Loading ...
Of late, it has frequently been alleged in the comment boxes of this blog that various positions taken by members of this Society are of the kind that are liable to lead to scrupulosity, that 12-letter dirty word thrown with more than thrice the force as generally characterizes the garden variety. However, such a charge represents ignorance and worse, and the fact that it should arise at all is evidence for the disordered state of understanding of our age.
Man, when faced by circumstances thoroughly at odds with what he knows to be right, must at once both make accomodation for the fact that he cannot instantly right the torrent of wrongs he finds around him — though he should try strenuously to correct those he finds corrigible and at hand — and also simultaneously ensure, as far as he can, that he and his should be insulated from the deleterious effects of those odious circumstances. Such is the state of Catholics living in the world today, both in the society at large and even, alas, too often within the more restricted grounds of purely, if merely nominally, “Catholic” society. Those of us who are of traditionalist bent have taken our refuge in what we rightly percieve to be a safe redoubt, viz. the sureties of the Catholic Faith as preached and practiced through the great ages of Faith. Resting here, we begin to grow comfortable with modes of being and living that, if insisted upon without the localized microclimate of traditionalist society, might seem to be scrupulosity. But it is not so.
One place where this can quite readily be seen concerns the traditional Catholic practice of abstinence from meat on all the Fridays of the year. Virtually all traditional Catholics continue this laudable practice despite the removal of formal obligation to perform it by the hands of some of the more perniciously boneheaded in the Episcopate. At first, perhaps, there is a frisson of the contra mundum to ordering one’s fish fry come Friday. But with the steady society of the likeminded it become again what it ought to be: a burden and a blessing, a reminder of Lent and distinctive mark of Faith throughout the rest of the year. Yet on occasion one notes that there are others — indeed, many others — also out on a Friday afternoon who are, quite mysteriously, not restricting their choices to the meatless portion of the menu. I myself have been known to feel a bit of shock and to recoil with some measure of instinctive disapprobation when I notice a fellow-diner at a restaurant partaking of flesh-meat on a Friday. Not that, on a moment’s thought, that I scruplously think them a bad person for not eating meat, or myself holier-than-they because I am abstaining; rather, I am able, through grace, to forget that the world of non-compliance with tradition exists, from time to time. And it is precisely that happy forgetfulness to the world through mindfulness of good practices that is the aim of all such measures.
This isn’t always possible, of course. But a good way to tell if one is aiming for the right thing is to ask: will I be relieved, or indignant, to realize that everyone else near me is doing exactly the same penitential work / pious practice that I am doing? Here I’m thinking of the good but understandably timid young woman who is nervous to wear her veil in a parish church where no other women do; will she be thought too full of her own piety? Will she swell with her own spiritual pride? But think: would this good young girl be happy, or disappointed, to walk in one day to find a church filled with veiled women? The self-righteous woman would not be; she would have lost the opportunity to distinguish herself. But she who has the right intention will be filled with relief and happiness. That is one sign of prudential piety that is not scrupulosity.
This is not to say, of course, that scrupulosity is not any kind of danger. It is simply not so much of a danger, at least not a danger arising from stricter practices and dress-codes. It seems to me that the central erroneous thought to the scrupulous soul is to confuse what is essential with what is ancillary, and to think that an error in the least thing will as surely damn one as an error in a great thing. This simply calls for strict mental separation between what is required and what is laudatory but optional. However, in mentally separating these things, one should not be too quick to label this, that, and the other pious practice as “just” optional! The point I have been trying to make is that many practices that are technically ancillary to the simplest practice of the Faith can become so structurally interwoven with and supportive of the core of one’s Faith that it can also be an error to try to separate them too strenuously. A woman who has never worn a veil to Mass is not sinning each time she continues not to do so; but a woman raised to wearing a veil, for whom it is a central reminder of her proper deportment at Mass and role in the Church and the world, her submission to tradition and dignity as a handmaid of God, can scarcely discard it one week without saying more to herself and to God than the subordinate character of the practice, in purely objective terms, would suggest.
