Where has the doctrine of the Cross gone?

[felra]

I am wondering in disappoint why so many of my fellow Catholics will seem to do anything but embrace the crosses given to them by God. Instead of arriving at an embrace of the cross when confronted with a personal difficulty/challenge in matters of faith and morals, they persist in a first response to avoid or a pro/con consideration whether to take up the cross given/presented to them. It too often seems a symptom of our relatively affluent society that caters and panders to self needs and wants. What’s the deal? Why such an avoidance of the trials and sacrifices as a requirement of daily discipleship walk with Christ? Are we all becoming a bunch of softies at the expense of our salvation?

I would enjoy any insights to quell my dismay over fellow Catholics who seem hell bent on doing anything but to daily take up the cross given to them and to follow Jesus in faithfulness for the salvation of their soul.

 

[Island_Oak]

I think most of us would call that the survival instinct. When affliction, conflict, need, etc…threatens your physical or psychological survival or secrurity–you inately make every effort to remedy it–not roll over and accept it. That instinct has both perpetuated and at the same time divided humanity throughout history. We are willing to exploit others–sometimes subtly, sometimes by brute force, to protect and preserve our own life and the lives of our family. What’s new here? I think it is only because of affluence, a historically recent phenomena in westernized cultures wherein the majority of the population exists far above a mere subsistence level, that we can even entertain the luxury of undertaking and accepting suffering for its spiritual edification.

 

[cheddarsox]

well said, Island Oak.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

I have been thinking about this sort of thing myself recently…but sort of from the flip side. I have been hanging around the answers forum, mostly reading. I was raised Catholic, but left (not in a huff) when I was twenty.

So, looking back at Catholicism, and how it plays out in people’s lives…I see so many people hurting and tying themselves in knots over…everything! Everything seems to be WRONG, or maybe it is not wrong, but it could be construed to be wrong, or maybe it could possibly be seen to be wrong, so we’d better not do it because then it would be an occasion for someone else to sin…YIKES!!! Is that what Christ came to earth and died for? I think not.

On the subject of crosses, I agree with Island Oak. I also see that twisted thinking is involved here. On the one hand we should be willing to embrace our crosses and accept God’s will. I see the sense of that, on the other hand, a whole list of stuff is a sin if we don’t do it. How about that Terri Schaivo thing? It was a “sin” to not use medical assistence to keep her alive…why was it not ok to accept God’s will there? Why is medical assistence considered the “right thing to do” to keep people alive, but only in some circumstances, in other cases it is the most abhorrent wrong? What is “God’s will” other than what someone arbitrarily decides at any given time? Why is “unnatural” only unnatural in certain cases?

I have been caught in this moral vice myself. I suffer from a chronic and potentially fatal condition. Some people tell me it is my cross to bear. OK. Others tell me I am sinning because I don’t do ABC treatment, because it was God’s will that let humans discover it, and that I am being selfish by letting my condition sometimes affect my family because I refuse the treatment.

Even though I am no longer a Catholic, I tend to go with the cross to bear side. I don’t go looking for pain, I avoid things that I can avoid, but neither do I feel compelled to go to extremes to not experience the pain of life.

What bothers me, is that Catholics will argue endlessly with me under some misguided belief that their stand is less arbitrary than any other. Example. I chose to have home births. That is natural. I did not seek pain meds etc. I just stayed home and had my babies. I got railed from the Catholics for my selfishness, and recklessness, and refusal to accept the “gifts” of medical advancement that God had allowed for babies. How does someone decide it is "“God’s Will” that all babies be born in a hospital? How is that more natural and perfect than what I did?
What a switch from the earlier 20th century stance that pain med in childbirth was a sin because pain in childbirth was God’s punishment for the sin in the Garden of Eden. Hmm, God’s will must have changed and I wasn’t informed of it.

