Subscribe to Listverse
The Catholic Church claims that it is the oldest Christian Church in the world, dating back to Jesus himself. In the time that the Church has been on earth, many unusual traditions have arisen. While most of them seem perfectly normal to Catholics, to non-Catholics they often seem outright bizarre. This is a list of the ten most bizarre aspects of Catholicism. In no particular order:
1. Stigmata Wikipedia
Saint Pio of Peitrelcina
Stigmata is when a person has unexplained wounds on their body that coincide with the traditional wounds that Christ had. In some cases the wounds can appear in only one or two of the areas, but there have been instances of it occurring in all five places that Christ was wounded. The wounds can cause considerable pain which has been known to worsen on certain religious feast days. There have been occasional cases of falsified stigmata in the past and some people claim that even those which are not proven to be falsified are somehow part of a hoax.
The photograph above is of Saint Pio of Pietrelcina (Canonized in 2002) who is the most recent stigmatic in the Catholic Church. Saint Pio is the latest in a long line of famous stigmatics – the most famous of whom is probably St Francis of Assisi. Writing to his spiritual director, Saint Pio said:
Then last night something happened which I can neither explain nor understand. In the middle of the palms of my hands a red mark appeared, about the size of a penny, accompanied by acute pain in the middle of the red marks. The pain was more pronounced in the middle of the left hand, so much so that I can still feel it. Also under my feet I can feel some pain.
It is also alleged that Saint Pio was able to bi-locate (appear in two places at once) and to read the sins on a person’s soul.
2. The Cilice Catholic Encylopedia
A cilice is an item worn on the body to inflict pain or discomfort for the sake of penance (remorse for your past actions). Originally a cilice was an undergarment made of rough hair (such as a hairshirt) or cloth. In recent times it has been seen as more discreet to wear a chain which has spikes on it. Contrary to popular belief, the cilice does not break the skin – it merely causes discomfort. It is usually worn around the thigh.
The Catholic Encylopedia of 1913 says:
“In modern times the use of the hairshirt [(cilice)] has been generally confined to the members of certain religious orders. At the present day only the Carthusians and Carmelites wear it by rule; with others it is merely a matter of custom or voluntary mortification.”
In recent years the cilice has gained a great deal of publicity due to the book The Da Vinci Code in which it is worn by the main antagonist of the story – though in the story it is exaggeratedly described as causing wounds. Wearing the cilice has always been an optional practice for Catholics. Some famous people in the past to have worn them are Saint Thomas More and Saint Patrick.
3. The Flagrum Catholic Encylopedia
The Flagrum is a type of scourge with small hard objects attached to the length of its cords. It is traditionally used to whip oneself (self-flagellation) and is most commonly found in conservative religious orders. The flagrum is held in one hand and thrown over the shoulder in order to cause the cords to strike the flesh. The purpose of self-flagellation is voluntary penance and mortification of the flesh (a safeguard against committing further sins).
The most famous Saint to use the flagrum is probably Saint John Vianney, who would give his parishoners very light penances in confession and then flog himself in privacy for their benefit (it is believed by Catholics that acts of penance can be offered for the sins of other living people or the souls of the dead). When Saint John Vianney died, the walls of his bedroom had spatterings of blood on them from his extreme use of the flagrum.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“St. Peter Damian (died 1072) [...] wrote a special treatise in praise of self-flagellation; though blamed by some contemporaries for excess of zeal, his example and the high esteem in which he was held did much to popularize the voluntary use of the scourge or “discipline” as a means of mortification and penance.”
Most Catholics who practice this form of discipline will not admit it publicly as it would be seen as a lack of humility that could lead to the sin of pride.
4. Confraternities of the Cord Catholic Encylopedia
The third, (and final) of the penance-related objects, the Confraternities of the Cord are groups who wear a knotted cord around their waist as a form of penance and in order to help prevent future sins. The cord can be worn loosely in remembrance of the Saint for whom the cord is named, or it can be worn tight enough to cause pain, as has been the case with numerous saints in history.
St Joseph, St Francis, St Thomas, and St Augustine, St Nicholas, and St Monica all have Confraternities of the Cord named after them. The Catholic Encylopedia says:
In the early Church virgins wore a cincture as a sign and emblem of purity, and hence it has always been considered a symbol of chastity as well as of mortification and humility. The wearing of a cord or cincture in honour of a saint is of very ancient origin, and we find the first mention of it in the life of St. Monica.
The various confraternities differ in the number of knots on the cord.
5. Relics Catholic Encylopedia
Relic of St Augustine
Relics are objects related to Saints. There are three categories of relics (from wikipedia):
1st Class
Items directly associated with the events of Christ’s life (manger, cross, etc.), or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr’s relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Also, some saints relics are known for their extraordinary incorruptibility and so would have high regard. It is important to note that parts of the saint that were significant to that saint’s life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary’s right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian’s head may be his most important relic.
2nd Class
An item that the saint wore (a sock, a shirt, a glove, etc.) Also included is an item that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, book etc. Again, an item more important in the saint’s life is thus a more important relic.
3rd Class
Anything which has touched a first or second class relic of a saint.
In order to prevent abuses, Catholic Church law (Canon Law) forbids the sale of Relics (Can. 1190 §1). Catholics venerate relics in the same way as they venerate images, statues, and saints. This is often confused for idol worship, but veneration is actually the act of giving respect, rather than the act of worshipping which is forbidden. By canon law there must be a relic in the altar stone of any altar in a Catholic Church upon which Mass is to be offered.
6. Indulgences Catholic Encylopedia
Catholics believe that when a person sins, they have two punishments to suffer – eternal (Hell) and temporal (punishment by suffering on earth or in Purgatory). Indulgences are special actions that a person can perform in order to reduce or remove the temporal punishment they are owed. The idea behind it is that certain acts of holiness can take the place of punishment. Indulgences must be declared by the Pope.
There are two types of indulgence: Plenary (removes all temporal punishment) and partial (removes some punishment). A partial indulgence can be for a specific number of days or years. Some indulgences only apply to the souls in Purgatory but any personal indulgences can also be offered for those souls, rather than your own. An example of an indulence is: “An indulgence, applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory, is granted to the faithful, who devoutly visit a cemetery and pray, even if only mentally, for the departed. The indulgence is plenary each day from the 1st to the 8th of November; on other days of the year it is partial.” (from the Enchiridion of Indulgences).
During the middle ages, a number of Bishops and Priests, seeking to make money, told people that they could pay for indulgences. This abuse partly contributed to the sparking off of the protestant reformation. While the Catholic Church tried to suppress this behavior, it took a great deal of time for the traffic in indulgences to stop completely.
