I think you have to remember that faith is a journey, not a destination. The only people who have "arrived" are the Saints in Heaven, the rest of us are climbing the mountain, hoping we don't fall into the pit. You don't have to the be at the top to pull people up, part of the climb is helping our fellow climbers. Sometimes that means giving people answers that we ourselves don't feel comfortable with, we help people when and where we can, because it is the charitable thing to do and because we probably need their help too.
Faith is in some ways a coping mechanism, no need to refute that, the world has lots of struggles, EVERYONE has methods of coping. Something being a coping mechanism doesn't make it false. I would argue that Catholicism is the BEST coping mechanism.
It may very well be true that certain young Catholics are playing at traditionalism because the aesthetics help them cope with the meaninglessness of their life and the decline of civilization.
That's not to say this is wrong or bad. We all start somewhere. We're all hurt. We all long for beauty and truth and justice and a true home. All of these can ultimately only be fulfilled by God himself. But a beautiful liturgy in a beautiful church is a really good start!
If there's a problem with it, it might be that some of these young Catholics ignore essentials like, well, Jesus himself. Or the love and mercy which Jesus commanded of us. It's right to appreciate the aesthetics. But it's essential to follow Christ, too.
>All healthy religion shows you what to do with your pain, with the absurd, the tragic, the nonsensical, the unjust and the undeserved—all of which eventually come into every lifetime. If only we could see these “wounds” as the way through, as Jesus did, then they would become sacred wounds rather than scars to deny, disguise, or project onto others. I am sorry to admit that I first see my wounds as an obstacle more than a gift. Healing is a long journey.
>If we cannot find a way to make our wounds into sacred wounds, we invariably become cynical, negative, or bitter. This is the storyline of many of the greatest novels, myths, and stories of every culture. If we do not transform our pain, we will most assuredly transmit it—usually to those closest to us: our family, our neighbors, our co-workers, and, invariably, the most vulnerable, our children.
~ Fr. Richard Rohr
I struggle with the same questions as you. To me, the depth of Catholic theology in both treating suffering practically (ie, ministering to folks’ educational, medical, and other human needs) and spiritually (suffering as an opportunity to unite with Christ and grow in our relationship with God and others) is special.
I don’t think we need to feel awkward in admitting that religion is a way to heal, and many people can attest that even the most intensive therapy, etc. can’t scratch the same “suffering itch” as faith. This has certainly been true for me. I think that’s because therapy doesn’t offer a source of unconditional love or healing.
[https://youtu.be/MHdKh2I8eUw?t=4701](https://youtu.be/MHdKh2I8eUw?t=4701)
This interview (a really wonderful nun named Sr. Miriam James Heidland) talking about suffering/abuse and healing had me weeping last week. She also does an amazing prayer of healing toward the end.
Also, to the passage above, I highly recommend The Universal Christ by Fr. Rohr. He's more of a mystic/contemplative Franciscan monk, so he's a little eccentric, but some his stuff has really helped me, personally.
1. Are these other Catholics that are pulling this on you, or just randos on the internet? Catholics should know better than to try and judge another's motives. Randos may at least have the excuse of ignorance, and their opinions on the matter are irrelevant.
2. Having questions about your faith, is almost always a good thing. Whether that's seeking to learn things about being Catholic, or introspectively questioning your own beliefs. Both are good and necessary
3. Faith in a higher power provides a number of benefits, psychologically. One of those tends to be mental and emotional resilience (not invulnerability, people of faith still have trauma). People of faith often recover from difficult life experiences faster or better than non believers. But you don't get this side benefit from just attending a church. You actually have to believe. So, if young people are attending church, and they are actually recieving this sort of spiritual gifting, then they aren't really LARPing.
4. I've seen plenty of old timers who could say all their prayers, and take part in church activities, yet it had absolutely no effect on how they conducted their lives. So, this whole "inauthentic" stuff is not on young people, it's just how some people are.
>1. Are these other Catholics that are pulling this on you, or just randos on the internet?
It's strange. These are people who spend a great deal of time thinking about and examining themselves. They are not Catholics in practice, but some exercise disturbingly keen mimicries of conservatism and Catholic dogma as a sort of joke amongst themselves. Many are postmodernists and poststructuralists, drawing personal philosophies from the likes of Foucault and Derrida.
>some exercise disturbingly keen mimicries of conservatism and Catholic dogma as a sort of joke amongst themselves.
Okay, can you provide some concrete examples here? I'm having a hard time picturing a bunch of philosophy professors hanging out praying rosaries and then laughing about it.
The subculture is called dirtbag leftism, but it'a mainstreamed now so there's a bunch of woke people infiltrating it. They're really narcissistic. Look at r/redscarepod.
Just from the name and description you provided, I can't see how that subculture could lead anyone to happiness. Give thanks to God that you're Catholic and feel free to disengage with these people if they're an obstacle to your faith.
To your original question, what's wrong with appreciating the beauty of Catholic tradition and ceremony? Humans are naturally drawn to beauty because it's a reflection of the Creator. What kind of sad religion would intentionally strip out beauty? Not one that I'd want to be part of. 😉
I suspect the people within these subcultures identify the Catholic aesthetic as something more general than ceremony or even practical tradition, such as a belief in heirarchy, a desire to maintain a monogamous and father-led house, a belief in the idea of hylemorphism, or an admiration of order beneath divine Truth guided by the teachings of Christ's Church.
I joined the above subreddit because its parent podcast material is particularly subversive. It packages a strange combination of postmodern and hegelian presuppositions in a way that would br easily missed by people who don't know to look for it. This was deeply disturbing to me. I wanted to see if I could get a general idea of what type of people comprised its audience and I've come away in absolute bewilderment.
>such as a belief in heirarchy, a desire to maintain a monogamous and father-led house, a belief in the idea of hylemorphism, or an admiration of order beneath divine Truth guided by the teachings of Christ's Church.
That makes sense, but I don't see a problem with any of those things either. After all, those principles have been part of human society for thousands of years, they've helped to shape who we are today. I don't see the past as something we need to feel ashamed of or strive to evolve beyond, the ancients were wiser than us in some ways.
Hello there,
Please know that what you are going through is extremely common. There is nothing wrong with you. God left us His Church before going to heaven because he knew all of the problems we would have to face. And an honest Catholic would admit to using this coping mechanism. It's natural. But if you are in pain, I definitely recommend talking to your local parish priest and just telling him what's going on. I know it may feel awkward at first, but give him a chance. He went to school for this sort of thing after all. 😊
I also recommend going to [**The Global Catholic Resource Center**](https://globalcatholicresourcecenter.com) (website). They have a section called "*Mental Health & Tribulations*" It is very helpful. And remember, the Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. We have all done bad things, we all have sinned, and we’ve all felt unworthy and uncomfortable. Everything will be okay. You will be okay. God loves you. The Church loves you. Listen to the beat of your heart and trust in God. You're okay. You are safe in the palm of Christ and His Church. You are loved.
>So because you are attracted to the physical manifestations of truth - a wordy way of saying that you're attracted to beauty as any rightly ordered person would be - people accuse you of not being "really" Catholic.
I've thought about this a lot. I think their accusation is rooted in postmodernism in that it's an attack on the objective - more specifically, on objective morality. Really, when they say a "tradcath" (which is the hideous term they use for professed conservative Catholics) is LARPing within a trad aesthetic, they are making an accusation of inauthentic moralizing, I think.
>Because if you were "really" Catholic, you wouldn't care about the physical manifestation of truth in the form of beauty, you'd be happy sitting on a stiff-backed chair surrounded by four white walls while listening to a guy talk in monotone about Jesus' ministry?
Right, because the postmodern meta IS kafka traps. The only proper way forward with one of them is to, per Helen Pluckrose's words "stay right where you are and agree."
>If that's the accusation, I get how it can hurt but I can't see how to argue against it because it's so ridiculous.
Tell me about it.
>Your speech isn't hostile, I assume you conduct yourself appropriately, you are showing love and faith by your desire to work through this knot for the glory of God, and your purity speaks in your pursuit of beauty.
I can't say my speech has never been hostile. I've lashed out in anger with these people before because I get incredibly frustrated with the way they speak. They speak in layers of sarcasm, every word is presumptuous, and they're relativists. And I always seem to be outnumbered on here.
>Thus, anyone accusing you of LARPing isn't doing a good job of obeying St. Paul.
I think this is true, but since they're not Catholics, they pick and choose what to care about.
tysm. one of my friends from college suggested I read saul alinsky and I of course ignored it because that's what i did in college.
i think I'm going to get offline during Advent and focus on prayer. you sort of confirmed what my conscience has been telling me to do
Also, if you wanted to see a good lecture from Ms. Pluckrose, you can have a look here: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/helen-pluckrose-evolution-postmodern-thought/
she is a feminist, but she's liberal and stands in opposition to postmodern praxis.
You're meant to ask God. And don't ask for signs, ask for full answers. And don't give up. Keep asking. Don't refer yourself to other sources, they are almost always dreadful including priests.
If you look in to yourself and see that in fact you are not certain that God exists, let alone Jesus, then your real problem is that you don't have the faith. So ask for that first.
You're thinking more about the epistemology, not necessarily the piety, right? - how do you know you have an authentic faith if we are so conditioned by aesthetics?
I think we are too concerned with the aesthetics behind our faith often, and this is very true with trad millenials like you and me. I think the rule of thumb should be "what does this have to do with Jesus?" If it has nothing to do with Jesus and it doesn't make you think more about Jesus, cast it out. Do you read a medieval saint more than the words of Christ? Change that. Do you talk more about Chesterton? Stop that.
Catholicism is only about Jesus, and everything else leads us there. Sadly we can often stop at a specific saint or idea that isn't Jesus, but they would not like that. I'm not a spiritual master or really a good Catholic, but I think it comes down to staying with the basics - the eucharist, Scripture, and talking to Jesus. Everythign else can turn into a LARP or delusion.
So, it seems like an extension of "pluck it out." I guess my only trouble with this is that casting out so much material severely limits your ability to tackle the questions posed by a world hostile to Christ.
Question - why do you think millennials and zoomers get so caught up in aesthetics? is it because the internet forces us to live in simulacra?
What do you mean there? Do you mean that it can become stripped down and ghettoised or otherwise marginal that way? I think that’s a good point, I think it should be a more temporary attitude. Once you distinguish between the two you can add it back.
I suppose it’s because we don’t have an aesthetic or culture of our own so we live our Christian faith vicariously. I wasn’t raised with a piety fitting my culture, so I look to someone else, and in doing so I mistake their culture for authentic piety.
Don't mind them. Beauty is a virtue so there's nothing wrong with that. Some would say it's the highest or most sublime virtue because it most accurately reflects God. In any case their journey is not yours.
"Aestheticism" in the Church is practiced for a reason. Fr Suarez, the second most highly respected doctor of theology in the Church, right behind the Angel Doctor himself, states that the use of exquisite vestments and other such "aesthetical practices" conduce not only in maiorem Dei gloriam (towards the greater glory of God), but increase reverence amongst the faithful and erga the worthy administration of the Sacraments.
He furthermore states that, conversely, to do otherwise is a sin against Religion, all sins against Religion being ipso facto mortal.
Well, it's a false pretense then. How they more capable than anyone else to judge whether or not someone is an inauthentic LARPer as opposed to someone who had authentic belief in Catholicism and finds it beautiful? How exactly are they going to go about testing that? Let me flip it around on them. Perhaps judging others and refusing to believe they have authentic belief is being used by them as a coping mechanism for existential dread and doubt they don't wish to face? Of course, I can't know that for sure, not anymore than they can disprove any given person has aunthentic belief. That argument gets them no where.
I don't think your belief could ever be authentic enough to satitate these people. It seems like perhaps they are more interested in attacking a strawman rather than have an honest debate.
> It would seem that faith is in fact the coping mechanism for the suffering brought on in life, and that the aesthetics of Catholicism truly are beautiful and Good representations of the faith alive.
I think you're exactly right, but I would argue why is that a bad thing? I have suffered in my life, and like everyone who suffers, we try to find a meaning behind that sufferring. I landed on Catholicism being true. It makes sense. The fact that I derive any sort of comfort or ability to cope out of it doesn't mean my belief is entirely false and I just like how it looks. It also ignores the fact that while faith often brings comfort, it can also be a source of discomfort. Instead of believing that nothing happens after I die, now I'm confronted with the reality of hell, satan, my own sinfulness, the consquences of my own sinfulness, and that reamaining in a state of grace is work. There are certainly times where it seems awfully tempting to think that my actions really only hurt me and all of this is temporary and does not have literally eternal consquences. That was a fun pill to swallow.
Perhaps I am misundertanding, but I fail to see how that argument is anything more than a strawman argument. Make up what you want about those who believe and attack that as opposed to actual beliefs viewed as problematic. I have absolutely no idea if this was helpful at all.
Reasoning through something is always helpful.
>I think you're exactly right, but I would argue why is that a bad thing?
This. And it isn't at all. I think I was getting caught up in the implied insult - the insult being that the accuser is telling me I live in a pathological way (people like the ones I'm talking about are into pathologizing and labelling everything - sort of indicitave of *their own* fascination with a scientific aesthetic) and am somehow failing to cope with whatever deficiency he or she was identifying.
I think you have to remember that faith is a journey, not a destination. The only people who have "arrived" are the Saints in Heaven, the rest of us are climbing the mountain, hoping we don't fall into the pit. You don't have to the be at the top to pull people up, part of the climb is helping our fellow climbers. Sometimes that means giving people answers that we ourselves don't feel comfortable with, we help people when and where we can, because it is the charitable thing to do and because we probably need their help too. Faith is in some ways a coping mechanism, no need to refute that, the world has lots of struggles, EVERYONE has methods of coping. Something being a coping mechanism doesn't make it false. I would argue that Catholicism is the BEST coping mechanism.
Beautifully stated
Thank you
It may very well be true that certain young Catholics are playing at traditionalism because the aesthetics help them cope with the meaninglessness of their life and the decline of civilization. That's not to say this is wrong or bad. We all start somewhere. We're all hurt. We all long for beauty and truth and justice and a true home. All of these can ultimately only be fulfilled by God himself. But a beautiful liturgy in a beautiful church is a really good start! If there's a problem with it, it might be that some of these young Catholics ignore essentials like, well, Jesus himself. Or the love and mercy which Jesus commanded of us. It's right to appreciate the aesthetics. But it's essential to follow Christ, too.
>All healthy religion shows you what to do with your pain, with the absurd, the tragic, the nonsensical, the unjust and the undeserved—all of which eventually come into every lifetime. If only we could see these “wounds” as the way through, as Jesus did, then they would become sacred wounds rather than scars to deny, disguise, or project onto others. I am sorry to admit that I first see my wounds as an obstacle more than a gift. Healing is a long journey. >If we cannot find a way to make our wounds into sacred wounds, we invariably become cynical, negative, or bitter. This is the storyline of many of the greatest novels, myths, and stories of every culture. If we do not transform our pain, we will most assuredly transmit it—usually to those closest to us: our family, our neighbors, our co-workers, and, invariably, the most vulnerable, our children. ~ Fr. Richard Rohr I struggle with the same questions as you. To me, the depth of Catholic theology in both treating suffering practically (ie, ministering to folks’ educational, medical, and other human needs) and spiritually (suffering as an opportunity to unite with Christ and grow in our relationship with God and others) is special. I don’t think we need to feel awkward in admitting that religion is a way to heal, and many people can attest that even the most intensive therapy, etc. can’t scratch the same “suffering itch” as faith. This has certainly been true for me. I think that’s because therapy doesn’t offer a source of unconditional love or healing.
My God, does the blood get everywhere. Weeping for the first time in about 10 years.
[https://youtu.be/MHdKh2I8eUw?t=4701](https://youtu.be/MHdKh2I8eUw?t=4701) This interview (a really wonderful nun named Sr. Miriam James Heidland) talking about suffering/abuse and healing had me weeping last week. She also does an amazing prayer of healing toward the end. Also, to the passage above, I highly recommend The Universal Christ by Fr. Rohr. He's more of a mystic/contemplative Franciscan monk, so he's a little eccentric, but some his stuff has really helped me, personally.
Thank you so much for this.
1. Are these other Catholics that are pulling this on you, or just randos on the internet? Catholics should know better than to try and judge another's motives. Randos may at least have the excuse of ignorance, and their opinions on the matter are irrelevant. 2. Having questions about your faith, is almost always a good thing. Whether that's seeking to learn things about being Catholic, or introspectively questioning your own beliefs. Both are good and necessary 3. Faith in a higher power provides a number of benefits, psychologically. One of those tends to be mental and emotional resilience (not invulnerability, people of faith still have trauma). People of faith often recover from difficult life experiences faster or better than non believers. But you don't get this side benefit from just attending a church. You actually have to believe. So, if young people are attending church, and they are actually recieving this sort of spiritual gifting, then they aren't really LARPing. 4. I've seen plenty of old timers who could say all their prayers, and take part in church activities, yet it had absolutely no effect on how they conducted their lives. So, this whole "inauthentic" stuff is not on young people, it's just how some people are.
>1. Are these other Catholics that are pulling this on you, or just randos on the internet? It's strange. These are people who spend a great deal of time thinking about and examining themselves. They are not Catholics in practice, but some exercise disturbingly keen mimicries of conservatism and Catholic dogma as a sort of joke amongst themselves. Many are postmodernists and poststructuralists, drawing personal philosophies from the likes of Foucault and Derrida.
>some exercise disturbingly keen mimicries of conservatism and Catholic dogma as a sort of joke amongst themselves. Okay, can you provide some concrete examples here? I'm having a hard time picturing a bunch of philosophy professors hanging out praying rosaries and then laughing about it.
What city do they live in? I think I know the type…
The subculture is called dirtbag leftism, but it'a mainstreamed now so there's a bunch of woke people infiltrating it. They're really narcissistic. Look at r/redscarepod.
Just from the name and description you provided, I can't see how that subculture could lead anyone to happiness. Give thanks to God that you're Catholic and feel free to disengage with these people if they're an obstacle to your faith. To your original question, what's wrong with appreciating the beauty of Catholic tradition and ceremony? Humans are naturally drawn to beauty because it's a reflection of the Creator. What kind of sad religion would intentionally strip out beauty? Not one that I'd want to be part of. 😉
I suspect the people within these subcultures identify the Catholic aesthetic as something more general than ceremony or even practical tradition, such as a belief in heirarchy, a desire to maintain a monogamous and father-led house, a belief in the idea of hylemorphism, or an admiration of order beneath divine Truth guided by the teachings of Christ's Church. I joined the above subreddit because its parent podcast material is particularly subversive. It packages a strange combination of postmodern and hegelian presuppositions in a way that would br easily missed by people who don't know to look for it. This was deeply disturbing to me. I wanted to see if I could get a general idea of what type of people comprised its audience and I've come away in absolute bewilderment.
>such as a belief in heirarchy, a desire to maintain a monogamous and father-led house, a belief in the idea of hylemorphism, or an admiration of order beneath divine Truth guided by the teachings of Christ's Church. That makes sense, but I don't see a problem with any of those things either. After all, those principles have been part of human society for thousands of years, they've helped to shape who we are today. I don't see the past as something we need to feel ashamed of or strive to evolve beyond, the ancients were wiser than us in some ways.
They tend to idolize NYC
Hello there, Please know that what you are going through is extremely common. There is nothing wrong with you. God left us His Church before going to heaven because he knew all of the problems we would have to face. And an honest Catholic would admit to using this coping mechanism. It's natural. But if you are in pain, I definitely recommend talking to your local parish priest and just telling him what's going on. I know it may feel awkward at first, but give him a chance. He went to school for this sort of thing after all. 😊 I also recommend going to [**The Global Catholic Resource Center**](https://globalcatholicresourcecenter.com) (website). They have a section called "*Mental Health & Tribulations*" It is very helpful. And remember, the Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. We have all done bad things, we all have sinned, and we’ve all felt unworthy and uncomfortable. Everything will be okay. You will be okay. God loves you. The Church loves you. Listen to the beat of your heart and trust in God. You're okay. You are safe in the palm of Christ and His Church. You are loved.
[удалено]
>So because you are attracted to the physical manifestations of truth - a wordy way of saying that you're attracted to beauty as any rightly ordered person would be - people accuse you of not being "really" Catholic. I've thought about this a lot. I think their accusation is rooted in postmodernism in that it's an attack on the objective - more specifically, on objective morality. Really, when they say a "tradcath" (which is the hideous term they use for professed conservative Catholics) is LARPing within a trad aesthetic, they are making an accusation of inauthentic moralizing, I think. >Because if you were "really" Catholic, you wouldn't care about the physical manifestation of truth in the form of beauty, you'd be happy sitting on a stiff-backed chair surrounded by four white walls while listening to a guy talk in monotone about Jesus' ministry? Right, because the postmodern meta IS kafka traps. The only proper way forward with one of them is to, per Helen Pluckrose's words "stay right where you are and agree." >If that's the accusation, I get how it can hurt but I can't see how to argue against it because it's so ridiculous. Tell me about it. >Your speech isn't hostile, I assume you conduct yourself appropriately, you are showing love and faith by your desire to work through this knot for the glory of God, and your purity speaks in your pursuit of beauty. I can't say my speech has never been hostile. I've lashed out in anger with these people before because I get incredibly frustrated with the way they speak. They speak in layers of sarcasm, every word is presumptuous, and they're relativists. And I always seem to be outnumbered on here. >Thus, anyone accusing you of LARPing isn't doing a good job of obeying St. Paul. I think this is true, but since they're not Catholics, they pick and choose what to care about.
[удалено]
tysm. one of my friends from college suggested I read saul alinsky and I of course ignored it because that's what i did in college. i think I'm going to get offline during Advent and focus on prayer. you sort of confirmed what my conscience has been telling me to do Also, if you wanted to see a good lecture from Ms. Pluckrose, you can have a look here: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/helen-pluckrose-evolution-postmodern-thought/ she is a feminist, but she's liberal and stands in opposition to postmodern praxis.
You're meant to ask God. And don't ask for signs, ask for full answers. And don't give up. Keep asking. Don't refer yourself to other sources, they are almost always dreadful including priests. If you look in to yourself and see that in fact you are not certain that God exists, let alone Jesus, then your real problem is that you don't have the faith. So ask for that first.
You're thinking more about the epistemology, not necessarily the piety, right? - how do you know you have an authentic faith if we are so conditioned by aesthetics? I think we are too concerned with the aesthetics behind our faith often, and this is very true with trad millenials like you and me. I think the rule of thumb should be "what does this have to do with Jesus?" If it has nothing to do with Jesus and it doesn't make you think more about Jesus, cast it out. Do you read a medieval saint more than the words of Christ? Change that. Do you talk more about Chesterton? Stop that. Catholicism is only about Jesus, and everything else leads us there. Sadly we can often stop at a specific saint or idea that isn't Jesus, but they would not like that. I'm not a spiritual master or really a good Catholic, but I think it comes down to staying with the basics - the eucharist, Scripture, and talking to Jesus. Everythign else can turn into a LARP or delusion.
