ITT We Discuss Theology

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Thing is, for example, feeling guilty about sex, or about my relationship resulted in me acting to not feel guilty - by leaving the institution that was telling me I should feel guilty. At this time it's also led to me lying to my parents, which is something else to feel guilty about, but the knowledge of their beliefs and our current proximity means that I'm going to lie and feel guilty for that rather than again be pressured to feel guilty for something that is not wrong.

Your perspective works in an ideal world, and it's one that I hope to eventually live up to, but it isn't necessarily realistic. I know that I'm more sensitive than most to disappointing people I care about, but I don't believe I'm at such an extreme that there isn't a large number of people who are on a similar spectrum.

I don't want people to be motivated by guilt, not even self-centered people. I'd rather they learn to be motivated by more other-centered causes. Additionally I think it's silly to assume that we know whether people feel guilt or not.

ETA: Something clicked for me, and we do a similar exercise with our clients about worries, if you're doing everything you can about it then why worry? If you're not doing everything you can, and don't intend to, then why worry about it? All that said, people still worry.

We may be operating with different definitions of guilt. I think you are leaning more towards a definition for what I would label shame, which is a horse of a different colour. Guilt in and of itself is not a good thing, but as a motivating force - something which causes you to examine your actions - it is. Guilt implies a knowledge of right and wrong. Although I realize it is now quite the fashion to be a moral relativist, I'd argue that losing the perspective of right/wrong that leads to the kind of guilt I'm discussing has resulted in far more evil than the occasional misplaced guilt.

I wouldn't dare to comment on your relationship with your parents, DF; I am sorry you are not able to be more honest with them. It sounds like you are being too hard on yourself - and that may be misplaced guilt. Sometimes you can only do what you can only do. In that instance, you shouldn't feel guilty.

I don't live in an ideal world, nor do any of my friends and family. Certainly with a son going through first communion I am extra aware of the difficulties and challenges of applying a moral framework to our everyday existence. I've made my peace with my imperfections as far as guilt goes. If I do feel guilty, I look at it as a warning sign - I need to think about what I'm doing/not doing.

As to "silly to assume that we know whether people feel guilty or not" - not always. I imagine everyone can think of an instance of someone saying "sorry" when they knew good and well the malefactor was sorry he/she was caught, not sorry for what they did. Those people feel no guilt. Bernie Madoff comes to mind as someone who feels no guilt - and I don't think that's a silly assessment on my part.

I like your "worries" analogy - but it actually works for me! I always apply the 5 year rule to my worries - will it matter in 5 years? If not, I do what I can and stop worrying. If it will, I put extra effort into taking care of the problem. I "smack the gators that are closest" - don't worry about the ones you can't yet see.

[aephi alum]

Interesting. This is the first I've learned of a new Roman Catholic liturgy. The new English does seem closer to the original Latin. There will be resistance, of course - my father has told me of his own reluctance to embrace the Mass said in the vernacular as opposed to Latin (he was about my age when that switchover took place).

I have attended a Latin Mass. I was a high school student, studying Latin, and a practicing Catholic at the time. The parish apparently had a dispensation from the Vatican to celebrate one of their Sunday Masses in Latin each week. WHOA. It was a beautiful service. And it was nice to be able to get away with saying "pax vobiscum" rather than trying to figure out on the fly what the German translation for "peace be with you" might be. (I was in Vienna.)

IMO, I'd love to see certain prayers (e.g. the Lord's Prayer) said in Latin, just as the Reform Jewish services I attend have the major prayers said in Hebrew while others are in English. But whatever. I'm no longer a Catholic, never mind part of the Church hierarchy, so I don't exactly get a say.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

IMO, I'd love to see certain prayers (e.g. the Lord's Prayer) said in Latin, just as the Reform Jewish services I attend have the major prayers said in Hebrew while others are in English. But whatever. I'm no longer a Catholic, never mind part of the Church hierarchy, so I don't exactly get a say.

I like that because it brings the heritage to the Mass, just as Anglicans still use Latin titles for various parts of the services. Though one thing I really wish was for the Liturgical language to return to Greek. That makes the most sense to me personally. And oh aephi alum? IIRC, churches always have the option to celebrate the Mass in Latin. In fact celebrating in the vernacular is an option not a requirement. Please somebody correct me if wrong.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

We may be operating with different definitions of guilt. I think you are leaning more towards a definition for what I would label shame, which is a horse of a different colour. Guilt in and of itself is not a good thing, but as a motivating force - something which causes you to examine your actions - it is. Guilt implies a knowledge of right and wrong. Although I realize it is now quite the fashion to be a moral relativist, I'd argue that losing the perspective of right/wrong that leads to the kind of guilt I'm discussing has resulted in far more evil than the occasional misplaced guilt.