I don’t have a problem with people accepting and embracing the pains and challenges of life. I have a problem with the twisted thinking and theology that keep people captives to fear at every turn.

cheddar

 

[Lisa_N]

cheddar I think you are mistaking Catholics for Catholicism. If you say “Catholics argue endlessly” then they are obviously arguing from the perspective of their own opinion. Look to the CCC for guidance as to what level of medical intervention is appropriate for example.

FWIW as a former Protestant, I KNOW this sector of Christianity does NOT emphasize taking up your cross or ‘offering up’ your suffering. We are used to our creature comforts and unlike Buddhists do not believe suffering should be part of life. The bookshelves are lined with self help books, the commercials tell us we shouldn’t ever have anxiety or be shy or be unhappy. Just take a pill and chill! Maybe that attitude is moving into Catholicism as well.

Lisa N

 

[Island_Oak]

cheddarsox:

On the one hand we should be willing to embrace our crosses and accept God’s will. I see the sense of that, on the other hand, a whole list of stuff is a sin if we don’t do it. How about that Terri Schaivo thing? It was a “sin” to not use medical assistence to keep her alive…why was it not ok to accept God’s will there? Why is medical assistence considered the “right thing to do” to keep people alive, but only in some circumstances, in other cases it is the most abhorrent wrong? What is “God’s will” other than what someone arbitrarily decides at any given time? Why is “unnatural” only unnatural in certain cases?

This was and is such a difficult and divisive topic. In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, once I simmered down, I came to realize through discussions with any number of people whom I respect and consider to be highly moral people, that there were many different, sincerely held and well-considered opinions on how the situation could/should have been managed. The one truth I could distill was that well-meaning people can hold vastly different approaches and you will never secure universal agreement. Thus it’s vital that your family and legal documents are informed about your values and preferences. Each case IS personal, unique and flavored by all sorts of variables.

I have been caught in this moral vice myself. I suffer from a chronic and potentially fatal condition. Some people tell me it is my cross to bear. OK. Others tell me I am sinning because I don’t do ABC treatment, because it was God’s will that let humans discover it, and that I am being selfish by letting my condition sometimes affect my family because I refuse the treatment…What bothers me, is that Catholics will argue endlessly with me under some misguided belief that their stand is less arbitrary than any other.

No one can compel you to accept or forgo a given treatment. As much as we abhor abortion, I would never compel a woman through force or obstruction to medical care to complete a pregnancy. Same with accepting or rejecting treatment for disease or other medical conditions. God does not impose this on us, who are we to impose it on each other?

People can and will offer opinions, and while they may seem random, arbitrary or inconsistent, they simply reflect a myriad of individual experiences, values, judgments and perspectives we all develop as we go through life. In the end you must reconcile the decisions you make about healthcare with the values you embrace, not those that someone else does. However, given that suffering is part of the human condition, offering up your suffering, even as you seek to minimize or eliminate it, is always a noble and worthwhile gesture.

 

[Christy_Beth]

As a mentally ill person, I’d like to add my perspective. My full diagnosis is; Major Depression, Dysthymia (a milder, more chronic for of depression), Anxiety disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder with avoidant, dependent and paranoid tendencies. Quite a lot to deal with.

I have been “suffering” with this for many years. Most of those years were of “quiet desperation.” I knew I felt terrible, and was often on the outside looking in, but there was little I could do about it. See, when I was growing up, it was believed that children don’t get depressed. Nor does mental illness happen in “good” families. Well, I’m here to say that both of those are indeed true.

I am on medication (have been for over ten years now) and still in therapy. For awhile I had myself convinced that, now that I’m on medication and in therapy, I would soon be “cured.” Well, that hasn’t happened. I am finally accepting that I will have this for the rest of my life.

What does this have to do with carrying one’s cross? Well, this seems to be my cross to carry. For years I fought that. I refused to admit that I’m mentally ill. After all, there is still a stigma attached to that. I want to be “normal.” I think everyone does. I’ve even been told that if I were a true believer I’d no longer be suffering from this, that Jesus would have healed me if I truely believe. Not necessarily by catholics, thank God. But the attitude is out there.

