Or at least that's what one would surmise based upon how many people I've seen check out of Facebook for Lent.
My question is, do they give up Facebook so that they can continue to indulge in their chocolate and sugar?
Actually, I'm cool with it, unless it's just the easiest, simplest no-brainer thing to give up. That's what I wonder about.
One or two of the people getting off of Facebook for Lent, I think they totally needed to. But my lesson of the last three or so years is that if you completely refrain from politics or religion, Facebook is almost brain-deadly benign.
Anyway, I haven't yet figured out what to do about Lent. For the last two years, I haven't done anything and didn't follow any fasting rules, etc., since I was really angry about the Church. Oh, I'd plan some fish frys or non-meat meals for the sake of my husband, but that was my limit.
Before that, my view was that I needed to "take on" rather than "give up." For example, one year I recall making a promise to go to at least one additional mass per week, as well as going to confession at least twice during Lent. I still tend towards the "take on" philosophy. This year, more rosary might be the ticket.
Today, I am making an attempt to fast. I didn't even give it any thought, I just did it. Made a loaf of bread for John and I to eat for breakfast and lunch, and I'll deal with a non-meat dinner later today, when I cross that bridge. I'm also going to get to mass at noon. Believe me, after the last couple of years, this is a big deal for me, even if it sounds minimalist to others.
So anyway, on some level I could use a little inspiration for Lent, but when people put up Facebook posts and blog posts giving you "suggested" or "recommended" lists of things you could do for Lent, I usually shy away. It always comes off as, "I'm so put together, learn from me!" I know, I shouldn't see it that way, but I do.
I noticed a few women on a local forum are giving up restaurants for Lent. That would be really hard for me, I admit. I have to think about that a bit, especially since I'm sitting in a Starbucks as I write this. Ha! My husband would LOVE it if we gave up restaurants for Lent, since it would mean I made a commitment to curb laziness and apathy about making dinner and save us some money.
So anyway, I know there are loads of people who ABHOR people talking about what they give up for Lent publicly. I could care less. So, hey, what are your Lent plans?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Are Catholic Funerals Still Denied?
Last night, my husband and I had tickets to see a one-woman performance re-enacting Edith Piaf's life. We really enjoyed it, me especially, since I am a sucker for melodramatic lounge music.
One interesting fact about Piaf's life, which came to light as part of the performance, was that she was denied a Catholic funeral. This triggered a memory that the French author, Colette, was also denied a Catholic funeral. The stated basis for these two decisions was, in summary, that both these artists had led sinful, scandalous lives.
This got me thinking about whether or not, in more modern times (post-Vatican II), if Catholic funerals are ever still denied? Note that Colette died in the 1950's and Piaf in the early 1960's.
My husband and I were talking about this and we both came to the conclusion that such a decision is the ultimate in hope-less-ness. Also the ultimate in judgementalism. We couldn't fathom, no matter how strict a take one might have on public sin, as to why such extreme measures would be necessary for baptised Catholics? It's a truth of the faith that God knows everything and is the ultimate judge, is it not? So what harm would there be in having a funeral for an open sinner, since God's in control anyway?
Besides, at the time of Colette and Piaf- and taking into account more traditionalist France - their Catholic funerals would likely have been the all-black, somber affairs that marked pre-Vatican II times. Thus, their funerals probably wouldn't have painted a picture of assured salvation for either woman.
Perhaps some reading this blog post know personal stories of denied funerals of older relatives? If so, I'd be interested in hearing them.
One interesting fact about Piaf's life, which came to light as part of the performance, was that she was denied a Catholic funeral. This triggered a memory that the French author, Colette, was also denied a Catholic funeral. The stated basis for these two decisions was, in summary, that both these artists had led sinful, scandalous lives.
This got me thinking about whether or not, in more modern times (post-Vatican II), if Catholic funerals are ever still denied? Note that Colette died in the 1950's and Piaf in the early 1960's.
My husband and I were talking about this and we both came to the conclusion that such a decision is the ultimate in hope-less-ness. Also the ultimate in judgementalism. We couldn't fathom, no matter how strict a take one might have on public sin, as to why such extreme measures would be necessary for baptised Catholics? It's a truth of the faith that God knows everything and is the ultimate judge, is it not? So what harm would there be in having a funeral for an open sinner, since God's in control anyway?
Besides, at the time of Colette and Piaf- and taking into account more traditionalist France - their Catholic funerals would likely have been the all-black, somber affairs that marked pre-Vatican II times. Thus, their funerals probably wouldn't have painted a picture of assured salvation for either woman.
Perhaps some reading this blog post know personal stories of denied funerals of older relatives? If so, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
What If
What if I just let loose and wrote about the stuff I'm really just dying to say?
Think I already do that?
Wrong!
I edit who I am here. Big time.
Out of fear that someone I know might find this blog and call me a heretic or question how charitable I'm being or decide I'm not good enough to have our kids play together. Or think I don't belong at the school or the parish.
I'm not saying what you see here is fake. It's not. It's just edited for my protection (and maybe yours?).
Think I already do that?
Wrong!
I edit who I am here. Big time.
Out of fear that someone I know might find this blog and call me a heretic or question how charitable I'm being or decide I'm not good enough to have our kids play together. Or think I don't belong at the school or the parish.
I'm not saying what you see here is fake. It's not. It's just edited for my protection (and maybe yours?).
Repost: Purity Rings, Quivers of Arrows, and Other Protestant Nonsense
Note: This is a re-post from my old blog, dated March 2012. I have tagged this entry with blogger Elizabeth Esther's name because I have a reason I'm re-posting this, which I'll blog more about soon. I have also included, down at the bottom, some of the better responses that were left in the commbox for this entry, which was a commbox that had over 50 comments at the time.