It is quite common for the Pope to announce new indulgences from time to time, to mark special occasions – such as the Jubilee in which Pope John Paul II granted a plenary indulgence.
7. The Real Presence Wikipedia
The Real Presence is the term used to describe the bread and wine in a Catholic Mass. Catholics believe that after the words of consecration have been spoken by the Priest, the bread (host) and wine change their substance to become the body and blood of Jesus. It is considered by Catholics, therefore, to be appropriate to worship and adore the changed objects. This is often seen as idol worship by non-Catholics as they do not believe the change of substance has occurred.
Because of this belief, Catholics have a special ceremony called Benediction, in which a consecrated host is placed in an ornate case called a monstrance and the people are blessed with it and kneel and pray before it. you can see an image of Pope Benedict XVI blessing people with a monstrance here.
An interesting side note is that it is believed that the modern term “hocus pocus” comes from an aberration of the words used by a priest at the moment of the consecration, in which he says: “Hoc est enim corpus Meum” meaning “for this is My body”.
8. Exorcism Catholic Encyclopedia
Exorcism is the practice of evicting demons or other evil spiritual entities from a person or place which they are believed to have possessed (taken control of). Solemn exorcisms, according to the Canon law of the church, can only be exercised by an ordained priest (or higher prelate), with the express permission of the local bishop, and only after a careful medical examination to exclude the possibility of mental illness. The Catholic Encyclopaedia says:
“Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion, however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may be, with a legitimate religious rite”
During the ritual of exorcism, the priest commands the devils within the body of the afflicted to leave and uses a number of blessings with Holy Water and oils. To listen to two authentic recordings of exorcisms, visit the Top 10 Incredible Recordings. Of interesting note, the Catholic Church gave permission for a priest to appear in the film The Exorcist on the grounds that is was true to the methods used by the Church to determine whether an exorcism is warranted. A much more indepth article on exorcism including audio, videos, and images can be found here.
9. Papal Infallibility Catholic Encylopedia
Venerable Pope Pius XII
Roman Catholics believe that, under certain circumstances, the pope is infallible (that is, he can not make a mistake). The Catholic Church defines three conditions under which the Pope is infallible:
I. The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
II. The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
III. The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.
This means that when the Pope is speaking on matters of science, he can make errors (as we have seen in the past with issues such as Heliocentricity). However, when he is teaching a matter of religion and the other two conditions above are met, Catholics consider that the decree is equal to the Word of God. It can not contradict any previous declarations and it must be believed by all Catholics. Catholics believe that if a person denies any of these solemn decrees, they are committing a mortal sin – the type of sin that sends a person to hell. Here is an example of an infallible decree from the Council of Trent (under Pope Pius V):
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”.
10. The Scapular Catholic Encyclopedia
The Scapular is a type of necklace worn by many Catholics. It is worn across the scapular bones (hence its name) and it consists of two pieces of wool connected by string. One piece of wool rests on the back while the other piece rests on the chest. When a Catholic wishes to wear the scapular, a Priest says a set of special prayers and blesses the scapular. This only occurs the first time a person wears one.
For wearing the scapular, Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, will ensure that they do not die a horrible death (for example by fire or drowning) and that they will have access to a priest for confession and the last rites before they die. As a condition for wearing the scapular and receiving these benefits, the Catholic must say certain prayers every day. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
According to a pious tradition the Blessed Virgin appeared to St. Simon Stock at Cambridge, England, on Sunday, 16 July, 1251. In answer to his appeal for help for his oppressed order, she appeared to him with a scapular in her hand and said: “Take, beloved son this scapular of thy order as a badge of my confraternity and for thee and all Carmelites a special sign of grace; whoever dies in this garment, will not suffer everlasting fire. It is the sign of salvation, a safeguard in dangers, a pledge of peace and of the covenant”.
The brown scapular, known as the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is the most commonly worn scapular, though others do exist. When the scapular is worn out it is either buried or burnt and a new one is worn in its place.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:24 am
You forgot Bingo.
To this day, whenever I am asked to play Bingo, I am forced to decline, due to the fact that I was brought up Roman Catholic and, by law, may not play with amateurs.
OK, that’s pretty much a lie. But, I remember those halycon days back at Stalag St. Edward’s, where we took our Bingo pretty darn seriously.
Some day I’ll have to tell you about my theory on the various Orders of Nuns.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:33 am
RobS: haha – very amusing
September 12th, 2007 at 6:59 am
But… but I was serious.
Hokay, My Theory on the Various Orders of Nuns and How it Relates to Their Innate Strictness.
“The strictness of any given nun can be measured by the length of her Order’s name. ”
For example, Franciscan Nuns are not that strict and many things can get past them, if you are a canny lad. The same can be said for Carmelites. However, The Pious Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart are feared by many for their Gestapo-like tactics when on duty as playground monitors.
The Dominicans are not only one of the less strict orders, but they are also very good at basketball, oddly enough.
This phenomenon is still being studied.
Thank you.
Rob
September 12th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I was brought up Catholic and wore a scapular after my first communion. I wore it until the cord broke. I never thought it was that strange haha.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Catholics are so crooked…that list it’s the very tip of the iceberg…it just gets worse…
September 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Leo: Most of the ones I know aren’t crooked – that is a bit rough isn’t it?
September 12th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I meant Catholics as a church/organization, most Catholic people are normal-nice-happy people who have no idea what’s going on, that’s the biggest flaw is catholicism, they profess only the priesthood has the right to know and to everything and the laymen are supposed to do whatever they are told without arguing or questioning…God didn’t intend it to be that way…actually God didn’t intend many things to be the way they are…Good list though, I just found out about your blog a few days ago and I really enjoy it.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Intersting thought on the stigmata: I was once playing the role of Agnes in Agnes of God, which you may have heard of. Anyway, in the play she has the stigmata, and my drama teacher said that before cutting was as common as it is now, people in extreme emotional or mental distress would sometimes work their palms with their hands in fists and this would cause bleeding. While I’m sure this doens’t explain many cases, weren’t there some crazy people with stigmatas? Just a thought…I really know nothing about Catholic historical figures.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Leo: Thanks
I am glad you like it. One thing – the priests don’t really have any information that the laymen don’t have. There have been too many priests leave the Church for secrets to stay secret long 
Any layperson curious enough can learn everything a priest learns in the seminary by buying the books himself (Aquinas, etc.)
Kelsi: there have been cases of stigmata caused by self-mutilation – they are usually very easy to detect. The ones I mentioned are not considered (even by science) to be caused by that – but by other reasons unexplained (or divine reasons according to the Church).
September 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Ok.. to be fair, are you going to do a list of bizarre practices by Jews? Such as draining all the blood out an animal to make it kosher?
