The Growing Scourge Of Catholic Tribalism

[ClemensBruno]

reyb said:
"Why it is very important for you to have convert into your own religion? Are you saying for’ Mankind’s Salvation’? If that is the case, do you have any idea why God did not let it happen? "

Very leading questions, reyb. Speaking of attempting to force... I mean, convert... others to agree, consider first John 8:7 and Matthew 7:1-2 before you initiate another cycle of entrapping questions.

If you remain persistent in thinking you have the answers, then take to heart Romans 3:10 & 3:23. If your self-righteousness still compels you, then please start another thread. The quality of this discussion continually gets better, and should not be thrown off course by personal agendas.

Contribute to the topic if you wish, but since your are not Catholic and seem to harbor a unique personal spiritualism similar to the United Church (except your penchant for self-certainty), then It's more likely that you couldn't care less about this discussion. However, I DO!

So... PLEASE... I am appealing to your charity and sense of decency. Thank you.

[ClemensBruno]

Tab'le... said:
"And An Historian do you really believe there was ever some majority catholic christian nation and i'm talking more than 60% of the population being practicing catholic Christians? "


By the middle of the 11th Century A.D., nearly the whole of Europe had converted to Christianity, I.e., Roman Catholicism. While there are some important caveats* to this fact, for centuries afterward European life centered on the Church--at least by the third generation after the initial converts.

(*I'm hoping someone else with more lucid writing skills than I--An Historian?--could provide the nitty-gritty, if needed, of the great millennial conversion.)

[An Historian]

And An Historian do you really believe there was ever some majority catholic christian nation and i'm talking more than 60% of the population being practicing catholic Christians? As far as i'm aware it is non existent to date, i may be wrong. The only example i can think of that may be majority practicing catholic christian is Malta, and i'm unsure if that number is more than 60%. No pun intended.

 

I believe that there was a period of centuries in Europe wherein the overwhelming majority of the population was practising Catholic.  Because the very foundation of the modern European nations was built upon the Church.  After the collapse of civilisation with the fall of Rome, it was the monasteries that became the bedrock of human society.  Villages, towns and cities grew up around the convents of the monks and the cathedrals of the bishops.

 

The Catholic faith was of undeniable social and cultural importance.  Education, medicine, agriculture.  All of these things were spurred on by Churchmen.  The Holy Days of Obligation were universally observed.  Almost everyone was baptised and frequented the Sacraments.  Were there cases of those that didn't?  Of course!  But the criminals and vagabonds and whores did not make up the majority of European society, no more than they do now.

 

Even 100 years ago the majority of the populations of Ireland and Spain were practising Catholics that frequented the Sacraments, well in excess of 60%.

 

The massive place the Church played in European society can not be denied.  It was the heart of European civilisation, and all of our peoples once revolved around her.

[reyb]

reyb said:
"Why it is very important for you to have convert into your own religion? Are you saying for’ Mankind’s Salvation’? If that is the case, do you have any idea why God did not let it happen? "

Very leading questions, reyb. Speaking of attempting to force... I mean, convert... others to agree, consider first John 8:7 and Matthew 7:1-2 before you initiate another cycle of entrapping questions.

If you remain persistent in thinking you have the answers, then take to heart Romans 3:10 & 3:23. If your self-righteousness still compels you, then please start another thread. The quality of this discussion continually gets better, and should not be thrown off course by personal agendas.

Contribute to the topic if you wish, but since your are not Catholic and seem to harbor a unique personal spiritualism similar to the United Church (except your penchant for self-certainty), then It's more likely that you couldn't care less about this discussion. However, I DO!

So... PLEASE... I am appealing to your charity and sense of decency. Thank you.

 

If you feel you are being judged by me, is because I presented to you the errors of your faith and the uselessness of your doctrines and teachings which you proudly confessed as a way for salvation for the entire humanity. I am not just telling you they are wrong but I gave you my reasons and we can discussed it over again for the benefit of all, especially you, because I want you to realize where you are now, and I am hoping – I am always hoping that you will truly seek and find my Lord Jesus Christ himself.

 

This is my contribution to this topic....

You said ‘no one is righteous’ if you really see it that way, why you cannot compromise your own belief to them for the sake of ‘oneness’?