--------------------------------------------------
Wanting to compare notes on Catholics who are constantly open to life and don't use birth control with Protestants who are constantly open to life and don't use birth control, I recently read this book:
Turns out the book is more about the "Protestant" Patriarchy Movement than it is the Quiverfull Movement. Even so, boy, were my eyes opened!
As I've been slowly coming to realize, the conservative Catholic realm is lapping up Protestant trends and doctrines right and left, ooohhhing and aaahhing over things that sound good, but are non-Catholic in almost every regard. Not that all non-Catholic things are bad. They aren't. But it behooves me to understand why overtly non-Catholic doctrines and trends are being overly-promoted by Catholics (especially homeschool Catholics) at every turn.
A prime example is the Christian-movie-du-jour, "Courageous." I'm sure it's great and all, and I'm sure we can all appreciate a clean, Christian-themed movie. But the thing is, the movie is filled with non-Catholic beliefs and practices, including many that aren't even Biblical (if that's the yard stick you want to measure things with.)
Let's start with virginity/purity pledges made by young girls to their fathers, which is a part of this movie. Where in Catholic tradition is that? Or in the Bible? It's not. Plus, it's creepy and gross. A girl's/woman's virginity belongs to herself, or to God, or maybe to her future husband, but it certainly doesn't belong to her father. Alongside such practices come purity rings and purity balls - all concepts invented by Protestants, using literal, to-the-letter Biblical interpretations (key word here is "interpretations") as a way to monitor, preserve, and protect a young girl's purity.
What the movie "Courageous" won't tell you is that alongside these purity pledges and covenants often comes forced courtships and even, sometimes, young men paying fathers for the right to marry a daughter (i.e. transfer ownership). Most of this garbage comes from a religious organization called "Vision Forum," which from what I can tell, is ten times more dangerous, insidious, and controlling that any Regnum Christi or Legionaries of Christ group. (By the way, the ties between "Vision Forum" and the "Courageous" film are many, but sublimated, in the same way no one knows that the Legion of Christ is behind the movie "Bella" and a couple hundred other Catholic groups and organizations.)
It's like with all the Catholics wearing long skirts, etc. That's not Catholic! Oh, modesty might be Catholic. But this "uniform" of drab modesty is American Puritan at heart, and more specifically, a vestige of Calvinism.
Speaking of Calvinism, reading this book made me realize the dozens upon dozens of beliefs and attitudes carried and promulgated by so many conservative Catholics have their roots in Calvinism, rather than Catholicism. Sure, one can go into Catholic tradition and make things "fit." But it seems to me it's always a reverse process: Get ensnared or enchanted by some "good" Protestant practice and then determine that Catholicism fits in nicely with that same practice. It's rarely the case where one delves deep into the teachings and traditions of Catholicism and comes out wearing an ankle-length skirt.
And that's because Catholicism doesn't ask one to check their brain at the door and isn't Puritan. Puritanism is Protestantism, period. But for some reason, many conservative Catholics are attracted to this (usually) outwardly visible sign of purity and "rightness" and propriety, and the only place they can get this attraction fed is via a Catholic version of Protestantism. And hey, if that floats your boat, great. But don't call it Catholic because it's not.
Most of this book was about the Patriarchy Movement in Protestantism. Granted, the book was written from a very "anti" (i.e. liberal) point of view, which one has to keep in check as one reads, but overall, what I discovered was scary and oftentimes abusive. Young girls being taught to think of and sometimes even address their fathers and husbands as "lord." Whole families buying into the concept that girls shouldn't go to college, but should instead stay home serving their father until they are courted out into marriage.
Remember that Josh Harris book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye"? Yeah, I read that too, many years ago. Well, Josh Harris and the concepts taught in that book were exposed in "Quiverfull," and none of it is Catholic. At all. What's even scarier to me is the fact that I know dozens of Catholics who think that book and the concept of courtship it espouses is the best thing since sliced bread. In response, I ask why our Catholic heritage isn't the best thing since sliced bread? Oh, yeah right, there's nothing overtly taught in our Catholic tradition about how one meets and develops a relationship with a future spouse because Catholic tradition actually honors and respects free will and individualism.
The deeper I fall into this crisis of faith I'm having [now having better worked itself out, 2/13], the better I think I'm seeing the true lines, which might be a blessing in disguise. While the TRADS (and especially the SSPX types) will preach until they're blue in the face about how "right" and "Catholic" they are, I see that besides the authentic mass they attend, there is so much about their practices that goes against true Catholicism. I understand now why people who refuse to let their kids trick-or-treat makes me flinch: The origins of shunning Halloween come from Calvinists, not Catholics. The same applies to so many other things that it makes my head spin to think of them all.
As to the Quiverfull Movement, it seems that their open to life and non-contraception stance might be correct. However, their reasons for doing so aren't the same as Catholics. Catholics follow these principles because of natural law. The Quiverfull Protestants are doing it in order to raise up a multi-generational army who will fight for restoration of God's government here on earth (it was sounding reaaallly Mormon-ish, if you want the truth.) Sort of like happy, shiny little soldiers for Christ.
Oh, and Natural Family Planning (NFP)? That's forbidden because it's contraception, didn't you know? Which is why critics of the Quiverfull Movement allege that many in the movement have made idols of large families, since the only possible way you can be serving the Lord in purity is to be having as many children as possible, no matter what level of suffering you are going through. Like I said, Catholicism doesn't ask you to check your brain, free will, or extenuating circumstances at the door. The Duggars ought to take note. (I'm not against large families. But large families aren't for everyone and Catholicism respects that.)
Even homeschooling - another prominent topic in the book - was begun in this country by Puritan-minded Calvinistic Protestants in the 1970's. Only later did Catholics jump on the bandwagon, following suit. (I'm now toying with the theory that if Catholics had stayed and fought the good fight back in the 70's/80's, trying to get Catholic schools up to snuff, maybe our Catholic schools could have been saved. Or maybe not. It's just a fleeting thought going through my head.)