Or how about how it is ok for a Jew to lie and steal, so long as he is lying or stealing from a Gentile…
and you missed the top bizarre catholic tradition… moving sexual predators around to different churches and protecting them, instead of kicking the bastards out and pressing charges…
September 12th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
sakul: the muslim and Jewish practice of draining the blood from animals before eating was not weird enough to make it to the top 10 bizarre religious traditions – there were other weird things. On the lying to a gentile thing – I included the muslim tradition of being allowed to lie to non-Muslims. And your last comment is not a Catholic doctrine – it is an abuse by members of the Church so it is not appropriate for this list.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I am extremely interested in just catholicism in general, and I’d love to read a basic book (except the bible, go figure) about it. I’ve looked, but there’s so many I don’t know where I should start.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Dan: I read a book called “The Faith of Millions” about the Catholic Church when I was young – I found it to be extremely easy reading and very informative. It appears that it is still available in print from amazon from only $1.50. I would definitely recommend it. You can get it here
September 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
there is a review on there that leads me to believe it’s totally on the side of catholicism. i’m still iffy about god, and I don’t want to hear a guy telling me it’s real, I just want the facts (no real opinion, so I can make my own) I will check it out, though. thanks.
also, i’m a bit confused with the differences between catholicism and Christianity. are they one in the same or have many differences?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Dan: I think it is on the side of Catholicism because it is by a Catholic about Catholicism
Maybe a better start would be this website. It seems to deal with the fundamentals of Catholic beliefs in a very straight up way.
As for the other part of your answer, Catholics consider themselves to be the first Christians – in fact historically they do have their roots in the apostles. There are quite a number of differences between modern Christians (normally called protestants who broke off in the 16th century) and Catholics but they are mostly doctrinal and relating to salvation. The Faith and Beliefs section of that site I posted above seems to cover some aspects of that.
This article on Wikipedia just gives the basic historical facts about Catholicism and does not really go in to beliefs too deeply.
And Catholic.com has some information and writings by very early Christians.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:19 am
i feel i need to clarify something. muslims arent allowed to lie to anybody muslims or non-muslims. i dont know where u got that from. on the contrary the wierd thing is that we are not allowed to tell the whitest of lies(unless your life DIRECTLY depends on it), the existence of the tooth fairy for example or santa claus bringing gifts on christmas….even such harmless things told to kids are considered lies and thus forbidden in islam.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Shebab: Taqiyya.
Surely all Muslims want to see the conversion of all non-Muslims, which would be a “praiseworthy aim” – that would suggest you can lie to a non-Muslim if it means you will trick them in to converting – or so it seems to me anyway.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I find comfort in knowing that all who actually devote an extraordinary amount of time reading the Catechism, in a concerted effort to attack and discredit It, become the most devoted converts to Catholicism. They are the Church’s most fervent writers… that started reading the Catechism as the most fervent protest-ants. (Don’t get me started on the Crusades, the defensive wars, and the Spanish Inquisition, where the Vatican provided “defense lawyers” and prisoners in the secular prisons committed blasphemy just to get into the more humane “Catholic-prisons”.)
September 15th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Kevin67: did you feel that this was an attack or attempt to discredit Catholicism? I didn’t think so – I tried very hard to state the Catholic view without putting an anti-Catholic slant on it.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:19 am
JFrater – There is a German phrase (and I quote it inaccurately here) that says: “The hammer having struck the anvil – breaks.” I asked a Lutheran priest(he left the Church in order to wed – and ultimately divorce) once why the Catholic church does not defend itself as strongly as those who wish to destroy it and the German quotation was his answer. Do you know this phrase?
September 15th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
jfrater: Your list was very well written. In fact, I commend you on presenting the “bizarre things” quite fairly. Your detailed explanation of Papal Infallibility included things that true anti-Catholics conveniently leave out. My comments were just a statement for those that would use your facts to further their emotionally-based anti-Catholic agenda, as they intentionally confuse the humanity of the Church with the Divinity of the Church. Still, stronger qualifying statements would be appreciated to differentiate simple past practices from actual Dogma.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Magid: I don’t know it – is it referring to the Catholic Church as the anvil?
kevin67: ah I see – thanks. The only items on the list which you could say are dogmatic are infallibility, the real presence, and indulgences (indulgences stem from infallibility). The rest of the items are still practised by Catholics but as personal devotions (except exorcism of course, which is not a personal devotion but a religious ritual).
September 18th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Oh, yes, jbrother, you are so so fair and don’t have a bigoted bone in your body. Actually, you begin with bigotry by the very use of the term ‘bizarre.’ And your enlightened, condescending attitude and half-knowledge just expose you the more so. A couple of things to read: The New Anti-Catholicism, the last acceptable prejudice. And How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. But you won’t because you won’t want to give up your delicious beliefs in the Black Legends. You won’t want to know that when real, solid scholarship comes along, it does not tear down or belittle the Catholic Church, but builds it up. Why publish this list in the first place? What was your motivation? How did you envision people reacting? What did you think they’d think of you?
September 18th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
PatrickB: If you are so well versed in Roman Catholicism, you will know that every item on this list is real and is presented in a factual non-biased way. At no point have I said that they are bad or false. It seems that you think they should be kept secret for some reason – why? The Catholic Church does not keep secrets. Do you think the Catholic Encyclopedia believes in Black Legends? I have cited it for all but one of the items on the list. Oh – clever with the “jbrother” thing, though my surname is of German origins and not Latin.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:24 am
didnt kno abt this before as it is not mentioned in the Qur’an. after doing a little research this is what i found. taqiyya is a shia concept ( which is why i dint kno abt it as i am a sunni muslim) used when shias wer being prosecuted and had to hide their religion. most sunni scholars think of it as just lying. neways taqiyya can only be carried out under the following situations: (direct copy n paste from wikipedia)
1) Taqiyah is done for safety reasons. For example, a person fears that he might be killed or harmed, if he does not observe Taqiyah. In this case, it is obligatory to observe Taqiyah.
2) Reconciliatory Taqiyah. This type of Taqiyah is done when a person intends to reconcile with the other side or when he intends to soften their hearts. This kind of Taqiyah is permissible but not obligatory.
3) Sometimes, Taqiyah may cause a more important obligation to be lost or missed, if so it is forbidden. For example, when I know that silence would cause oppression and infidelity to spread and will make people go astray, in such a situation it is not permissible to be silent and to dissimulate.
