way people express it. Mind you I grew up Catholic in a very Catholic family and a decent majority of cousins still go to church in some denomination or another. I have 8 years of Catholic schooling and my family counted a number of Priests as virtual members of the family.

I go to a Catholic church on occasion, but my spouse being a Lutheran Pastor, I generally go to a Lutheran Church. My prime prime motivation is that we go to church together. I’ve seen plenty of families that weren’t united in their faith (or lack of) expressions that results in the child never going to church as an adult. The Lutheran service is very similar to the Catholic and, most importantly, there is a belief in the presence of Jesus in the host. (I DO understand the difference with transubstantiation) Catholic legalism is also a big turnoff to me and I generally identify with the Franciscan approach to the Catholic faith.

It’s very telling that you told us (and felt the need to tell us): that you grew up Catholic, that you completed 8 years of Catholic school, that your spouse (are they M or F?) is a Lutheran pastor. None of that has to do with your actual question.

So that said, I observe what appears to be an extensive worry about what is a strictly orthodox and what is not. A very recent post is a good example (again I’m not here to make fun of the person who posted it) which was asking if the caloric value of tea was enough to break a fast. Tea has a caloric value of 2. Another fretted over whether getting a item for a lower price due to a mismarked price, and customer service saying it was no problem, was a sin… There worry about discussing faith with non-Catholics and so on. To my mind these people quite faithfully observed their obligations, are very honest people, and take their allegiance to the church seriously.

But here’s the question I have. When does this boarder on pharisaical observation as opposed to spreading the good news and addressing levels of church attendance? I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like. One may have their issues about this person not being Catholic, but is isn’t there rejoicing in the fact that this person has come to Christ?

Your question, (which is really sort of a backhanded slap) is largely about the sort of folk that populate CA’s online forum. To a large degree they appear to be reactionaries, but they are reacting to something very real: the erosion of the reverence shown God and His Son over a number of decades, both inside and outside of the Church. Yes, some of the comments are silly, but most are not and they are wrought over many years by people who seemed to care little about them and many times, the Church itself – and seemingly God in the process.

Further you attempt to sell the false dichotomy that one can either worry about that which is strictly orthodox, OR spread the Good News, address levels of Church attendance, exhibit love for what you term “born again christians” (all Christians are born again in Christ or they are not Christians) and not have “issues” with those who are not Catholic.

That’s simply not going to sell here, or in any serious Catholic colloquium for that matter.

If you want real division you need look no father than those between the different Lutheran fellowships.

 

[zzz]

I want to start off this post saying …

What a wonderfully insightful post! I couldn’t agree with you more! Thanks PJH…

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Yes, we see posters on CAF with anxiety and scrupulosity issues. Such persons are obviously over-represented on internet forums. Rather than call them names, like pharisaical or legalist, we should remember that anxiety issues are very real for a large minority of the population.

(I think that you misread the poster who talked about drinking tea vs. the Eucharistic fast. The fast has nothing to do with calories.)

 

[joeybaggz]

I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like. One may have their issues about this person not being Catholic, but is isn’t there rejoicing in the fact that this person has come to Christ?

Is it disdain toward “born again” Christians, or is it, like myself, that some of us in the RCC are getting tired of the attacks on Catholic orthodoxy by people misinterpreting scripture to attack others in an attempt to convince themselves of the validity of their chosen stance?

St. JP II wrote something to the point that when considering other Christian denominations, “even though they are not in full communion with Rome, they have the necessary graces to achieve the salvation of their adherents.” (That is in quotation marks, but it is not verbatim.)
Protestants who do their best to faithfully live out the Gospel and love and accept Jesus as their Messiah and their personal savior, will attain eternal life. JUST LIKE US CATHOLICS! Maybe it’s just that some of us are tired of the same old tripe!

Shalom

 

[spiderweb]

While the Church obviously has “legalisms” (such as rules of fasting on specific days), the purpose of them is to draw us closer to God.