See, again, modern Catholic tradition doesn't include homeschooling. Rather, being a "good" Catholic meant honoring the responsibility to put your kid in a Catholic school. Only when the Catholic schools went down the shitter did homeschooling pick up steam. Understandable. But rather than homeschool AND simultaneously try to find a solution to the problem, these Catholics abandoned ship and adapted an American Puritan notion that the family unit has Christian sovereignty - which is the notion, by the way, that drives the political Constitutional Party. Which makes me think our decision to put Alan in an "authentic" non-diocesan Catholic school is really and truly Catholic. But I digress.
I'm not against Protestants. Hardly! My kid goes to a Protestant program once a week. I once was a Protestant! What I'm simply pointing out here is that too many Catholics grab onto Protestant ideas and concepts without giving it another thought, thereby passing on non-Catholic standards that get held up as the norm, and worse, the bar for growing in holiness.
I'm keeping my eyes wide open from now on.
P.S. Head coverings aren't just an issue in orthodox Catholic circles, either. It's an issue over in the Patriarchal Protestant circles, too. Isn't that interesting? Some people are just drawn to this stuff.
P.P.S. If anyone is offended by what I've written here, I'm sorry. However, this blog is for me to explore the thoughts rolling around in my head.
--------------------------------------------------------
A few, select comments from the original post:
Don: "Modern home-schooling may not have had its beginnings in Catholic circles, but it does conform to the very Catholic principle of Subsidiarity, which states that matters should be handled at the lowest-level competent authority. IMO the parochial school concept arose out of clericalism."
Me (in response to Don): "Your comment begs the question of why most Catholics don't know (including myself, very much) what subsidiarity is and that it's a Catholic concept. But they'll buy their daughter a purity ring. See where I'm going with this?"
JMB: "One of Flannery O'Connor's biggest gripes was with the Jansenist movement which made huge in roads into the Catholic Church in the 40s and 50s. Its heart is Protestantism and that should be resisted by all Catholics. We don't need to dress a certain way, or wear a hat or wig or whatever to be worthy of redemption and salvation."
Alice: "Agree 100%. I am constantly realizing that I was basically raised in a Protestant Homechurch/school that went to the sacramental vending machine every day to get the sacraments since we couldn't make them at home. It was a cult of the home. Homebirth, homeschool, domestic church, etc. I'll be honest, I'm not convinced about the whole homeschooling subsidiarity argument because it really seems like a rehash of the Sunday School controversies of the early 19th century. The Catholic homeschooling movement seems to understand the idea of parents as primary educators of their children in a Protestant way, while the traditional Catholic way is a bit different."
Kacie: "I'm with you completely in every criticism of these various cultures within Protestantism. Clearly I'm still a Protestant, but even when I read I Kissed Dating Goodbye in highschool I didn't buy it. Thankfully I've never liked the Quiverfull movement, refuse to see Courageous, and push back against all of what you're talking about. It deserves to be pushed back against. The only thing I was a part of was having a purity ring, thought purity balls are nonsense and my chastity vow was never to my dad. I gave my ring to my husband when we married, and it was symbolic. However, I'm with you in struggling to re-work my ideas of how healthy or not the whole way we present "saving yourself for marriage" really is, and what the effects are on the marital sex life. Probably wouldn't encourage my own kid to get a chastity ring just because I feel like it places the emphasis in the wrong place."
Dual Role Grandma: "It isn't so much the purity ring itself, chosen by an individual teen or young adult. It's the whole pledging of one's virginity to one's father by young women and girls. ICK, ICK, ICK. You are so Catholicly correct when you say that whole thing reeks!!!!!! Boys don't need to keep their virginity? Girls need to pledge its safekeeping to Daddy? Patrimony! If anybody realized how anti-Catholic movies such as "Courageous" are, they would never make it to the halls of Catholic churches. Sherwood Pictures is run out of Sherwood Baptist Church. As for Josh Harris and his weirdo courtship books, I've argued them in various Catholic fora until I'm blue in the face. Those that "see no harm" are just as poorly catechized as those who still want hippie 1960s Mass where anything goes."
Laura S.: "I get it now! I was always a bit uncomfortable with those "IKDG" and other books that my mom really pushed on my sisters and I after I was in a real relationship that I had attempted to apply the principles in. It took my parents awhile to "accept" my now husband as "good enough" for me and a lot of the struggles were centered around my failure to follow that route. Do you think that any of the ToB stuff strays into the Calvinistic errors that the courtship/purity ring mindset camps out in?"
Invictus 88: "If a child wants to buy a purity ring, why not encourage them into something more grounded and meaningful? A Miraculous Medal, or a scapular, would be much better, presumably?"
Heather: "Having grown up in the culture described in your book, I know how damaging these ideas can be. It's sad that people with such a rich tradition of faith would buy into such poorly thought-out ideas. In your opinion, would you say it's more the Catholic men or women who first adopt the ideas in the family? In my experience, the families were brought in through the men, with many of the women following reluctantly. Any doubts or concerns the women had were taken to be evidence of spiritual warfare."
Beloved: "Thanks for writing this Char. Its so very true, especially with insular, extremely Rad Trad groups. They've adopted a very Protestant outlook on things."
Elizabeth: "I've just spent way too much of my Sunday afternoon reading this post and all the comments. I really think you have made some great points about puritanical attitudes from Calvinism creeping into our Catholic culture. As a Catholic homeschooler, I have to say that the peer pressure is immense to avoid activities such as trick or treating (if your kids are dressed as saints, it might be ok, but isn't ideal). Ankle length skirts and denim jumpers abound, and God forbid that you admit to reading Harry Potter. So many of the things that you mentioned are not a part of Catholic tradition and have no place in Catholic tradition"
--------------------------------------------------
Wanting to compare notes on Catholics who are constantly open to life and don't use birth control with Protestants who are constantly open to life and don't use birth control, I recently read this book:
Turns out the book is more about the "Protestant" Patriarchy Movement than it is the Quiverfull Movement. Even so, boy, were my eyes opened!
