Question about Catholic guilt? :)

[simka2]

Too funny! I was thinking about this early in the morning after watching the 1st episode of The Abbey. One of the gals mentioned how she felt so guilty and unworthy to be in the church. I know some lapsed Catholics who refuse to go to any church because of the guilt associated with the RCC-not saying the church imposes this, just how they feel.

I think that same episode is what triggered the memories of my mom saying it. Since my mom was on the west coast and that lady was in Australia...I got curious ;).

[Murphy101]

I'm sorry, I don't disagree with teaching the consequences of sin but I very much disagree with emotional manipulation and intentionally encouraging guilt. It is simply NOT the same to me as encouraging proper formation of conscience including knowledge of the consequence of sin. Our sins don't make God sad, our sins offend against the Truth and against God's goodness. You don't need to layer sappy sweet emotion on this to communicate the Truth, I absolutely believe that it detracts from the Truth, rather than encouraging it.

 

Right. Let us sin or not sin with cold-blooded determination! Jesus IS Truth. An offense against truth IS an offense against God. And yes, God our Father IS saddened by our sins. The bible and saints and doctrine claim Christ wept in sorrow for our sins. He is not just some aloof cold supernatural smiting being. He is a LOVING Father longing for reconciliation with his creations, us his children.

 

By all means, yes formation does include forming our will and our mind to God's will. And it starts with the heart. Mentally and factually I might know something would hurt my relationship with my children, husband or friends. But it is my heart and theirs that breaks. To ignore this and treat it as purely mental objectives ignores that we are humans.

 

I get what you are saying.

 

That said...I would put forth that "guilt" and "shame" are terrible motivators for dealing with heart issues. Do they get the job of controlling external behaviors done? Yes. Unfortunately, if guilt, shame, and fear are the primary motivators to not do something, the concepts of love, wisdom, and health have been displaced. KWIM?

 

Who said anything about primary motivator? Not me. Neither did I say love, wisdom, and health are displaced. In fact, I specifically said it should instill a proper respect for sin and the consequences of them. One aspect of why we do what we do is to do good. The other aspect is to avoid doing wrong. It is illogical to avoid proper understanding of either. Or to ignore that they are both typical, normal human motivators. It is not about guilt or fear or shame, though those might be the side effect of ignoring consequences.

 

Maybe things are different elsewhere, but the people we know use the term as a joke, referring to Catholic guilt whenever we're tempted to do something that is a little naughty. I had a close friend who was Jewish and we used to joke around about our Catholic and Jewish guilt.

 

For us, it is just giving a name to that little voice we all have in our heads that tells us we are about to do something we shouldn't do, or if we are regretting something we did wrong in the past.

 

Unless that "something"that we did was truly horrific, I seriously doubt that our "Catholic guilt" would be horrible or crushing!

 

I'm sure there are some fanatics out there who raise their kids to feel terribly guilty for the long-term about every little tiny thing they do wrong, but that's not a Catholic thing, it's a crazy, controlling thing.

 

Cat

 

:iagree: I don't know anyone who acts or feels that way. I think it's a myth perpetuated by movies.

[Little Nyssa]

To me it's a very specific guilt -- not having chosen to become a nun!

(I was brought up RC)

[prairiebird]

Oh for crying out loud. It is a happy kid with a smiling Jesus vs a sad kid with a sad faced Jesus.

 

I am understanding to how it would make them feel sad.

 

But to call it scary and disturbing is rather extreme to me.:confused:

 

I think it looks propaganda-ish. And propaganda is linked with trying to convince someone by fear/manipulation. My son looking at that would think- my sin crucifies Jesus- but in his young mind, his sin might be simple and the thought that he can 'kill' Jesus all by himself because he doesn't really have a higher order of thinking to process it yet is going to make him a walking ball of feeling horribly guilty that he may resent later in life. It's not the concept that I am in disagreement with; it is the method.

 

Do you also refuse to let your child view the crucifix during mass? Or explain that the Eucharist is the blood and body of Christ? Surely THAT has got to be more scary and disturbing than a cartoon picture of a sad faced Jesus on a tshirt?

 

These are the very basics of the faith. And this book is typically not used until 1st grade, normally in 2nd grade.

 

I'm finding it hard to comprehend how a 7 year old could be prepared for first communion or how they could give a proper confession if their parent has instilled fear and avoidance of even a tshirt cartoon picture of a frowning Jesus image.:001_huh:

 

No, I don't refuse any of the stated above because it's not scary. We haven't found any of this upsetting at all-neither in mass itself, or in their RE program (which I do send my children to since it's run by a church with a Convent attached, so if they're doing it wrong than that's between that whole diocese, the Pope, and God).

 

I think the picture does tie into the whole OP topic though. If you are someone being taught by fear and guilt (if you happen to be a person that might find that photo bothersome- obviously some don't and some do), you might be more apt to take guilt harder than you otherwise might as an adult.

[Renee in NC]

I don't find the image disturbing at all and neither have any of my children.

It's page 24 of New St Joseph 1st communion catechism. Lesson 5, which covers Our Own Sins. Actual, original, venial, and mortal.

Geez. It's a visual explaining that MORTAL sin affects our relationship with God and our eternal life/soul. The book goes on to explain what makes a sin mortal. It's actually very difficult for even adults to commit mortal sin and it is never accidental either. The likelihood of a child doing so is nearly nil. In fact, on the very same page It says, "Children do not often commit mortal sin. God protects them in a special way. But big people sometimes commit mortal sin."

 

Even so, it also goes on to say later in the same book (lesson 9) that even such a terrible sin as a mortal one can be forgiven and Jesus is eager to forgive us and for us to heal our relationship with Him.

 

Oh and I am not a cradle catholic. I'm a convert. My dh isn't religious and he has no problem with it either.

 

I've never thought of it as disturbing either and neither have my dc. My dh talks about my "Catholic guilt" all the time.:D I am not a cradle Catholic - I converted about 3 years ago.

[Murphy101]

I'm not who you are quoting, but those things AREN'T designed to cause emotional manipulation, and that image is, and I have a major problem with that. It wasn't my language, but I could see labeling that sort of emotional manipulation as "disturbing."

