The sad reality

[pghguy]

I haven't posted for a while because I seemed to have learned that in many cases, forums and almost anything on the Internet can do more harm that good. That being said, I'm risking another post.

Through personal soul searching and diligent research I have come to the conclusion that there is a sad truth. This sad truth seems to be that while I remain a Catholic in practice and not just name (like the vast majority of Cathoics are) I will never be happy. The idea of Catholic guilt is virtually inescapable because no matter what, it is humanily IMPOSSIBLE to follow everything all the time and some things even most of the time. So, no matter what, the guilt that was drilled into me by indocrtination will be forever present. It's truly a sad manipulation upon the human condition.

This brings me to the only possible conclusion - in most cases (not all but the vast majority) the idea of living a happy life and being happy is at odds with true Catholicism.

What I mean by true Catholicism is the belief that is in necessary to give complete adherance to and acceptance of all Domga and practices.

While it's doubtful that any living person ever (popes, Mother Theresa, the saints...) agreed with every aspect of Catholic Dogma. There are surely a very small percentage who follow desipte disagreeing or only agree out of fear. These would be true Catholics, according to the Dogma itself.

Thus to be happy and to avoid endless guilt, one cannot be a true Catholic.

It's too bad.

 

[Dream]

Hi, slightly tangential to your post, but in what way are Catholics encouraged to feel guilty all the time? I am not familiar with the culture. I know how it works for some of the Modern 'Protestants'.

I am interested in where this guilt thing comes from. It can be argued from either NT or most any part of the Bible, that we have both a good and a bad side and must pursue good rather than the bad whenever possible. Guilt feelings then are not supposed to be an issue, because it is expected that you will occasionally self-express the bad side. It is only when you aren't trying to be righteous that guilt should become a factor. Not that I'm a member of the RC but that your books have been published in English for centuries now, and I do not see where you are getting the recipe for constant guilt. I have heard other RCatholics mention this, and I am wondering what the anchors for it could be? Is there just a tendency to think that way, or are there specific teachings that say you must feel guilty at all times or what? Is it from a liturgy? I think of guilt as a type of self loathing that expresses itself in different ways, all negative except one: that you do become more introspective. A social outcast feels this way all of the time, but why would a member of a big family want to feel that way when they are in good standing? It seems to me you ought to feel exonerated and complete if you are a member that is pulling their own weight. I'm not questioning the logic of the guilt like you are, but am wondering more about where the expectation of guilt comes from, historically. Do you think it starts all the way back at the beginning? Any idea? Thanks.

 

[pghguy]

Hi, slightly tangential to your post, but in what way are Catholics encouraged to feel guilty all the time? I am not familiar with the culture. I know how it works for some of the Modern 'Protestants'.

I am interested in where this guilt thing comes from. It can be argued from either NT or most any part of the Bible, that we have both a good and a bad side and must pursue good rather than the bad whenever possible. Guilt feelings then are not supposed to be an issue, because it is expected that you will occasionally self-express the bad side. It is only when you aren't trying to be righteous that guilt should become a factor. Not that I'm a member of the RC but that your books have been published in English for centuries now, and I do not see where you are getting the recipe for constant guilt. I have heard other RCatholics mention this, and I am wondering what the anchors for it could be? Is there just a tendency to think that way, or are there specific teachings that say you must feel guilty at all times or what? Is it from a liturgy? I think of guilt as a type of self loathing that expresses itself in different ways, all negative except one: that you do become more introspective. A social outcast feels this way all of the time, but why would a member of a big family want to feel that way when they are in good standing? It seems to me you ought to feel exonerated and complete if you are a member that is pulling their own weight. I'm not questioning the logic of the guilt like you are, but am wondering more about where the expectation of guilt comes from, historically. Do you think it starts all the way back at the beginning? Any idea? Thanks.

It's pretty simple really. Viturally everythign that is human nature is considered bad or sinful. So, to be human is to constantly sin and to be in a constant state of guilt. At least according to the RCC. It's doubtful that this was the original intent of Chirst or the earliest followers of Christianity but has been perverted over the centuries.

As far as I know, there is nowhere that this is specifically stated and I would never expect it to be. People wouldn't buy into that.

As far as a member pulling one's own wieght, this is simply not possible. It would essentially require one to be virtually perfect and thus inhuman.

My assumption is that the nature of the gulit has been a slow but steady progression for since sometime in the first century. The manipulation of the letters of Paul might be among the earliest examples. Then when Rome made Christianity an officail religion, more politics enetered the picture and thus the need for power and control. And, it's all went south from there.

The RCC suggests a message of "good news" and salvation but focuses much more on condemnation, death and damnation. It's disturbing and many mental health professionals attribute it to depression and other serious health problems.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

pghguy,

I left the Catholic Church for many of the reasons that you mentioned. I'm afraid it's time for you to start considering a similar eventuality. I became much happier after I made the break.

 

[wil]

Jewish guilt v. Catholic guilt...don't know who is worse...

but the whole we are not worthy all born in sin...yet in G!d's image is tiresome, I feel for ya, but based on your 'what i believe' post...I thought you were well beyond that!

 

[Saltmeister]

I thought it was evangelical and fundamentalist Christians that were made to feel guilty all the time.

 

[Quahom1]

I haven't posted for a while because I seemed to have learned that in many cases, forums and almost anything on the Internet can do more harm that good. That being said, I'm risking another post.

Through personal soul searching and diligent research I have come to the conclusion that there is a sad truth. This sad truth seems to be that while I remain a Catholic in practice and not just name (like the vast majority of Cathoics are) I will never be happy. The idea of Catholic guilt is virtually inescapable because no matter what, it is humanily IMPOSSIBLE to follow everything all the time and some things even most of the time. So, no matter what, the guilt that was drilled into me by indocrtination will be forever present. It's truly a sad manipulation upon the human condition.

This brings me to the only possible conclusion - in most cases (not all but the vast majority) the idea of living a happy life and being happy is at odds with true Catholicism.

What I mean by true Catholicism is the belief that is in necessary to give complete adherance to and acceptance of all Domga and practices.

While it's doubtful that any living person ever (popes, Mother Theresa, the saints...) agreed with every aspect of Catholic Dogma. There are surely a very small percentage who follow desipte disagreeing or only agree out of fear. These would be true Catholics, according to the Dogma itself.

Thus to be happy and to avoid endless guilt, one cannot be a true Catholic.

It's too bad.

So, to the judge you stand before, and you are asked "Did you follow the letter of the law...or the spirit of the law?

Which answer do you think the "judge" will smile at?

There are three criteria needed to "convict" a soul:

Capacity (we have)
Ability (we have)
Intent (???)

 

[Quahom1]

I thought it was evangelical and fundamentalist Christians that were made to feel guilty all the time.

No one can "make" anyone feel guilt they have no cause to be guilty of.

Quickest way to shut a damning priest or nun up, is to simply state, you'll meet them there...

 

[pghguy]

Jewish guilt v. Catholic guilt...don't know who is worse...

but the whole we are not worthy all born in sin...yet in G!d's image is tiresome, I feel for ya, but based on your 'what i believe' post...I thought you were well beyond that!

Nope, i only wish. And, it seems what i believe in is constantly evolving.

 

[pghguy]

So, to the judge you stand before, and you are asked "Did you follow the letter of the law...or the spirit of the law?

Which answer do you think the "judge" will smile at?

There are three criteria needed to "convict" a soul:

Capacity (we have)
Ability (we have)
Intent (???)

I would say the letter of the law in some cases, the spirit of the law in all cases.

Intent? For what? To be good or evil? to cause harm or not?

 

[pghguy]

No one can "make" anyone feel guilt they have no cause to be guilty of.

Quickest way to shut a damning priest or nun up, is to simply state, you'll meet them there...

The problem with this philosophy is that it doesn't account for different level of having a conscience. For example, while it is reasonable for most people to think theft is wrong, some would have no cause to feel guilty of it.

 

[Quahom1]

I would say the letter of the law in some cases, the spirit of the law in all cases.

Intent? For what? To be good or evil? to cause harm or not?

That would be the clincher...in a court of law...

 

[Quahom1]

The problem with this philosophy is that it doesn't account for different level of having a conscience. For example, while it is reasonable for most people to think theft is wrong, some would have no cause to feel guilty of it.

Ah, but according to the bible (and most peoples' consciences), theft is wrong.

Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI's speech, given during the papal audience for the international congress on natural law, Feb. 12th, 2007:

"It is precisely in the light of this contestation that all the urgency of the necessity to reflect upon the theme of natural law and to rediscover its truth common to all men appears. The said law, to which the Apostle Paul refers (cf. Rom 2: 14-15), is written on the heart of man and is consequently, even today, accessible."
"This law has as its first and general principle, 'to do good and to avoid evil'."
​

The Pope also stated regarding God's law being written in the heart:

"They are, in fact, norms that precede any human law: as such, they are not subject to modification by anyone."
...
"Therefore, no law made by man can override the norm written by the Creator without society becoming dramatically wounded in what constitutes its basic foundation."
​

Here is the scripture on the law of God that the Pope referred to:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
​

According to the base construction of man as written by the Abrahamic faiths, there is no excuse for being ignorant of the law, and no excuse for ignoring such basic law.

 

[Saltmeister]

For example, while it is reasonable for most people to think theft is wrong, some would have no cause to feel guilty of it.

What makes you say that? Have you been robbing banks?

According to the base construction of man as written by the Abrahamic faiths, there is no excuse for being ignorant of the law, and no excuse for ignoring such basic law.

The existence of another human being is what makes anything wrong. "Stealing" is only wrong when you take something that belongs to someone else, because they will be hurt and feel violated. Taking something that belongs to someone else on the last day before the messiah comes probably won't be regarded as a crime or injustice.

If you were marooned on a lonely island with no people, I reckon you could have sex with the plants (pardon me), use the beach as a toilet (pardon me again), spray graffiti on the trees and shout swear-words all day and God wouldn't care.

I wonder why God didn't just put us all on a different island. That would sure be a great solution to the problem of sin.

Hermits can't sin because they don't live around other people.

How about we all take sinfree holidays?

 

[Quahom1]

What makes you say that? Have you been robbing banks?



The existence of another human being is what makes anything wrong. "Stealing" is only wrong when you take something that belongs to someone else, because they will be hurt and feel violated. Taking something that belongs to someone else on the last day before the messiah comes probably won't be regarded as a crime or injustice.

If you were marooned on a lonely island with no people, I reckon you could have sex with the plants (pardon me), use the beach as a toilet (pardon me again), spray graffiti on the trees and shout swear-words all day and God wouldn't care.

I wonder why God didn't just put us all on a different island. That would sure be a great solution to the problem of sin.

Hermits can't sin because they don't live around other people.

How about we all take sinfree holidays?

The problem here is my friend, when a man thinks he is stealing from another man (coveting). But what about stealing from God? Is that not also "coveting"?

 

[Saltmeister]

I would say the letter of the law in some cases, the spirit of the law in all cases.

Intent? For what? To be good or evil? to cause harm or not?

Who have you hurt? Whose dignity have you violated?

Making a bunch of priests, preachers, abbotts and cardinals angry may count as a sin for some, but not me -- especially not when they're on duty. After hours, maybe, but not during normal business hours.

 

[Quahom1]

Who have you hurt? Whose dignity have you violated?

Making a bunch of priests, preachers, abbotts and cardinals angry may count as a sin for some, but not me -- especially not when they're on duty. After hours, maybe, but not during normal business hours.

LOL, that is the God's honest TRUTH...

 

[pghguy]

What makes you say that? Have you been robbing banks?



The existence of another human being is what makes anything wrong. "Stealing" is only wrong when you take something that belongs to someone else, because they will be hurt and feel violated. Taking something that belongs to someone else on the last day before the messiah comes probably won't be regarded as a crime or injustice.

If you were marooned on a lonely island with no people, I reckon you could have sex with the plants (pardon me), use the beach as a toilet (pardon me again), spray graffiti on the trees and shout swear-words all day and God wouldn't care.

I wonder why God didn't just put us all on a different island. That would sure be a great solution to the problem of sin.

Hermits can't sin because they don't live around other people.

How about we all take sinfree holidays?

What I was stating is that conscience is relative. If it wasn't we'd have far less crime, hate and overall evil than we do.

According to the Catholic faith, so much more factors into what is right and wrong that what has impact on others. For example, masturbation has no impact on anyone else (except in extreme cases) but the RCC still looks at it as a sin.

What exactly do you mean by stealing from God?

 

[pghguy]

Who have you hurt? Whose dignity have you violated?

Making a bunch of priests, preachers, abbotts and cardinals angry may count as a sin for some, but not me -- especially not when they're on duty. After hours, maybe, but not during normal business hours.

If it was simply about who you have hurt or violations of dignity, this would make a lot of sense and be rational. However, like in wrote in another post, many things that have no consequence to others are considered evil by the RCC all the time.

 

[Quahom1]

If it was simply about who you have hurt or violations of dignity, this would make a lot of sense and be rational. However, like in wrote in another post, many things that have no consequence to others are considered evil by the RCC all the time.

Not so (as declared by a dyed in the wool Roman Catholic). Just because the Vatican claims it so, does not make it so (hence their frustration at today's catholics)...