4) Sometimes, Taqiyah may lead to the death of an innocent person. If so, it is not permissible. It is therefore haram (forbidden) to kill another person to save your own life.
i really dont see what is wierd with this. and the way u say ” muslims allowed to lie to non-muslims” sounds like muslims are allowed to tell non-muslims that there is a bridge up ahead when there isnt one and the non-muslim plunges into his/her death.or i tell a non-muslim bomb squad officer to cut the red wire when he shud be cutting the black one and everything blows up in his face.this certainly isnt the case.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:03 am
shabab: hey – don’t quote me out of context! If you re-read what I posted, it doesn’t say that Muslims can lie to cause harm – only that they can lie if it leads to a good outcome (though that can lead to problems as we all have different ideas of what a good outcome is). Thanks for the extra information incidentally.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Old religions are full of old practices. None of these things are so much bizarre as ridiculously dated.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
AJ- The thing about religions today is that they are not supposed to change with the times, and yet they have. You can’t stop practicing part of your religion and just say “it’s old and doesn’t really apply to us”.
It shouldn’t be relative to what era you’re in. If you are going to claim a religion, you should probably claim the whole thing.
(I’m not attacking AJ by any means. Just ranting about my problems with organized religions in general.)
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 am
Wahfoolz: I would agree with you on that – if you are going to do it – do it right, don’t modify it to your own liking.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:44 am
It’s a shame that people get so offendable when there is discussion about religion, although it is explainable, cuz religion is faith in the unseen. I believe people sholud always be open minded, cuz that’s the only way God spirit can make work in them.
Once when person was unbeliever, it was the open mind that allowed that person to became believer. And does God want to stop there, and make person close his mind, or He wants to further develop person?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
jfrafter, by not modifying religion does that include stoning people? That’s in the Old Testament, but I’m pretty sure that got changed somewhere along the way. Some changes are good.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
MadBess: yes – but the practice of stoning is still condoned by those who follow the Old Testament exclusively (Jews) as their religious literature. So it hasn’t really been changed. But yes – some changes are good – I am talking more about fundamental doctrines rather than practical matters though – they can change while doctrines should not – if a doctrine changes the entire basis of the religion is fraudulent IMHO.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Hocus Pocus was an actual magician long ago, whose name became so synonymous with magic, that it is used as “magic words” today.
Much like Houdini has been made into a verb to describe an escape. As in, “The prisoner pulled a houdini and escaped his cell.”
November 15th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Mattsiah: I can find no references to a magician named “Hocus Pocus” – the closest I can find is a Norse mythological magician called Ochus Bochus.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I’ve finally read through almost all of this site, and have managed to avoid saying anything till now. Just a quick bit of help, if you want to know more about Catholicism (or most any other things)the “For Dummies” books are a great, completely unbiased source. Catholicism for Dummies has a lot of good info, and clears up a lot of misconceptions (like the prohibition against female clergy, for example). Also, “Pope Fiction” is a great, easy read to dispel some sereous anti-Papacy rumours. Oh yeah, and I’m an Evangelical Protestant, so I’m not exactly pitching the Church.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
i find it so funny that when it comes to religious debates on here christians go on the defensive and put down people,,, muslims just want to clear up misconceptions and jews dont seem to be bothered at all,, says something about christians doesnt it?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Shabab- I would think lying to your Muslim kids about Santa Clause on Christmas would be a pretty bizzare tradition in and of itself.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
*Claus
Stupid Tim Allen.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
JFrater – Can I say, how refreshing it is to read descriptions of Catholic doctrine/practice that is presented so truthfully and objectively, without criticism or ridcule. Ok, you called them “bizarre” but I think anyone who is not a Catholic (not sure if you are or not) may be excused for thinking they might be a bit out of the ordinary. Thank you so much, you’ve made my day
December 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
teresita1897: thanks
I try very hard to be objective with my lists – sometimes I fail, but sometimes I don’t 
December 31st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I’m Catholic, and #’s 7, 8 & 9 are the only ones I have heard of being followed strictly. The others are either old-fashioned or used by extremists.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 am
What about the Rosary?
Well maybe that isn’t truly bizarre.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
Becca – who are these Catholic “extremists” you refer to ?
January 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hi jfrater
I agree with terisita1897. It is really uncommon to see a site that does not use a topic like this to flagrantly attack others who have little opportunity of defending themselves. And good job on keeping the posters honest as well!
I thought the list was informative, pretty much factual (in so much as it is a description of faith practices) and an enjoyable read.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Becca: The Pope has just issued a special plenary indulgence for all of 2008 – surely the Pope isn’t an extremist or old fashioned?
Kat: thanks – I try to be objective on all my lists
January 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
a special plenary indulgence for all of 2008
J – please explain.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Real presence is a Protestant concept. The RCs believe in Transubstantiation, Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation, and other Protestants believe in the Spiritual (or Real) Presence. Real presence is not a RC term.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Interesting list.I first heard of some of these when I read the DaVinci code a couple of years ago,and they freaked me out.Very informative as always,Jamie
February 1st, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I think the worst crooked religion is Islamism. Well, it really isn’t a religion. Formed by a man. Started with moon gods. Nope, I don’t think so. I have done my research. Now you must do yours.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
How bizarre! How bizarre!
March 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Objective? Funny how people try to disguise bigoted attacks on other peoples’ faiths as objective.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
ProudCatholic – who is your comment about “objective” directed at? The author of the list ? If so…could you point out the bigotry that you are referring to ?
March 9th, 2008 at 1:34 am
proudcatholic – give one example from this list which is not true. I have not said a single anti Catholic thing. I have quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia – in fact, it is the only reference I used for this list.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
2,3,6,and 10 are rarely used anymore.
Indulgences are pretty much paying your way to get into heaven. Of course, this isn’t done anymore.
Now it’s not really done, and when PJII did in it caused great controversy.
We are often accused alot of worshipping idols, and having relics.. We don’t worship these items, yet we display them in places because we have such a history.
I agree that some aspects of catholicism are outdated and questionable.. but.. hell what religion isn’t?
Mormons wear secret underwear, various forms of christianity believe you must be “saved” to go to heaven.. which leaves the question..What about people like Ghandi? They’re going to burn in hell?
We’re never going to know all the answers.. But it’s sad when other sects of christianity hate on others ones..
We’re all equally corrupt and all in this together, through christ.
Duh.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Oh and by the way, this was well written. You said nothing anti catholic at all. I just think most readers don’t take into consideration that this was stuff we used to do ages ago.. Not your fault.
Good article.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Very good list Jfrater. Very accurate. As someone who was baptized and raised Catholic, I can tell you aren’t the least bit bigoted, as some here claim. They talk about anti-Catholic bigotry, but there’s also bigotry by Catholics against ANYONE outside the church. I’ve seen THAT a hundred times, not to mention a couple of times on this board. And don’t belive any of that rooster poop about these rituals being practiced only in the olden days. They’re still done now.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Great! Whip myself in the back to make Sado-Masacho god happy! How much do you have to despise yourself to partake in this form of self-torture?