As I've been slowly coming to realize, the conservative Catholic realm is lapping up Protestant trends and doctrines right and left, ooohhhing and aaahhing over things that sound good, but are non-Catholic in almost every regard. Not that all non-Catholic things are bad. They aren't. But it behooves me to understand why overtly non-Catholic doctrines and trends are being overly-promoted by Catholics (especially homeschool Catholics) at every turn.
A prime example is the Christian-movie-du-jour, "Courageous." I'm sure it's great and all, and I'm sure we can all appreciate a clean, Christian-themed movie. But the thing is, the movie is filled with non-Catholic beliefs and practices, including many that aren't even Biblical (if that's the yard stick you want to measure things with.)
Let's start with virginity/purity pledges made by young girls to their fathers, which is a part of this movie. Where in Catholic tradition is that? Or in the Bible? It's not. Plus, it's creepy and gross. A girl's/woman's virginity belongs to herself, or to God, or maybe to her future husband, but it certainly doesn't belong to her father. Alongside such practices come purity rings and purity balls - all concepts invented by Protestants, using literal, to-the-letter Biblical interpretations (key word here is "interpretations") as a way to monitor, preserve, and protect a young girl's purity.
What the movie "Courageous" won't tell you is that alongside these purity pledges and covenants often comes forced courtships and even, sometimes, young men paying fathers for the right to marry a daughter (i.e. transfer ownership). Most of this garbage comes from a religious organization called "Vision Forum," which from what I can tell, is ten times more dangerous, insidious, and controlling that any Regnum Christi or Legionaries of Christ group. (By the way, the ties between "Vision Forum" and the "Courageous" film are many, but sublimated, in the same way no one knows that the Legion of Christ is behind the movie "Bella" and a couple hundred other Catholic groups and organizations.)
It's like with all the Catholics wearing long skirts, etc. That's not Catholic! Oh, modesty might be Catholic. But this "uniform" of drab modesty is American Puritan at heart, and more specifically, a vestige of Calvinism.
Speaking of Calvinism, reading this book made me realize the dozens upon dozens of beliefs and attitudes carried and promulgated by so many conservative Catholics have their roots in Calvinism, rather than Catholicism. Sure, one can go into Catholic tradition and make things "fit." But it seems to me it's always a reverse process: Get ensnared or enchanted by some "good" Protestant practice and then determine that Catholicism fits in nicely with that same practice. It's rarely the case where one delves deep into the teachings and traditions of Catholicism and comes out wearing an ankle-length skirt.
And that's because Catholicism doesn't ask one to check their brain at the door and isn't Puritan. Puritanism is Protestantism, period. But for some reason, many conservative Catholics are attracted to this (usually) outwardly visible sign of purity and "rightness" and propriety, and the only place they can get this attraction fed is via a Catholic version of Protestantism. And hey, if that floats your boat, great. But don't call it Catholic because it's not.
Most of this book was about the Patriarchy Movement in Protestantism. Granted, the book was written from a very "anti" (i.e. liberal) point of view, which one has to keep in check as one reads, but overall, what I discovered was scary and oftentimes abusive. Young girls being taught to think of and sometimes even address their fathers and husbands as "lord." Whole families buying into the concept that girls shouldn't go to college, but should instead stay home serving their father until they are courted out into marriage.
Remember that Josh Harris book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye"? Yeah, I read that too, many years ago. Well, Josh Harris and the concepts taught in that book were exposed in "Quiverfull," and none of it is Catholic. At all. What's even scarier to me is the fact that I know dozens of Catholics who think that book and the concept of courtship it espouses is the best thing since sliced bread. In response, I ask why our Catholic heritage isn't the best thing since sliced bread? Oh, yeah right, there's nothing overtly taught in our Catholic tradition about how one meets and develops a relationship with a future spouse because Catholic tradition actually honors and respects free will and individualism.
The deeper I fall into this crisis of faith I'm having [now having better worked itself out, 2/13], the better I think I'm seeing the true lines, which might be a blessing in disguise. While the TRADS (and especially the SSPX types) will preach until they're blue in the face about how "right" and "Catholic" they are, I see that besides the authentic mass they attend, there is so much about their practices that goes against true Catholicism. I understand now why people who refuse to let their kids trick-or-treat makes me flinch: The origins of shunning Halloween come from Calvinists, not Catholics. The same applies to so many other things that it makes my head spin to think of them all.
As to the Quiverfull Movement, it seems that their open to life and non-contraception stance might be correct. However, their reasons for doing so aren't the same as Catholics. Catholics follow these principles because of natural law. The Quiverfull Protestants are doing it in order to raise up a multi-generational army who will fight for restoration of God's government here on earth (it was sounding reaaallly Mormon-ish, if you want the truth.) Sort of like happy, shiny little soldiers for Christ.
Oh, and Natural Family Planning (NFP)? That's forbidden because it's contraception, didn't you know? Which is why critics of the Quiverfull Movement allege that many in the movement have made idols of large families, since the only possible way you can be serving the Lord in purity is to be having as many children as possible, no matter what level of suffering you are going through. Like I said, Catholicism doesn't ask you to check your brain, free will, or extenuating circumstances at the door. The Duggars ought to take note. (I'm not against large families. But large families aren't for everyone and Catholicism respects that.)
Even homeschooling - another prominent topic in the book - was begun in this country by Puritan-minded Calvinistic Protestants in the 1970's. Only later did Catholics jump on the bandwagon, following suit. (I'm now toying with the theory that if Catholics had stayed and fought the good fight back in the 70's/80's, trying to get Catholic schools up to snuff, maybe our Catholic schools could have been saved. Or maybe not. It's just a fleeting thought going through my head.)
