Escaping Catholic Totalitarianism

[Jehanne]

This is an extremely long story and applaud anyone who makes it all the way through. This is not a story about a journey to atheism for I am not an atheist, it is however a story about a journey out of the clutches of religious totalitarianism, something I never thought was possible to escape. I have to say that the current A&E series on those who left Scientology was a major influence on my increased comfort in opening up about this.

I am an ex-Catholic, also!  For me, Catholicism was a complete waste of time.  As a former Catholic, however, I am surprised that many "recovering Catholics" find/found the Church's teachings to be "repressive".  Take artificial contraception, as an example; if the Church was wrong about that, then what, possibly, can it be right about?  On the other hand, if Catholicism is nothing more than "smells & bells," who cares?  I have much better things to do with my time and money!!

[Whateverist]

As intelligent and composed as you seem in your online presence, if you are still very young there is a chance you are over reacting. After all depression is a lot to handle the first time and 'squirming' is a natural reaction. Whatever form of torture and doubt you put yourself through the first time you are depressed, there is a good chance things will seem different to you on the other side (no matter how unlikely it may feel that you will ever get to the other side).

If you decide you don't/can't believe and still feel that way when you even out, welcome to the other side. If you change your mind, no harm - no foul.

[Redoubtable]

Well, OP, your post brings new meaning to "recovering Catholic". That Catholic guilt and fear is a bear, isn't it? Speaking as an ex-Catholic here.
Catholics are just as hypocritical as the other religions. Contraception is not allowed but the vast majority of US Catholics of child-bearing age use it and see no problem with it.

On a side note, I've noticed that it's often atheists that know far more about religion and its teachings than the religious.

Aye it is. And yeah, I just think the fact that so many Catholics don't follow Church teaching exposes the fact that the member numbers Catholics in the Church boast about are nonsense since probably less than 10% of those identified as Catholic actually practice. 

Well, I've noticed that when it comes to Catholics, even those who practice don't delve as deeply into Church history (especially the medieval church) and Church teaching as I have; it's eye-opening.

[Jehanne]

A common misunderstanding here, is that the sins you listed are "serious sins." For a serious sin to become a mortal sin, it must be done with full knowledge and consent of the will, without remorse, and with the deliberate intention of separating yourself from God. It is a persons level of culpability that makes a serious sin mortal, not just the act of it. Since we cannot know the minds/ hearts of other ppl, it is impossible to say whether a serious sin they committed is mortal or not because we do not know their level of culpability, and thus we do not know whether they are damning themselves to hell or not. That is why the Church does not claim to know that any particular person is in hell... even hitler.

This is a prime example of the Catholic Church changing its/her tune again (and again):

318 Chap. 3. Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to be saved[1 Tim. 2:4 ] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish.

319 Chap. 4. Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be no man, for whom He has not suffered- although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through love[ Gal. 5:6], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal.

646 20. If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, than as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.

http://patristica.net/denzinger/

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes. Though it is important to remember that full knowledge and full consent are much deeper and more complex than simply "knowing it's wrong and doing it anyway." It requires a very deliberate turning away from God, which as you said, is something only God himself can know about a person. Just be weary not to give what may be construed as an inaccurate representation of our beliefs.

For what it's worth, I am sorry you've had such a negative experience. From reading your stroy, I suspect you may have suffered from scrupulosity.. which is almost like a type of ocd. We as a church need to do a better job of addressing this problem and trying to help prevent it from happening to our people.

I can see why you got scrupples, if you think this way.

You are failing to remember that we are human beings and are prone to weakness and bound to fall into temptation. It's in our nature. And God, who created us, knows our nature better than anyone. He isn't some big meeanie waiting for us to slip up so He can "send us to Hell." A person who, in a moment of weakness, indulges in his/her natural yet sinful inclination is more often than not, NOT purposely doing so to spite God. He/she is doing it bc they are human. It's still wrong, of course, but it isn't a deliberate full rejection of God. Succumbing to very strong, natural inclination is not necessarily "full consent of the will" and isn't grounds for damning yourself.

You are talking about all sorts of exceptions, mitigating factors of culpability, etc. while I'm talking about the very root of the issue: the idea that a God who is supposedly just, merciful, good, and loving would set up a system of justice where a single offense (such as the pathetically insignificant things I listed), on a single occasion can cause someone to spend eternity in suffering. I find this purely barbaric, a leftover from the brutality of the ancient world. I want to know what is going on with the Catholic God that he is so concerned about being offended that he is willing to damn people who do something as minuscule as use misuse his name as a curse or miss mass on Sunday. What does it even mean to offend God? How is God harmed? An omnipotent God cannot have his divine existence harmed or threatened, and yet he defends himself with a terror that would even make the tyrannical egomaniacs of history give pause. We depraved and vulnerable sinners harm each other more than we could ever harm God and yet our justice is far more merciful and compassionate.