This is a very good distinction to make. I think that for many, guilt = guilt trip.

And I'm trying not feel itchy palms when you talk to Vito about ordering a BDW. I . . . don't . . . need . . . more . . . books.

Originally Posted by aephi alum

Interesting. This is the first I've learned of a new Roman Catholic liturgy. The new English does seem closer to the original Latin. There will be resistance, of course - my father has told me of his own reluctance to embrace the Mass said in the vernacular as opposed to Latin (he was about my age when that switchover took place).

I'm reminded of the story I heard JRR Tolkien's grandson tell of when he attended a Mass with his grandfather. It was soon after Vatican II, and he was mortified that his grandfather insisted on making all of the responses loudly and in Latin.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Though one thing I really wish was for the Liturgical language to return to Greek. That makes the most sense to me personally.

Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison.

(Or try a Greek Orthodox church.)

[SWTXBelle]

MC, if you can get a BDW for $15 you would be foolish not to - and yes, I realize I am an enabler. But the books weren't in the narthex - so fingers crossed someone didn't buy them out. I'll let y'all know as soon as I get the scoop!

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

And oh aephi alum? IIRC, churches always have the option to celebrate the Mass in Latin. In fact celebrating in the vernacular is an option not a requirement. Please somebody correct me if wrong.

I was taught that parishes were not only allowed but required to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, as an outcome of Vatican II. If the clergy at a parish wanted to celebrate a Latin Mass, they needed a dispensation from the Vatican. It could be a one-time dispensation (e.g. for Christmas or Easter) or a standing weekly dispensation as in the case of the parish in Vienna where I attended Mass. Perhaps this has changed? (I haven't been a practicing Catholic in over a decade.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

I was taught that parishes were not only allowed but required to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, as an outcome of Vatican II. If the clergy at a parish wanted to celebrate a Latin Mass, they needed a dispensation from the Vatican. It could be a one-time dispensation (e.g. for Christmas or Easter) or a standing weekly dispensation as in the case of the parish in Vienna where I attended Mass. Perhaps this has changed? (I haven't been a practicing Catholic in over a decade.)

Still true, although I believe Benedict has made it easier for parishes to get permission to have Latin Masses, particularly on a regular basis. I'm not sure if the petition still goes to the Vatican or if the bishops can now give permission. But your understanding's accurate.

[Gusteau]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Order of the Mass.

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/order-of-mass.pdf

Thank you, thank you!

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

We may be operating with different definitions of guilt. I think you are leaning more towards a definition for what I would label shame, which is a horse of a different colour. Guilt in and of itself is not a good thing, but as a motivating force - something which causes you to examine your actions - it is. Guilt implies a knowledge of right and wrong. Although I realize it is now quite the fashion to be a moral relativist, I'd argue that losing the perspective of right/wrong that leads to the kind of guilt I'm discussing has resulted in far more evil than the occasional misplaced guilt.

I think this is a good estimation of guilt moving towards something positive. I had a brilliant thought related to this at Mass this evening, but I cannot remember it for the life of me.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Still true, although I believe Benedict has made it easier for parishes to get permission to have Latin Masses, particularly on a regular basis. I'm not sure if the petition still goes to the Vatican or if the bishops can now give permission. But your understanding's accurate.

Actually according to Redemptionis Sacramentum (link),

[112.] Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.

In other words, unless the big wigs say there is supposed to be a Mass in the vernacular, any Mass can be celebrated in Latin. Many very conservative parishes incorporate a Latin Mass into their weekly schedule. Additionally neither the Second Vatican Council, nor the subsequent revisions to the Roman Missal abolished Latin as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite. This is why all vernacular texts of the Mass are translated from the Roman Missal (in Latin). I'm not sure if this is a change made after aephialum was in Vienna though...

ETA: Redemtionis Sacramentum is from 2004, so it may be a recent change, or this may have been in place already and not part of the revisions made.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

Thank you, thank you!



I think this is a good estimation of guilt moving towards something positive. I had a brilliant thought related to this at Mass this evening, but I cannot remember it for the life of me.



Actually according to Redemptionis Sacramentum (link),

In other words, unless the big wigs say there is supposed to be a Mass in the vernacular, any Mass can be celebrated in Latin. Many very conservative parishes incorporate a Latin Mass into their weekly schedule. Additionally neither the Second Vatican Council, nor the subsequent revisions to the Roman Missal abolished Latin as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite. This is why all vernacular texts of the Mass are translated from the Roman Missal (in Latin). I'm not sure if this is a change made after aephialum was in Vienna though...