See, again, modern Catholic tradition doesn't include homeschooling. Rather, being a "good" Catholic meant honoring the responsibility to put your kid in a Catholic school. Only when the Catholic schools went down the shitter did homeschooling pick up steam. Understandable. But rather than homeschool AND simultaneously try to find a solution to the problem, these Catholics abandoned ship and adapted an American Puritan notion that the family unit has Christian sovereignty - which is the notion, by the way, that drives the political Constitutional Party. Which makes me think our decision to put Alan in an "authentic" non-diocesan Catholic school is really and truly Catholic. But I digress.
I'm not against Protestants. Hardly! My kid goes to a Protestant program once a week. I once was a Protestant! What I'm simply pointing out here is that too many Catholics grab onto Protestant ideas and concepts without giving it another thought, thereby passing on non-Catholic standards that get held up as the norm, and worse, the bar for growing in holiness.
I'm keeping my eyes wide open from now on.
P.S. Head coverings aren't just an issue in orthodox Catholic circles, either. It's an issue over in the Patriarchal Protestant circles, too. Isn't that interesting? Some people are just drawn to this stuff.
P.P.S. If anyone is offended by what I've written here, I'm sorry. However, this blog is for me to explore the thoughts rolling around in my head.
--------------------------------------------------------
A few, select comments from the original post:
Don: "Modern home-schooling may not have had its beginnings in Catholic circles, but it does conform to the very Catholic principle of Subsidiarity, which states that matters should be handled at the lowest-level competent authority. IMO the parochial school concept arose out of clericalism."
Me (in response to Don): "Your comment begs the question of why most Catholics don't know (including myself, very much) what subsidiarity is and that it's a Catholic concept. But they'll buy their daughter a purity ring. See where I'm going with this?"
JMB: "One of Flannery O'Connor's biggest gripes was with the Jansenist movement which made huge in roads into the Catholic Church in the 40s and 50s. Its heart is Protestantism and that should be resisted by all Catholics. We don't need to dress a certain way, or wear a hat or wig or whatever to be worthy of redemption and salvation."
Alice: "Agree 100%. I am constantly realizing that I was basically raised in a Protestant Homechurch/school that went to the sacramental vending machine every day to get the sacraments since we couldn't make them at home. It was a cult of the home. Homebirth, homeschool, domestic church, etc. I'll be honest, I'm not convinced about the whole homeschooling subsidiarity argument because it really seems like a rehash of the Sunday School controversies of the early 19th century. The Catholic homeschooling movement seems to understand the idea of parents as primary educators of their children in a Protestant way, while the traditional Catholic way is a bit different."
Kacie: "I'm with you completely in every criticism of these various cultures within Protestantism. Clearly I'm still a Protestant, but even when I read I Kissed Dating Goodbye in highschool I didn't buy it. Thankfully I've never liked the Quiverfull movement, refuse to see Courageous, and push back against all of what you're talking about. It deserves to be pushed back against. The only thing I was a part of was having a purity ring, thought purity balls are nonsense and my chastity vow was never to my dad. I gave my ring to my husband when we married, and it was symbolic. However, I'm with you in struggling to re-work my ideas of how healthy or not the whole way we present "saving yourself for marriage" really is, and what the effects are on the marital sex life. Probably wouldn't encourage my own kid to get a chastity ring just because I feel like it places the emphasis in the wrong place."
Dual Role Grandma: "It isn't so much the purity ring itself, chosen by an individual teen or young adult. It's the whole pledging of one's virginity to one's father by young women and girls. ICK, ICK, ICK. You are so Catholicly correct when you say that whole thing reeks!!!!!! Boys don't need to keep their virginity? Girls need to pledge its safekeeping to Daddy? Patrimony! If anybody realized how anti-Catholic movies such as "Courageous" are, they would never make it to the halls of Catholic churches. Sherwood Pictures is run out of Sherwood Baptist Church. As for Josh Harris and his weirdo courtship books, I've argued them in various Catholic fora until I'm blue in the face. Those that "see no harm" are just as poorly catechized as those who still want hippie 1960s Mass where anything goes."
Laura S.: "I get it now! I was always a bit uncomfortable with those "IKDG" and other books that my mom really pushed on my sisters and I after I was in a real relationship that I had attempted to apply the principles in. It took my parents awhile to "accept" my now husband as "good enough" for me and a lot of the struggles were centered around my failure to follow that route. Do you think that any of the ToB stuff strays into the Calvinistic errors that the courtship/purity ring mindset camps out in?"
Invictus 88: "If a child wants to buy a purity ring, why not encourage them into something more grounded and meaningful? A Miraculous Medal, or a scapular, would be much better, presumably?"
Heather: "Having grown up in the culture described in your book, I know how damaging these ideas can be. It's sad that people with such a rich tradition of faith would buy into such poorly thought-out ideas. In your opinion, would you say it's more the Catholic men or women who first adopt the ideas in the family? In my experience, the families were brought in through the men, with many of the women following reluctantly. Any doubts or concerns the women had were taken to be evidence of spiritual warfare."
Beloved: "Thanks for writing this Char. Its so very true, especially with insular, extremely Rad Trad groups. They've adopted a very Protestant outlook on things."
Elizabeth: "I've just spent way too much of my Sunday afternoon reading this post and all the comments. I really think you have made some great points about puritanical attitudes from Calvinism creeping into our Catholic culture. As a Catholic homeschooler, I have to say that the peer pressure is immense to avoid activities such as trick or treating (if your kids are dressed as saints, it might be ok, but isn't ideal). Ankle length skirts and denim jumpers abound, and God forbid that you admit to reading Harry Potter. So many of the things that you mentioned are not a part of Catholic tradition and have no place in Catholic tradition"
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Full Circle
Condensed, elapsed, and selective run-through of a discussion held on this blog in the last week, re: Father Robert Barron's "Catholicism" series:
Me: "Everything about the "Catholicism" series - what I've seen of it so far - is renewing my faith in the Catholic Church. It is giving me hope...It is reminding me that Christ is bigger than the petty arguments between the liturgy police and the uber-orthodox, etc....The sad thing is, I'll bet many Traditional Catholics have refused to watch the "Catholicism" series. I've had thoughts like this through every episode...I hope I'm wrong, because there is a big, beautiful wide world of Catholic faith out there, and I get the sense that some dedicated Catholics are missing it. I share these thoughts because they are just that, my thoughts and impressions, and not to enflame a liturgy/rite war."