The examples that you give are NOT the legalism of the Catholic Church, rather they are legalisms of individual people. It is also impossible to know the people who are posting some of these questions or their reasons for asking. Are they being scrupulous? Or are they just curious about a question that arises in everyday life which is not addressed by the Church? Other times they handled a given situation in one way and they are just asking for opinions on how they may better handle a similar situation in the future. That’s not pharisaical, that’s just a good desire to be a better Christian.

 

[1ke]

Scrupulosity is a mental illness. People with scruples are attracted to places such as this where they believe they can find relief from their Anxiety. They need therapy.

Their mental illness is not a reflection of Catholic teaching nor the idea of “.legalism”. It is an illness like any other, irarational in nature.

 

[venite_adoremus]

OP, if you grew up Catholic in a very Catholic family, you already know the answer to some of your own questions, and you already answered them. You’re not happy with how Catholics view the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith delivered once for the salvation of all humankind.

Think of Christianity as a target made of concentric circles. The three frontiers of the concentric circles are creed, sacrament, and governance. Do Christians all believe the very same things? Sadly, no. One denomination says that divorce and remarriage are all right, another says that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother, a third might say that unconventional “marriage” between same-sex partners should be accepted. Do all Christians accept the sacraments (means-to-sacredness, the avenues of grace) instituted by Jesus? No, and the Lutherans were instrumental in casting aside five of the seven. Do all Christians accept the earthly counsel and union with the Bishop of Rome? Nope. There are real differences.

To the issues you raise, however, scrupulosity exists, and even thrives, on the forums because people are anxious about many things. Sin is one of them. A mortal sin, just one, on your soul can keep you from the kingdom of heaven eternally. Again, sadly, we are all sinners. O happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam, which gave to us so great a Redeemer!! Would that more people examined their consciences in such a way that the camel would pass through the eye of the needle. And perhaps it’s the ultimate rejection of the heresy of “once saved, always saved.” You’ve got to endure to the end to be a Catholic. Other brands of Christianity offer an easier solution. Being a Catholic is tough.

 

[joeybaggz]

OP, if you grew up Catholic in a very Catholic family, you already know the answer to some of your own questions, and you already answered them. You’re not happy with how Catholics view the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith delivered once for the salvation of all humankind.

Think of Christianity as a target made of concentric circles. The three frontiers of the concentric circles are creed, sacrament, and governance. Do Christians all believe the very same things? Sadly, no. One denomination says that divorce and remarriage are all right, another says that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother, a third might say that unconventional “marriage” between same-sex partners should be accepted. Do all Christians accept the sacraments (means-to-sacredness, the avenues of grace) instituted by Jesus? No, and the Lutherans were instrumental in casting aside five of the seven. Do all Christians accept the earthly counsel and union with the Bishop of Rome? Nope. There are real differences.

To the issues you raise, however, scrupulosity exists, and even thrives, on the forums because people are anxious about many things. Sin is one of them. A mortal sin, just one, on your soul can keep you from the kingdom of heaven eternally. Again, sadly, we are all sinners. O happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam, which gave to us so great a Redeemer!! Would that more people examined their consciences in such a way that the camel would pass through the eye of the needle. And perhaps it’s the ultimate rejection of the heresy of “once saved, always saved.” You’ve got to endure to the end to be a Catholic. Other brands of Christianity offer an easier solution. Being a Catholic is tough.

Good post!

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Scrupulosity is a mental illness. People with scruples are attracted to places such as this where they believe they can find relief from their Anxiety. They need therapy.

Their mental illness is not a reflection of Catholic teaching nor the idea of “.legalism”. It is an illness like any other, irarational in nature.

Exactly. And under every scrupulous post you see 2 comments from pretty much everyone:

1. not a sin
2. get counselling / spiritual direction

If catholicism were at fault those wouldn’t be the comments you see.

 

[Allegra]

Scrupulosity is an issue in every faith. It certainly isn’t a “tradition” of Catholicism. For many of the people who suffer from it, it’s a manifestation of an anxiety disorder or even OCD.

 

[Solomonson]

Is it disdain toward “born again” Christians, or is it, like myself, that some of us in the RCC are getting tired of the attacks on Catholic orthodoxy by people misinterpreting scripture to attack others in an attempt to convince themselves of the validity of their chosen stance?..