If that one action was done with a fully deliberate intent on turning away from God with no remorse for doing so, then I don't see why it matters if it happens once or a million times. "Hell" is the state of being of a person who separated themselves from God (or from goodness and love) by their own accord. If a person does not want to be with God, if that person rejects goodness and love, then they don't have to be with God if they don't want to be. That is Hell. It's the ultimate free will.

Also, the way you are talking about God, you don't sound like someone who genuinely doesn't believe he exists. You sound like someone who got so caught up in ocd/scruples, that you feel your only escape is to shut the whole thing off. Sorry if I'm wrong, and correct me if I am. But that's just what it is coming off as to me. It seems very emotional.

[chimp3]

If that one action was done with a fully deliberate intent on turning away from God with no remorse for doing so, then I don't see why it matters if it happens once or a million times. "Hell" is the state of being of a person who separated themselves from God (or from goodness and love) by their own accord. If a person does not want to be with God, if that person rejects goodness and love, then they don't have to be with God if they don't want to be. That is Hell. It's the ultimate free will.

Also, the way you are talking about God, you don't sound like someone who genuinely doesn't believe he exists. You sound like someone who got so caught up in ocd/scruples, that you feel your only escape is to shut the whole thing off. Sorry if I'm wrong, and correct me if I am. But that's just what it is coming off as to me. It seems very emotional.

Do you think people who reject god are incapable of goodness and love?

[Jehanne]

If that one action was done with a fully deliberate intent on turning away from God with no remorse for doing so, then I don't see why it matters if it happens once or a million times. "Hell" is the state of being of a person who separated themselves from God (or from goodness and love) by their own accord. If a person does not want to be with God, if that person rejects goodness and love, then they don't have to be with God if they don't want to be. That is Hell. It's the ultimate free will.

Also, the way you are talking about God, you don't sound like someone who genuinely doesn't believe he exists. You sound like someone who got so caught up in ocd/scruples, that you feel your only escape is to shut the whole thing off. Sorry if I'm wrong, and correct me if I am. But that's just what it is coming off as to me. It seems very emotional.

CT, This is not what the Catholic Church has taught, speaking, of course, from a strictly historical perspective:

693 [ De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

This is why the Church taught that infants who perish without sacramental Baptism go to the Limbo of the Children, which is, basically, the highest level of Hell.  Read Dante's Inferno for more details.

You are, of course, free to make things up as you go along; religion is very good at doing that!

[Catholic_Lady]

If that one action was done with a fully deliberate intent on turning away from God with no remorse for doing so, then I don't see why it matters if it happens once or a million times. "Hell" is the state of being of a person who separated themselves from God (or from goodness and love) by their own accord. If a person does not want to be with God, if that person rejects goodness and love, then they don't have to be with God if they don't want to be. That is Hell. It's the ultimate free will.

Also, the way you are talking about God, you don't sound like someone who genuinely doesn't believe he exists. You sound like someone who got so caught up in ocd/scruples, that you feel your only escape is to shut the whole thing off. Sorry if I'm wrong, and correct me if I am. But that's just what it is coming off as to me. It seems very emotional.

Do you think people who reject god are incapable of goodness and love?

Depends on what you mean by that.

What I believe is that God is goodness and love. A person who rejects goodness and love is ultimately rejecting God and God'a ways. But a person who simply doesn't believe God is real, isn't "rejecting" God if such person still strives to embrace goodness and love and strives to live accordingly.

A true rejection of God is fully knowing and understanding that God is goodness/love, and then choosing to turn away from all that and to embrace hatred and greed instead.

[chimp3]

Do you think people who reject god are incapable of goodness and love?

Depends on what you mean by that.

What I believe is that God is goodness and love. A person who rejects goodness and love is ultimately rejecting God and God'a ways. But a person who simply doesn't believe God is real, isn't "rejecting" God if such person still strives to embrace goodness and love and strives to live accordingly.

A true rejection of God is fully knowing and understanding that God is goodness/love, and then choosing to turn away from all that and to embrace hatred and greed instead.

If I reject god and do not believe he is goodness and love is that a true rejection?

[Astonished]

Do you think people who reject god are incapable of goodness and love?

Depends on what you mean by that.

What I believe is that God is goodness and love. A person who rejects goodness and love is ultimately rejecting God and God'a ways. But a person who simply doesn't believe God is real, isn't "rejecting" God if such person still strives to embrace goodness and love and strives to live accordingly.

A true rejection of God is fully knowing and understanding that God is goodness/love, and then choosing to turn away from all that and to embrace hatred and greed instead.

How you can square the 'understanding' that god is goodness/love if you've actually read the list of his crimes against humanity is a mystery. Rejecting the concept is down to a lack of evidence, but rejecting the idea that it's kind and loving is right there in his diary.