To summarize, pious practices are central to the human experience of the Catholic Faith. If practiced within the supportive community of faithful Catholics — be it ever so small — they can become part of the way that we live and breathe the Faith that we hold and assent to. In doing this they cease to be real dangers of scrupulosity but just part of the bricks and mortar of our lives — they are a casual part of what we do in our Faith. In considering what to write here, I was thinking about what the convsersations between great saints and their confessors must have been like when they were discussing the saints’ corporal mortification, which was often quite severe. I like to think of, say, St. Dominic saying, “Father, my Thursday penance is a bit weak, I fear.” Confessor: “My son, have you some idea of what you would like to do?” D: “I am not sure. My time in prayer is long, as measured by the clock, but it feels somewhat empty, and my mortifications feel too easy.” C: “Perhaps you could add some shards of glass to your bed?” D: “I had considered that; what do you think?” C: “Well, why don’t you give that a go this week, and we can discuss it when we speak again.”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Lowered in your eyes because I don’t meet a convention? Then let the lowering begin.
ok, try this, then:
dhakhoj kjndkhu jkhujhm djhuh
jaak
[rolls eyes]
putting oneself above “conventions” is something that sassy 12-year-olds do. It’s just stupid, like my jibberish above. And your defense of yourself on a clear error is precisely the sort of hubristic stance that led me to tease you in the first place, oh Scholastic the Puffed-up one from Green Gables.
Ambrosius,
That garble you just wrote doesn’t signify a thought. As long as the signs signify, what difference does it make what the spelling is? A rose by any other spelling is just as sweet.
One more thing: parce nobis, Domine, from parents who would teach their children nonstandard pronunciations just to suit their own aesthetic preferences!
That garble you just wrote doesn’t signify a thought.
How would you know? Without standards and convention, you can’t evaluate.
In fact, I maintain that that garble signified a brilliant insight which I refuse to share with you now. harrumph.
“Ambrosius and Tobias Petrus, your insistance on good grammar and syntax in this blog is admirable . . .”
RP, “Shepherd” it is.
Also, the word is “insistence.” ;)
I thought it was beautiful Klingon poetry.
Touchée!
Ambrosius,
“Puffed up”?? Come now. Don’t take everything which is written so seriously. I certainly don’t.
Btw, do you really prefer the regimented writing convention of today versus our forefathers? Do you really consider Webster to be a great blessing?
Our forefathers conveyed their thoughts nicely using musik, centre, plough, wimmen etc.
Scholastic, if you had bothered to ask JSP to clarify his position rather than launching into invective, I think that he would have agreed that the rotten laxity within the “mainstream and even *conservative* novus ordo sects” starts at the top. He never specified where the fault for this laxity originally lay. (Btw, you seem to have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions when responding to JSP.)
As for the laxity of the average person, you seem to claim that the real problem is that bishops and local clergy have not fostered the practice of alternative forms of penance on Fridays. In other words, the average layman simply doesn’t understand that he is obliged to perform some penance on Friday, or else to refrain from meat. To test this, just try informing the average Novus Ordo Catholic that the rule (i.e. do some form of penance, or eat fish, or fry!) is in place. Prove that this discipline is in effect regardless of what the local priest says. You could bring this up at a Knights of Columbus meeting, a gathering of C.C.D. teachers, a PTA meeting at a Catholic school when the subject of the lunch menu comes up, etc. Then keep in contact with these people and see how many actually do any form of penance on Friday, or cease eating meat on that day. By your own gallant efforts you would have compensated for the failures of the clergy and would have tested the individual parishioner’s laxity. I bet that the majority of these people, even if they did know that they were obliged, would simply ignore you. That would be the fault of *their* laxity, even if they still use the bone-headed actions of certain prelates as a dishonest cover.