One thing that some need to be aware of is that their personal tastes or desires are not necessarily “orthodox” or “more orthodox” than another person’s tastes or desires. They’re just different. They might well be equally orthodox in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Casilda]

But here’s the question I have. When does this boarder on pharisaical observation as opposed to spreading the good news and addressing levels of church attendance? I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like. One may have their issues about this person not being Catholic, but is isn’t there rejoicing in the fact that this person has come to Christ?

Just wanted to comment, I also come from a long line of Catholics but that ended abruptly in the late 60’s.

For me it has been a long road through Christiandom. My husband was Pentecostal. I loved and love anyone who loves the Lord (with their whole heart, soul and mind). Our last stop in Protestant churches was a loving LCMS church. My husband’s glitch was Luther’s theology. So we moved on. Then he discovered Orthodoxy and Catholicism, on paper, you know Early church fathers. In Eastern Orthodoxy we were made to feel like you describe, we were nothing, not even Christians. In Western Catholicism we got slammed upside the head with the legalisms you describe. So I heartily agree with you there. After a lifetime of catechizing ourselves, we have settled where by examination we have been considered Christians, in Eastern Catholicism.

I wish you well.

 

[on_the_hill]

People are being fairly harsh toward OP. I kind of get PJH_74’s point, but won’t admit to it because people might harsh me, too.

 

[SimpleRosarian]

Scrupulosity is a mental illness.

It’s an inability to distinguish mortal and venial sins. Yes, that could come from “mental illness,” and OCD is often trotted out as if there are studies that support that assertion. But mostly it comes from being ignorant about what are often confusing details in moral theology.

Moreover, it’s my opinion—and I won’t bother explaining why I think this—that obvious cases of mental illness don’t translate very well into scrupulous thought at all.

Let’s say someone goes to his Confessor and says, “Father, I killed someone! I was driving in the dark and thought I drove over a pot hole. But then I realized it was a human person I must have hit! So I stopped and went back and, even though I couldn’t find anyone, and even though there was no damage to my car, and even though I didn’t actually see anyone in front of me at any time, I just KNOW I hit someone. And I just know I’m guilty of murder!”

… and no matter what Father will say, they will never believe him and will never be able to let go of an absolute terror of being a murderer.

THAT is mental illness. No one in their right mind (ha, ha) would consider it scrupulosity. But if it isn’t that obvious, we shouldn’t diagnose people whose names we don’t even know. This is especially true when people ask perfectly sane questions having to do with things like lust or how much reparation is due for stealing things or when gossip or anger are mortal sins or any number of the mundane stuff people on CAF come up with.

The threads on here, wherein posters are told to just ask their Priest, are examples of ignorance. In the first place, no one seems to know what a doubtful mortal sin is and what the Church teaches on that subject. In the second place, folks have trouble grasping certain concepts because, to be sure, we live in confusing times. In the third place, I don’t know why people treat Priests and Confessors as if they have all the answers. They don’t. If you have a good Confessor, who is both experienced and holy and knowledgeable, you are quite lucky indeed. This is to say nothing of spiritual direction. To tell someone to find a good spiritual director is like telling them to find a good exorcist: it ain’t gonna happen for the vast majority of folks.

 

[SimpleRosarian]

For many of the people who suffer from it, it’s a manifestation of an anxiety disorder or even OCD.

Many people who are “scrupulous” simply want to do the right thing and have trouble acquiring sufficient information to know what that right thing is.

The fact that people often repeat “OCD” whenever scrupulosity is brought up doesn’t mean that that correlation is legitimate. We need to stop repeating that diagnosis, parrot-fashion, simply because we find the explanation plausible.

 

[Allegra]

Many people who are “scrupulous” simply want to do the right thing and have trouble acquiring sufficient information to know what that right thing is.

The fact that people often repeat “OCD” whenever scrupulosity is brought up doesn’t mean that that correlation is legitimate. We need to stop repeating that diagnosis, parrot-fashion, simply because we find the explanation plausible.