Another thing, in the bible (I believe it’s in Romans) we are told to “Rejoice with those who rejoice. Weep with those who weep.” We are willing to rejoice with others, but not to weep with them. We need to remember to do both.

 

[felra]

Christy Beth:

As a mentally ill person, I’d like to add my perspective. My full diagnosis is; Major Depression, Dysthymia (a milder, more chronic for of depression), Anxiety disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder with avoidant, dependent and paranoid tendencies. Quite a lot to deal with.

I have been “suffering” with this for many years. Most of those years were of “quiet desperation.” I knew I felt terrible, and was often on the outside looking in, but there was little I could do about it. See, when I was growing up, it was believed that children don’t get depressed. Nor does mental illness happen in “good” families. Well, I’m here to say that both of those are indeed true.

I am on medication (have been for over ten years now) and still in therapy. For awhile I had myself convinced that, now that I’m on medication and in therapy, I would soon be “cured.” Well, that hasn’t happened. I am finally accepting that I will have this for the rest of my life.

What does this have to do with carrying one’s cross? Well, this seems to be my cross to carry. For years I fought that. I refused to admit that I’m mentally ill. After all, there is still a stigma attached to that. I want to be “normal.” I think everyone does. I’ve even been told that if I were a true believer I’d no longer be suffering from this, that Jesus would have healed me if I truely believe. Not necessarily by catholics, thank God. But the attitude is out there.

Another thing, in the bible (I believe it’s in Romans) we are told to “Rejoice with those who rejoice. Weep with those who weep.” We are willing to rejoice with others, but not to weep with them. We need to remember to do both.

Yours is a hard won testimony to accepting and carrying one’s personal cross. Inspiring. Thanks for sharing. God bless.

 

[felra]

Island Oak:

This was and is such a difficult and divisive topic. In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, once I simmered down, I came to realize through discussions with any number of people whom I respect and consider to be highly moral people, that there were many different, sincerely held and well-considered opinions on how the situation could/should have been managed. The one truth I could distill was that well-meaning people can hold vastly different approaches and you will never secure universal agreement. Thus it’s vital that your family and legal documents are informed about your values and preferences. Each case IS personal, unique and flavored by all sorts of variables.

People can and will offer opinions, and while they may seem random, arbitrary or inconsistent, they simply reflect a myriad of individual experiences, values, judgments and perspectives we all develop as we go through life. In the end you must reconcile the decisions you make about healthcare with the values you embrace, not those that someone else does.

This sounds like relativism. Do you count all opinions and cummulative life experience equal in making informed and moral decisions? Or only in the matters similiar to that of Terry Schiavo? Or do you subscribe to a higher authority (the Church)? And if so, is this true only for those who choose to defer/submit to the Church, but not necessarily true for others?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

felra:

This sounds like relativism. Do you count all opinions and cummulative life experience equal in making informed and moral decisions? Or only in the matters similiar to that of Terry Schiavo? Or do you subscribe to a higher authority (the Church)? And if so, is this true only for those who choose to defer/submit to the Church, but not necessarily true for others?

I too was thinking the same thing - relativism.

Picture 10 human beings in a forest, each holding a compass. All compasses are calibrated to point true north and that is the direction that the Lord points us to go. Some follow the compass in their hands, while others are seen going in other directions and bending the compass needle to suit their desires. They claim to be heading north but are not. Instead, you see each one going according to their “conscience” and heading in every direction including south. This is the nature of relativism.

Truth is fixed and static, not moving and dynamic. Christ said the path was narrow, not wide. Jesus taught with simplicity - not complexity and it does not require a degree to get the message. The problem is that we end up in a battle of wills and look for reasons to do (B) when we should be doing (A). We do (B) because it is the path of least resistance or the lesser cross. Often times, we need to carry the greater cross, but are unwilling.

Trust in the Holy Spirit without Trust in the Papacy and Magisterium are a true conflict and one should not look for ex cathedra statements on everything and anything. In some cases it is implied or inferred by other means. It has to be highly offensive to the Holy Spirit when even a 99 year old Theologian thinks he can trump 2000 years of refined comprehension that the church has had on matters and change doctrine. If the Holy Spirit wants the change, it will happen - period, no protests required.