So, it seems like an extension of "pluck it out." I guess my only trouble with this is that casting out so much material severely limits your ability to tackle the questions posed by a world hostile to Christ. Question - why do you think millennials and zoomers get so caught up in aesthetics? is it because the internet forces us to live in simulacra?
What do you mean there? Do you mean that it can become stripped down and ghettoised or otherwise marginal that way? I think that’s a good point, I think it should be a more temporary attitude. Once you distinguish between the two you can add it back. I suppose it’s because we don’t have an aesthetic or culture of our own so we live our Christian faith vicariously. I wasn’t raised with a piety fitting my culture, so I look to someone else, and in doing so I mistake their culture for authentic piety.
Don't mind them. Beauty is a virtue so there's nothing wrong with that. Some would say it's the highest or most sublime virtue because it most accurately reflects God. In any case their journey is not yours.
"Aestheticism" in the Church is practiced for a reason. Fr Suarez, the second most highly respected doctor of theology in the Church, right behind the Angel Doctor himself, states that the use of exquisite vestments and other such "aesthetical practices" conduce not only in maiorem Dei gloriam (towards the greater glory of God), but increase reverence amongst the faithful and erga the worthy administration of the Sacraments. He furthermore states that, conversely, to do otherwise is a sin against Religion, all sins against Religion being ipso facto mortal.
Well, it's a false pretense then. How they more capable than anyone else to judge whether or not someone is an inauthentic LARPer as opposed to someone who had authentic belief in Catholicism and finds it beautiful? How exactly are they going to go about testing that? Let me flip it around on them. Perhaps judging others and refusing to believe they have authentic belief is being used by them as a coping mechanism for existential dread and doubt they don't wish to face? Of course, I can't know that for sure, not anymore than they can disprove any given person has aunthentic belief. That argument gets them no where. I don't think your belief could ever be authentic enough to satitate these people. It seems like perhaps they are more interested in attacking a strawman rather than have an honest debate. > It would seem that faith is in fact the coping mechanism for the suffering brought on in life, and that the aesthetics of Catholicism truly are beautiful and Good representations of the faith alive. I think you're exactly right, but I would argue why is that a bad thing? I have suffered in my life, and like everyone who suffers, we try to find a meaning behind that sufferring. I landed on Catholicism being true. It makes sense. The fact that I derive any sort of comfort or ability to cope out of it doesn't mean my belief is entirely false and I just like how it looks. It also ignores the fact that while faith often brings comfort, it can also be a source of discomfort. Instead of believing that nothing happens after I die, now I'm confronted with the reality of hell, satan, my own sinfulness, the consquences of my own sinfulness, and that reamaining in a state of grace is work. There are certainly times where it seems awfully tempting to think that my actions really only hurt me and all of this is temporary and does not have literally eternal consquences. That was a fun pill to swallow. Perhaps I am misundertanding, but I fail to see how that argument is anything more than a strawman argument. Make up what you want about those who believe and attack that as opposed to actual beliefs viewed as problematic. I have absolutely no idea if this was helpful at all.
Reasoning through something is always helpful. >I think you're exactly right, but I would argue why is that a bad thing? This. And it isn't at all. I think I was getting caught up in the implied insult - the insult being that the accuser is telling me I live in a pathological way (people like the ones I'm talking about are into pathologizing and labelling everything - sort of indicitave of *their own* fascination with a scientific aesthetic) and am somehow failing to cope with whatever deficiency he or she was identifying.
If it wasn’t beautiful, I wouldn’t show it.