 

And *I* am saying that image was NOT designed to cause any more emotional manipulation than the use of the crucifix. And yes, ONE aspect of the crucifix IS to affect emotions and the heart. The church has never had a problem acknowledging that humans have feelings and thus PART of our relationship with God is an actual emotional attachment.

 

It makes me think of the Act of Contrition that Catholics say... "Oh my God, I'm heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good and deserving of all my love....."

 

Imperfect contrition (fear of punishment) vs. perfect contrition (for the love of God). We strive for perfect contrition, that is the ideal and the goal, but being human we don't always make it, but with God's grace we grow and mature in our faith walk. I want my children to do the right thing because it is the right thing, but I know full well they sometimes do the right thing only because they

want to avoid the consequences. Not perfect but working towards it. As an adult, sometimes it's the same for me, but I keep improving.

 

 

:iagree: and don't we all and isn't it awesome to have a faith that acknowledges that very human part of us?:)

[Crimson Wife]

I'm not who you are quoting, but those things AREN'T designed to cause emotional manipulation, and that image is, and I have a major problem with that. It wasn't my language, but I could see labeling that sort of emotional manipulation as "disturbing."

 

I don't see it as an attempt at emotional manipulation but rather as a quick visual explanation of something that can be rather abstract for a 7 y.o. We used the catechism this is from to prepare my oldest for her 1st Communion. That picture didn't make a big enough impression on either of us for me to remember it until someone (Martha?) mentioned it was from that particular book.

[wapiti]

I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to point out that the antidote to Catholic guilt is the sacrament of reconciliation :).

[lamamaloca]

Right. Let us sin or not sin with cold-blooded determination! Jesus IS Truth. An offense against truth IS an offense against God. And yes, God our Father IS saddened by our sins. The bible and saints and doctrine claim Christ wept in sorrow for our sins. He is not just some aloof cold supernatural smiting being. He is a LOVING Father longing for reconciliation with his creations, us his children.

 

Where does Scripture or Church doctrine teach that Christ wept for our sins? I know some saints encouraged such pietistic and emotional meditations and other saints discouraged them, and I'm free to choose sides.

[Jeanne in MN]

Perhaps it's both the serious, heavy guilt of some and the general, conscience kind of guilt.

 

From what my parents have told me of the church pre-Vatican, one growing up in the time period could feel that heavy, will I go to hell kind of guilt, whereas people growing up post-Vatican wouldn't really understand what that kind of guilt or shame is like.

 

In my parents day, pre-Vatican, going to church, weekly confession, dating and marrying someone only of your own Catholic faith were a big deal. Going to hell because of not following the guidelines of the church was a very real consequence that they were taught. (And I'm sure there were numerous "rules" that would inspire guilt if not followed.)

 

I can't even fathom that kind of mentality in the Catholic Church today. Maybe others do, but I personally haven't had any experience with that. So I wouldn't be able to relate to the heavy guilt my parents might have at one time. They've come to a point in their lives where they are angry at some of the things the Church taught them to believe and the guilt put on them. Btw they are both 66, I'm 40.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[LG Gone Wild]

I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to point out that the antidote to Catholic guilt is the sacrament of reconciliation :).

 

:cheers2:

[Parrothead]

I think the image, the pictures of the happy and sad boy are fine. I don't like the statement with it that when we sin we crucify Jesus again.

 

When I was teaching CCD to Ker's, 1st and 2nd we were told from the diocesan level not to leave it as Jesus was crucified. Teachers are told to say immediately after that the He rose again and is in Heaven... because leaving the mental image of a crucified Jesus in the minds of small children may be frightening.

 

Some kids are more sensitive than others.

 

The whole "It crucifies Christ in us" part is unnecessary and potentially scary. Christ cannot be crucified again. Saying that sin leaves a black mark on our soul and that God/Jesus wants our souls to be pure and white really IMHO is all the imagery a child needs, IMHO.

 

 

That and the 1930s/40s drawings really creep me out.

[LG Gone Wild]

I think the image, the pictures of the happy and sad boy are fine. I don't like the statement with it that when we sin we crucify Jesus again.

 

When I was teaching CCD to Ker's, 1st and 2nd we were told from the diocesan level not to leave it as Jesus was crucified. Teachers are told to say immediately after that the He rose again and is in Heaven... because leaving the mental image of a crucified Jesus in the minds of small children may be frightening.

 

Some kids are more sensitive than others.

 

The whole "It crucifies Christ in us" part is unnecessary and potentially scary. Christ cannot be crucified again. Saying that sin leaves a black mark on our soul and that God/Jesus wants our souls to be pure and white really IMHO is all the imagery a child needs, IMHO.

 

 

That and the 1930s/40s drawings really creep me out.

 

Good points. I think the 1930/40s style (though I love it) might be creepy because it is associated with so much political propaganda.

[simka2]

I think the image, the pictures of the happy and sad boy are fine. I don't like the statement with it that when we sin we crucify Jesus again.

 

When I was teaching CCD to Ker's, 1st and 2nd we were told from the diocesan level not to leave it as Jesus was crucified. Teachers are told to say immediately after that the He rose again and is in Heaven... because leaving the mental image of a crucified Jesus in the minds of small children may be frightening.

 

Some kids are more sensitive than others.

 

The whole "It crucifies Christ in us" part is unnecessary and potentially scary. Christ cannot be crucified again. Saying that sin leaves a black mark on our soul and that God/Jesus wants our souls to be pure and white really IMHO is all the imagery a child needs, IMHO.

 

 

That and the 1930s/40s drawings really creep me out.

 

Thanks for this. I was trying to figure out what was bothering me. You put this very well :D.

[Crimson Wife]

Where does Scripture or Church doctrine teach that Christ wept for our sins? I know some saints encouraged such pietistic and emotional meditations and other saints discouraged them, and I'm free to choose sides.