Hence, the church spoke quite vocally about removing feeding tubes in such cases where a patient is NOT dying. If the patient is clearly terminal and will die in a matter of hours, it is only natural to not continue feeding once they go into a coma and the like. But, Terry’s case was very different in that she could have lived another 1, 2, 5, or 20 years on that feeding tube.

One layer of complexity is concern over money to pay for her care long term. Peel away the layers and you finally get down to simplicity.

I struggled with Terry Schiavo and as I peeled away the layers of complexity I came to a very simply conclusion:

We are all instruments of God. One of the greatest acts of humility is to have to accept others caring for you - something Terry lived with. Terry served God much in the same way a flower does when it simply opens up each morning and raises itself towards the sun. It’s life is a celebration of God. In turn, God used Terry in another way - to enable her family to practice much virtues themselves. They also had to give their time to her, which was selfless on their part. Sometimes when those around us are severely ill, we have to ***pick up that cross ***and deal with it. All around, people serve God in their own unique way, including those that are handicapped.

But we are in a society that doesn’t want to bother. All one needs to do is to see just how many people are sitting in hospitals and nursing homes with nobody visiting. Now, lots of people will have excuses, but the sadness in those places is very apparent.

Terry, unfortunately, was executed by the US Courts because she had already exhibited the ability to eat via mouth based on sworn testimony by two nurses who fed her.

Aside from the Terry Schiavo issue, I agree totally that this is lacking. In fact, you will find in many of my threads now that I mention my 1970’s catechism seems to have missed the topics of devotion, sacrifice, sin, and justice, and virtues all the while they preached “if it feels good do it” religion.

 

[puzzleannie]

felra:

I am wondering in disappoint why so many of my fellow Catholics will seem to do anything but embrace the crosses given to them by God. Instead of arriving at an embrace of the cross when confronted with a personal difficulty/challenge in matters of faith and morals, they persist in a first response to avoid or a pro/con consideration whether to take up the cross given/presented to them. It too often seems a symptom of our relatively affluent society that caters and panders to self needs and wants. What’s the deal? Why such an avoidance of the trials and sacrifices as a requirement of daily discipleship walk with Christ? Are we all becoming a bunch of softies at the expense of our salvation?

I would enjoy any insights to quell my dismay over fellow Catholics who seem hell bent on doing anything but to daily take up the cross given to them and to follow Jesus in faithfulness for the salvation of their soul.

I am not sure where you are going with this and what your question is. Who am I to comment upon or criticize how another person deals with challenges and difficulties that arise in his life? Who am I to assume that because he takes step to remedy the situation that he is somehow working contrary to God’s plan? Where is it written that all difficulties, illnesses, pain, suffering and challenges that occur in one’s life are sent by God as part of a plan? God does not will suffering, although He may permit it for the sake of a greater good. To say that He does will suffering is to deny His nature as all-Good. Suffering is the result ultimately of sin, the antithesis, denial, absence of Good. To argue to a person who is suffering that he must embrace it and accept it as the will of God is not only heartless but bad theology.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

felra:

I am wondering in disappoint why so many of my fellow Catholics will seem to do anything but embrace the crosses given to them by God. Instead of arriving at an embrace of the cross when confronted with a personal difficulty/challenge in matters of faith and morals, they persist in a first response to avoid or a pro/con consideration whether to take up the cross given/presented to them. It too often seems a symptom of our relatively affluent society that caters and panders to self needs and wants. What’s the deal? Why such an avoidance of the trials and sacrifices as a requirement of daily discipleship walk with Christ? Are we all becoming a bunch of softies at the expense of our salvation?

I would enjoy any insights to quell my dismay over fellow Catholics who seem hell bent on doing anything but to daily take up the cross given to them and to follow Jesus in faithfulness for the salvation of their soul.