Ambrosius writes : I myself have been known to feel a bit of shock and to recoil with some measure of instinctive disapprobation when I notice a fellow-diner at a restaurant partaking of flesh-meat on a Friday. Not that, on a moment’s thought, that I scruplously think them a bad person for not eating meat, or myself holier-than-they because I am abstaining; rather, I am able, through grace, to forget that the world of non-compliance with tradition exists”
To which booklover replies: “Scrupulosity and laxity are the disordered extremes of faulty consciences.”
To which Atticus replies: “Yes, scrupulosity and laxity are both disordered, and much to be avoided, but perhaps the former is the one to which Traditionalists are more prone. Hence its frequent mention on this blog.”
To which Joe six pack replies: “Of course the laxity within the mainstream and even *conservative* novus ordo sects extends into more things than just eating meat on Fridays.”
But yet Tobias Petrus is in doubt as to whom Joe six pack is directing his comment towards even though Joe six pack played off booklover’s and Atticus’ use of the word ‘laxity’ in their own comments where it is apparent that both booklover and Atticus are directing their comments towards the common man.
On second thought, perhaps Tobias Petrus is not in doubt, and thinks Joe six pack was referring to the “top”, in spite of virtually all evidence leading to the contrary.
What is not in doubt is that Joe six packs comment leads to the assumption that he was referring to the laity, as booklover agrees by his following comment.
I will no longer discuss things with people who are not seeking truth and understanding; rather are only seeking to play mind games and sharpen their wicked intellects.
Scholastic, I am not claiming that JSP exempts the common man from his indictment. I am saying that I bet that he agrees with your point concerning the greater culpability of those in charge. However, the fact that those who messed with the rules bear the greater blame does not excuse those under their charge — hence my proposal to check the laxity of modern laymen via the aforementioned experiment.
Scholastic, laxity consists in more than ignoring official rules. It also includes the rejection of constant habits of mortification. The net result in the change of the rules concerning Friday penance and abstinence was a decrease in penitential routines. (I seriously hope we don’t descend into the nonsense about guidelines that we did last time, concerning modesty.)
Catholics who were attentive at the time of the change (the one that permitted one to substitute other forms of penance for abstinence from meat on Friday) would have investigated the change and seen that they were not in fact “let off the hook” vis-a-vis Friday penance. They in turn would have reminded their children, friends, students, etc. An attentive, informed Catholic acting in good faith can discover the truth about the current rules for Friday penance even without a priest telling them.
IF you think that the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics neither 1) consciously perform an act of penance or almsgiving on Friday nor 2) abstain from meat, then you yourself think that they are lax — they simply don’t follow the rules. As for the failure of the prelates to remind them, see my argument above about the availability of the information. You and I both know about the current rule, and we are not special people — if we thought so, then that would be pride. Instead, I conclude that the indifference, laxity, call it what you will of the average layman contributes to the common ignorance about the rule. Then again, sin always fosters ignorance, in the interest of excusing itself, if for no other reason.
In fact, Scholastic, I have such a low estimation of the common man’s actual state precisely because I have such a high estimation of his potential. Our Lord commanded us to be more righteous than the Pharisees (who were righteous only in appearance), unless we want to go to Hell. And, as numerous saints tell us, the majority of those who reach the age of reason — i.e. “the common man” — goes to Hell. I don’t fault people for not knowing what they can’t know, but as you and I prove (unless we claim to be elite and special!), the average person can in fact discover the rules.
Remember, God knows how to provide the truth to those who seek it, no matter how many unscrupulous (zing!) prelates try to get in the way.
Oh, and lest someone object, I also hold myself in the same low esteem. The standard by which I judge is the standard by which I shall be judged, but remember: that cuts both ways. If I excuse (by which I do *not* mean forgive, but to regard as innocuous) vices in others that I would not excuse in myself, then I am failing to love my neighbor as myself. That’s a snide sort of “affirmative action” whereby one does not expect better behavior from others because one does not deem them capable of such.
Tobias Petras writes : “I am not claiming that JSP exempts the common man from his indictment”
Then we agree that Joe six pack’s comment was an example of scrupulosity which is not in need of clarifying since the only point I was making was that Joe six pack was being scrupulous which given the subject matter of the thread, had a certain charm to it.
