Catholic guilt is a myth

I think she's wrong I still suffer from Catholic guilt all the time. She also says that Catholics can wipe the slate clean with confession something that always seemed quite bizarre. Well oh no you can't if you have been divorced like me the sacraments are no longer available to you. Happily not divorced mass murderers can be sure of a place in heaven, ten Hail Marys and the slates clean. Although having said that I don't know how the thrice divorced Frank Sinatra managed to get the Arch Bishop of Los Angeles to preside over his funeral, must have crossed a few palms!

It's real enough to me. I once argued with a priest that it was ridiculous to exclude me from communion when I remarried but give it to me when I was living in sin. He told me that the Church assumes that if you're living with someone then it's like a brother/sister relationship whereas if you remarry it's obviously not. He wouldn't be drawn on where the Church thought any children of the relationship came about.

I only ever went to confession once. I had to when I converted and it was so awful I swore I'd never go again but take my chances at death lol. I had a major panic attack. Couldn't remember what I was supposed to be confessing and ended up getting absolution for whatever I had meant to say. The priest said that God knew even if I couldn't remember lol. Went back into the main body of the Church, tripped over a flagstone, knocked over a pew, got glared at by a number of old ladies and was rushed out by my friend who swore she would never take me anywhere again lol. I didn't get a chance to say my penance so no idea if I was absolved or not lol.

Vampirequeen, agree with you how ridiculous to deem a living together as brother/sister. I don't think Cristina Odone who wrote the article has married the father of her child, maybe so she won't have to divorce, and in doing so be barred from receiving the sacraments.

What are the sacraments (communion, I suppose it means, and the bishop's blessing) supposed to do to a person? I mean, what's the advantage? Denying them to a divorcee just seems like childish nya-na-na-na-na.

The sacraments are supposed to bring us nearer to God and receive his gifts. They are baptism, confession, eucharist, confirmation, marriage, extreme unction and, for some, ordination. I think that's all of them lol. A divorcee can still recieve them because the Church ignores your divorce and treats you as if you're still married. But if you remarry it can't ignore the divorce and you've broken the rule that marriage is for life. An assumption is made that the divorce and remarriage are for carnal reasons. There is no humanity in the system. No looking at what led to the divorce. The daft thing is though that if you can prove that your husband/wife didn't fulfill their married duties e.g. the husband didn't provide for his family physically and/or emotionally then you can apply to have your marriage annulled. Then the church treats you as if you've never been married although any children are deemed to be legitimate.....it's all very confusing. But an annullment doesn't come cheap or quickly.

In other words it's a farce. A left over from when the Church controlled every aspect of a person's life.

Don't think it's fair to call it a farce, vq. If you don't believe in it, of course it must seem like one. But if you do...?

My father's aunt and their two children was deserted by her husband. She heard nothing from him for years and eventually remarried. The catholic church would not bless her second marriage even though her first husband had been as good as dead to her for years. This hurt her considerably for most of her life. I only know about this because in her extreme old age, the death of her first husband was confirmed and her second marriage – then of long-standing, and the second husband had brought up the children as his own (there were no more) – was finally blessed. It's all she had wanted, for the comfort it would give her.

This story is one of the things that put me off religion in my youth. Such unbending and mean rules!! For what?

Power.

were deserted

Such rules and such treatment of simple, innocent people seem farcical to me too, and cruel.

Maybe this is why catholics don't feel guilty about breaking the rules – they recognise the daftness of the rules even if their church doesn't.

......aaah but you can receive the sacraments if you have an annulment like a friend of mine who managed to get one of these to please her Irish Catholic parents, on the spurious grounds that her husband hadn't been baptised thus rendering him a sort of a non person. I did tell her not to bother, as at the time she was in her late twenties and my feelings were that if she married again there would be a chance that she would marry a divorcee and a couple of years down the line, she did exactly that so she was back to square one, no sacraments, even though her second husband wasn't a Catholic and his first marriage wasn't in a Catholic church it nevertheless validated him as a real person unlike the unfortunate non baptised first husband. She did tell me that as my first marriage to a Catholic was in a registry office it might not be recognised by the church, but when I married my second husband not a Catholic, who had been married for the first time in a Protestant church that would be recognised. Frankly, I'm confused but at least I do know that I am a sinner! The whole annulment thing is rubbish it's divorce by another name and I don't see how the church can dissolve a marriage without a very good reason and that wasn't the case for my friend it was merely a case of growing apart.