No one is diagnosing anyone. However, what you are describing is not really what I’m calling scrupulosity. There are some posters on this board that are come to ask if they’ve committed a mortal sin even after they’ve confessed to a priest and received absolution. They are never satisfied with the answer they get and they never feel like they’ve truly been absolved. It’s a really sad state of anxiety. I didn’t read the original threads the OP cited, so I don’t know if they fall into that category.

 

[PJH_74]

OK, looks like I stirred up some comments! Thanks to all that replied. First off, for the ones that I seemed to have offended, please accept my apologies. The internet is not the best way discern the intent of the writer.

The comments about scrupulosity are dead on with some of what I was trying to get at.

Do all Christians accept the sacraments (means-to-sacredness, the avenues of grace) instituted by Jesus? No, and the Lutherans were instrumental in casting aside five of the seven.

But that’s not to say those 5 are not important events and treated with reverence. This is clearly not the Catholic interpretation, but neither is it casting aside. There are plenty of churches that have rejected all 7 entirely.

And perhaps it’s the ultimate rejection of the heresy of “once saved, always saved.” You’ve got to endure to the end to be a Catholic. Other brands of Christianity offer an easier solution. Being a Catholic is tough.

Then what about the parable of the Prodigal Son? The Lutheran position is closer to that all sins are similar and require forgiveness. One would however be able to go to hell by renouncing their baptism and not trusting in God there after and not asking for forgiveness there after.

To a large degree they appear to be reactionaries, but they are reacting to something very real: the erosion of the reverence shown God and His Son over a number of decades, both inside and outside of the Church. Yes, some of the comments are silly, but most are not and they are wrought over many years by people who seemed to care little about them and many times, the Church itself – and seemingly God in the process.

Further you attempt to sell the false dichotomy that one can either worry about that which is strictly orthodox, OR spread the Good News, address levels of Church attendance, exhibit love for what you term “born again christians” (all Christians are born again in Christ or they are not Christians) and not have “issues” with those who are not Catholic.

Indeed I am also concerned about the erosion of faith in this country, but reactionism also implies difficulty moving beyond the past. The reality is that we don’t live in the 1950s or 60s. I strongly feel that we can no longer rely on Christianity being the default religion or in some areas Catholicism itself. If we are honest, a significant portion of church attendance was based on it being the socially correct thing and a sort of social club.

I have no dichotomy to sell here, my point being that we cannot bury or heads in one or the other, We really need to sell why one would even want to be a Christian instead of expecting people to come in the door or stay after Confirmation.

If you want real division you need look no father than those between the different Lutheran fellowships.

That’s not really a fair statement. We both know, that aside from acknowledging the Pope, there is substantial differences between scholars and parishioner beliefs. We also have very reaction groups, who’s names are not to be spoken here, that are not in Communion with Rome.

 

[Solomonson]

Indeed I am also concerned about the erosion of faith in this country, but reactionism also implies difficulty moving beyond the past. The reality is that we don’t live in the 1950s or 60s. I strongly feel that we can no longer rely on Christianity being the default religion or in some areas Catholicism itself. If we are honest, a significant portion of church attendance was based on it being the socially correct thing and a sort of social club.

So what are you asking or suggesting? That Catholics abandon their faith and move along to a more generic brand of Protestantism simply because Catholicism is not as dominant in this world as it once was?

I think the Church – at the diocesan and parish level does an absolutely abysmal job in meeting the needs of millions of Catholics. Yes, we have the glorious God-given sacraments. But that’s due to God, not to us. What do WE do with God’s great gifts? Often times it’s little more than running several production-line Masses each Sunday so Catholics can get their tickets stamped.

It would be great if the Church could improve – it it would be more responsive to the faithful’s needs, but that’s not going to happen without God’s help. In the mean time, that’s also no reason to abandon the Church for a brand of Christianity that lacks the absolute fullness of the Christian faith.

I have no dichotomy to sell here, my point being that we cannot bury or heads in one or the other, We really need to sell why one would even want to be a Christian instead of expecting people to come in the door or stay after Confirmation.

