Talk:Catholic guilt

Complete revision

Though I think it is not bad in itself to have such an article on WP that is striving to have a NPOV, the article is now stands needs to be completely revised. The concept and ideas, complete with references to specific accusations and understandings especially from lapsed Catholic authors, ex-priests and -nuns etc., need to be clearly laid out. On the other hand, the article also needs substantiated references to criticism of the concept of Catholic guilt, complete with a reference to the self-understanding of Catholicism itself that it helps people deal with real guilt rather than inculcates in them feelings of (unsubstantiated, it is suggested) guilt.

References to OCD would be okay, substantiated scientifically, as it has already been done. (There is a Catholic ministry called Scrupulous Anonymous which deals specifically with scrupulous people, many of them suffering from OCD or on the brink of it.)

References to specific actions and activities that are seen as sins by Catholicism (and most of Christianity), but not by mainstream Western culture, like abortion or homosexual activities, are completely unnecessary in such an article however. They are too narrowly culture-specific (80 years ago, most people in the Western world would have felt guilt about homosexual sex as well - not to speak of abortion) and are not really linked to Catholicism (what about the Evangelical Ted Haggard and his trysts?).

Overall, I think the idea of "Catholic guilt" needs to be linked specifically to the practice of Confession (and the scrutiny of conscience that goes with it), otherwise the whole article does not really make sense. Lumendelumine 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism?

I have changed the references back to include the category 'Roman Catholic Church' in place of 'Anti-Catholicism'. I take exception to the implication that this article has the kind of negative connotations suggested by the link to the 'anti' category. This article must be impartial to allow the collection of knowledge about a state of mind that is often spoken of, but little studied or discussed without the subject being subverted by those with strong beliefs in one direction or the other. Very few unbiased sources of information have been published on this subject so lets try and make a difference here.

How would that category exclude unbiased sources from this article, or make this article "impartial"? Gimmetrow 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I have incorporated more of the original article from the bbc as only posting two sentences of it was useless. I am sure that someone is going to scream NPOV no matter what I had put here but I have honestly tried to present equal parts of studies related to the initial information that was listed. I'm not a Catholic so really I don't care if this article goes in the complete wrong direction. The people who voted to keep this have opened a huge can of worms. The fact that 16 people could vote to keep this article and for over a month, one person put anything up is pitiful. Why do you vote, and why should anyone care how you vote? 16 people saying how important it is but none can even hit a comma?

I'm not disputing the NPOVness of it. I am catholic and I think an article on Catholic guilt is as valid as an article on any other psychological issue. However, I'd like to call into question the relevance of the section on "benefits of catholic guilt", which essentially digresses into the health benefits of attending church. Yes, some people attend church out of guilt, but overall this section seems to have little to do with the main point. I am therefore moving it to the discussion page for now. It should really be a separate article, on the controversy of whether or not religious experience can affect health. There is some evidence that religious experience and the immune system are handled by the same part of the brain, which could explain some so-called miraculous cures, but the jury is still out as far as mainstream science, and myself, are concerned. --Bluejay Young 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section on religious experience as it pertains to possible health benefits:

Benefits of Catholic Guilt?

At the same time studies have been made to attempt to show a link between Catholic religious practices and mental health benefits.

A large US study found that regular church attendees had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion.

The study looked at 4,000 older individuals from North Carolina, and found that of the 1,177 who died during a six-year period, 22.9% were frequent church attendees, compared with 37.4% who attended infrequently. Similar results were produced by the University of California at Berkeley in a study of some 5,000 people aged 21 to 65. Those who attended religious services at least once a week had a 23% lower risk of dying over the 28 years on which the research was based. Dr Harold Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, said:

<blockquotew> "Participating in religious services is associated with significant health benefits in elderly people, even when you take into account the fact the religious people tend to start out with better health practices and more social support. In addition, lower levels of depression are known to have a wider health benefit. Such positive feelings may counteract stress and convey health effects, like enhanced immune function, that go far beyond the prevention of depression and other negative emotions. [1]

Well, since Catholocism is nothing more than institutionalized insanity I hardly think they're qualified to discuss "mental health" --Kelt65 20:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No link at all.

Popular claims that religious activity provides health benefits have virtually no grounding in the medical literature, according to an article in the 2002 March issue of the Annals of Behavioral Medicine. This conclusion sharply contradicts assertions that a large body of evidence indicates that religious people enjoy better physical and mental health. Belief in the health benefits of religious and spiritual activities is so widespread that many think these activities should be incorporated into clinical practice. "Nearly 30 U.S. medical schools now include courses on religion, spirituality and health for medical students," notes lead author Richard P. Sloan, Ph.D., professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University. "One Denver-based HMO offers spiritual counseling,"

Sloan and Bagiella first tested the claim that hundreds of articles address the possible impact of religion on health. They evaluated every article listed in a medical database that was written in English, published in the year 2000 and responsive to the search term "religion." The authors found that 83 percent of the 266 articles that they found were "irrelevant to claims of a health advantage associated with religious involvement," Sloan reports, because these studies, while about religion, had nothing to do with an effect of religion on health.[2]

"Much of the scientific data for claims about religion and health is highly questionable," the authors said. "It provides no empirical justification for the introduction of religious activities into clinical medicine."

The authors acknowledge that "for many people religious and spiritual activities provide comfort in the face of illness," and that codes of religious conduct that prohibit smoking, drinking alcohol, unsafe sexual activity, psychosocial stress and unhealthy dietary habits can reduce sickness and death.

They reviewed hundreds of studies and identified several dozen which illustrated flaws that they said characterize much of the literature. The studies often involved small numbers of subjects and failed to control for other factors that could account for the findings, such as age, health status, and health behaviors. They said that other studies they examined failed to present the findings fully or failed to make appropriate statistical adjustments.

Interest in connecting religion and medicine is widespread today, the authors note. Major American newspapers and television news programs regularly reflect this interest, and a new magazine, Spirituality and Health, has begun publication under the editorship of a former editor of the Harvard Business Review.

The possibility exists of doing harm if a patient infers that illness is a result of insufficient faith. "No one can object to respectful support for those patients who draw upon religious faith in times of illness," write Sloan and colleagues. "However, until these ethical issues are resolved, suggestions, intentional or otherwise, that religious activity will promote health or, conversely, that illness is the result of insufficient faith, are unwarranted."[3]

Tagged for expert review of article

This I've done because of the sentence in the article that says: "At this time research that has been made into the relationship of Catholicism, guilt, and mental health remains in the realm of the pseudo-scientific due to its inability to establish forms of measurement, control groups, or basic postulates." That's why it seems to me that the article needs some attention. Biblbroks 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed OCD and Health benefits

Although the interplay between health, ocd and catholic guilt is interesting there is no need to do original research on the subject. I've removed references to both and suggest that those excelent contributions be moved to a relevant categories. Please stay focused on studies that claim a link to Catholic Guilt.

I think that there needs to be subsections on abortion since there's quite a few Catholic books on the subject. There should also be something about homosexuality and Catholic guilt, it's the most popular according to my google-fu. Elephx3 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deleted text: The term Catholic guilt may be used in an attempt to somehow show a distinction from guilt. At this time research that has been made into the relationship of Catholicism, guilt, and mental health remains in the realm of the pseudo-scientific due to its inability to establish forms of measurement, control groups, or basic postulates.

I reintroduced the link between guilt, catholicism and OCD by referencing an article in Science. That is not original research, Elephx3, or so I think. I hope you're satisfied. The article is written by researchers at the University of Parma, which, I guess, are familiar with catholicism. I myself was raised a catholic (although I'm not one anymore) and, even if I still love catholic "thinking", I am not offended by a scientific study (I fail to comprehend how you can be offended by it!). I think that the study helps people to deal with basic realities. Anyway, I'm referencing what experts on the issue say, so... either find other references by similar experts or deal with the study conclusions. Ciroa (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspected relationship to obsessive-compulsive disorder

In the spring of 2002, Italian scientists at the University of Parma conducted a study of nuns, priests, committed lay Catholics, and others with minimal religious involvement. Each subject was asked to document any mild Obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms such as intrusive mental images or worries. The more devout Catholics reported more severe symptoms.[4]

The researchers stress that their study does not prove that religious devotion early in life causes OCD. They have stated it is possible that people with a tendency to develop the condition may be attracted to a religious lifestyle.

Dr Lynne Drummond, a psychiatrist at St George's Hospital, said it is likely that people must have a genetic predisposition to develop symptoms of OCD. However, she said many OCD patients have stated that they had a strict upbringing where actions were right or wrong, black or white.

Ian Hancock, an expert on OCD, at Dumfries and Galloway Primary Care NHS Trust, believes that although there is probably a genetic component to the condition, environmental factors, such as parenting, are likely to play an important role in its development.

"As a religion Catholicism tends to emphasize personal responsibility, guilt, and a sense of right and wrong. Any teaching that emphasizes these issues in a very powerful way could be additional pressure for one who is prone to feelings of guilt in the first place. It could well be a factor contributing towards the development of an Obsessive-compulsive coping strategy." [5]

• Religious 'vulnerable to compulsion'. BBC News. Retrieved 18 February, 2006.
• Churchgoing improves life expectancy "BBC News". Retreved 17 March, 2006.
• Evidence Behind Claim Of Religion-Health Link Is Shaky, Researchers Say Center for the Advancement of Health
• Religion-Health Connection Claims Questioned Cemter for the Advancement of Health

I'm a Catholic and I oppose abortion, contraception, gays, ect.. because I believe they are wrong not because of "guilt." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Baker (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, the opinion of Catholics has no bearing on this article. Naturally, they will resist criticism. --Kelt65 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal understanding

My understanding of "Catholic guilt" was that it was tied to specific issues like abortion or homosexuality, but that, like Jewish guilt, it was a sort of generalized spiritual anxiety, like scrupulosity, but perhaps less severe. I think more about that should be covered, if I am right and if anybody has something more knowledgable to say about the subject. —vivacissamamente 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Catholic guilt and Jewish guilt? Whiskey. Cheers... -LTC

Why do you think it's "less severe" ? I do not think this article should be deleted, it's a phenomenon that many ex-catholics discuss. The Catholic Church's lasting contribution to civilization was to pioneer shame as a social control method, and it is very powerful. --192.135.177.248 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would think it is less severe because scrupulosity has its own article and it sounds worse? I hadn't learned that word before a few weeks ago. Anyway, my comment was that I would like to see more information on the generalized anxiety of Catholic guilt, and less on such specific issues as homosexuality and abortion, which I hadn't thought were part of Catholic guilt. I certainly wouldn't want this article deleted. —vivacissamamente 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Only that it doesn't exist (leastways, the spectre drawn up by ex-Catholics doesn't), and that "shame as a social control method", which is not guilt, but culturally more or less the opposite, has been in the world all time (an excessive insistance on shame - in fact as opposed to guilt; on the embarrassment, loss of face, etc. rather than on culpability, is often the sign that the civilization in question has either not been Christianized yet, or is a rudimentary remainder of the pre-Christianized state [the case of the duel in Western culture being a case in the latter point]). But I agree that those who use the phrase "Catholic guilt" and think there is such a thing do not mean the fact that Catholicism preaches certain specific moral laws.

The whole topic looks a lot like, not "what do Catholics think and feel", but said from the perspective of a non-Catholic, "what do we non-Catholics think and feel we would think and feel if we believed Catholic dogma", etc. In fact there is, apart from the rather medicinical cases of scrupulosity (which are to be overcome), no specific guilt-feeling among practicing Catholics, where "practicing" includes regular Confession. On the contrary, to them it brings a feeling of relief to be able to say "well, that was a sin, period" (probably ununderstandable to outsiders) which (again probably ununderstandably to outsiders) does however not lead to a "but then it doesn't matter at all". Also, what actually does cause anxiety is the ersatz forgiveness of "make it better next time", especially if the next time is not foreseeable. This is not present in believing Catholics at all; they have the much easier job of being sorry and standing under the shower of God's grace.--87.166.165.90 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Um ok

So we need an article that says people who have values feel bad when they do something that goes against them... why is this article neccesary?--E tac 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Protestant guilt, Jewish guilt, etc

The article should explain how Catholic guilt is any different from Protestant guilt, Jewish guilt or guilt in any other religions. The Psalms contain many passages on guilt and so the associated feeling is part of a broader Judeo-Christian biblical culture. And while Protestants and others have never had recourse to sacraments like confession, they do share the inherent culture of remorse and acknowledgement of sin as understood in Sacred Scripture. ADM (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't exist any more than Red car. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

How can Wikipedia host a page on an unsubstantiated colloquialism? As others have said, Catholics feel guilty, Protestants feel guilt, Muslims feel guilty. The "phenomenon" of Catholic guilt is just as real as the "phenomenon" of money grubbing by certain ethnic groups. Page is a waste of space and needs to be deleted. JWithing (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with JWithing. I have read the article, and I seriously doubt whether 'catholic guilt' is a useful term. I can't see any real difference between 'catholic guilt' and guilt in general. Of course, Roman Catholicism has an extensive moral system with dos and don'ts, so the emotion of guilt could be more prominent among people with a catholic background. For example, people who intellectually do not recognize typical catholic rules (anymore), but because of their upbringing are still psychologically influenced by these rules, may suffer from feelings of guilt.

Thus, I can see how the term 'catholic guilt' came into being, but it is a confusing term. Johan Lont (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I came to the idea that no one uses the term 'catholic guilt', unless they believe the feeling of guilt is unwarranted.