Eulogos: "Why would you think that "traditionalists" would not like it?"
Me: "I can't specifically identify exactly what it was about the handful of "Catholicism" episodes that I believe the Traditionalists would dislike. I wasn't taking notes. It was just a sense and feeling I got, at times overwhelming. Perhaps it was the presentation of the Church as broad, open, living, and loving. That shouldn't be at odds with any form/rite of Catholicism, but I am convinced that it is."
Love the Girls: "...if it's popular among the common Catholics odds are it's likewise very annoying and well worth avoiding."
Commbox in General: Long, drawn-out discussion re-hashing what is or is not a Traditional Catholic. People making arguments FOR Traditional Catholicism. People trying to point out that not everyone is a stereotypical, judgemental TRAD. Me responding to all of this, cringing the whole time because I know from previous experience this is all going down a rabbit hole and fast. This is all spinning off topic from the intended praise I had for the "Catholicism" videos.
Me: "I would just like to point out here that this post wasn't supposed to be a discussion on the TRAD thing. Far from it. I simply mentioned it because it was a personal thought, just a thing floating through my head as I watched....REALLY wish this discussion hadn't veered in this direction. My thoughts in the original blog post were, again, as if I were just airing out a few stray thoughts in my happy, warm lovey-dovey feelings for Father Barron's video series. Just goes to show that if you mention "Traditional Catholic," there is ALWAYS a price to pay for it."
Dave, trying to more specifically outline the long-held issues I have with some Traditional Catholics to another commenter: "If you want a concrete example of all the [Traditionalist] tendencies I've listed (and then some), I invite you to visit http://www.traditioninaction.org . And then get out of it as soon as you can."
Allison (who prefers and mainly attends the Latin Mass): I'm impressed with what Fr. Barron is doing with Youtube from a Catholic social media perspective. He is reaching people where they are...Perhaps most interesting to this conversation is that my Latin Mass pastor is hosting his Catholicism series videos weekly and having discussions afterwards."
Me: "Allison, that's what I want to hear: Latin mass crowd being open to the universality of the Church. Not being afraid. Not throwing something out without trying it first. Not pre-supposing that because it's something new that it's total trash. Good for your pastor and good for you."
Dave: "If you could believe it, I have come across a sedevacantist website which had some grudging praise for the Catholicism series...strange but true..."
Love the Girls: "I asked my good friend Patrick, a Feeneyite and occasional writer for Tradition in Action about the Fr. Barron series. And his reply fits with what I would have expected. Fr. Barron is a creature of the new orthodoxy who toes the company line very well."
Scream!
OK, I know that Love the Girls is just one human being on this planet. But here is proof positive of the loose, floating thoughts that I had all the while I was watching the "Catholicism" series. Though some wanted to argue with me about how my broad-brush picture of TRADS is totally off-base, I think this one, final comment brings the whole thing full circle.
It's also proof that maybe those who want to diss it the most are the ones who ought to watch it.
Tempted to close the commbox on this one, but oh well, I'm all for free expression and all that, even if it makes me question my sanity in wanting to blog again.
Me: "Everything about the "Catholicism" series - what I've seen of it so far - is renewing my faith in the Catholic Church. It is giving me hope...It is reminding me that Christ is bigger than the petty arguments between the liturgy police and the uber-orthodox, etc....The sad thing is, I'll bet many Traditional Catholics have refused to watch the "Catholicism" series. I've had thoughts like this through every episode...I hope I'm wrong, because there is a big, beautiful wide world of Catholic faith out there, and I get the sense that some dedicated Catholics are missing it. I share these thoughts because they are just that, my thoughts and impressions, and not to enflame a liturgy/rite war."
Eulogos: "Why would you think that "traditionalists" would not like it?"
Me: "I can't specifically identify exactly what it was about the handful of "Catholicism" episodes that I believe the Traditionalists would dislike. I wasn't taking notes. It was just a sense and feeling I got, at times overwhelming. Perhaps it was the presentation of the Church as broad, open, living, and loving. That shouldn't be at odds with any form/rite of Catholicism, but I am convinced that it is."
Love the Girls: "...if it's popular among the common Catholics odds are it's likewise very annoying and well worth avoiding."
Commbox in General: Long, drawn-out discussion re-hashing what is or is not a Traditional Catholic. People making arguments FOR Traditional Catholicism. People trying to point out that not everyone is a stereotypical, judgemental TRAD. Me responding to all of this, cringing the whole time because I know from previous experience this is all going down a rabbit hole and fast. This is all spinning off topic from the intended praise I had for the "Catholicism" videos.
Me: "I would just like to point out here that this post wasn't supposed to be a discussion on the TRAD thing. Far from it. I simply mentioned it because it was a personal thought, just a thing floating through my head as I watched....REALLY wish this discussion hadn't veered in this direction. My thoughts in the original blog post were, again, as if I were just airing out a few stray thoughts in my happy, warm lovey-dovey feelings for Father Barron's video series. Just goes to show that if you mention "Traditional Catholic," there is ALWAYS a price to pay for it."
Dave, trying to more specifically outline the long-held issues I have with some Traditional Catholics to another commenter: "If you want a concrete example of all the [Traditionalist] tendencies I've listed (and then some), I invite you to visit http://www.traditioninaction.org . And then get out of it as soon as you can."
Allison (who prefers and mainly attends the Latin Mass): I'm impressed with what Fr. Barron is doing with Youtube from a Catholic social media perspective. He is reaching people where they are...Perhaps most interesting to this conversation is that my Latin Mass pastor is hosting his Catholicism series videos weekly and having discussions afterwards."
Me: "Allison, that's what I want to hear: Latin mass crowd being open to the universality of the Church. Not being afraid. Not throwing something out without trying it first. Not pre-supposing that because it's something new that it's total trash. Good for your pastor and good for you."
Dave: "If you could believe it, I have come across a sedevacantist website which had some grudging praise for the Catholicism series...strange but true..."
Love the Girls: "I asked my good friend Patrick, a Feeneyite and occasional writer for Tradition in Action about the Fr. Barron series. And his reply fits with what I would have expected. Fr. Barron is a creature of the new orthodoxy who toes the company line very well."
Scream!
OK, I know that Love the Girls is just one human being on this planet. But here is proof positive of the loose, floating thoughts that I had all the while I was watching the "Catholicism" series. Though some wanted to argue with me about how my broad-brush picture of TRADS is totally off-base, I think this one, final comment brings the whole thing full circle.
It's also proof that maybe those who want to diss it the most are the ones who ought to watch it.
Tempted to close the commbox on this one, but oh well, I'm all for free expression and all that, even if it makes me question my sanity in wanting to blog again.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Haugen and Haas Raking In Just As Much Dough With the "New Mass" As With the Old
The "new mass" is just over a year old here in America. Specifically, about 15 months old.
Lots of Catholics looked forward to it as a turning point for the Novus Ordo mass to be just a bit more holy, reverent, and true to the original Latin translations. Also, there were legions of Catholic bloggers who were waiting with baited breath for the new musical mass arrangements to be released, believing that the days of Haugen/Haas music would be over, given new musical mass setting guidelines that were also handed down.
I'm not seeing much of anything changed. How about you?
I've had these thoughts before, about how the mass still pretty much looks and feels the same to me, but it occurred to me yesterday, at mass, as we again sang (cringe) "Rain Down," that the hopes and dreams of those who wanted big change have been dashed.
(Catholic Wedding Song? Are they on drugs?!?!)
Listen, I actually really like some Haugen/Haas type stuff. (I say that with complete sincerity, "On Eagles' Wings" lover that I am.) And there's a bunch of music (cough cough "Rain Down") that I think should be destroyed upon the first chords played. Obviously, it's not just Haugen/Haas, there's loads of other musicians who have written the repertoire of music typically heard at the Novus Ordo mass.
All I'm doing here is simply observing that in the end analysis (is 15 months too early for an end analysis?), the championed changes that make up the "New Mass" haven't made a real difference to me, and I think, not much to anyone else. I am not making this observation in any sarcastic, snarky way either, since I am a Novus Ordo person all the way.
For the record, I can't say I "love" my Novus Ordo, since the more infrequent, overtly holy, traditional Novus Ordo masses are the ones that get my attention and leave me wanting for more. But overall, I'm just fine and happy with the Novus Ordo, occasional stupid music not withstanding.
Philosophically, I agree with the belief that if we say the right words (for example, "consubstantial"), then over time we actually grasp what they mean, and thus have a correct understanding of our faith. However, in the case of (another example) the now repeated use of "and with your Spirit," I just don't think it makes much of a difference. In my opinion, there just isn't enough different to declare the "New Mass" a substantial change that affects people long-term.
Maybe I'm wrong. I admit to being rather simple-minded about all this. What are your thoughts?
Lots of Catholics looked forward to it as a turning point for the Novus Ordo mass to be just a bit more holy, reverent, and true to the original Latin translations. Also, there were legions of Catholic bloggers who were waiting with baited breath for the new musical mass arrangements to be released, believing that the days of Haugen/Haas music would be over, given new musical mass setting guidelines that were also handed down.
I'm not seeing much of anything changed. How about you?
I've had these thoughts before, about how the mass still pretty much looks and feels the same to me, but it occurred to me yesterday, at mass, as we again sang (cringe) "Rain Down," that the hopes and dreams of those who wanted big change have been dashed.
Listen, I actually really like some Haugen/Haas type stuff. (I say that with complete sincerity, "On Eagles' Wings" lover that I am.) And there's a bunch of music (cough cough "Rain Down") that I think should be destroyed upon the first chords played. Obviously, it's not just Haugen/Haas, there's loads of other musicians who have written the repertoire of music typically heard at the Novus Ordo mass.
All I'm doing here is simply observing that in the end analysis (is 15 months too early for an end analysis?), the championed changes that make up the "New Mass" haven't made a real difference to me, and I think, not much to anyone else. I am not making this observation in any sarcastic, snarky way either, since I am a Novus Ordo person all the way.
For the record, I can't say I "love" my Novus Ordo, since the more infrequent, overtly holy, traditional Novus Ordo masses are the ones that get my attention and leave me wanting for more. But overall, I'm just fine and happy with the Novus Ordo, occasional stupid music not withstanding.
Philosophically, I agree with the belief that if we say the right words (for example, "consubstantial"), then over time we actually grasp what they mean, and thus have a correct understanding of our faith. However, in the case of (another example) the now repeated use of "and with your Spirit," I just don't think it makes much of a difference. In my opinion, there just isn't enough different to declare the "New Mass" a substantial change that affects people long-term.
Maybe I'm wrong. I admit to being rather simple-minded about all this. What are your thoughts?
On Father Barron's "Catholicism" Series
I wanted to note here that I finally capitulated and started watching Father Robert Barron's "Catholicism" video series.
My knee-jerk reaction to all the hype and hoopla when it first came out was to avoid it. That's a very "Char" thing to do, and I'm OK with that. Also, I especially didn't want to watch it with certain groups of people that I knew were going to annoy me and gush and gush and gush. I had actually entertained the idea that I would one day end up watching it alone.