ETA: Redemtionis Sacramentum is from 2004, so it may be a recent change, or this may have been in place already and not part of the revisions made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass
I think I was thinking of the Tridentine Mass, which is typically called the Latin Mass. Permission is now sought from the parish priests rather than the bishops and Benedict gave a LOT more leeway for that. It uses the 1962 missal. If churches wish to have Mass in Latin from the current Novus Ordo missal, no permission is needed.

And then there are the churches who think Vatican II was something crazy the kids did in the sixties and use a previous missal. They tend to be in schism or in a weird quasi-schismatic state IIRC.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

I'm not sure if this is a change made after aephialum was in Vienna though...

ETA: Redemtionis Sacramentum is from 2004, so it may be a recent change, or this may have been in place already and not part of the revisions made.

If the change occurred in 2004, then, yes, it was well after I had the opportunity to celebrate Mass in Latin as a teenager in Vienna, and also well after I converted to Judaism. Let's just say that I've celebrated my 29th birthday more than once.

I have to say that the Latin Mass was an unusual and inspiring religious experience for me, as well as an educational experience, as I was studying Latin in high school as a "dead language" and here it was being used as a living language in the 20th century. However, as I've said before, it was not the faith that was in my heart - that is Judaism.

There is an old joke: "Latin is a language, as dead as dead can be. First it killed the Romans... now it's killing me."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

We may be operating with different definitions of guilt. I think you are leaning more towards a definition for what I would label shame, which is a horse of a different colour. Guilt in and of itself is not a good thing, but as a motivating force - something which causes you to examine your actions - it is. Guilt implies a knowledge of right and wrong. Although I realize it is now quite the fashion to be a moral relativist, I'd argue that losing the perspective of right/wrong that leads to the kind of guilt I'm discussing has resulted in far more evil than the occasional misplaced guilt.

I see what you're talking about as more.. remorse perhaps? Guilt I see as something that can be imposed/influenced/_______* by others as well as coming from one's own conscience. Someone without guilt entirely would be a true sociopath. Shame, part of me says there's more of a public aspect to it, I also think that while one can feel guilty all on one's own, one requires external pressure -either from societal mores or another person/other people. That said, i don't know, and psychologists and sociologists disagree on the definitions too.

As for moral relativism, I think there ARE absolute values, like not killing other people unless your own life is threatened, not raping someone who cannot or does not consent to it, and so on. However I disagree with the absolute values of the RCC for example, or any number of other groups/cultures/religions, because those, to me, are not correct. I don't think many people are 'true' moral relativists. I think some people fall into the trap of moral relativism by wanting to be culturally sensitive and respectful but wouldn't hold up to those opinions under pressure.

Moral relativism isn't the same thing as having a value that people should do what they like as long as they don't harm anyone.

I wouldn't dare to comment on your relationship with your parents, DF; I am sorry you are not able to be more honest with them. It sounds like you are being too hard on yourself - and that may be misplaced guilt. Sometimes you can only do what you can only do. In that instance, you shouldn't feel guilty.

I've come to terms with it, but I still feel guilty at times. I intend to fix things when I can, I just can't right now. But that's kind of my point, I think, that while I know I shouldn't be made to feel guilty, I know that they will try, just as my mother has made a HUGE deal about reminding me that Fridays are meat free. She's crossed into annoying me rather than guilting me though so there's that.

As to "silly to assume that we know whether people feel guilty or not" - not always. I imagine everyone can think of an instance of someone saying "sorry" when they knew good and well the malefactor was sorry he/she was caught, not sorry for what they did. Those people feel no guilt. Bernie Madoff comes to mind as someone who feels no guilt - and I don't think that's a silly assessment on my part.

They feel no remorse, at least not at the time when you see them faux apologize. But I think guilt is a longer game and that they may feel either at a later time. It just comes across too much as judging to me. I have no idea what goes on in Madoff's head. If I'm being philosophical about it, I'd rather leave the possibility open that he may feel guilt or remorse or what have you than assume that he doesn't give a damn.

I like your "worries" analogy - but it actually works for me! I always apply the 5 year rule to my worries - will it matter in 5 years? If not, I do what I can and stop worrying. If it will, I put extra effort into taking care of the problem. I "smack the gators that are closest" - don't worry about the ones you can't yet see.

Harder when you don't know where you see yourself in five years though.