Examples:

• Person A uses condoms and feels guilty about it, because he has always been taught that using condoms is morally wrong. Person B believes that using condoms is, indeed, wrong. Person C believes that there is morally nothing wrong with using condoms. Now, person C may describe these feelings as 'catholic guilt'. Person B will likely not describe those feelings as 'catholic guilt'. And person A himself may or may not use that term. If he still believes he did something wrong, he wouldn't describe his feelings as 'catholic guilt.' If he does not agree (anymore) with the morals that the Church teaches, he might call his feelings 'catholic guilt.'
• Person D killed someone in anger. He feels guilty about it. Now, no one will call that 'catholic guilt', even though the Catholic Church teaches that manslaughter is a sin.

If my idea is correct, the following can be concluded:

1. 'Catholic guilt' is by definition unwarranted feeling of guilt
2. As long as there are people who believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are correct, people will never agree on the question whether a particular feeling is 'catholic guilt' or not.

Johan Lont (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I follow your logic on this one Johan. I am considering revising the article to reflect that Catholic guilt is an issue of perception rather than an actual phenomenon unique to Catholics JWithing (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I explained previously in this page, I reintroduced the study in context, explaining why Confession and guilt is rejected in part by Protestant Churches while it is nurtured in the Catholic one. I hope this contributes something. I strongly believe that Catholic guilt is not unwarranted (if you are a Catholic, contrition is necessary! It is an act you need to atone yourself with God). If terms were rejected based on usefulness, Johan Lont, many terms we understand, like racism, should be excluded of Wikipedia, because they are not useful. The fact that you understand something doesn't mean you share the idea, btw. On the contrary, I think this article, even if you doubt the usefulness of the concept, is extremely useful, as long as it shows to catholics and protestants where their differences on guilt reside. That is the reason why I added the concepts on Confession held by both churches (I myself am an atheist, on a side note). I sincerely hope to give some depth to this discussion. Ciroa (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There is the sentence: "The best deed of the justified is a venial sin." Where does it come from? From Exsurge Domine, the famous Papal bull against Dr. Martin Luther OSA. It cites this as a saying of his and condemns it. That should be enough to settle the matter. But of course I belong to a group that the authors of this article apparently have to decreed unable to give statements on the matter, to wit the Catholics. If somebody should be interested, to feel guilty is in itself a relief, as opposed to feeling ashamed or to feeling desparately irresponsible. And scrupulosity is treated by the Catholics in the best way there is, namely, by a moral obligation. Which says it must be fought against.--77.4.89.113 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Besides you are wrong about contrition. What you need is attrition. And attrition is, generally speaking, nothing to worry about for somebody who knows and accepts (with whatever difficulties in the personal realisation) that God doesn't want sin.--77.4.89.113 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JWithing. Wikipedia have too many articles of colloquialisms concocted to imply some "term", which in real reality is no term, but instead any editors opinion about this or that. (This is why I sometimes despair about Wikipedia). While the Research section is interesting, it doesn't belong to this article, and the Theology is B.S. concocted on two conflicting stand-points regarding the systems around Guilt and Absolution in the Church(es). That section belongs to a hypothetical Guilt and Absolution in Christian Churches or some real existing article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is silly. It reads like a junior-year psychology paper. How do we nominate an article for deletion? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic guilt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201040951/https://www.aacp.com/Abstract.asp?AID=9322&issue=February%202011&page=C&UID= to https://www.aacp.com/Abstract.asp?AID=9322&issue=February%202011&page=C&UID=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

30 Rocks quote, seriously? (and Waugham while we're at it)

I don't see how the investigation of this phrase, which could be rather interesting (although I'd insist that the actual topic is what is it that Protestants and other outsiders see in Catholicism that lets them speak of "Catholic guilt", and as you have guessed, am a Catholic), is helped in any manner whatsoever by choosing, as one of only two quotes, a quote from a comedian from a professedly satirical program which is obvious hyperbole, and that out of context

Speaking of that, Brideshead Revisited is the higher literature, but I'd say that it too is out of place, seeing that it doesn't describe anything which the coiners of the phrase thought to criticise with it (rightly or, rather probably, wrongly). Julia Flyte does not experience anything commonly associated with the term as I've heard it. It is out of context too, but it seems that she says so "distressed by her romantic relationship with Charles Ryder". Now, people in extramarital relationships are supposed to feel guilty, as any Protestant that is at least half-ways fair would agree - it is not a reasonless guilt or any such thing at all, and the context, as far as Wikipedia gives it (I have not read Brideshead Rev. yet), is that once the situation would have ceased and the problem duly confessed and all, of course the feeling of guilt would go away.--87.166.165.90 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)