 

John 11:35. Jesus wept because Lazarus had died. Lazarus died because of the consequences of sin. God never intended for us to die- death came into this world because of Adam & Eve's disobedience. Hence, Jesus is crying because our sinfulness.

[simka2]

John 11:35. Jesus wept because Lazarus had died. Lazarus died because of the consequences of sin. God never intended for us to die- death came into this world because of Adam & Eve's disobedience. Hence, Jesus is crying because our sinfulness.

 

I thought Jesus was crying because a good friend of His had died?

[HRAAB]

 

:iagree: and don't we all and isn't it awesome to have a faith that acknowledges that very human part of us?:)

 

This is exactly what I was just thinking. We all want to be motivated by the highest of ideals: love, wisdom, etc. That simply isn't always reality. We are human. We are, all of us, motivated at times by rewards and punishments. Not that we arent' always to strive for higher and more perfect ideal, but I surely appreciate the fact that the church recognizes that sometimes, due to my humanity, it's good, old fashioned fear of punishment and associated guilt that motivate me the most; conversely, the thought of a reward also at times is a great motivator. Far from perfect, but then again I'm human.

[Crimson Wife]

I thought Jesus was crying because a good friend of His had died?

 

Yes, but the only reason that Lazarus died is because of sin. In the world God had intended for us, death did not exist. The wages of sin is death (c.f. Romans 6:23).

[lamamaloca]

John 11:35. Jesus wept because Lazarus had died. Lazarus died because of the consequences of sin. God never intended for us to die- death came into this world because of Adam & Eve's disobedience. Hence, Jesus is crying because our sinfulness.

 

I'm sorry, that doesn't follow logically. Lazarus died because sin had entered the world, as did death, but not because of "our sinfulness" but because of the Fall. Jesus wept at the death of his good friend, that doesn't mean that he wept in this instance because I sin.

[lamamaloca]

This is exactly what I was just thinking. We all want to be motivated by the highest of ideals: love, wisdom, etc. That simply isn't always reality. We are human. We are, all of us, motivated at times by rewards and punishments. Not that we arent' always to strive for higher and more perfect ideal, but I surely appreciate the fact that the church recognizes that sometimes, due to my humanity, it's good, old fashioned fear of punishment and associated guilt that motivate me the most; conversely, the thought of a reward also at times is a great motivator. Far from perfect, but then again I'm human.

 

Teaching the consequences of sin doesn't have to involve emotional manipulation, though. A formed conscience causes guilt whenever one does what is wrong, you don't have to TEACH children to feel badly about sin. Teaching right and wrong, love of God and Truth, will result in healthy, not overboard or scrupulous, guilt when one acts against one's conscience. Focusing on teaching children to feel badly constantly is what leads to scrupulosity, which is as dangerous to one's faith as laxity.

 

All I'm saying is that the notion of Catholic guilt arose because catechesis sometimes went overboard, teaching and encouraging Catholics to feel guilty for every little thing, and to fear sin and Hell without an accompanying trust in the mercy of God. Catechesis was unbalanced, just as it become unbalanced in the 70s and 80s as the situation was "overcorrected" into an opposite error. Rejecting the initial imbalance doesn't mean I'm promoting the equally false "overcorrection."

Edited January 7, 2011 by lamamaloca

[Murphy101]

Where does Scripture or Church doctrine teach that Christ wept for our sins? I know some saints encouraged such pietistic and emotional meditations and other saints discouraged them, and I'm free to choose sides.

 

Off the top of my head. Jesus wept in grief the garden, both that his human body would die and that it was necessary because if the sins of mankind. I think again at the death of Lazerus. Because without original sin, mankind would not have to die. Either way sin was the root cause of his tears.

 

Emotional meditations are not a requirement of any catholic. There are many and varied paths to sainthood. It is not a requirement that we be weeping and emotional, neither is it a requirement that we be always calm and quiet.

 

Yet another beauty of this faith.:)

 

Also, yes all people participate in the crucifixion of Christ when we sin, be it venial, original, or mortal. ( Catechism 598 ) As long as we repent and seek the sacrament of Penance, there's no reason to beat ourselves up over it.:)

 

No time to dig further. Sorry.

 

Have to go have an ultrasound now! *excited pregnant woman jig*:D

[Trish]

Well I grew up later than the Prime Catholic Guilt era, so I have no recollection of any priests yelling, or even delivering much of a stern message in their homilies. So the guilt doesn't come from that. But both parents and school taught what was expected, and lots of things are sins that are very widely acceptable in our culture today.

 

So we have guilt if we do things that many people would consider normal. Most obvious example from college days is, lots of people slept around. If you were Catholic and did that, you should have Catholic Guilt because sex before marriage is sinful.

 

Ideally, the Catholic Guilt would prevent you from committing such sins. Or from missing Mass, which is another serious sin.

[jenn1129]

The only time I've heard the phrase used has been among devout Catholics. And it's usually in the context of "my Catholic guilt wouldn't allow me to _____" :)

 

:iagree:most of my family our devout Catholics, and they say it regularly. :)

[Parrothead]

Where does Scripture or Church doctrine teach that Christ wept for our sins? I know some saints encouraged such pietistic and emotional meditations and other saints discouraged them, and I'm free to choose sides.

The agony in the garden.

The sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary.

Here is a homily of Fr. Joseph Pellegrino about Jesus weeping.

[Tiramisu]

I thought I should clarify these few sentences from my last post. I think most people would define the "little voice" as their conscience. I would assume that most of us have one of those, but for some reason, when it's referred to as Catholic guilt or Jewish guit or whatever, it is somehow a terrible and crushing thing to have. :confused:

 

Cat

 

:iagree:I'm Catholic and never heard of Catholic guilt, but I've heard a lot about Jewish guilt.

 

There can be such thing as legitimate guilt, as in doing something seriously wrong without repentance.

 

And, there can be guilt-trips played on us for the purpose of manipulation, but that's a sick, personal thing that really doesn't have anything to do with religion, though people often blame religion for this type of thing.

 

 

I'm not totally sure, but I'll try a guess. My parents were both raised Catholic and attempted to raise me Catholic. They were rather luke warm about the whole thing though. I remember my mother saying she felt guilty I didn't like the religion and that she would surely go to hell for that because it was her fault. I also remember as a young child being shocked when I heard other children were not Baptized because for some reason I got it into my head that an unbaptized person risked going straight to hell if they die. This feeling is so pervasive that even as an Atheist I worry that my children are not baptized. Logically I think that's stupid, but the feeling still creeps up now and then. And then there is the whole thing about confession. That was one point my parents never agreed with. They felt God would forgive a person without them going to confession, but that isn't really what is taught in Catholicism. So they felt guilty for not going to confession.

 

I don't believe any of that now, but I too have had a glimpse of the idea of "Catholic guilt".

 

No offense, but it sounds as if no one in your family was actually a practicing Catholic so to call it "Catholic guilt" is a bit of a stretch.

 

Perhaps it's both the serious, heavy guilt of some and the general, conscience kind of guilt.

 

From what my parents have told me of the church pre-Vatican, one growing up in the time period could feel that heavy, will I go to hell kind of guilt, whereas people growing up post-Vatican wouldn't really understand what that kind of guilt or shame is like.

 

In my parents day, pre-Vatican, going to church, weekly confession, dating and marrying someone only of your own Catholic faith were a big deal. Going to hell because of not following the guidelines of the church was a very real consequence that they were taught. (And I'm sure there were numerous "rules" that would inspire guilt if not followed.)

 

I can't even fathom that kind of mentality in the Catholic Church today. Maybe others do, but I personally haven't had any experience with that. So I wouldn't be able to relate to the heavy guilt my parents might have at one time. They've come to a point in their lives where they are angry at some of the things the Church taught them to believe and the guilt put on them. Btw they are both 66, I'm 40.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Like another poster said, feelings like those of your parents are probably due to a particular priest or locale and can't be taken as the experience of all Catholics prior to Vatican II. When I hear stories like this, I can't help thinking what their chidlhood was like overall and what the relationships were like with their parents. I'm not denying that such an experience was possible but I dont think it's as simple as, "It was like this in the pre-Vatican II church..."

 

Well I grew up later than the Prime Catholic Guilt era, so I have no recollection of any priests yelling, or even delivering much of a stern message in their homilies. So the guilt doesn't come from that. But both parents and school taught what was expected, and lots of things are sins that are very widely acceptable in our culture today.

 

So we have guilt if we do things that many people would consider normal. Most obvious example from college days is, lots of people slept around. If you were Catholic and did that, you should have Catholic Guilt because sex before marriage is sinful.

 

Ideally, the Catholic Guilt would prevent you from committing such sins. Or from missing Mass, which is another serious sin.

 

:iagree:though I don't believe a bit in the Prime Catholic Guilt Era.

It's very sad that our society has somehow turned a well-developed conscience into a pathology.

[silliness7]

Catholics do not believe in the Protestant thing of "once saved, always saved" and feel strongly that it really *DOES* matter how we choose to live our lives. Jesus offers us the hope of salvation but it's not enough to simply accept Him as our Savior. There is no salvation except through Jesus but faith alone is no guarantee that we will be saved. So when we Catholics sin, it creates a much stronger feeling of guilt because we don't have this blithe assumption that our faith in Christ alone is sufficient.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I think Martin Luther suffered from Catholic guilt to the nth degree. His study of Romans and Galatians showed him and restored to the church that "my grace is sufficient for thee." Sorry for the mini hi-jack. I just take issue with the phrase "blithe assumption." That doctrine is solidly and firmly rooted in the Scriptures from the beginning to the end. And I don't want to argue that position in this thread except to point out that the theological doctrine of faith alone in Christ alone is well developed, well thought out, and well supported by Scripture. It's a misnomer to call it a blithe assumption. Carry on. :001_smile:

[HRAAB]

Teaching the consequences of sin doesn't have to involve emotional manipulation, though. A formed conscience causes guilt whenever one does what is wrong, you don't have to TEACH children to feel badly about sin. Teaching right and wrong, love of God and Truth, will result in healthy, not overboard or scrupulous, guilt when one acts against one's conscience. Focusing on teaching children to feel badly constantly is what leads to scrupulosity, which is as dangerous to one's faith as laxity.

 

All I'm saying is that the notion of Catholic guilt arose because catechesis sometimes went overboard, teaching and encouraging Catholics to feel guilty for every little thing, and to fear sin and Hell without an accompanying trust in the mercy of God. Catechesis was unbalanced, just as it become unbalanced in the 70s and 80s as the situation was "overcorrected" into an opposite error. Rejecting the initial imbalance doesn't mean I'm promoting the equally false "overcorrection."

 

:001_smile: I actually agree with you. My only point was that sometimes we humans react to external motivators: punishment and rewards. I hope you don't think I teach my children to feel bad over every little thing. You're right; that comes naturally with a well formed conscience. However, my children are taught about the consequences of sin, both eternal and temporal, and some might consider that emotional manipulation. I don't. I much prefer to focus on God's love and mercy

 

My dd has been planning for a week to go ice skating with her friends today.l She knows there are certain things that must be finished before she can go - especially her math. I'd love to say she's willingly picking up her math book with a cheerful spirit because studying math is a good, but I'd be lying. If she doesn't get finished and isn't able to go skating, she might very well feel bad, but that's internal.

[LauraGB]

No offense taken, but that's not entirely true. Several of my family members are nuns. We went to church sometimes 3 times per week and I went to catechism. My father was studying to be a priest before marrying my mother. Both of my parents read the bible regularly.

 

I admit, however, that over time we went to church less and less and then not at all. My parents stopped talking about it much and they allowed me to quit catechism when I was 14. I honestly think they just changed their mind about what they believed. A few things happened that probably contributed to this.

 

And once a Catholic, always a Catholic, whether you want to be or not. If your parents were raised that way, it certainly becomes a major part of who we are.

 

I had my kids baptised when they were babies because my parents and grandparents had a complete fit about them dying and going to hell if I didn't. While I didn't believe it myself, there was that little voice in my head was saying "well? what if?". So, they were baptised, even though I wasn't a practicing Catholic at the time. Dh, the non practicing Lutheran, didn't get it, but went along with it because my family was so adamant.

[Tiramisu]

And once a Catholic, always a Catholic, whether you want to be or not. If your parents were raised that way, it certainly becomes a major part of who we are.

 

I had my kids baptised when they were babies because my parents and grandparents had a complete fit about them dying and going to hell if I didn't. While I didn't believe it myself, there was that little voice in my head was saying "well? what if?". So, they were baptised, even though I wasn't a practicing Catholic at the time. Dh, the non practicing Lutheran, didn't get it, but went along with it because my family was so adamant.

 

I certainly understand your point, though I disagree with the point of once Catholic, always Catholic because I believe being Catholic means you believe in and practice your faith. I do agree that the seed that was once planted is still there, as are the influences of your upbringing and the teaching your received.

[Tiramisu]

No offense taken, but that's not entirely true. Several of my family members are nuns. We went to church sometimes 3 times per week and I went to catechism. My father was studying to be a priest before marrying my mother. Both of my parents read the bible regularly.

 

I admit, however, that over time we went to church less and less and then not at all. My parents stopped talking about it much and they allowed me to quit catechism when I was 14. I honestly think they just changed their mind about what they believed. A few things happened that probably contributed to this.

 

I'm sorry for this, especially if anything happened that was the fault of someone in the Church.

[ElizaG]

I think there might be a double standard here. I'm guessing that many people who find that image objectionable would see nothing wrong with books that show pictures of the consequences of neglecting the environment (oil-covered birds, etc.). It seems to me that there's more that could be called propaganda in "Ranger Rick" than in the Baltimore Catechism.

 

I'd also agree with Martha that the image is more likely to evoke sadness than fear. Same goes for people who meditate on the crucifix, the Stations of the Cross, the Five Wounds, or the Sacred Heart. But either way, the children are told over and over of God's infinite love that overcomes sin and brings us true happiness. This message comes across very strongly in the context of the whole book.

 

(As a side note, this book is still in print, and still popular among homeschooling families. For example, it's included in the Seton curriculum. Calling it "ridiculous," etc. is likely to be hurtful to many parents on this board. It's one thing to express disagreement, but please try to choose your words carefully.)

 

Getting back to the OP, I think there are different types of experience that are being labeled as "Catholic guilt." In the media, it seems to refers to people who aren't practicing their faith, i.e. "un-Catholic guilt." I've never heard the term used among practicing Catholics, but from the way it's been described on this thread, it sounds like it's related to scrupulosity. This is a real problem for some people, and it seems to be caused in large part by growing up in certain rigid cultural or family mindsets that emphasize our sinfulness more than God's love. There are historical reasons why some cultures (e.g. French-Canadian and Irish-American) are more affected by this than others, but that's a large topic to get into, and I have to go clean out the kitchen sink. It has milk bottles in it. Fortunately, they appear to be in a state of grace. :) (*)

 

 

(*) Baltimore Catechism joke. One of the books uses the analogy of putting ink in a bottle of milk, to represent the effects of mortal sin on our souls.

[Murphy101]

I certainly understand your point, though I disagree with the point of once Catholic, always Catholic because I believe being Catholic means you believe in and practice your faith. I do agree that the seed that was once planted is still there, as are the influences of your upbringing and the teaching your received.

 

Baptism in the RCC means you are catholic. Just as my children are mine, not due to belief, but in actuality. They might grow up to disown me and say I'm no mother they want a part of. But they are still my children. I still claim them as mine.

 

I think the image, the pictures of the happy and sad boy are fine. I don't like the statement with it that when we sin we crucify Jesus again.

 

It did not say again.

God is timeless. The crucifixion was for all sin of all time, past, present, and future. And as I have already noted, all sin contributed to his crucifixion. The several lessons prior to this one mentioned here actually go over this and this nature of God very clearly.

 

The whole "It crucifies Christ in us" part is unnecessary and potentially scary.

Saying that sin leaves a black mark on our soul and that God/Jesus wants our souls to be pure and white really IMHO is all the imagery a child needs, IMHO.

 

It isn't unnecessary and it is factual to RCC belief.

It's only scary under the hand of incompetent instruction. It is a somewhat simple thing to explain.

 

God is timeless. He is at once past, present, and future.

God dwells everywhere, including with our souls.

Jesus, the second person and son of God, was crucified to make amends for everyone's sins. Everyone in the past, in the future, and in the present.

When we sin, our sin is part of Jesus's crucifixion.

He died for our sins. And he arose again, so that our souls might also rise again in eternity with him.

All we need do is repent and seek the sacrament of penance.

 

That and the 1930s/40s drawings really creep me out.

 

Actually it is 1963-ish.

 

I think Martin Luther suffered from Catholic guilt to the nth degree. His study of Romans and Galatians showed him and restored to the church that "my grace is sufficient for thee." Sorry for the mini hi-jack. I just take issue with the phrase "blithe assumption." That

doctrine is solidly and firmly rooted in the Scriptures from the beginning to the

end. And I don't want to argue that position in this thread except to point out that the theological doctrine of faith alone in Christ alone is well developed, well thought out, and well supported by Scripture. It's a misnomer to call it a blithe assumption. Carry on. :001_smile:

 

Catholics do not believe and never have believed in faith alone.

Martin Luther didn't restore anything to the Church. Rather he detracted from and left it. He had some legit complains about corrupt priests. No one denies that, even then. Many other good priests of the time managed to create change to deal with corrupt priests and selling of indulgencies without leaving the faith or becoming excommunicated and heretics.

 

But I agree. Let's not argue it. Carry on.:D

[Mary in VA]

Perhaps it's both the serious, heavy guilt of some and the general, conscience kind of guilt.

 

From what my parents have told me of the church pre-Vatican, one growing up in the time period could feel that heavy, will I go to hell kind of guilt, whereas people growing up post-Vatican wouldn't really understand what that kind of guilt or shame is like.

 

In my parents day, pre-Vatican, going to church, weekly confession, dating and marrying someone only of your own Catholic faith were a big deal. Going to hell because of not following the guidelines of the church was a very real consequence that they were taught. (And I'm sure there were numerous "rules" that would inspire guilt if not followed.)

 

 

 

:iagree:I have a LONG story about Catholic guilt. I am 52 and my dad, who was Catholic, was 43 when I was born. So he was born early 20th century. My dad's mother's family were Irish immigrants and his father was first generation American who's parents came from Ireland. Both were Catholic. Now I didn't know either of them, but my dad's family was totally dysfunctional (NOT saying it had ANYTHING to do with being Catholic!!!) and after their third son, my dad, they divorced when he was 1 year old. People DIDN'T divorce in 1916, especially Catholics!! I have no idea why they divorced. But my dad and his two older brothers when to Catholic boarding school at Notre Dame (gone now) as soon as they were each old enough. Were talking 6 years old. (It breaks my heart to think about) So he grew up with the stigma of divorced parents and a thorough Catholic education. Years later when he had been married a short time and had one son, his wife left him, and called the draft board and told them she didn't need him, so go ahead and draft him. (They weren't drafting married men with children then.) He was drafted and while he was off in the Pacific he was divorced. He later met and married my mother. She told me he carried great guilt for his divorce. He didn't talk about it. My mother was not Catholic, but I was baptised Catholic and she promised, with my father, to raise me in the Catholic church.

 

We lived in a small town with one small Catholic church and one small Protestant church. My parents took me to a neighboring town for religious education on Saturdays. My dad would take me to mass on a near-by army base, but infrequently. He was sad going to mass because he couldn't take communion because of his divorce, so it was hard for him to go. (My mother told me this later, he didn't talk about it) I loved to sing, so my mom took me to the Protestant church in our town to sing in their children's choir. They practiced every week on Wednesdays and sang about ever 4-6 weeks on Sundays. One week when my mom dropped me off at my Saturday class she chatted with the nun who was teaching the class beforehand about my singing. I was in second grade and we were learning all about sin in preparation of our first confession. The class had 20-30 kids in it. Mid-way through the class the nun called me by full name, pointed at me, and said, "you have sinned for going to a church that wasn't Catholic." (my children's choir Sundays) Well as you can imagine I burst into tears. I was totally hurt and humiliated. After class she said she wanted to talk to my father, who was picking me up. Well I ran to the car, didn't tell him because I wanted to go home, and cried all the way home. It's probably a good thing because I think my dad would have punched the nun. And that was the end of my Catholic education. He wouldn't send my back. I was very relieved!

 

Now, as an adult, I think he carried a very heavy weight from the guilt of his divorce, loss of ability to fully worship in the church, and when guilt was thrown at me it was the final straw.

 

This happened after Vatican II and even the Pope was visiting churches of other denominations. But the nun was old and probably didn't agree with Vatican II. And certainly the nun who had been my teacher the year before would NEVER have done that. But I do think in the past guilt was used much more heavily in the Catholic church than it is now.

 

I am a believer now and I understand sin and our need for a savior. But it saddens me deeply to see how the guilt affected my dad. I am sure he carried around a VERY HEAVY weight on his conscience with no way to relieve it. I know his family and childhood was a big part of his problem, but to know the church had a part is troubling. I don't think he ever felt accepted or loved by the church, and I don't think he felt the LOVE of Christ. From what I can tell from Catholic friends, things are very different now. So I really don't want anyone to think I am Catholic bashing! That is certainly not my intent. But I think Catholic guilt was a real phenomenon in the past, even if it doesn't exist now.

 

Mary

Edited January 7, 2011 by Mary in VA

[Carol in Cal.]

I thought Jesus was crying because a good friend of His had died?

 

Me, too.

[Murphy101]

Sigh.

 

The saddest thing is, your dad may have qualified for an annulment. Given his age, I'd wager any man of ANY faith would have felt shame over his wife leaving him. Because you are very right - it just wasn't acceptable back then.

 

Also, Vatican II didn't change anything about the views of visiting other churches. The nun was wrong regardless. Though it has always been frown on for laity to do so, unless you received Eucharist there, you didn't commit a sin just by being in a Protestant building. What's more, even if you had, it wouldn't have been a sin because in order for it to be a sin, you had to have knowingly and purposely chosen to do it. Sin is disobeying God. How can you disobey when you do not know what is asked of you? Then there's the whole you were a child accountable to your parents. If anyone MIGHT have sinned, it would have been them for permitting you to receive eucharist elsewhere.

 

I don't doubt anything you posted. It just goes to show that there have always been bad teachers and people who need the salve and comfort of what the CC actually is and has to offer for their spiritual healing.:(

[LauraGB]

Getting back to the OP, I think there are different types of experience that are being labeled as "Catholic guilt." In the media, it seems to refers to people who aren't practicing their faith, i.e. "un-Catholic guilt." I've never heard the term used among practicing Catholics, but from the way it's been described on this thread, it sounds like it's related to scrupulosity. This is a real problem for some people, and it seems to be caused in large part by growing up in certain rigid cultural or family mindsets that emphasize our sinfulness more than God's love.

 

 

I think good ol' fashioned Catholic Guilt is different than scrupulosity, but, boy, there sure are similarities. I honestly think the biggest thing about the guilt is that as youngsters we were told that nearly everything we did would get us a nice toasty spot in hell (just to keep us in line). Then we needed to be contrite and kneel and ask forgiveness - not from individuals where we could "see" this forgiveness, but from God, who apparently "spoke" through these people who were repeatedly telling us we were going to hell. And at the same time, we were never taught how to forgive ourselves for the smallest things (not even sins, really) right on up to the actual big sins because to forgive ourselves was out of the question. So, when you are unable to forgive yourself your own sins, and carry them around with you forever, well, that's where I think the term Catholic Guilt comes from.

[Tiramisu]

Baptism in the RCC means you are catholic. Just as my children are mine, not due to belief, but in actuality. They might grow up to disown me and say I'm no mother they want a part of. But they are still my children. I still claim them as mine.