 

Anyway, since you are too afraid to discuss them. Granted. I am off.

Edited January 4, 2014 by reyb

[Norseman82]

 

And An Historian do you really believe there was ever some majority catholic christian nation and i'm talking more than 60% of the population being practicing catholic Christians? As far as i'm aware it is non existent to date, i may be wrong. The only example i can think of that may be majority practicing catholic christian is Malta, and i'm unsure if that number is more than 60%. No pun intended.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

 

Depending on what metrics you are using for determining a  "practicing" Catholic, Poland under communist oppression might also make your list. 

[BarbTherese]

I believe that there was a period of centuries in Europe wherein the overwhelming majority of the population was practising Catholic.  Because the very foundation of the modern European nations was built upon the Church.  After the collapse of civilisation with the fall of Rome, it was the monasteries that became the bedrock of human society.  Villages, towns and cities grew up around the convents of the monks and the cathedrals of the bishops.

 

The Catholic faith was of undeniable social and cultural importance.  Education, medicine, agriculture.  All of these things were spurred on by Churchmen.  The Holy Days of Obligation were universally observed.  Almost everyone was baptised and frequented the Sacraments.  Were there cases of those that didn't?  Of course!  But the criminals and vagabonds and whores did not make up the majority of European society, no more than they do now.

 

Even 100 years ago the majority of the populations of Ireland and Spain were practising Catholics that frequented the Sacraments, well in excess of 60%.

 

The massive place the Church played in European society can not be denied.  It was the heart of European civilisation, and all of our peoples once revolved around her.

 

I am certainly no historian, nor their bootlace - but I think that the above is probably true; however, I also think that underlying what appeared was a spirituality of fear and also socially desirable behaviour i.e. the 'done thing' - and these are generalizations, I know, that did not apply to all without exception.

 

As one who lived through pre VII years (born in early 1946), I cannot idealise the years pre VII.  We were still being openly indoctrinated with fear and guilt manipulations during those years including from the pulpit and in classrooms (taught by religious sisters all my school years) and once others were aware of one's Catholicism it was not at all unusual for people to practise simply because it was in their social circle 'the done thing' and to avoid being ostracized.  Sunday Mass was a social gathering after Mass where clothing worn was of paramount importance.  My family was poor and so we never stayed. These factors, of course, did not apply in all instances but to my experience, in the main.  Religious life, and I entered in my teens, was dreadfully strict and demanding and depression was rather common amongst members - those outside religious life and the priesthood (i.e. laity) were looked down upon and to leave religious life was to endure disgrace within religious life and quite common also once one left and tried to return to one's social Catholic circle after leaving the life.   We needed a pastoral council of The Church.  Of course, I have very happy and beautiful memories from my years pre V2 also and these times of Joy come largely from my secondary education in college (educated by Dominican nuns) where we were encouraged to think for ourselves, to reflect on The Gospels and sound Catholic teaching and theology.  This did set up conflicts with me between my own thinking and Catholic cultural consciousness in the main at the time - and confused me no end in religious life in my teens.  Vatican2 removed those conflicts, while it was a journey in post V2 years to do so.

Because all the above is my own personal experiences, it is of course limited.  However, I cannot hold that I was the only one - nor my parish and diocese alone in what was occurring and meetings and conferences post V2 seemed to confirm it all as widespread.

 

I think that nowadays, many including amongst our leadership, clergy and religious have gone too far and incline towards or are convinced liberals and especially in my own country, Australia.  There is a happy medium somewhere that only time will reveal - and I am convinced that time will (not of necessity in my own lifetime, now 68yrs) and simply because The Lord has guaranteed He will be with His Church until the end of time.  But history also tells me that the story of The Church to date has been a story of much struggle.  Whatever, indeed, lies ahead, The Lord is with us. He is The Lord of human history.  I know in my own diocese, I just live my Faith as I believe it is meant to be lived ...... and am often 'on my knees' - and comforted in every Morning Prayer by the Benedictus:

 

He will make known to His people their salvation

Through forgiveness of all their sins

The Loving Mercy of the Heart of our God

Who visits us from the Dawn on High

He will give light to those in darkness

Those who are in the shadow of death

And guide us into the way of Peace

 