As to the rest of your comments, they are all very nice.
Tobias Petras writes : “I am not claiming that JSP exempts the common man from his indictment”
Then we agree that Joe six pack’s comment was an example of scrupulosity which is not in need of clarifying since the only point I was making was that Joe six pack was being scrupulous which given the subject matter of the thread, had a certain charm to it.”
[end Scholastic's words]
Please: again, my blog name is Tobias P-E-T-R-U-S. Petrus is Latin for Peter, as in St. Peter, who doesn’t like you butchering his name. He is the one you’ll meet at the Pearly Gates, so for PETE’S SAKE (literally!), get his/my name right!
Secondly, no, we are not agreed. No, based on what he said, I do not think that JSP was being scrupulous. I seriously wonder if you actually understand the posts I wrote, since you don’t seem to understand how they apply above. I would not fault the “average” Catholic if he actually, consciously performed some act of penance every Friday under pain of abstaining from meat otherwise. However, the “average” Catholic doesn’t do so, and for the reasons I stated may be cited for laxity unless there is some specific, justified reason (by which I mean one we should never just grant as a given) why he doesn’t act as required. As the average Catholic (I claim) does not do a specific Friday penance, by *THE CURRENT RULES* he should not eat meat. Therefore he is lax by the current rules — the average, stereotypical American Catholic is lax concerning Friday penitential customs. So JSP is not being scrupulous when he claims exactly this. Also, as we have discussed before, the decision by the top brass to allow for this laxity-prone substitution in the first place was an act of laxity in itself.
As JSP, wisely, has found it more prudent not to defend himself against your nonsensical allegations, in the future I shall follow his lead and simply let the issue drop. It is not worth it — go on with the mudslinging and slandering if you must, and rationalize it with whatever pedantic quibbling and manipulative sophism you choose. However, the next time you claim with a Socratic flourish that you are merely testing hypotheses, remember that on this particular hypothesis you flunked.
Ambrosius, thanks to your earlier advice to JSP, I’m now moving onto Latin (except I’ll be paid for mine ;).
Tobias Petrus,
Your capacity to understand the hidden nuances of Joe six pack are impressive.
It would be interesting to read if Joe six pack agrees with them.
I thought his refusal to defend himself was telling, and now I now that what it tells is wisdom. So be it.
________________________
The materially scrupulous Scholastic stands corrected:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp
Thank you, Scholastic, for the link which clearly states, as I did, that the previous discipline (law) is no longer binding. But rejoice, ye tradies, this means that every time we abstain on Fridays we make an act of generosity to God!
Booklover writes: “ rejoice, ye tradies, this means that every time we abstain on Fridays we make an act of generosity to God!”
This traditionalist Catholic, Michael Brendan Dougherty, gives a good example of abstaining on Fridays.
http://www.surfeited.net/blog/Friday-23-makers-mark-desales.html
So the deal is then that US Catholics are not obligated to do anything on Fridays outside Lent(?). However, they are encouraged to abstain?
I guess I was misinformed for years thinking it was simply not required that one abstains on Fridays outside Lent so long as another form of penance is performed.
Johnboy writes: “I guess I was misinformed for years thinking it was simply not required that one abstains on Fridays outside Lent so long as another form of penance is performed.”
I was certainly surprised.
It appears to be a rather common occurrence among traditionalists. Booklover excepted. Which is perhaps another argument for taking a look at Booklover’s previous suggested reading.
After Tobias Petrus’ latest insight into what Joe six pack was really saying, I looked to see if he was correct, and was surprised to find out that I was being scrupulous, albeit materially. Which given the nature of this thread is rich in irony. In fact the entire thread is rich to the point of breathtaking with irony.
My dear sir, right now, we are too drunk to care a wit what you have to say. But we shall take it under consideration . . . .
My dear sir - John Boy sir - you must abstain from the flesh meat or be forever damned. This much is obvious to even the most savage and unrefined Christian mind.