I meant the idea that if you have your marriage annulled by the church then it's as if it never existed when it's obvious it did.

I didn't mean the sacraments were a farce. They bring a lot of comfort to believers.

These silly illogical bits of chicanery to wriggle out of something the catholic church does not like just bring them into complete ridicule and lay them open to accusations of dishonesty - why do they do this? - they cannot all be daft! It is quite beyond me. One is left to conclude that they must know these things are daft but do them anyway. I am at a loss to explain it all. They just bring religion into total disrespect. Why would they want to do that?

Where there's a will there's a way.

Many years ago I heard a story from a naval friend of my parents of how his ship had been stationed at Malta, and one of the young officers was romancing the daughter of a leading Maltese citizen, despite having a fiancee back home. The inevitable happened and she had to confess to Daddy that she was up the duff. The captain and Daddy had a long meeting about was to happen, and all was arranged to the satisfaction of everyone.

The pair were married by the bishop of Malta at a high-profile ceremony with all the upper-crust present, plus the captain and officers from the ship. After the usual speeches and toasts, the captain stood up and said what a great wedding it had been, but unfortunately he had just received orders to sail, so he had to remove the groom from his charming bride. All the officers returned to the ship and sailed over the horizon.

In due course the baby was born and baptised and registered - perfectly legitimate - and then an application made for the marriage to be annulled. The groom had been snatched away from the reception, all the guests could vouch that they had not had a chance to consummate the marriage, so it was null and void.

Young officer then married his British fiance, and his Maltese non-wife was free to marry whoever she wanted as a father to her perfectly legitimate son.

Bananas I can't understand that as we have ladies who been divorced as Eucharistic ministers !!!?

I realise that strict Catholics do not recognise divorce but seems like some priests are mores tolerant than others my brother wanted his boys baptised as Catholics but not allowed as he married in c of e church but our priest said he would have baptised our daughter s child even tho they had civil wedding he is a kind tolerant man but this scandal especially with cardinal recently makes me cringe .

,

Anyone can baptise a catholic. It doesn't have to be a priest. We were taught in infant classes at school how to baptise a baby. This was so that in an emergency, if it died, it would go to heaven and not into limbo.

Why would a priest of a proselytising religion, which sends missionaries out baptise the heathen, refuse to baptise a child?

No need to answer that. I think it's all completely bonkers anyway, all this sacrament stuff. I accept that other people feel differently.

I performed one,once!

Frankly, the whole thing is BAnanas!

My Jewish ex boss and I once had a hilarious argument about which was the strongest - catholic or Jewish guilt!. As we were both atheists from Catholic and Jewish backgrounds the debate was sort of academic.

Fun though.

He won on points.

We were taught in infant classes at school how to baptise a baby. This was so that in an emergency, if it died, it would go to heaven and not into limbo.

This is just the sort of thing that turns me away from 'religion'. Why would an innocent baby be denied a place in heaven just because it had not been baptised? It's not even as if the baby had any choice in the matter.

First half of last post taken from Bags post.

When my DS2 was in SCBU for a while after he was born, a well-meaning friend came round and asked if he had been christened. No, he hadn't and he never has been.

I think the catholic theologians would respond to that question, ginny, that the baby, just by being human, is tainted with the stain of original sin, or some sort of crap like that (which primitive idea, don't forget, we are supposed to 'respect').

All of this nit-picking about man-made rules and regulations completely overlooks the fact that there is always room for the activity of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is presented as often ignoring or flouting rules and contradicting the party line. In other words, a lot of this - baptising poorly babies, annulment of marriages (loved that story Elegran) - is all to be on the safe side. Perhaps that's why Roman (and Anglo) Catholics are more relaxed about interpreting the rules?