All of our quite human finite and fallible reasoning and reflections, our knowledge, have much value - but the greatest value and surest hope and knowledge is in the treasury of The Heart of Jesus, in His Church and Sacraments and in His Word in Scripture.  The theological virtue of Hope is to invest in what the theological virtue of Faith tells us - and in a spirit of the theological virtue of Loving Charity with trustful and absolute confidence.  We work as if all depended on work and in this we rely on our prayer filled human reasoning while we pray as if all depended on prayer - because it does!  And our Hope is sure:

 

I prayed in the Office yesterday, Feast of The Holy Name of Jesus, an eschatological proclamation :

 

“I, The Lord, have sworn by my own being,

  I have decreed a judgement that will not be revoked;

for every knee will bend to me,

  every tongue swear by my name.”

 

...........and Grace prevailing:

 

"Though an army encamp against me
my heart would not fear.
Though war break out against me
even then would I trust."

Edited January 4, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[NotreDame]

And An Historian do you really believe there was ever some majority catholic christian nation and i'm talking more than 60% of the population being practicing catholic Christians? As far as i'm aware it is non existent to date, i may be wrong. The only example i can think of that may be majority practicing catholic christian is Malta, and i'm unsure if that number is more than 60%. No pun intended.

 

not sure how this is relevant to the discussion so don't know if you left them out on purpose, but just about every country in latin america and the phillipines would qualify at one time or another.

[reyb]

not sure how this is relevant to the discussion so don't know if you left them out on purpose, but just about every country in latin america and the phillipines would qualify at one time or another.

 

see this...http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=catholic+in+the+philippines

[BarbTherese]

The Catholic faith was of undeniable social and cultural importance.  Education, medicine, agriculture.  All of these things were spurred on by Churchmen.  The Holy Days of Obligation were universally observed.  Almost everyone was baptised and frequented the Sacraments.  Were there cases of those that didn't?  Of course!  But the criminals and vagabonds and whores did not make up the majority of European society, no more than they do now.

 

I do doubt that  all those who were outside The Catholic Church or not practising their Faith were, in the time span you mention, criminals and vagabonds, whores.  Harsh language methinks, unless of course to be socially acceptable one just REALLY HAD (force/fear of ostracization) to be Catholic as the alternative was to join the ranks automatically of the people you mentioned whether one qualified or not.

We have 'churchmen' to thank for very much over our whole history, but being a 'churchman' was no guarantee of virtue in the time span you mention - to my poor knowledge anyway.  The Catholic Church was of undeniable social and cultural importance - but what was driving The Church or the leadership rather at the time in many instances.

[An Historian]

 

I am certainly no historian, nor their bootlace - but I think that the above is probably true; however, I also think that underlying what appeared was a spirituality of fear and also socially desirable behaviour i.e. the 'done thing' - and these are generalizations, I know, that did not apply to all without exception.

 

As one who lived through pre VII years (born in early 1946), I cannot idealise the years pre VII.  We were still being openly indoctrinated with fear and guilt manipulations during those years including from the pulpit and in classrooms (taught by religious sisters all my school years) and once others were aware of one's Catholicism it was not at all unusual for people to practise simply because it was in their social circle 'the done thing' and to avoid being ostracized.  Sunday Mass was a social gathering after Mass where clothing worn was of paramount importance.  My family was poor and so we never stayed. These factors, of course, did not apply in all instances but to my experience, in the main.  Religious life, and I entered in my teens, was dreadfully strict and demanding and depression was rather common amongst members - those outside religious life and the priesthood (i.e. laity) were looked down upon and to leave religious life was to endure disgrace within religious life and quite common also once one left and tried to return to one's social Catholic circle after leaving the life.   We needed a pastoral council of The Church.  Of course, I have very happy and beautiful memories from my years pre V2 also and these times of Joy come largely from my secondary education in college (educated by Dominican nuns) where we were encouraged to think for ourselves, to reflect on The Gospels and sound Catholic teaching and theology.  This did set up conflicts with me between my own thinking and Catholic cultural consciousness in the main at the time - and confused me no end in religious life in my teens.  Vatican2 removed those conflicts, while it was a journey in post V2 years to do so.

Because all the above is my own personal experiences, it is of course limited.  However, I cannot hold that I was the only one - nor my parish and diocese alone in what was occurring and meetings and conferences post V2 seemed to confirm it all as widespread.

 

I think that nowadays, many including amongst our leadership, clergy and religious have gone too far and incline towards or are convinced liberals and especially in my own country, Australia.  There is a happy medium somewhere that only time will reveal - and I am convinced that time will (not of necessity in my own lifetime, now 68yrs) and simply because The Lord has guaranteed He will be with His Church until the end of time.  But history also tells me that the story of The Church to date has been a story of much struggle.  Whatever, indeed, lies ahead, The Lord is with us. He is The Lord of human history.  I know in my own diocese, I just live my Faith as I believe it is meant to be lived ...... and am often 'on my knees' - and comforted in every Morning Prayer by the Benedictus:

 

He will make known to His people their salvation

Through forgiveness of all their sins

The Loving Mercy of the Heart of our God

Who visits us from the Dawn on High

He will give light to those in darkness

Those who are in the shadow of death

And guide us into the way of Peace

 

All of our quite human finite and fallible reasoning and reflections, our knowledge, have much value - but the greatest value and surest hope and knowledge is in the treasury of The Heart of Jesus, in His Church and Sacraments and in His Word in Scripture.  The theological virtue of Hope is to invest in what the theological virtue of Faith tells us - and in a spirit of the theological virtue of Loving Charity with trustful and absolute confidence.  We work as if all depended on work and in this we rely on our prayer filled human reasoning while we pray as if all depended on prayer - because it does!  And our Hope is sure:

 

I prayed in the Office yesterday, Feast of The Holy Name of Jesus, an eschatological proclamation :

 

“I, The Lord, have sworn by my own being,

  I have decreed a judgement that will not be revoked;

for every knee will bend to me,

  every tongue swear by my name.”

 

...........and Grace prevailing:

 

"Though an army encamp against me
my heart would not fear.
Though war break out against me
even then would I trust."

 

 

My argument not only acknowledges this but rather is grounded upon the fact that it was the "done thing".  I'm not saying they were all holy before the Council.  But we had a society and culture where there was a "done thing" which created a general protection for us.  But this was all stripped away by the post-War decades.  And that was a bad thing.

 

Human beings have to be socialised.  Socialisation is a process that we cannot ever escape.  One socialisation (the Catholic "done thing" of the 30s and 40s) has been replaced with another (the materialist and hedonist "do anything" of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s).  And that's not good.  I believe without a shadow of a doubt that societal pressure and expectations saved many a soul.  That safety net, that "thing" which is integral for any society or culture or identity to survive, has been ripped away.

 

This isn't an excuse for people being looked down upon for being poor.  I think that was a local experience of your own and it's certainly sinful and condemnable.  But I still maintain that the culture of "intimidation" that existed in those years was a good thing.

 

The major difference in attitude between now and then is the initial presumption.  Today Popes, bishops and priests presume good.  Back then we presumed the worse because we had an accurate and honest view of original sin and concupiscence.

 

I know which side I stand on.

[An Historian]

I do doubt that  all those who were outside The Catholic Church or not practising their Faith were, in the time span you mention, criminals and vagabonds, whores.  Harsh language methinks, unless of course to be socially acceptable one just REALLY HAD (force/fear of ostracization) to be Catholic as the alternative was to join the ranks automatically of the people you mentioned whether one qualified or not.

We have 'churchmen' to thank for very much over our whole history, but being a 'churchman' was no guarantee of virtue in the time span you mention - to my poor knowledge anyway.  The Catholic Church was of undeniable social and cultural importance - but what was driving The Church or the leadership rather at the time in many instances.

 

Criminals, vagabonds and whores don't usually frequent the Sacraments, so I wouldn't class them as practising Catholics.  And they simply would have been the largest percentage of non-practising Catholics in France of the day.  The overwhelming majority would have practised.  They wouldn't have been good.  I need to underscore this point again.  I'm not saying any of them were saints.  I'm saying that there was a culture and society and identity that acted as a safety net for the integrity of the Catholic community.  It's basic human sociology and psychology.  Were there people that weren't criminals or whores but who didn't practise the faith?  Undoubtedly.  But of absolute minimal contribution to the discussion, a minority so small that they do not even register.

[ClemensBruno]

As promised, I would like to propose a historical situation similar to the current Catholic tribalism issue: the American Jewish Rite debate in the 19th Century.

Beginning circa 1820s, Jews immigrated to the U.S. from Europe in very large numbers. In some years, Jewish immigrants outnumbered other religious groups. They were seeking refuge from entrenched anti-Semitism which permeated Europe.

Under the best circumstances, anti-Semitism were codified in laws that restricted Jews from property ownership, most occupations, and living in most neighborhoods and villages. At worst, anti-Semitism put Jews outside of any meaningful civil protections, which made Jews vulnerable targets for crimes, violence and death.

Jews arrived in a country that gave them unprecedented individual rights and religious freedom. Many embraced American ideals and its pervasive style of individual religious expression, and soon began to not only dress like their overwhelmingly Protestant neighbors, but also appropriate their neighbor's religious practices into a new, Reformed Judaism that reflected a modern New Jerusalem. (American history is filled with imagery and self-referencing terms that emphasize rebirth, i.e., America is the New <<Something>>, e.g., the New Eden, the New Society, the New Contract, etc.)

Others Jews embraced their newfound freedom by practicing and living the old traditions more faithfully and publicly. As more Jews continued to immigrate to the U.S. by the tens of thousands in subsequent decades, the "Jewish tribalism" issue created strong leaders on both sides. The reform movement faced increasing opposition as immigration numbers shifted toward Jews from Eastern Europe.

Today, Judaism in the U.S. has quite varied expressions that mainly fall into 3 categories: reformed, conservative, and orthodox.

...I must admit at this point that my understanding of this subject is VERY limited. Please feel free to correct any mistakes I made. If you are more familiar with the subject, please add the details lacking in my rather flimsy account.

My Main Point: It is to our benefit to study how situations similar to "Catholic tribalism" played out historically. It gives one a richer understanding of the phenomenon, and provides a stronger and more rational foundation for informing one's response and actions to the issue at hand.

[BarbTherese]

Thank you very much for the responses, CB.  :)  I am still reeling in shock from a spontaneous visit by our parish priest.  We had a long and interesting conversation and we are on the same wave length, we have found, from a  couple of long conversations. I am having a bbq tonight after Vigil Mass with a few people and he might drop by if he is able - I have promised him a house in order, so I better start work!!!  I will read your posts with more concentration and focus at a later point and thank you again.

 

Barb

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

Rorate has a timely post on this subject:

 

[...] Ideology is the intellect that is disproportionate and hypertrophied, that wills to not pay attention to observation--- to see how things are as they are--- so that it can put its faith in its own theoretical and intellectual constructions.

 

We hear often the present Pontiff speak against “ideological” Christians, and many read this as referring to Christians of a traditional mind-set, who are accustomed only to denounce the state of the Faith and of the Church in terms that are never positive.  Now this definition is not very useful, because there is  so much “ideological Catholicism” in our day.  But let us ask ourselves:  in whom is this attitude found?  To whom should this verbal tag be attached?  To those who read things as they are or to those who indulge in the illusion that things are going well when they are not going well at all?

 

 

 

 

[...  More at Rorate ...]

 

 

 

Is the word ideological just simply someone whom thinks everything should be perfect ? Or someone that thinks they know exactly whats going on when that is not possible for any individual or even the church as a whole knowing exactly to a lesser degree. And the operative word here is..... da da da da wait for it..... EXACTLY!

 

Onward christian souls.

 

God is Good.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[BarbTherese]

Haven't read previous posts yet - getting ready for Vigil Mass, Sat 4.1.14 4.45pm here in Sth Aussie. My parish priest said something to me today which is food for thought for me.  Because we had swung so far in one direction pre V2, post V2 'the horse tended to bolt' too far in the opposite direction and it will take time and patience, trust, to find that happy medium.  I can relate to those thoughts. :)

Edited January 4, 2014 by BarbaraTherese