I saw on the news, a bunch of Muslims (I believe) all chanting, and whipping their backs bloody on one of their pilgrimages…just plain dumb.
Instead of “respecting” these forms of self-hate as cultural differences, we should call it what it is:
Insanity practiced by the ignorent, the uneducated, the brainwashed.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
666: rofl, i love that you misspelled ignorant. classic.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Fishchucker,
Indeed! That word is a thorn for me…a or e? they both seem right!
March 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Shitsucker,
Of course I understand why that would amuse you though, not having the means to combat content, you attack an ‘e’ instead of an ‘a’.
Like a cornered squirrel, very fierce!
March 30th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Dude, 666, chill. Seriously. You are intentionally using this incendiary language in a passive-aggressive attempt to troll and start fights. You say you don’t have to respect a religion. That’s fine. But please respect the desires of others who post on this board by stopping this tirade you seem to be on. This is not about respecting/disrespecting beliefs…this is about respecting the rights of other readers and commenters to be able to enjoy these lists and their comments without being made to feel offended or persecuted. Seriously. It was funny at first, but it’s starting to become obnoxious.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:11 am
slick: this is his kiddie pool, where he feels safe. the only comments he makes are about religion. he has nothing to add of depth to any other list. this is why he has new comments on a list that nobody has done anything with for almost 2 weeks. saying he is a troll is an excellent description.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:28 am
Tyler: If you understood what indulgences were you would know they weren’t paying your way to get to heaven – they remit temporal punishment only and do not apply to people who are in a state of mortal sin. Temporal punishment is the pain suffered on earth or purgatory to make reparation for your sins. If anything, a plenary indulgence can get you to heaven quicker (bypassing purgatory) – but if you are not already going to heaven, they don’t benefit you at all. And of course, purchasing them is a sin and was banned when the Church discovered a number of bishops doing it. You may find this of interest – it is a BBC article about one recent indulgence granted by Pope Benedict XVI – I don’t recall hearing any controversy over that (in fact, I don’t remember any during the pontificate of JPII either) – every Pope of recent memory has granted indulgences – there is even a book of them called the Enchiridion of Indulgences (here is a link to the 1968 version: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/index.html )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7131088.stm
As for 2 and 3, many religious orders do still use both – it is just not talked about because it is a private matter. It is meant to be humbling – it is hardly humble if you then boast about it
And number 10, the scapular – this is an extremely popular devotion which is absolutely still used today. I know a very large number of Catholics who wear them. In fact, there are even many websites that will send you a free one if you write to them. Every Catholic priest knows the ritual to enroll a person in the confraternity of the scapular.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:26 am
Slicked-disc,
I will continue to post how I see fit, with no regard to either of you.
I realize that you are both easilly offended, but that is your problem, not mine.
Did I make a spelling boo boo?
March 31st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Slick,
Ordering me to respect your “desires” will not make me respect your “desires”.
I really don’t care about your “desires”.
Just don’t interact with me, why let it bother you so much? This is a list website that is meant to be used for entertainment.
Is there a rule about posting on past lists? I didn’t think so. I just think it’s silly to engage with me when you know it won’t stop the behaviour you disapprove of. Very strange.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I’m not offended so much as I am annoyed by your actions. I know as well as you do that no matter what I say won’t have an effect on your behavior. I was just hoping to be able to communicate with you on a mature level on this matter. No there is no rule about posting on past lists, but if you read carefully, rule #3 for comment posting is, “respect others and don’t abuse people.” So far, every attempt that has been made to request that you act in a respectful manner has been met with the middle finger, and your constant name calling falls squarely under the title of “abusing people.” I liked you at first, but your attitude is boorish, ignorant, disrespectful and irritating. Feel free to continue posting your drivel, if it makes you happy. I just can’t believe a man in his 30’s acts like a pre-teen kid.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:26 am
Then, will you stop posting the same reprimand? I find the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude that you portray just as boorish as you find me.
Yeah, I never “liked” you or disliked you for that matter; you are a ’screen name’ on a message board—get a grip. Homer Simpson is more of a real person to me than screen name shittywilly.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
666- I think you have a very small penis.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I am Catholic, and I can’t say I’ve heard of all of those. I’m familiar with the Stigmata, relics, the real presence, and excorcisms. As for indulgences, I’m almost a hundred percent sure that the selling of indulgences was outlawed during the middle ages after the Council of Trent. I’ve never heard of one being used. Anyway, very interesting list, and very eye-opening to the more “unusual” aspects of my history.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:44 am
JB: You are right about the sale of indulgences being forbidden – but indulgences existed before they were sold and still exist today. If you read my comment 63, you will find a link to a recent list of indulgences granted by Popes in the 20th century.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
If I can just bring up another point, on the Real Presence. Or I guess it would have to do with the Real Presence. This being a list of bizarre aspects of Catholicism, I’m surprised you didn’t bring up that in the Eucharist, one actually “eats someone’s body.” I’m not complaining you didn’t mention it by any means, as this aspect is often severly misunderstood and even shocking to some people, especially to some of the more ignorant people commenting like Mr. 666, here. I’m just surprised it isn’t on here, is all.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
As far as I can tell, they all seem pretty normal to me…except the cilice…and the whipping… and papal infabillity…but then again I was born into a Catholic family. And whoever said anything about jfrater being a bigot? he just did a list about the weirder aspects of catholicism and for me, it’s about time someone did something to prove that we are faithful to our church. and i can show this to the christian and fundementalist brats at my school who think theyu’r better than everyone else, just to show them that we go to extremes for god and jesus and all the saints!
But that’s just me…=)
May 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Leo #7: Making mention of Catholics being led like yams to the slaughter..
I’m a catholic and i will say this as honestly and as truthfully as i know how.
I will openly acknowledge that there are priests (and others)who are extremely corrupt in their belief (and they’re actions.. the treatment of some young boys and children by priests is horrific) and what they try to make the congregation believe. But i believe that although we have leaders, we are still responsible for our own actions and thoughts. I know from experience that there are laity out there who stand up for the true faith and for themselves and who aren’t afraid to tell the bishop that he’s a heretic and to Man-Up and start treating us like people and not like 4yo’s(Go Dad!!! he’s my hero..)
I know that this is going to sound horrible and can already hear people saying “how do you know it’s the truth”… But if the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope, with the original Pope being Simon Peter who was commissioned by Jesus who said “You are Peter, and on this rock i will build my Church, what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven, and the gates of hell will prevail against it” says it’s true, then through that commission, by Jesus the Son of God, it must be true. And i refuse to live a lie.