 

Yes, you're right. If someone was baptized in the RCC, they're Catholic. Baptism is forever. I like the analogy you give; it makes it very clear.

[Laurie4b]

Wow. That went straight to catholic bashing quick.

 

 

 

:confused: Huh? What was said that could be construed as "bashing?"

[Mary in VA]

Sigh.

 

The saddest thing is, your dad may have qualified for an annulment. Given his age, I'd wager any man of ANY faith would have felt shame over his wife leaving him. Because you are very right - it just wasn't acceptable back then.

 

Also, Vatican II didn't change anything about the views of visiting other churches. The nun was wrong regardless. Though it has always been frown on for laity to do so, unless you received Eucharist there, you didn't commit a sin just by being in a Protestant building. What's more, even if you had, it wouldn't have been a sin because in order for it to be a sin, you had to have knowingly and purposely chosen to do it. Sin is disobeying God. How can you disobey when you do not know what is asked of you? Then there's the whole you were a child accountable to your parents. If anyone MIGHT have sinned, it would have been them for permitting you to receive eucharist elsewhere.

 

I don't doubt anything you posted. It just goes to show that there have always been bad teachers and people who need the salve and comfort of what the CC actually is and has to offer for their spiritual healing.:(

 

I really don't know specifics of my dad's first marriage, because as I said, he never spoke of it to me. I don't think he told my mom much either. He died when I was 13, so I never got to ask any questions from an adult perspective. I look back at his life now as a parent and feel so sad for him. I know his parents and grandparents certainly weren't what God invisioned for a child, and I just wish he could have felt the the love of Christ. I don't know if an anulment would have been possible because I don't know specifics, but I don't think he would have even brought it up. There was such a stigma and embarrassment back then.

 

I do have his WWII letters to his mom and in one is a beautiful description of Christmas Mass conducted in a jungle on a Pacific Island. It gave me the feeling he felt great comfort in the mass at that time.

 

Thanks,

Mary

 

P.S. I didn't take communion when the choir sang. Looking back I think the nun wanted to make an example of me. She also knew my mother wasn't Catholic and I've always wondered if that entered into her thought processes.

[lamamaloca]

Also, Vatican II didn't change anything about the views of visiting other churches. The nun was wrong regardless.

 

Well, it was taught to children that it was wrong to attend any Protestant service, and now that isn't taught. Is this a change in actual Church dogma? No, but it certainly is a change in what was taught to the people.

[Murphy101]

I really don't know specifics of my dad's first marriage, because as I said, he never spoke of it to me. I don't think he told my mom much either. He died when I was 13, so I never got to ask any questions from an adult perspective. I look back at his life now as a parent and feel so sad for him. I know his parents and grandparents certainly weren't what God invisioned for a child, and I just wish he could have felt the the love of Christ. I don't know if an anulment would have been possible because I don't know specifics, but I don't think he would have even brought it up. There was such a stigma and embarrassment back then.

 

I do have his WWII letters to his mom and in one is a beautiful description of Christmas Mass conducted in a jungle on a Pacific Island. It gave me the feeling he felt great comfort in the mass at that time.

 

Thanks,

Mary

 

P.S. I didn't take communion when the choir sang. Looking back I think the nun wanted to make an example of me. She also knew my mother wasn't Catholic and I've always wondered if that entered into her thought processes.

 

Yes. Sad over all isn't it? I wasn't saying I know he could have gotten an annulment, but even when it isn't granted, it is very much hoped the process bring healing and that things are dealt with rather than buried emotionally so the person can hopefully find peace. And you are certainly correct that there was a stigma for anyone in those circumstances back then.

 

As for the nun, like I said, there's always been bad teachers. :(

 

Well, it was taught to children that it was wrong to attend any Protestant service, and now that isn't taught. Is this a change in actual Church dogma? No, but it certainly is a change in what was taught to the people.

 

What do you mean by "taught"?

 

There is what the Church Teachings are and there is what is actually discussed by priests or RE teachers. Sadly, I have to admit the two do not always match. But what the actual Church has to say, has not changed. In the past, there were those who were unchristianly harsh and that twisted their implementation if it. In the present, there probably are likewise those who twist it by being too lax or discard it entirely. That does not make either correct. And it doesn't mean the teaching itself has changed.

 

Just as in any other religion, there's some who do not speak accurately to what exactly that religion teaches. They speak their own acceptable version of it. And yes, some of them are those who have no excuse other than their own pride convincing them they know better than a couple thousand of year of tradition and spiritual guidance. Not to mention it's right there in black and write in a huge relatively inexpensive book called the catechism.:)

 

Sigh.

 

Sometimes I just want to buy extra RC catechism books to have on hand to thump other Catholics in the head with. :tongue_smilie:

 

Adding that to my confession list... Hmm..... Wonder if that is of my catholic guilt showing?;)

[lamamaloca]

What do you mean by "taught"?

 

I mean taught in catechism classes and in Catholic books and magazines. Really, even officially what the Church had to say about non-Catholics and the likelihood of their salvation changed considerably with Vatican II, and it resulted in an entirely different attitude "on the ground" among your average Catholic, as well.

[BBG580]

I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to point out that the antidote to Catholic guilt is the sacrament of reconciliation :).

 

Yes.

 

Like other Catholics posting in this thread, I'm also a convert and entered the Church in 2009. I can see what people mean by "Catholic guilt" in that I do feel the pain of separation when I have chosen to act in ways or do things that pull me away from God and what His will is for me and I am in need of Reconciliation.

 

I don't view it as a bad thing, I view it as part of my natural instinctive response mechanisms. It is sort of like how awful I feel when my husband and I argue or if I know I've upset a friend because of being thoughtless or willful. I feel bad and what to correct it.

[BBG580]

Just as in any other religion, there's some who do not speak accurately to what exactly that religion teaches. They speak their own acceptable version of it. And yes, some of them are those who have no excuse other than their own pride convincing them they know better than a couple thousand of year of tradition and spiritual guidance. Not to mention it's right there in black and write in a huge relatively inexpensive book called the catechism.:)

 

Sigh.

 

Sometimes I just want to buy extra RC catechism books to have on hand to thump other Catholics in the head with. :tongue_smilie:

 

Adding that to my confession list... Hmm..... Wonder if that is of my catholic guilt showing?;)

 

Yes, yes, yes! I am so often surprised by how poorly catechized so many cradle Catholics are and how they don't realize that their priest is not more authoritative than the Magisterium of the Church and the official Catechism. My sister is in the process of converting (!!!) and the parish she is receiving RCIA at is really allowing her to believe that the Church's position is much more flexible in some areas than it is. It is maddening to me because she gets very defensive when I point out the inaccuracies because she has determined that her priest knows better than me when really he is simply expressing his own beliefs on the matter and isn't teaching Church theology as presented in the CCC. It is all there is black and white if anyone wants to read it and... surprisingly enough the theological roots of all those issues (like artificial birth control) are deep and rich and make sense if you choose to actually learn about it. It isn't like the Church decided to make up a bunch of silly rules just to drive its members crazy, they all have a spiritual benefit for us!

[Brigitte]

Wow.

 

We were raised Catholic, and my dh went to school all the way through grad school at Catholic schools, and neither of us would ever buy into that.

 

Maybe things are different elsewhere, but the people we know use the term as a joke, referring to Catholic guilt whenever we're tempted to do something that is a little naughty. I had a close friend who was Jewish and we used to joke around about our Catholic and Jewish guilt.

 

For us, it is just giving a name to that little voice we all have in our heads that tells us we are about to do something we shouldn't do, or if we are regretting something we did wrong in the past.

 

Unless that "something"that we did was truly horrific, I seriously doubt that our "Catholic guilt" would be horrible or crushing!

 

I'm sure there are some fanatics out there who raise their kids to feel terribly guilty for the long-term about every little tiny thing they do wrong, but that's not a Catholic thing, it's a crazy, controlling thing.

 

Cat

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Thank you for this!

[LauraGB]

I'm glad so many converts are finding peace with the faith and don't understand the theory of Catholic Guilt. It's about time.

 

I wonder, though, how many "cradle Catholics" whose family/families have been Catholic for generations know exactly what it is. I know it doesn't affect everyone, and even with those it doesn't have the same effect, but still, I'm curious.

 

I think my father was predisposed to depression, and his mother before him, at the very least - both undiagnosed, just duking things out. Being raised in an environment as I (and others) have explained can do some crazy damage to sensitive indivuals. And I'm betting there are a lot.

Edited January 8, 2011 by LauraGB

[Peela]

I was not raised Catholic, but my dh was. We are very clear and conscious of the syndrome of Catholic guilt. It is hard to describe though, because it is all permeating rather than very specific. The guilt goes very deep and covers all parts of life.

We discuss it sometimes. Dh calls Catholicism one of the darkest cults on the planet , because it involves a set of beliefs you take on (usually from birth), its virtually impossible to leave (dh did but other Catholics still see him as Catholic and frequently try and get him to reclaim his faith again), and basically the beliefs include the fact that everyone who isnt Catholic will burn in Hell when they die, to put it bluntly, so you better be on "our team" because the alternative are the losers. That's pretty dark, if you ask me.

Not all Catholics believe that (and many other faiths also believe it)...we have a Franciscan monk friend who is far more openminded about other faiths, and non dogmatic about his own, than most- in fact, it gets him into trouble. But I think he is the exception, and most dont even like to think about the implications of what they are believing.

[Crimson Wife]

Yes, yes, yes! I am so often surprised by how poorly catechized so many cradle Catholics

 

All you converts please have mercy on us cradle Catholics. Those of us who are Gen X typically experienced truly *ATROCIOUS* catechism. I shudder to think of all the misleading or even downright *WRONG* things I was taught as a child. I think I drove our old parish's RE director nuts with all my questions when I was preparing my oldest for her First Communion. I'd see something in Faith & Life or the Baltimore Catechism and have to ask the RE Director for an explanation because I knew I wouldn't be able to properly discuss it with DD. She was fortunately very patient and understanding with me- I think she appreciated that I was asking the questions rather than continuing the cycle of poor catechism another generation.

[justamouse]

So I really don't want anyone to think I am Catholic bashing! That is certainly not my intent. But I think Catholic guilt was a real phenomenon in the past, even if it doesn't exist now.

 

Mary

:grouphug::grouphug:

 

My inlaws are devout Catholics, and ohh the horror stories.

 

My FIL up and left my MIL for 12 years and would not divorce her because of the church. They reconciled--in a way, but it was never the same. I can't express the dysfunction and sadness, and all because of the guilt of divorce and their relationship to the church--they didn't want to be excommunicated. My FILs brother also ...his wife divorced him and the RCC church wouldn't let him receive communion there anymore, and so he was pushed out. He is still so hurt over it. That's just two of the family stories concerning the church. There are so many more.

 

Even in my own relationship-my in laws still don't hold me close because even though I had been baptized and received communion, I didn't go through with my confirmation. And my dh didn't make me so we married outside the church (the church therefore wouldn't let my husband be his neice's godparent) and they truly believe that I tore him away from them and the faith.

 

Like you said, it may not be a problem for the current generation, but for our parents generation it was a very real thing. Those are people who still bear the pain of that guilt. It's *so* sad to see because it has a ripple effect to the rest of the family.

Edited January 8, 2011 by justamouse

[Crimson Wife]

basically the beliefs include the fact that everyone who isnt Catholic will burn in Hell when they die, to put it bluntly, so you better be on "our team" because the alternative are the losers. That's pretty dark, if you ask me.

 

The Catholic Church believes that it has "the Fullness of the Truth" but that's not the same thing as believing all non-Catholics will burn in Hell. The Catechism of the Catholic Church leaves open the possibility of "baptism by desire", that is:

 

all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (CCC 1281)

 

God is loving and merciful and I pray that He will have mercy on the souls of those non-Catholics who sincerely worship Him. My mom and her whole side of the family are Protestants, and I hold out the hope of salvation through Christ for them as well.