Now I'm here to gush.
I know, I'm hilarious.
Turns out that Alan's school has been showing it on Fridays once or twice a month after mass. It's a group of moms watching, and they are women I'm comfortable with.
What I like most about the series so far - I've seen only 3 or 4 episodes? - is the very obvious, though simultaneously NOT obvious emphasis on how varied and diverse Catholicism is, yet all of it IS Catholic. So many people do not get that or refuse to see it or don't want to admit it.
During one episode, Father Barron was discussing something - I wish I could remember what - and I turned to one woman (who knows how I feel about certain issues) and said to her, "This is why the Traditional Catholics are wrong." (Disclaimer: I was not saying they are wrong in a total sense. It had more to do with the nuances of how Traditional Catholicism is often presented and sold by its adherents, being an isolated thing that is the only truly true thing.)
Whatever it was that made me speak up like that, I got the sense that Christ's arms and love (and therefore the Church) are big and strong and wide open. Much bigger than many loudmouth Catholics want to accept, believe, or attest to.
Last week we saw the episode about the saints. Though I started crying during the St. Therese part (wimp alert), what really fascinated me more was the story about St. Katherine Drexel. It just blew me away! All that money, all that status, all that cultured elitism and she chucked it out to serve blacks and Indians at a time when that would have been considered insane. Talk about social justice!
Which is the point. Here was social justice in play by a holy, orthodox woman who became a saint. Social justice??!?!!! Heresy alert! Liberal alert! Sirens! Alarms!
Not.
Everything about the "Catholicism" series - what I've seen of it so far - is renewing my faith in the Catholic Church. It is giving me hope that I am not a weirdo or a heretic for my personal brand of faith. It is reminding me that Christ is bigger than the petty arguments between the liturgy police and the uber-orthodox, etc. It is confirming my sense that logic and common sense have a place in faith. (Just listening to Father Barron talk is like having "head-screwed-on-straight balm" applied to my whole being.)
I've missed an episode or two, which upset me at first, but I see now that every episode is stand alone.
If you know a Protestant that is questioning the Catholic faith/interested in it or a lukewarm Catholic, the first episode will blow their mind! It did for me. All I could think as I was watching it was so-and-so and so-and-so needs to see this. And for the precise reason that it wasn't all in-your-face or propaganda-ish or pushy or anything. It was just so sensible in its presentation of truth and mystery and majesty that my jaw was on the ground.
The sad thing is, I'll bet many Traditional Catholics have refused to watch the "Catholicism" series. I've had thoughts like this through every episode I've literally sat riveted to. I hope I'm wrong, because there is a big, beautiful wide world of Catholic faith out there, and I get the sense that some dedicated Catholics are missing it. I share these thoughts because they are just that, my thoughts and impressions, and not to enflame a liturgy/rite war.
My knee-jerk reaction to all the hype and hoopla when it first came out was to avoid it. That's a very "Char" thing to do, and I'm OK with that. Also, I especially didn't want to watch it with certain groups of people that I knew were going to annoy me and gush and gush and gush. I had actually entertained the idea that I would one day end up watching it alone.
Now I'm here to gush.
I know, I'm hilarious.
Turns out that Alan's school has been showing it on Fridays once or twice a month after mass. It's a group of moms watching, and they are women I'm comfortable with.
What I like most about the series so far - I've seen only 3 or 4 episodes? - is the very obvious, though simultaneously NOT obvious emphasis on how varied and diverse Catholicism is, yet all of it IS Catholic. So many people do not get that or refuse to see it or don't want to admit it.
During one episode, Father Barron was discussing something - I wish I could remember what - and I turned to one woman (who knows how I feel about certain issues) and said to her, "This is why the Traditional Catholics are wrong." (Disclaimer: I was not saying they are wrong in a total sense. It had more to do with the nuances of how Traditional Catholicism is often presented and sold by its adherents, being an isolated thing that is the only truly true thing.)
Whatever it was that made me speak up like that, I got the sense that Christ's arms and love (and therefore the Church) are big and strong and wide open. Much bigger than many loudmouth Catholics want to accept, believe, or attest to.
Last week we saw the episode about the saints. Though I started crying during the St. Therese part (wimp alert), what really fascinated me more was the story about St. Katherine Drexel. It just blew me away! All that money, all that status, all that cultured elitism and she chucked it out to serve blacks and Indians at a time when that would have been considered insane. Talk about social justice!
Which is the point. Here was social justice in play by a holy, orthodox woman who became a saint. Social justice??!?!!! Heresy alert! Liberal alert! Sirens! Alarms!
Not.
Everything about the "Catholicism" series - what I've seen of it so far - is renewing my faith in the Catholic Church. It is giving me hope that I am not a weirdo or a heretic for my personal brand of faith. It is reminding me that Christ is bigger than the petty arguments between the liturgy police and the uber-orthodox, etc. It is confirming my sense that logic and common sense have a place in faith. (Just listening to Father Barron talk is like having "head-screwed-on-straight balm" applied to my whole being.)
I've missed an episode or two, which upset me at first, but I see now that every episode is stand alone.
If you know a Protestant that is questioning the Catholic faith/interested in it or a lukewarm Catholic, the first episode will blow their mind! It did for me. All I could think as I was watching it was so-and-so and so-and-so needs to see this. And for the precise reason that it wasn't all in-your-face or propaganda-ish or pushy or anything. It was just so sensible in its presentation of truth and mystery and majesty that my jaw was on the ground.
The sad thing is, I'll bet many Traditional Catholics have refused to watch the "Catholicism" series. I've had thoughts like this through every episode I've literally sat riveted to. I hope I'm wrong, because there is a big, beautiful wide world of Catholic faith out there, and I get the sense that some dedicated Catholics are missing it. I share these thoughts because they are just that, my thoughts and impressions, and not to enflame a liturgy/rite war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)