Great list tho JF.. i didn’t know they still did that self-harming stuff.. or even that the Carmelites did it!! how bizarre! love reading them.. keep up the good work.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Fascinating list. I don’t belong to any organized religion, so I find all of the rituals and pomp and circumstance hard to relate to. It just seems to be all about conformity and power. I don’t know, though. I know some people who really need that in their lives and it has a positive impact.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Thanks for the list jfrater. I have some comments (in reverse order of posting).
Lini-Oh?? #73: I was going to post something similar in regard to papal infallibility. Since you already hit some of it, I just have a clarification. The reasoning behind the concept is that, due to the scripture you quoted, it is believed that the Holy Spirit protects the Church of Peter from making moral/ethical dictates that would hurt either Heaven or the Church on Earth.
Genevil #68: That was so unexpected I laughed out loud.
Regarding the list itself. The Confraternities of the Cord was new to me. As to practice, all of these things are in current practice to some extent. The self-flagellation should be obvious as it’s enduring the scourging like Christ. Not something I’m terribly interested in doing, but it’s not as if it comes out of nowhere.
Finally, my only nit is that Indulgences need clarification. The temporal benefit of the indulgence is not meant to correspond as some sort of one-to-one deduction of time spent in purgatory. It’s meant to achieve the benefit that would be achieved by a similar amount of prayer. So, if you got say a 30 day indulgence, you wouldn’t be looking at knocking 30 days off of your sentence for good behavior. You would, instead, be given the benefit of 30 days of prayer directed toward your soul (or the soul of the person that the indulgence was applied to).
Anyway – nice list.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
JB:
As to eating someone’s flesh/drinking their blood seeming bizarre, in many cultures of the ancient world blood meant life, and was thought to convey the creature’s esscence. This is possibly why Jesus said “Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” (assume into yourselves my esscence/character) and (might?) also be behind the Jewish and Moslem prohibitions on eating blood. When an orthodox Jew gets a piece of kosher meat, before cooking they still have to soak it in water and then cover it with salt to draw out any remaining blood. This may explain why Jesus (who was Jewish) also told his followers “You are the salt of the earth”, that is, our prescence is to draw all of the “dead life” out of our environment and make it more palatable. Just my interp. Can’t say for certain what Jesus was thinking.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Not being Catholic, I found this educational and very informative. I read “The Exorcist” when I was 9. Right after I finished “Jaws” Both books I loved and have never forgotten.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ok- this is a pretty good list, but it is kinda out of date.
1. The Cilice, the Flagrum, and the Confraternities of the Cord are not used by most Catholics- only weird Catholic cult groups. To say that these items are aspects of the Catholic religion would be like saying that suicide bombings are aspects of the Muslim religion. Both statements are completely untrue and unfair. I am a Catholic and I never even knew about these things until I read the Da Vinci Code.
2. Indulgences WERE a very strange and stupid part of the Catholic religion- however- they haven’t been used since the early 1500s, around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They haven’t been a part of the Church in a couple hundred years, and they certainly aren’t used by Catholics today.
3. Modern Catholics all know that Exorcisms are a load of crap. They might make for a good horror movie, but they haven’t been used in the modern Catholic church in years.
4. Most Catholics don’t believe that the bread and wine at mass actually turns into the physical body and blood of Jesus, like it says in the “Real Presence” part. What good would eating his physical flesh do? Most of us believe that it is a more spiritual thing and that when we consume the bread and wine, Jesus’s spirit is passing through us. It is usually only very, very devote Catholics that believe in the “Real Presence.”
5. We Catholics know that that Papal Infallibility is a load of crap. We kinda figured that out after the Inquisitions and the Crusades. In fact, some of the Popes in the Dark Ages were among the evilest men to ever live.
6. Almost all religions believe in miracles to some degree, and Stigmatas are just forms of miracles. I don’t believe in all the cases of Stigmatas, but I believe in some of them. How are they different from any other types of miracles from other religions?
7. Relics are not that strange. It’s not like we worship them or anything. They are usually just seen by Catholics as good luck charms. We don’t believe they have any supernatural powers or anything. Plus, tons of religions have objects similar to relics.
8. The same is true with the scapular. It is really just seen as a good luck charm. Most catholics don’t believe it has any supernatural powers. We just believe that it keeps God close to us to some extent.
So, in conclusion, this would make a very interesting list of strange things about the Catholic Church a couple hundred years ago, but most of these things have been reformed. I’m not saying the Church is perfect. There’s plenty of problems (homophobia, racism, sexism, anti-science stupidity, pedophile preists) but most of the things you list are not really a part of the Catholic life anymore. They are considered to just be goofy or stupid by Catholics.
However, despite my criticisms, I thought it was a well researched and interesting list, and I enjoyed it. Good job!
August 16th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Mike- It sounds to me like you aren’t a very good Catholic. Maybe some of those things have waned in popularity but they are still very much a part of the Church and to say that only crazy cults still practice them is a little harsh. Especially from one of our own. Exorcisms are not a load of crap and they are still practiced to this day. We’ll see what you think of them when your doubting mind is taken over my a demon. I don’t think any of the things on this list are goofy or stupid. And I think everything on this list is a far cry from your suicide bombing comparison. Belief in the Real Presence is one of the major things that separates Catholics from most protties. It sounds to me like you might do just fine in one of those churches.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Mike – to clarify a bit on what Genevil says, you have some errors in your Catholic doctrine.
1. The doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t declared until the late 1800’s and it’s only been exercised once: in declaring that Mary was actually assumed into heaven. This was done in 1951. So none of your examples have a thing to do with papal infallibility. Whether you believe in it is a different matter.
2. Indulgences. Indulgences never went away and various indulgences are currently available. And the Catholic Monk named Martin Luther didn’t object to indulgences. He objected to indulgences being sold as a money-making effort by clergy in his area.
Unlike Genevil I’m not going to suggest you leave the church are anything close to that. That’s the type of hostile treatment Martin Luther got from the church and look at how much damage that has caused to Christianity. Even Lutherans can’t agree amongst themselves as to who’s right (while still thinking they can somehow reform the Catholic church – go figure). Not to say ML couldn’t have been a bit more tactful – he was obviously looking for a fight, so I’m not going to feel sorry for him for receiving a fight. [read the 92 theses and the 41 errors for more info on that]
But spending a bit of time doing some reading at Wikipedia on the various topics mentioned and also reading the current doctrine (EWTN has quite a bit of discussion) might be helpful. Honestly, I blame this lack of education on the Cathechism that came out of the post-Vatican II era. A little too much “feel good” and not enough educating.
As a final note Mike, I have no intention of being arrogant or offensive in this post, and if that’s how you took it, it’s not how I meant it. These are all things I’ve had to learn as an adult by educating myself on the topics. And I certainly don’t know everything about the doctrine nor all the history by any means.