I tend to agree that the loss of the idea of offering up one’s sufferings is due to the fact that we live in a very wealthy society. I’m sure if you talk to missionaries to 3rd world countries they’ll tell you the idea of suffering for Christ is alive and well. Also, as Lisa mentioned, certain (and very popular) forms of Protestantism preach the health and wealth Gospel, which basically says that if you’re suffering, your faith is weak. I suspect that could be mixing in with Catholicism-- not officially, of course, but we live in a very Protestant country, so I imagine many Catholics are influenced by Protestant theology.

But yes, I wish the idea of redemptive suffering was stressed more. It’s a beautiful teaching! In fact, Catholic Answers live has a radio program on the Catholic understanding of redemptive suffering. Search in the archives for the program, or search EWTN. Also, look up the teaching in the Catechism. The Church still teaches it whether individual Catholics live it or not.

God bless.

 

[Island_Oak]

felra:

This sounds like relativism. Do you count all opinions and cummulative life experience equal in making informed and moral decisions? Or only in the matters similiar to that of Terry Schiavo? Or do you subscribe to a higher authority (the Church)? And if so, is this true only for those who choose to defer/submit to the Church, but not necessarily true for others?

Hardly. My point, if inartfully stated, was that the opinions, judgements and even criticisms that we encounter often come from the endless mix of experiences and values the people who surround us have. The important thing is to consider those opinions in light of your OWN values–which here I am assuming to be of a Cathoic perspective. Thus, in the end–even if the well-meaning bystanders disagree with your decisions–but you have acted consistent with the teachings of the faith and Church–you should feel justified and at peace with YOUR decision and not compelled to bend to the wishes or preferences of even the well-meaning but ill-informed around you.

As for the original question posed–accepting the grace born of redemptive suffering is a rather sophisticated accomplishment. It requires the exercise of an informed intellect, the operation of the will and the guidance of a mature spirituality.

 

[felra]

Island Oak:

Hardly. My point, if inartfully stated, was that the opinions, judgements and even criticisms that we encounter often come from the endless mix of experiences and values the people who surround us have. The important thing is to consider those opinions in light of your OWN values–which here I** am assuming to be of a Cathoic perspective.** Thus, in the end–even if the well-meaning bystanders disagree with your decisions–but **you have acted consistent with the teachings of the faith and Church–**you should feel justified and at peace with YOUR decision and not compelled to bend to the wishes or preferences of even the well-meaning but ill-informed around you.

As for the original question posed–accepting the grace born of redemptive suffering is a rather sophisticated accomplishment. It requires the exercise of an informed intellect, the operation of the will and the guidance of a mature spirituality.

An essential clarification/qualification.

I agree that embracing one’s crosses and uniting your suffering with the redemptive suffering of Christ on the Cross is not naturally aquired, but requires a movement of grace and being docile to the Holy Spirit.

 

[fix]

felra:

I am wondering in disappoint why so many of my fellow Catholics will seem to do anything but embrace the crosses given to them by God. Instead of arriving at an embrace of the cross when confronted with a personal difficulty/challenge in matters of faith and morals, they persist in a first response to avoid or a pro/con consideration whether to take up the cross given/presented to them. It too often seems a symptom of our relatively affluent society that caters and panders to self needs and wants. What’s the deal? Why such an avoidance of the trials and sacrifices as a requirement of daily discipleship walk with Christ? Are we all becoming a bunch of softies at the expense of our salvation?

A large part of the answer to this involves the concepts of authority and obedience. Reading St. Faustina’s diary has reinforced to me the truth that Christ asks obedience of us in all things. That obedience is hardly something that our modern culture wants to embrace.

These fora really are a reflection of our culture. The flash points of issues like contraception, euthanasia, and the like all deal with submitting to a higher authority.

Embracing the cross is a difficult thing for any of us. I think we must accept that authentic love really is an act of the will, not an emotion. To love Christ means accepting the cross. Understanding that helps to make the right choice, along with grace of course. :twocents: