Question about Catholic guilt? :)

[BBG580]

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.

 

 

 

I think this all leads back to being poorly catechized. And that is a heartbreaking thing for a person to not understand why they are being denied communion.

 

I don't quite understand this situation you've listed above. A person who is civilly divorced is still considered married in the Church unless an annulment has been granted. An annulment can only be granted if it is found that there was some impediment to the marriage being sacramental at the time the marriage was performed. If your father in law's brother was divorced from his wife, he would not be barred from communion. It would only be if he chose to remarry civilly (he would not be able to have another marriage in the Church) and in the eyes of the Church he would be participating in adultery. Then he would be considered to be living in a state of perpetual sin and would be barred from Communion.

 

Sacraments (there are 7 including marriage) are soul altering. It doesn't matter if the person is rejecting that Sacrament at a later date (like rejecting Catholicism after being baptized as an infant) their soul has been indelibly marked by the performance of that Sacrament. Marriage is not breakable if it was sacramental when it took place. This is why the Church requires lengthy marriage counseling and prep classes and lots of discussion with a priest prior to performing the marriage. It is to make sure the couple understands exactly what they are committing to when they ask the priest to perform that Sacrament through God for them.

[justamouse]

I think this all leads back to being poorly catechized. And that is a heartbreaking thing for a person to not understand why they are being denied communion.

 

I don't quite understand this situation you've listed above. A person who is civilly divorced is still considered married in the Church unless an annulment has been granted. An annulment can only be granted if it is found that there was some impediment to the marriage being sacramental at the time the marriage was performed. If your father in law's brother was divorced from his wife, he would not be barred from communion. It would only be if he chose to remarry civilly (he would not be able to have another marriage in the Church) and in the eyes of the Church he would be participating in adultery. Then he would be considered to be living in a state of perpetual sin and would be barred from Communion.

 

Sacraments (there are 7 including marriage) are soul altering. It doesn't matter if the person is rejecting that Sacrament at a later date (like rejecting Catholicism after being baptized as an infant) their soul has been indelibly marked by the performance of that Sacrament. Marriage is not breakable if it was sacramental when it took place. This is why the Church requires lengthy marriage counseling and prep classes and lots of discussion with a priest prior to performing the marriage. It is to make sure the couple understands exactly what they are committing to when they ask the priest to perform that Sacrament through God for them.

 

Our uncle has never remarried and never gone back to church because he believes that he would have committed adultery --even though his wife has been remarried and living happily for years. He can't bring himself to leave the church-period, and he can't bring himself to fully move on because of the guilt that the church has brought on. So here's this 70 yo man who kept himself from loving anyone else all these years because of that.

 

I don't ask too many questions, it's not my place, but one thing I can guarentee you, it's not because of poor catechism. This is a huge Italian American family that went to mass every day. They consulted the monseignor over everything. I don't ask because I don't want to make him talk about his divorce and such-it was years and years ago and the family doesn't talk about such things.

[elizabeth]

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.

I am so glad you are here. As a cradle catholic who has attended catholic schools all her life and carries two post graduate degrees from catholic institutions I must say this. Those who are converts are often not what I could recognize as catholic in their speech, ideology and demeanor. Their positions are rigid, ineluctable, literalist and of the EWTN watching type catholic. Flame away but know that there are far catholics out there who are not rigid , judgmental, spiritually snarky and frankly theologically suspect who sound more like Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe than any catholic this particular lady has known. I know all the "real" Catholics as they elavate themselves above those who might recognize there is a continuum of conforming belief rather than their my way or the highway act would tend to dismiss any challenge to their carrot and stick theology.

[Parrothead]

: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.

Catholic couples can divorce civilly. They can still receive Eucharist as long as they do not remarry or commit adultery. Divorce does not automatically mean excommunication. It never has. Whoever is telling your inlaws this is wrong.

 

If your marriage is convalidated (a simple ceremony) you can get confirmed if you want.

[justamouse]

I am so glad you are here. As a cradle catholic who has attended catholic schools all her life and carries two post graduate degrees from catholic institutions I must say this. Those who are converts are often not what I could recognize as catholic in their speech, ideology and demeanor. Their positions are rigid, ineluctable, literalist and of the EWTN watching type catholic. Flame away but know that there are far catholics out there who are not rigid , judgmental, spiritually snarky and frankly theologically suspect who sound more like Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe than any catholic this particular lady has known. I know all the "real" Catholics as they elavate themselves above those who might recognize there is a continuum of conforming belief rather than their my way or the highway act would tend to dismiss any challenge to their carrot and stick theology.

 

Do you know you amaze me? *Never* would I have believed you were a Catholic.

 

I'm truly sorry for thinking you wouldn't be, either.

[Faithr]

You can receive communion after divorce. It is remarriage that ex-communicates you unless somehow you got an annulment for the first marriage (which means that there was some impediment to an actual marriage). So I am sorry but this tale of woe sounds suspicious to me. If your in laws are devout, they certainly don't have a deep understanding of the faith then. Which is a shame. It could have brought them wisdom and comfort if they had really known what they believed in! Or perhaps you are the one that doesn't quite have a grasp on things?

 

The church doesn't issue a pronouncement on ex-communicate. No one gets 'pushed' out the church. (except rarely for public figures and they have to have caused a huge amount of scandal, I'm pretty sure.) There are no police making sure anyone in a state of mortal sin is not receiving. There are plenty of people who ought not to receive communion and do anyway. Nancy Pelosi and our vice-president are two such people! The reason why someone who is remarried after a divorce shouldn't receive, is because by that remarriage they are committing adultery. Jesus said, point blank about marriage, that what God has brought together let no man put asunder. Adultery is one of the big 10 Commandments there. So there is no Catholic guilt tripping here. Just a clear reasonable following Jesus's teaching.

 

Catholics call receiving the Holy Eucharist receiving 'communion.' It's called communion because everyone is supposed to be joined in, well, a holy communion. If you have sinned in a big way against Christ or another person you are not in true communion. The burden is on the person to follow the laws of the Church not on the Church to police people. I know of a divorced, remarried couple who still go to Mass but do not receive Communion. No one is pushed out. Goodness.

 

Sorry, I'm a cradle Catholic from a long line of Catholics and it is so true what another poster said. The only people who use the term Catholic guilt are non-Catholics. The only time I ever heard it was in some magazine article or some such thing.

 

I do think there was more emphasis on guilt in the olden days but I think the Puritans, for example, did the guilt thing just as much as Catholics!

[Parrothead]

I am so glad you are here. As a cradle catholic who has attended catholic schools all her life and carries two post graduate degrees from catholic institutions I must say this. Those who are converts are often not what I could recognize as catholic in their speech, ideology and demeanor. Their positions are rigid, ineluctable, literalist and of the EWTN watching type catholic. Flame away but know that there are far catholics out there who are not rigid , judgmental, spiritually snarky and frankly theologically suspect who sound more like Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe than any catholic this particular lady has known. I know all the "real" Catholics as they elavate themselves above those who might recognize there is a continuum of conforming belief rather than their my way or the highway act would tend to dismiss any challenge to their carrot and stick theology.

Ah, converts. Gotta love 'em. ;)

[Catwoman]

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.

 

We were never taught anything remotely like that.

 

You guys were strict! ;)

 

Cat

[justamouse]

Catholic couples can divorce civilly. They can still receive Eucharist as long as they do not remarry or commit adultery. Divorce does not automatically mean excommunication. It never has. Whoever is telling your inlaws this is wrong.

 

If your marriage is convalidated (a simple ceremony) you can get confirmed if you want.

 

I guess I'm not getting the point across-it's convoluted and I don't know it all so I know the fault is mine. HE knows he can still receive it, but because of his guilt over the divorce that he didn't want- he won't.

 

We were not allowed to marry in the church, and I won't get confirmed. I refused to get confirmed because the church denied my husband certain things--I can't say anything, but it has to do with him going to a protestant church for a time.

 

Perhaps the Monsignor was very strict, I do not know, but he put his foot down as far as our family was concerned.

[simka2]

This has been a very eye opening thread!!! I am amazed at the variety of answers and thoughts.

 

It's a good thing ;). My religious cultural view has grown leaps and bounds.

[Parrothead]

I guess I'm not getting the point across-it's convoluted and I don't know it all so I know the fault is mine. HE knows he can still receive it, but because of his guilt over the divorce that he didn't want- he won't.

 

We were not allowed to marry in the church, and I won't get confirmed. I refused to get confirmed because the church denied my husband certain things--I can't say anything, but it has to do with him going to a protestant church for a time.

 

Perhaps the Monsignor was very strict, I do not know, but he put his foot down as far as our family was concerned.

Okay. I was just pointing out that excommunication is not automatic for Catholic couples who divorce civilly.

 

his wife divorced him and the RCC church wouldn't let him receive communion there anymore,

Something else had to be going on because the priest can't refuse to give communion to a person simply because of divorce.

 

I have no idea what other than what you posted, and I don't want to know. Really. With what you wrote above I'd got to the bishop. But that is me and I don't have (and don't want) all the circumstances.

[Catwoman]

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.

 

I am very sorry that your husband has has such terrible experiences, but I can honestly tell you that I have never, ever met anyone who has had a similar experience. Perhaps it has something to do with where you live vs where we live, but I have never heard the church referred to as a cult, and I know many non-practicing Catholics and no one ever hounds them to attend church or tells them they'll burn if they don't go to mass.

 

I am absolutely shocked at some of the stories I have heard in is thread, and am truly sorry to hear about them, but I also hope that the non-Catholics who are reading this thread, don't think that the few horror stories are the norm. A lot of us grew up knowing kind, caring priests and nuns, and no one ever used scare tactics on us or tried to make us feel horribly guilty over every little thing. Some of us actually managed to grow up happy and well-adjusted.:tongue_smilie:

 

Cat

[nono]

You can receive communion after divorce. It is remarriage that ex-communicates you unless somehow you got an annulment for the first marriage

 

 

Lest someone think that the requirements for annulment are very narrow, they are not. Many things are considered impediments. However, to go through the process requires money and the willingness to open one's life (and extended family's life) to examination and rehashing of details that are sometimes best left alone. I'm one such person who determined that it was in the better interest of my family, in particular my parents, to not go through the annulment process. So, I sacrificed my "standing" in the church by refusing to go that route. I feel no guilt over it. It's my choice, and I own it. On Judgement Day, it'll be discussed, or not. Not my call. :)

[ElizaG]

I think good ol' fashioned Catholic Guilt is different than scrupulosity, but, boy, there sure are similarities.

You're right, scrupulosity is more of an internal thing. But I think they're related in that some cases of externally imposed guilt might come from being raised by adults (priests, nuns, parents) who are themselves scrupulous. Such people often have a tendency to go overboard in perceiving sins in those they're responsible for, as well as in themselves.

 

This is somewhat different from just being holier-than-thou, even though it can come across the same way. I'm not sure which is more common, but I think "projected scrupulosity" is potentially more dangerous, since they're convinced that both they and their charges are at imminent risk of spending eternity in the hot place. Perhaps this pattern is behind some of the stories we hear about horrible child abuse taking place under the name of discipline, in families that friends and neighbors see as devoutly religious -- not just among Catholics, but in other religions too.

 

Speaking of other religions, "Hindu guilt" is said by some to be a big deal. Maybe even more so than "Catholic guilt" or "Jewish guilt." There seems to be a bit of rivalry going on among those who subscribe to this concept. ;)

[Parrothead]

 

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.

It took it as being implied. In 45 years of being Catholic and 3 years of teaching CCD and 2 years of being RE director I've never heard, read, taught or been taught that when we sin we crucify Jesus. I have been taught that the Crucifixion was a one time thing.

 

 

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.

I'll take your word for it. I've never used or taught from the Baltimore Catechism. I don't think the "incompetent instruction" dig was necessary. What I taught, when I taught I taught under the guidance of my parish priest with materials and more guidance of my bishop's office of religious education.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not. To think that all we need to do is be sorry(repent) then go to confession (sacrament of reconciliation) is not a valid teaching. That will lead folks down the wrong path. Both Catholics that should know better and those in the general public.

 

 

Actually it is 1963-ish.

 

 

 

 

I stand corrected. I still think it is creepy. I never liked Dick and Jane either.

[mom2koh]

Catholic guilt is real enough. I was born and raised catholic. I now worship in a protestant church.

 

I was married once before and I'll admit I was young and stupid. My parents tried to talk me out of it. However, being young and stupid I didn't listen. I was catholic he was baptist. We got married in the catholic church.

 

3 months into the marriage I was being verbally abused. I left after one year of marriage. After leaving him and filing for divorce I had to obtain a restraining order against my ex husband (due to some scary threats to my life!).

 

I went to see my priest about 6 months after the divorce to begin preparing for the annulment. Well.... I was told I needed to try to reconcile with him. Huh? THen when it was clear I was not going to do this (for my own well being) I was told that I would have to make a good effort to contact my ex to get him to the tribunal. I asked the priest if he truly realized what had happened and if he understood that I held a restraining order against this guy. He said he understood but it was my duty to clear this up with the catholic church and these were the steps to follow.

 

Umm.... I left the church. I felt guilty for months until I realized that this is not what Jesus would have wanted for me. I have found peace with my relationship with Christ. But, yes catholic guilt is real.

[ElizaG]

It took it as being implied. In 45 years of being Catholic and 3 years of teaching CCD and 2 years of being RE director I've never heard, read, taught or been taught that when we sin we crucify Jesus. I have been taught that the Crucifixion was a one time thing.

Jesus was crucified in atonement for all our sins, past, present and future. It was a historical event, but God's ways aren't limited to linear time. (This is why we're able to offer His sacrifice at every Mass.)

 

When we sin, we participate once again in His Crucifixion. This isn't just a Catholic idea; as far as I know, Protestants believe it too. It's right there in Scripture: Hebrews 6:6.

 

I don't think the "incompetent instruction" dig was necessary.

I took this to mean that the lesson would only seem scary if someone presented it harshly, or in the wrong context. Not as a "dig" to anyone.

 

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not. To think that all we need to do is be sorry(repent) then go to confession (sacrament of reconciliation) is not a valid teaching. That will lead folks down the wrong path. Both Catholics that should know better and those in the general public.

What do you think was incorrect about what Martha said? :confused: It seems to me that her words did reflect Church teaching on the subject.

[ElizaG]

Umm.... I left the church. I felt guilty for months until I realized that this is not what Jesus would have wanted for me. I have found peace with my relationship with Christ. But, yes catholic guilt is real.

The way you've written this, it sounds as if you felt guilty because you left the Church. Surely this isn't what's meant by "Catholic guilt?" If so, no wonder it's supposed to be such a common thing.

 

If this isn't what you meant, please help me understand. I can see that you might have disagreed with the rules about annulments, or thought that the priest was being insensitive to your situation with respect to the restraining order. But where did this "guilt" factor in?

[BBG580]

I am so glad you are here. As a cradle catholic who has attended catholic schools all her life and carries two post graduate degrees from catholic institutions I must say this. Those who are converts are often not what I could recognize as catholic in their speech, ideology and demeanor. Their positions are rigid, ineluctable, literalist and of the EWTN watching type catholic. Flame away but know that there are far catholics out there who are not rigid , judgmental, spiritually snarky and frankly theologically suspect who sound more like Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe than any catholic this particular lady has known. I know all the "real" Catholics as they elavate themselves above those who might recognize there is a continuum of conforming belief rather than their my way or the highway act would tend to dismiss any challenge to their carrot and stick theology.

 

I have thought about this post since last night.

 

First, I don't think simply because one has attended Catholic schools they necessarily hold any more knowledge about the Church, it's teachings or how it functions. Sure, it is a great opportunity but not required.

 

Second, when a person commits to a path of conversion - especially if they are not converting due to marrying a Catholic spouse or some external situation - then they feel an overwhelming interest in the theology of the Church and want to make sure they not only understand what the Church teaches but accept it prior to making the commitment of conversion.

 

Perhaps this is why it seems that most converts are more rigid than cradle Catholics? At least in my case, my conversion was not easy within my family (my husband did not convert, my mother is very socially liberal and my sister was married to a lapsed Catholic who never attended Mass) and created a lot of discussion and concern from them. I really dug into some of the more complicated theology of the Church and studied for years before I converted. I'm not rigid, I am adherent to the teachings of the catechism which is required of all Catholics.

[ElizaG]

As a cradle catholic who has attended catholic schools all her life and carries two post graduate degrees from catholic institutions I must say this. Those who are converts are often not what I could recognize as catholic in their speech, ideology and demeanor. Their positions are rigid, ineluctable, literalist and of the EWTN watching type catholic. Flame away but know that there are far catholics out there who are not rigid , judgmental, spiritually snarky and frankly theologically suspect who sound more like Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe than any catholic this particular lady has known. I know all the "real" Catholics as they elavate themselves above those who might recognize there is a continuum of conforming belief rather than their my way or the highway act would tend to dismiss any challenge to their carrot and stick theology.

You say that many converts on this board aren't "real" Catholics, but don't consider yourself judgmental? That's interesting.

 

I'm not a convert, but didn't practice the faith in my teens and early 20's because, frankly, the way it was being presented seemed inconsistent and bizarre. On the one hand, when I studied English literature and history, or read any Catholic books written before 1960, or any current official documents, including the 1992 Catechism, I got a remarkably coherent view of the Church, Catholic doctrine, prayer, and the moral life. Maybe it wasn't one I liked in all respects, but it had an internal logic.

 

On the other hand, when I went to certain parishes or picked up popular books on the subject, I was often presented with a very different view of what it means to be Catholic. In that view, the Church had changed fundamentally at Vatican II. Not only were the teachings different, we were free to dissent on things we didn't agree with. Well, that did sound somewhat appealing to me as an adolescent, but it made no sense. How could these teachings change, if the Church had formerly said that they couldn't? And how could I be Catholic, in good conscience, if the Church had historically taught (and was still officially teaching) many things that I couldn't agree with?

 

On the few occasions when I still attended Mass, I said the Creed, but left out the words "the holy Catholic church," and didn't receive communion. Not because I wanted to leave the Church, but just because I wasn't sure what it was. So I just sort of drifted away.

 

In the late 1990's, I found a book (Anne Muggeridge's The Desolate City) that explained the situation regarding Vatican II, and how it was "hijacked" to push ideas that weren't found anywhere in the Council documents. The author explained that JPII was trying to get things back on track, but it was going to take time and a lot of prayer. Finally, something that made sense. I studied some more, including the Bible, the Vatican II documents, and the Catechism, and it still made sense. I also learned that the Church has historically gone through periods of turmoil for 50-100 years following ecumenical councils. (By way of equal time, I also checked out many of the self-described "progressive" resources, and even subscribed to a dissenting newspaper; readers of Fr. Z's blog will recognize it as the "National Catholic Fishwrap." To me, their arguments and overall attitude weren't compelling, to say the least.)

 

At this point, I was ready to return to practicing the faith, but first wanted to check out the claims of Protestantism, as I'd been attending a friend's Evangelical church for a few months. Although the online apologetics movement was much smaller back then, there were still plenty of resources that addressed my questions. In addition to Catholic Answers, I found Frs. Rumble & Carty's Radio Replies and Fr. Mario P. Romero's Unabridged Christianity to be especially helpful. One was written in the early 1930's, the other in the late 1990's; one author (Rumble) was a convert, the other two were cradle Catholics; but they all said the same thing in much the same way.

 

So we have a very different perspective here. What some people see as "real Catholicism," I see as a burp in the middle of thousands of years of Church history. :tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

I am so glad you are here. As a cradle catholic who has attended catholic schools all her life and carries two post graduate degrees from catholic institutions I must say this. Those who are converts are often not what I could recognize as catholic in their speech, ideology and demeanor. Their positions are rigid, ineluctable, literalist and of the EWTN watching type catholic. Flame away but know that there are far catholics out there who are not rigid , judgmental, spiritually snarky and frankly theologically suspect who sound more like Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe than any catholic this particular lady has known. I know all the "real" Catholics as they elavate themselves above those who might recognize there is a continuum of conforming belief rather than their my way or the highway act would tend to dismiss any challenge to their carrot and stick theology.

 

I have never watch EWTN. No cable.

 

I have not elevated myself by actually following Church beliefs instead of popular social opinion of what those beliefs should be. Interesting that you think that is what makes me NOT Catholic. Not very logical or based in anything the Church actually teaches tho.:glare:

 

First, I don't think simply because one has attended Catholic schools they necessarily hold any more knowledge about the Church, it's teachings or how it functions. Sure, it is a great opportunity but not required.

 

Second, when a person commits to a path of conversion - especially if they are not converting due to marrying a Catholic spouse or some external situation - then they feel an overwhelming interest in the theology of the Church and want to make sure they not only understand what the Church teaches but accept it prior to making the commitment of conversion.

 

Perhaps this is why it seems that most converts are more rigid than cradle Catholics? At least in my case, my conversion was not easy within my family (my husband did not convert, my mother is very socially liberal and my sister was married to a lapsed Catholic who never attended Mass) and created a lot of discussion and concern from them. I really dug into some of the more complicated theology of the Church and studied for years before I converted. I'm not rigid, I am adherent to the teachings of the catechism which is required of all Catholics.

 

Me too.:iagree: I wasn't raised in any faith. Dh did not convert with me, but he did agree we could raise the children we already had and future children in the faith. I spent years, and continue to spend considerable effort in learning and growing in my faith, not just following popular social opinion.

 

I don't doubt the majority of Catholics might not adhere to these things. Sadly. It doesn't make them correct or more catholic. And one could say the same about any religion. There's plenty of baptist (or pick any other religion) who couldn't tell you what their doctrines and actual beliefs are, much less follow it. Does that make those who do make the effort not real baptist? I don't think so. Obviously some would disagree with me. We would just have

to disagree.

[Sugarfoot]

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.

 

On Thursday, someone who grew up in 13 years of Catholic schooling asked me what Epiphany was...

[Murphy101]

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 know. Nothing but mercy from me. Especially as you are obviously making an effort to learn what you don't know.:D

 

It's those that continue to spout untruths while and or don't make an effort to learn that drive me a bit batty some times, mostly when they work in RE.:(

[Murphy101]

On Thursday, someone who grew up in 13 years of Catholic schooling asked me what Epiphany was...

 

Woohoo! They asked about their faith! It's a great start!

 

Hope your kindly and enthusiastically given answer encouraged them to continue doing so.:)

[Sugarfoot]

Woohoo! They asked about their faith! It's a great start!

 

Hope your kindly and enthusiastically given answer encouraged them to continue doing so.:)

 

Lol, I really thought he was joking at first, but yes, enthusiasm and encouragement.;) Wow, though, 13 years...

[Catwoman]

On Thursday, someone who grew up in 13 years of Catholic schooling asked me what Epiphany was...

 

And you told them it's that diamond collection they sell on QVC, right? :tongue_smilie:

 

Cat

[unsinkable]

I feel like this thread entered the Twilight Zone.

 

Knowing that thread can take turns and rabbit trails, it seems like it went from what is Catholic guilt to why the the RCC is so horrible.

[Catwoman]

I feel like this thread entered the Twilight Zone.

 

Knowing that thread can take turns and rabbit trails, it seems like it went from what is Catholic guilt to why the the RCC is so horrible.

 

I'm sure that if we mention any religion, there will be several people who can tell us horror stories about it. It's easy to generalize based upon rumors, wives' tales, and true stories about bad experiences with individual churches, priests, or nuns.

 

I am probably one of the world's worst Catholics because I don't attend Mass, so you know things are getting out of hand when I start stepping up and defending the church. I have to admit that I am amazed and appalled at the awful experiences some people have had, but I honestly believe that most of the negative stories are few and far-between. I have known a lot of Catholics, and I have never, ever heard anything like the things I have read here. Most people go to Mass, go home, and live a nice life. They're not at church every minute of their lives; no one tries to force them back to church if they stop attending mass; no one is taking attendance to make sure they don't miss mass; priests aren't telling them how to run their daily lives.

 

I guess there are extremists in every religion, whether they are priests, ministers, rabbis, or whatever, and sadly, those are the ones we are most likely to hear about, because when your religious experience is pretty good, you usually don't tell the world about it, but when you feel you have been wronged, you tend to yell it from the rooftops.

 

Cat

[ElizaG]

I feel like this thread entered the Twilight Zone.

 

Knowing that thread can take turns and rabbit trails, it seems like it went from what is Catholic guilt to why the the RCC is so horrible.

Sorry if my last post contributed to this.

 

But it's a bit tricky to stay on topic, given that it seems as if the term is used in so many different ways. In some cases, it seems to be an all-purpose description for "any negative feelings related to being Catholic. Or not being Catholic." :001_huh:

[KatieH]

I have never watch EWTN. No cable.

 

I have not elevated myself by actually following Church beliefs instead of popular social opinion of what those beliefs should be. Interesting that you think that is what makes me NOT Catholic. Not very logical or based in anything the Church actually teaches tho.:glare:

 

 

Martha, you can watch EWTN streaming online! We do have cable now, but didn't for a long time, and I watched online. Very nice :) And a big "YEAH THAT" to everything you've posted.

 

Re: guilt. Modern society suffers from a distinct lack of it. Nothing is a sin, anything goes! Sadly this attitude has infected the Church, too. If you sin, you SHOULD feel guilty. You SHOULD feel ashamed. And yes, this goes for children who are old enough to know better!

 

And if being intellectually honest and logically consistent by actually believing what I claim to believe means I'm not a real Catholic, then oh well. :tongue_smilie:

[Tiramisu]

You say that many converts on this board aren't "real" Catholics, but don't consider yourself judgmental? That's interesting.

 

I'm not a convert, but didn't practice the faith in my teens and early 20's because, frankly, the way it was being presented seemed inconsistent and bizarre. On the one hand, when I studied English literature and history, or read any Catholic books written before 1960, or any current official documents, including the 1992 Catechism, I got a remarkably coherent view of the Church, Catholic doctrine, prayer, and the moral life. Maybe it wasn't one I liked in all respects, but it had an internal logic.

 

On the other hand, when I went to certain parishes or picked up popular books on the subject, I was often presented with a very different view of what it means to be Catholic. In that view, the Church had changed fundamentally at Vatican II. Not only were the teachings different, we were free to dissent on things we didn't agree with. Well, that did sound somewhat appealing to me as an adolescent, but it made no sense. How could these teachings change, if the Church had formerly said that they couldn't? And how could I be Catholic, in good conscience, if the Church had historically taught (and was still officially teaching) many things that I couldn't agree with?

 

On the few occasions when I still attended Mass, I said the Creed, but left out the words "the holy Catholic church," and didn't receive communion. Not because I wanted to leave the Church, but just because I wasn't sure what it was. So I just sort of drifted away.

 

In the late 1990's, I found a book (Anne Muggeridge's The Desolate City) that explained the situation regarding Vatican II, and how it was "hijacked" to push ideas that weren't found anywhere in the Council documents. The author explained that JPII was trying to get things back on track, but it was going to take time and a lot of prayer. Finally, something that made sense. I studied some more, including the Bible, the Vatican II documents, and the Catechism, and it still made sense. I also learned that the Church has historically gone through periods of turmoil for 50-100 years following ecumenical councils. (By way of equal time, I also checked out many of the self-described "progressive" resources, and even subscribed to a dissenting newspaper; readers of Fr. Z's blog will recognize it as the "National Catholic Fishwrap." To me, their arguments and overall attitude weren't compelling, to say the least.)

 

At this point, I was ready to return to practicing the faith, but first wanted to check out the claims of Protestantism, as I'd been attending a friend's Evangelical church for a few months. Although the online apologetics movement was much smaller back then, there were still plenty of resources that addressed my questions. In addition to Catholic Answers, I found Frs. Rumble & Carty's Radio Replies and Fr. Mario P. Romero's Unabridged Christianity to be especially helpful. One was written in the early 1930's, the other in the late 1990's; one author (Rumble) was a convert, the other two were cradle Catholics; but they all said the same thing in much the same way.

 

So we have a very different perspective here. What some people see as "real Catholicism," I see as a burp in the middle of thousands of years of Church history. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree:Very well said. :D

 

Thank you for sharing your story.

[KatieH]

I feel like this thread entered the Twilight Zone.

 

Knowing that thread can take turns and rabbit trails, it seems like it went from what is Catholic guilt to why the the RCC is so horrible.

 

I don't think it's the Twilight Zone, seems pretty par for the course anytime the RCC is mentioned in any way. :glare:

[Soror]

I don't think it's a bad thing, either. :D

Me three. I think we should feel guilt if we do something wrong, that is the sign of a conscious that is working.

[unsinkable]

I don't think it's the Twilight Zone, seems pretty par for the course anytime the RCC is mentioned in any way. :glare:

 

ssshhhhhh, Katie...

:lol:

[HRAAB]

You say that many converts on this board aren't "real" Catholics, but don't consider yourself judgmental? That's interesting.

 

I'm not a convert, but didn't practice the faith in my teens and early 20's because, frankly, the way it was being presented seemed inconsistent and bizarre. On the one hand, when I studied English literature and history, or read any Catholic books written before 1960, or any current official documents, including the 1992 Catechism, I got a remarkably coherent view of the Church, Catholic doctrine, prayer, and the moral life. Maybe it wasn't one I liked in all respects, but it had an internal logic.

 

On the other hand, when I went to certain parishes or picked up popular books on the subject, I was often presented with a very different view of what it means to be Catholic. In that view, the Church had changed fundamentally at Vatican II. Not only were the teachings different, we were free to dissent on things we didn't agree with. Well, that did sound somewhat appealing to me as an adolescent, but it made no sense. How could these teachings change, if the Church had formerly said that they couldn't? And how could I be Catholic, in good conscience, if the Church had historically taught (and was still officially teaching) many things that I couldn't agree with?

 

On the few occasions when I still attended Mass, I said the Creed, but left out the words "the holy Catholic church," and didn't receive communion. Not because I wanted to leave the Church, but just because I wasn't sure what it was. So I just sort of drifted away.

 

In the late 1990's, I found a book (Anne Muggeridge's The Desolate City) that explained the situation regarding Vatican II, and how it was "hijacked" to push ideas that weren't found anywhere in the Council documents. The author explained that JPII was trying to get things back on track, but it was going to take time and a lot of prayer. Finally, something that made sense. I studied some more, including the Bible, the Vatican II documents, and the Catechism, and it still made sense. I also learned that the Church has historically gone through periods of turmoil for 50-100 years following ecumenical councils. (By way of equal time, I also checked out many of the self-described "progressive" resources, and even subscribed to a dissenting newspaper; readers of Fr. Z's blog will recognize it as the "National Catholic Fishwrap." To me, their arguments and overall attitude weren't compelling, to say the least.)

 

At this point, I was ready to return to practicing the faith, but first wanted to check out the claims of Protestantism, as I'd been attending a friend's Evangelical church for a few months. Although the online apologetics movement was much smaller back then, there were still plenty of resources that addressed my questions. In addition to Catholic Answers, I found Frs. Rumble & Carty's Radio Replies and Fr. Mario P. Romero's Unabridged Christianity to be especially helpful. One was written in the early 1930's, the other in the late 1990's; one author (Rumble) was a convert, the other two were cradle Catholics; but they all said the same thing in much the same way.

 

So we have a very different perspective here. What some people see as "real Catholicism," I see as a burp in the middle of thousands of years of Church history. :tongue_smilie:

 

Thank you for sharing with us. I had a somewhat similar story although I've never not attended Mass. There have been times that I've felt like a convert; seeing the Church through fresh eyes. That's not to say I haven't struggled and don't still struggle. Some days I'm not sure what I believe, but I'm persistent and hard headed. I refuse to give in although there have been times it would be easy to throw in the towel on the whole shebang. But where would I go? If I'm going to be a Christian, I will be Catholic. If I'm going to be religious, I'm going to be Christian. So here I am.

 

Even if I don't agree with all the Church's teachings, and fight some pretty big interior battles, I love Catholicism. All of it. The good and the bad, especially the humanity and the stories. Some of them are gut wrenching, and I wonder how I would react it it were me. I don't know so I don't presume to judge anyone who has left the church or is angry and hurt. Their experiences are real. There's that human element again. I do think the negative stories tend to be the ones that are told in the loudest voices because of the emotion. I know from 50 years of being a Catholic, they are the minority. That doesn't discount their credibility. Also, I know the church isn't here to please me. Help me get to heaven - yes, but I would never expect any representative of the church to backtrack on church teaching to keep me happy. Just because I don't agree with a particular teaching doesn't mean I expect the church to change. That is my problem. In fact, I would be disappointed and probably I would leave if the church started changing teachings to please particular groups (birth control, divorce, etc.)

 

These threads to make me realize that I am right in making sure my children are properly and well catechized. I don't know what choices my children will make in the future. Some might choose to leave the church, but I want them to know exactly and truthfully what they are leaving if they do. I want them to make honest choices, and it's hard to make an honest choice when you're working on misinformation. Who was it that said something like 'people hate what they think the Catholic Church is'? Cardinal Newman???

Edited January 8, 2011 by Ishki

[Crimson Wife]

I do think the negative stories tend to be the ones that are told in the loudest voices because of the emotion.

 

They also tend to get *WAY* more attention than similar "horror stories" found in other denominations & faiths. The elite media (particularly the New York Times and the Boston Globe) is filled with ex-Catholics who jump at any chance to put the Vatican in a negative light. The rate of pedophile priests is no higher than clergy of other faiths and is actually *LOWER* than other "helping" professions like teaching or sports coaching. But to read media accounts you'd think it was a problem exclusive to the Catholic Church. It's not- those stories just get a disproportionate amount of media attention. :glare:

[Faithr]

Thank you for sharing with us. I had a somewhat similar story although I've never not attended Mass. There have been times that I've felt like a convert; seeing the Church through fresh eyes. That's not to say I haven't struggled and don't still struggle. Some days I'm not sure what I believe, but I'm persistent and hard headed. I refuse to give in although there have been times it would be easy to throw in the towel on the whole shebang. But where would I go? If I'm going to be a Christian, I will be Catholic. If I'm going to be religious, I'm going to be Christian. So here I am.

 

Even if I don't agree with all the Church's teachings, and fight some pretty big interior battles, I love Catholicism. All of it. The good and the bad, especially the humanity and the stories. Some of them are gut wrenching, and I wonder how I would react it it were me. I don't know so I don't presume to judge anyone who has left the church or is angry and hurt. Their experiences are real. There's that human element again. I do think the negative stories tend to be the ones that are told in the loudest voices because of the emotion. I know from 50 years of being a Catholic, they are the minority. That doesn't discount their credibility. Also, I know the church isn't here to please me. Help me get to heaven - yes, but I would never expect any representative of the church to backtrack on church teaching to keep me happy. Just because I don't agree with a particular teaching doesn't mean I expect the church to change. That is my problem. In fact, I would be disappointed and probably I would leave if the church started changing teachings to please particular groups (birth control, divorce, etc.)

 

These threads to make me realize that I am right in making sure my children are properly and well catechized. I don't know what choices my children will make in the future. Some might choose to leave the church, but I want them to know exactly and truthfully what they are leaving if they do. I want them to make honest choices, and it's hard to make an honest choice when you're working on misinformation. Who was it that said something like 'people hate what they think the Catholic Church is'? Cardinal Newman???

 

 

I think it was Bishop Fulton Sheen? That's my foggy memory, anyway.

 

I love what you wrote Janet!

[LG Gone Wild]

 

Even if I don't agree with all the Church's teachings, and fight some pretty big interior battles, I love Catholicism. All of it. The good and the bad, especially the humanity and the stories. Some of them are gut wrenching, and I wonder how I would react it it were me. I don't know so I don't presume to judge anyone who has left the church or is angry and hurt. Their experiences are real. There's that human element again. I do think the negative stories tend to be the ones that are told in the loudest voices because of the emotion. I know from 50 years of being a Catholic, they are the minority. That doesn't discount their credibility. Also, I know the church isn't here to please me. Help me get to heaven - yes, but I would never expect any representative of the church to backtrack on church teaching to keep me happy. Just because I don't agree with a particular teaching doesn't mean I expect the church to change. That is my problem. In fact, I would be disappointed and probably I would leave if the church started changing teachings to please particular groups (birth control, divorce, etc.)

 

 

 

:iagree:

[justamouse]

I don't think it's the Twilight Zone, seems pretty par for the course anytime the RCC is mentioned in any way. :glare:

 

I don't think you can share that to some people Catholic Guilt is real without sharing the stories as to how those people got to that place. I didn't bash the RCC, I told a story as to why in OUR family, catholic Guilt is a real thing.

[jenn1129]

. The rate of pedophile priests is no higher than clergy of other faiths and is actually *LOWER* than other "helping" professions like teaching or sports coaching. But to read media accounts you'd think it was a problem exclusive to the Catholic Church. It's not- those stories just get a disproportionate amount of media attention. :glare:

 

 

hmmm. While I agree that all denominations have pedophiles, I believe what has scandalized the RCC is the cover-up of those abuses. On top of hiding it, pedophiles were then moved to other churches to continue their abuse. I truly don't think the abuse itself is what upset most people. And if things were taken care of properly, there would never have been a scandal.

[Faithr]

I think those who use the term Catholic guilt may be confusing regular feelings of guilt with a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. For example, if someone is allowed to receive communion but refuses to because of guilty feelings, that is just the person's guilt, but it is hardly "Catholic guilt" because the Catholic Church isn't condemning the person! That is just an individual reaction in a situation.

 

Again, I think Catholics do not have the corner on guilt. I read a lot of Victorian literature. Telling children horror stories about how the bogeyman will get them or God sees them sinning is right there in Protestant influenced lit and teachings just as much as Catholic. I think it had to do with the world view pre-psychology or something. For example, the Bronte sisters who were virulently anti-Catholic were also consumed with a kind of scrupulosity that wasn't Catholic at all.

 

The point though of instilling that feeling of guilt with Catholicism, and this a healthy guilt not an abnormal one that makes one punish oneself above and beyond the call of duty, such as denying oneself the grace of the Eucharist through extreme feelings of guilt, is that of forming the conscience so that one can be happy in knowing and doing God's will. So it is there to give us a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

 

It just seems like the term Catholic guilt in and of itself is a slur on Catholicism. And the only people I see really using it are people who are alienated from the Church or are ignorant of what the Church teaches.

[KatieH]

I don't think you can share that to some people Catholic Guilt is real without sharing the stories as to how those people got to that place. I didn't bash the RCC, I told a story as to why in OUR family, catholic Guilt is a real thing.

 

Sharing difficult stories is one thing, making (rude) sweeping generalizations and presuming to know who is a "real" Catholic and who isn't (and making rude comments about converts), is something else entirely. A lot of people have posted, afaik my comment had nothing to do with anything you said.

[KatieH]

I think it was Bishop Fulton Sheen?

 

Yes, Bishop Sheen :)

 

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.

 

We all struggle. Even those of us that are ardently faithful to the Magisterium. I struggle. I was an ultra-liberal, pro-choice (even marched for abortion in DC!!), atheist when I converted. Yes, I struggled. Trust me, I did. My brother is gay. I struggle. My uterus has 3 c/s scars and I've got many, many years of childbearing ahead of me. I struggle every day. I just don't believe that my struggling means the Church is wrong (which I think was kind of what Ishki was saying? Correct me if I'm wrong :) )

[HRAAB]

Yes, Bishop Sheen :)

 

 

 

We all struggle. Even those of us that are ardently faithful to the Magisterium. I struggle. I was an ultra-liberal, pro-choice (even marched for abortion in DC!!), atheist when I converted. Yes, I struggled. Trust me, I did. My brother is gay. I struggle. My uterus has 3 c/s scars and I've got many, many years of childbearing ahead of me. I struggle every day. I just don't believe that my struggling means the Church is wrong (which I think was kind of what Ishki was saying? Correct me if I'm wrong :) )

 

Yes, you're right. That's why I said my disagreements/struggles were my problem. Plus, the church isn't here to pat us on the head, say 'oh, you're having a hard time so we'll change the rules for you'. Jesus never said the path to heaven was easy.

 

Thank you for the quote. I'm going to keep it so I get it right next time.

[elizabeth]

You say that many converts on this board aren't "real" Catholics, but don't consider yourself judgmental? That's interesting.

.

 

 

I'm not a convert, but didn't practice the faith in my teens and early 20's because, frankly, the way it was being presented seemed inconsistent and bizarre. On the one hand, when I studied English literature and history, or read any Catholic books written before 1960, or any current official documents, including the 1992 Catechism, I got a remarkably coherent view of the Church, Catholic doctrine, prayer, and the moral life. Maybe it wasn't one I liked in all respects, but it had an internal logic.

 

On the other hand, when I went to certain parishes or picked up popular books on the subject, I was often presented with a very different view of what it means to be Catholic. In that view, the Church had changed fundamentally at Vatican II. Not only were the teachings different, we were free to dissent on things we didn't agree with. Well, that did sound somewhat appealing to me as an adolescent, but it made no sense. How could these teachings change, if the Church had formerly said that they couldn't? And how could I be Catholic, in good conscience, if the Church had historically taught (and was still officially teaching) many things that I couldn't agree with?

 

On the few occasions when I still attended Mass, I said the Creed, but left out the words "the holy Catholic church," and didn't receive communion. Not because I wanted to leave the Church, but just because I wasn't sure what it was. So I just sort of drifted away.

 

In the late 1990's, I found a book (Anne Muggeridge's The Desolate City) that explained the situation regarding Vatican II, and how it was "hijacked" to push ideas that weren't found anywhere in the Council documents. The author explained that JPII was trying to get things back on track, but it was going to take time and a lot of prayer. Finally, something that made sense. I studied some more, including the Bible, the Vatican II documents, and the Catechism, and it still made sense. I also learned that the Church has historically gone through periods of turmoil for 50-100 years following ecumenical councils. (By way of equal time, I also checked out many of the self-described "progressive" resources, and even subscribed to a dissenting newspaper; readers of Fr. Z's blog will recognize it as the "National Catholic Fishwrap." To me, their arguments and overall attitude weren't compelling, to say the least.)

 

At this point, I was ready to return to practicing the faith, but first wanted to check out the claims of Protestantism, as I'd been attending a friend's Evangelical church for a few months. Although the online apologetics movement was much smaller back then, there were still plenty of resources that addressed my questions. In addition to Catholic Answers, I found Frs. Rumble & Carty's Radio Replies and Fr. Mario P. Romero's Unabridged Christianity to be especially helpful. One was written in the early 1930's, the other in the late 1990's; one author (Rumble) was a convert, the other two were cradle Catholics; but they all said the same thing in much the same way.

 

So we have a very different perspective here. What some people see as "real Catholicism," I see as a burp in the middle of thousands of years of Church history. :tongue_smilie:

 

No, no , no. In fact I am saying that converts and reverts do not consider those of us who are on the continuum but not as scrupulous as not real catholics. Many here would say that since I am a democrat and all my 70 year old lady friends who are both catholic and democrat are in fact NOT real catholics. I think that the Latin mass only folk are of the ilk that they feel free to embrace the death penalty and fight abortion. I call BS on that. I never , ever meant to say that converts were not real catholics.

[LG Gone Wild]

 

No, no , no. In fact I am saying that converts and reverts do not consider those of us who are on the continuum but not as scrupulous as not real catholics. Many here would say that since I am a democrat and all my 70 year old lady friends who are both catholic and democrat are in fact NOT real catholics. I think that the Latin mass only folk are of the ilk that they feel free to embrace the death penalty and fight abortion. I call BS on that. I never , ever meant to say that converts were not real catholics.

 

So you were referring to Pius X Catholics (those are the Latin mass only folks as I understand it) looking down on everyone else as not real Catholics? Latin mass only...that's another thread.

Edited January 9, 2011 by LG Gone Wild

[Faithr]

Who cares what those other people say about whether you are a real Catholic or not. I know there are Catholics who look down on those who don't attend Tridentine Masses. I know there are others who are at the other end playing fast and loose with theology on issues like abortion, etc. I try not to let either side get to me. The thing to do is work on that log in my own eye instead of getting the splinter out of my neighbor's.

 

I know this because I come from a family of Catholic Democrats and I homeschool in one of the most conservative dioceses in the country. I try really hard to follow Catholic teaching and not get distracted by the human trends that can obscure that. It can be tricky!

 

And I don't think it is fair to say that many Catholics who frequent the WTM board would claim that you aren't a real Catholic. Maybe if you were on a Trad Catholic board but not here.

[Crimson Wife]

 

No, no , no. In fact I am saying that converts and reverts do not consider those of us who are on the continuum but not as scrupulous as not real catholics. Many here would say that since I am a democrat and all my 70 year old lady friends who are both catholic and democrat are in fact NOT real catholics. I think that the Latin mass only folk are of the ilk that they feel free to embrace the death penalty and fight abortion. I call BS on that. I never , ever meant to say that converts were not real catholics.

 

Somebody who is serious about following 100% of the Church's teachings would have major problems with BOTH the Republican and Democratic party platforms.

[ElizaG]

Somebody who is serious about following 100% of the Church's teachings would have major problems with BOTH the Republican and Democratic party platforms.

:iagree:

 

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (print edition here) is an excellent resource for forming a Catholic conscience on political matters. Pope Benedict XVI recommended it highly in his first encyclical. I'm not sure why it's so little known.

[BBG580]

So you were referring to Pius X Catholics (those are the Latin mass only folks as I understand it) looking down on everyone else as not real Catholics? Latin mass only...that's another thread.

 

SSPX Catholics are not in full communion with the Church so I have no idea why their opinion of the rest of us would hold much weight. ;)

 

My parish does offer a Latin Mass every Sunday at noon, I've not yet gone. We have 7 Sunday Masses offered (two are Sat. night anticipated Mass times) and there is something for everyone. If you like quick and no music, 7:30 a.m. is your time, if you like traditional, aim for 9:00 or 10:30, TLM is noon and the guitar Mass is at 5:00. :tongue_smilie: Saturday night also offers a more contemporary Mass and one in Spanish. You'll see everything from jeans and Crocs to full length chapel veil wearing women in my parish. That's about as good as it gets, IMO!