Peace
August 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Graham: as a matter of fact, while infallibility was defined at Vatican I, it was not a new doctrine – the church doesn’t make new doctrines. Infallibility has been used many times since the beginning of the Church – it has certainly been used more than once. Most statements coming from the Popes of the past which end “let him be anathema” or “anathema sit” are infallible. JPIIs declaration that women could never become priests is considered to be protected by the doctrine. Furthermore, there are 4 marian dogmas – all defined infallibly – not just the assumption but also the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Additionally, two other beliefs that are likely to be defined solemnly in time are Mediatrix, and co-redemptrix.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Mike:
1) you are incorrect – there are no “cult” groups within the Catholic Church. Many religious orders did and still do (opus dei for example) use the cilice and other disciplines.
2) As Graham said, indulgences never went away – new ones are created all the time – Pope Benedict has issued at least two in his pontificate – the most recent being this year – and indulgence for World Youth Day.
3) Exorcisms are dead? You might want to read this article entitled: Florida Priest: exorcisms alive and well. Additionally, every priest is an exorcist and can perform an exorcism and the Vatican has recently called for more frequent use of the ritual.
4) Not believing in the transubstation is a mortal sin. All Catholics believe it – if they don’t, they have removed themselves spiritually from the Church. Disbelief in the real presence is considered to be heresy.
5) Read my reply to Graham. Catholics don’t believe papal infallibility is crap – the people who do are the ones who have separated from the Church because they don’t like a teaching of the Church – they still want to call themselves Catholic but they aren’t.
6 and 7) You said: “They are usually just seen by Catholics as good luck charms.” – the Catholic Catechism says this:
Good luck charms are considered a sin against the first commandment – scapulars and the like are not good luck charms and no Catholic would believe they are. I am guessing you are either a very young Catholic with very little understanding of the Church, or a non-Catholic pretending to be Catholic.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
O.K. I realize I made some mistakes in my analysis of this list. Thank you for correcting me. I’m sorry that I spoke for the entire Church (there are obviously some Catholics that don’t agree with my beliefs), but I hope you can understand that I went to a Catholic school and I go to Church regularly, and nearly every Catholic I’ve met in my lifetime fits the description of my first comment. So, naturally, I thought almost all Catholics were like that. I’m sorry if I offended some people’s beliefs.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Poor Mike,the guy just hasn’t read up the catechism or indulged in theological debate inspired by the fathers of the church but trusted in sermons etc to gain a knowledge of whats what in the catholic faith, believe me Mikes view will at least allow him to worship with others without cripling doubts, e.g. The “voluntary ” practice of the whip, in religious orders for women until post vatican II they were herded like cattle into dorms with only a curtain between them to whip themselves not on the back but on the buttocks,this was part of the rule and if refused they had to leave the order, ok he extreamists may say it voluntary a they had the choice to leave but what kind of choice was that for young women who had left family for good and were denied visits home, had their mail read before posted or recieved and if anything was disapproved of in thse letters it was removed, is that vountary? Thank you for your site, you are not a biggot and neither am I, I think more Catholics should look at what our church has done to people and at least think them over.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:26 am
What about them not being allowed to eat fish or meat (can’t remember which) on a Friday but now it’s okay?
November 4th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Hi there,
Interesting article.. I don’t think a catholic should call his religion bizarre though. But I like your article.
Stigmata is a gift that God offers people who love him deeply and live selfless lives. It is sharing in the passion of the christ, which is an honour, and suffering is essential for humility, compassion and a closer relationship with Jesus. Padre Pio offered his suffering up to the lord and replaced much evil with good.
I’m not uptight, I’m a 23-year-old model and german/philosophy student who loves parties and travelling.. but I feel we should love and congratulate pious people who truely follow Jesus and make a difference to our world through devoting their lives to the service of others and through their inspiration – not laugh at them.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
hi all,
i know this is an old list, but since finding this site i’ve been reading at leisure from the index page, not just the newest posts. again, nice job creating this place jamie.
i was raised in the catholic church and studied it fairly intensively before deciding that i could not participate in the ritual of confirmation when i was 16 (a ceremony where you affirm before god and the church that you confirm the choice -made first by your family upon your baptism- to believe and accept the teachings of the church.) that was the beginning of my study of world religions and faith in general, the culmination of this quest was the realization that i am certainly an atheist. that was also 12 years ago.
okay, so bias acknowledged. however, i feel people have the right to any religious belief system that:
A.) helps them through this world
B.) does so without harming, hating, or limiting the rights of others (and this includes my right not to believe!)
now, i don’t disagree with anything on jamie’s list (with the nit-picking detail that when “real presence” is applied to catholics it is always interpreted very specifically as transubstantiation.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
and i do think all of these things could appear “bizarre” to non-believers. what struck me most about this whole topic is that it it took me so long to learn anyone thought catholics were “bizarre” at all. i’m from chicago, and as the city has so many residents of Irish, Polish, Italian, and Latin American backgrounds it’s very normal to be catholic.
when i started traveling and living in other parts of the states i realized there is a strong anti-catholic feeling in much of the USA. i was often told they were “spooky, scary, crazy, not really american (due a belief that their loyalty is to the pope over the president), that they were not mono-theists (because they pray to saints and the virgin),” and plenty of other things indicating a fear and dislike of the unknown (being personified by catholics.)
i found all this prejudice disturbing yet fascinating -since i hadn’t even known it existed!- and looked into how it was a factor in the J. F. Kennedy election and US history in general.
i know there are a lot of people on listverse from places that are not the states (yea! getting other perspectives on all these topics is my favorite thing about LV), and (with the exception of England and Latin America) i know nothing of the history of Catholicism in your countries, but remember that history plays such a big part in what we all see as normal.
p.s. i understood where 78.mike was coming from, i feel most people in the church who are under the age of 30 today (again, in the states) see the religion as a “guideline for living” not a set of strict doctrines. and, despite studying the church, i didn’t know about the cilice or flagrum until all the ruckus the da vinci code stirred up. it would be easy to assume that all these beliefs are out-dated when most people of the faith never mention them.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:56 am
I’m an Irish practising Catholic and in my early 20’s, and my experience of the doctrine of Papal Infallability and the general strict adherence to doctrine was a couple of years ago when I when I went to confession a few years ago. A friend of mine had recently come out, and that weekend my PP had launched a serious attack on homosexuality at Mass. I went to confession to a priest from the Augustinian order, and the conversation I had with him reaffirmed my faith in the Church. In reply to the question that when I feel so strongly about some aspects of my Chuirch’s doctrine, is there a place for me, he told me that the Lord provided us with his word, and he provided me with a beautiful mind, and my free will, and that I should use them as best I can to see if I see the Lord’s love in the words I hear.