Sure you do. You are implying that if one is concerned about being an orthodox Catholic Christian, that necessarily takes away from another aspect of their faith and that’s simply nonsense. Just take a look at what you posted:

“When does this (focusing on orthodoxy) boarder on pharisaical (sic) observation as opposed to spreading the good news and addressing levels of church attendance? I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like.”

That’s a false dichotomy – either the focus is on orthodoxy OR spreading the Good News and addressing levels of Church attendance. All three can be focused on simultaneously and there is considerable overlap with all three as well.

That’s not really a fair statement. We both know, that aside from acknowledging the Pope, there is substantial differences between scholars and parishioner beliefs. We also have very reaction groups, who’s names are not to be spoken here, that are not in Communion with Rome.

It’s a fair statement. My point is that there is a HUGE amount of division within the Lutheran branch of Protestantism:

AALC - American Association of Lutheran Churches
ACLC - Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches
AFLC - Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
ALCA - Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
ALCC - Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church
ARC - Alliance of Renewal Churches (charismatic/Pentecostal)
CALC - Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations
CLA - Conservative Lutheran Association
CLBA - Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
CLC - Church of the Lutheran Confession
CLC - Concordia Lutheran Conference
EELK - Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Eielsen Synod - Eielsen Synod
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
ELCIC - Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
ELCM - Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America
ELDoNA - Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
ELF - Evangelical Lutheran Federation (disbanded 1998)[1]
ELS - Evangelical Lutheran Synod
FELC - Fellowship of Lutheran Churches
GCEPC - The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church
ILC - Illinois Lutheran Conference[2]
ILD - Independent Lutheran Diocese[3]
ILF - International Lutheran Fellowship (now Lutheran Church-International)
LCC - Lutheran Church - Canada
LCCF - Lutheran Conference of Confessional Fellowship[4]
LCMC - Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ
LCMS - The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
LCR - Lutheran Churches of the Reformation
LCS - The Lutheran Confessional Synod
LELCA - Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
LLC - Laestadian Lutheran Church
LMS-USA - The Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
MLC - Missionary Lutheran Church
NALC - North American Lutheran Church
OLCC - Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference
Protestant Conference - Protes'tant Conference
ULMA - United Lutheran Mission Association
WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

 

[Casilda]

It’s an inability to distinguish mortal and venial sins. Yes, that could come from “mental illness,” and OCD is often trotted out as if there are studies that support that assertion. But mostly it comes from being ignorant about what are often confusing details in moral theology.

Moreover, it’s my opinion—and I won’t bother explaining why I think this—that obvious cases of mental illness don’t translate very well into scrupulous thought at all.

Let’s say someone goes to his Confessor and says, “Father, I killed someone! I was driving in the dark and thought I drove over a pot hole. But then I realized it was a human person I must have hit! So I stopped and went back and, even though I couldn’t find anyone, and even though there was no damage to my car, and even though I didn’t actually see anyone in front of me at any time, I just KNOW I hit someone. And I just know I’m guilty of murder!”

… and no matter what Father will say, they will never believe him and will never be able to let go of an absolute terror of being a murderer.

THAT is mental illness. No one in their right mind (ha, ha) would consider it scrupulosity. But if it isn’t that obvious, we shouldn’t diagnose people whose names we don’t even know. This is especially true when people ask perfectly sane questions having to do with things like lust or how much reparation is due for stealing things or when gossip or anger are mortal sins or any number of the mundane stuff people on CAF come up with.

The threads on here, wherein posters are told to just ask their Priest, are examples of ignorance. In the first place, no one seems to know what a doubtful mortal sin is and what the Church teaches on that subject. In the second place, folks have trouble grasping certain concepts because, to be sure, we live in confusing times. In the third place, I don’t know why people treat Priests and Confessors as if they have all the answers. They don’t. If you have a good Confessor, who is both experienced and holy and knowledgeable, you are quite lucky indeed. This is to say nothing of spiritual direction. To tell someone to find a good spiritual director is like telling them to find a good exorcist: it ain’t gonna happen for the vast majority of folks.

:clapping:

There are too many armchair clinical psychologists here at CAF who love to firebrand certain posters with the label “scrupulous”. Makes them feel important (and boosts their post count).
Thank you for this common sense clarification.