People often accuse Catholic priests of being an order of monsters, with some awful generalisations-they really don’t pay any attention to the reality of the vast VAST majority of these men who had no idea of these abuses, and now deal with explicit and implicit preconceptions about them every day. I think it’s just the saddest thing. Catholicism is a religion based on love; one of the cornerstones is the idea that “whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me”.
RE Indulgences, my mother made me pray for the souls in purgatory all through November, this is quite common in practising Catholics here!
RE transubstantiation-yes, that is what we believe in. I remember specifically trying to get my tongue around this word in Religion class, and it is an integral part of the faith. That said, I do know many who I would term a-la-carte Catholics (that is, they don’t practice but would refer to themselves as Catholic) who would say this is just figurative.
RE Relics, they are very popular altogether here, my family has a particular affinity with Padre Pio and I’m not allowed travel abroad without being blessed with one of his gloves! Calling them a good luck charm is a very unfortunate choice of words.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I am a Catholic too (although I still struggle with some aspects of the Church) and I found this list to be extremely entertaining. I´m from Latin America so it goes without saying that most of these things are extremely common-place and I had never even thought that someone might find them bizarre. For the cilise and flagrum I can see the weidness but the scapular? Or papal infallibility? Or the veneration of relics? It had never even occured to me that someone might find these things amusing let alone bizarre!
Now I hate to be a pain in the arse but do you think you can post a list like this about other religions? Not religion bashing (which I´m sure wasnt your intent here) just entertaining and informative tidbits about other religions that I might not know about. Or are we Catholics the only weird ones in the bunch?
February 11th, 2009 at 1:13 am
ah, the strange and uncomfortable things people do for religion.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
us Catholics are so weird…haha! i remember as a child going to church on palm sunday and bringing home a palm frond…i always thought that was kind of strange, seeing as in my family we would keep them behind a picture or crusifx behind our beds above our heads year round…haha
March 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
78. Mike – August 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“1. The Cilice, the Flagrum, and the Confraternities of the Cord are not used by most Catholics- only weird Catholic cult groups. To say that these items are aspects of the Catholic religion would be like saying that suicide bombings are aspects of the Muslim religion. Both statements are completely untrue and unfair. I am a Catholic and I never even knew about these things until I read the Da Vinci Code.
These forms of mortification are still voluntary *orthodox* apostalates and societies like Opus Dei.
“3. Modern Catholics all know that Exorcisms are a load of crap. They might make for a good horror movie, but they haven’t been used in the modern Catholic church in years.”
Mike, exorcisms are still practiced today by the Catholic Church. Movies like the Exorcist are simply extreme entertainment and don’t reflect what occurs in many Catholic exorcisms
“4. Most Catholics don’t believe that the bread and wine at mass actually turns into the physical body and blood of Jesus, like it says in the “Real Presence” part. What good would eating his physical flesh do? Most of us believe that it is a more spiritual thing and that when we consume the bread and wine, Jesus’s spirit is passing through us. It is usually only very, very devote Catholics that believe in the “Real Presence.”
SIGGGHHHH!
“5. We Catholics know that that Papal Infallibility is a load of crap. We kinda figured that out after the Inquisitions and the Crusades. In fact, some of the Popes in the Dark Ages were among the evilest men to ever live.”.
If you don’t believe in Papal infallibility in the matters of FAITH and MORALS, then I really do think you need to think long on hard on why you even bother identifying as Catholic. This is a matter of *doctrine* and not discipline, so TRUE FAITHFUL Catholics are bound to it.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
As a Catholic, thank you very much for writing a well-balanced article. Even if these things aren’t strange to me, I liked that you gave some insight into each item. Personally, I do not use items 2-4 or 10, and I pray to God more than the saints, but I do strongly believe that the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Items 2 and 3 are based on an older Catholic theology and were by no means common. The other beliefs are current. The context of Catholic theology and spirituality out which they are arise, when understood properly, are purposeful and inspirational.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
As a Catholic I must admit that we believe in two things: Rhythm and bingo; if you don’t have rhythm, BINGO!
September 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I have actually seen two examples of first class relics when I visited Italy a couple years ago. I am Catholic so we saw a lot of churches. The first was in Sienna. It was the preserved head and finger of St. Catherine of Sienna. The second on was in Florence and it was the right arm bone of St. John the Baptist, the cities patron Saint.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Great list! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Anathema does not mean cursed it means to be excommunicated formal excommunication does not exist since Vatican II. The type of excommunication this is referring to can be remedied by going to confession.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
jfrater: you are obviously Catholic, so I find it hilarious that people are accusing you of being anti-Catholic!
And isn’t it interesting how everyone (Catholic and non) claims to know the REAL TRUTH about Catholicism? I’ve taught Confirmation class in my parish, and I know that many Catholics never study their faith again after Confirmation at age 13. Which explains a lot. (Like Mike, for example.)
November 1st, 2009 at 2:24 am
I am disappointed in this article… I was really enjoying this site.
The presentation of corporal mortification is extremely misleading. The practice is not only “optional,” it is strongly recommended AGAINST and those who practice is are often counseled for being… well, for lack of a more academic word, crazy. It’s not uncommon – it’s nearly unheard of.
Also – exorcisms are common practices in many religions and cultures world-wide. It’s not really a Catholic thing.
I’ll give you that transubstantiation might be odd to those who don’t believe.
And I don’t understand what is “bizarre” about the scapular? Many religions have various strings/chords/etc they wear as a personal devotion… yarmulkes and Sikh forehead “dots” come to mind immediately.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:27 am
Also – Papal infallibility of often very misunderstood. Not only is it limited by the factors you pointed out, but it has only ever been exercised three times. THREE. And once was in order declare was Papal infallibility was. The other two had something to do with Mary… one I think was about the Assumption, I forget the other.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Infallibility has been “exercised” more than three times. In fact, many magisterial pronouncements are in fact infallible, even if the Pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra (e.g., ecumenical councils). For example, every canonization is considered to be infallible (therefore, every Blessed being canonized is really in Heaven).
BCH (98): the penalty of excommunication still exists today. Not all excommunications are removed by going to confession; some are reserved to the Ordinary (i.e., the Bishop) or even the Holy See.
Twirly (100): corporal mortification has been always a practice of the Church, until this day. It has never been officially “recommended against” as you say; read the lives of the Saints and you will see that most if not all of them practiced some form of mortification. In fact, at least Latin rite Catholics are required by current law to do a minimum of corporal penance: abstinence on Fridays (which can be replaced by other pious practices in some countries) and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (which cannot).