Church attendance linked with reduced suicide risk, especially for Catholics, study says

Against a grim backdrop of rising suicide rates among American women, new research has revealed a blinding shaft of light: One group of women — practicing Catholics — appears to have bucked the national trend toward despair and self-harm. Compared with women who never participated in religious services, women who attended any religious service once a week or more were five times less likely to commit suicide between 1996 and 2010, says a study published by JAMA Psychiatry. [snip] Among devout Catholic women — those in the pews more than once a week — suicides were a vanishing phenomenon. Among the 6,999 Catholic women who said they attended mass more than once a week, there was not a single suicide. The Catholic Church teaches that suicide is a mortal sin. It has long ...denied those who killed themselves a Catholic burial. [snip] Sigmund Freud, the father of psychiatry, denounced religious belief as the "universal obsessional neurosis of humanity." Much current research, however, has focused not only on the deep biological underpinnings of religiosity, but its potential benefits as well. "Religious convictions and practices can help people foster a sense of hope, even in the midst of major crises or adversities," said Kheriaty. "Religious faith can help people find a sense of meaning and purpose even in suffering," he added. "It's not our role to 'prescribe' religion… or proselytize to our patients," said Kheriaty. "It is safe to assume that religious conviction and faith must be genuine and sincere if they are to provide the mental and physical health benefits that several studies have suggested." But if patients are inclined to explore religion or spirituality, said Kheriaty, "doctors can encourage patients to explore such activities confident that religious practices will likely not harm, and may indeed, help, their patient's mental health.

I think the OT custom of praying for the dead (as in 2 Maccabees) influenced the early church, too, to pray for those who had died (as when Paul prayed for Onesiphorus). It shows up on the walls of the catacombs, which means quite early indeed: "Ora pro me." This would be pointless if the person who had died had instantly gone to his final destination, Heaven or Hell.

As you have been >shown before, 2 Maccabees was not part of your indisputable (for RCs) canon for most of your history, but regardless, this does not teach Purgatory, but instead it advocates offerings with prayers for those who were lost, who were clearly said to have died due to idolatry, that they yet might be in the resurrection (of the just), "in that he was mindful of the resurrection." (2 Maccabees 12:43)

Thus all you can invoke this text from the Deuteros for is for praying for the dead, even for those who died due to mortal sin ("Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain...they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain" - 2 Maccabees 12:40,42), for whom according to Rome there is no hope.

Thus RCs must resort to special pleading that maybe they repented in their dying moments, but died anyway due to idolatry. And again, the offerings for them was in hope that they may see the resurrection, which those in purgatory are assured of, not that they may escape from purgatory.

Thus if you want to use this verse as instruction for praying for the dead, then you could conceivably even pray for Hitler to be part of the resurrection of the just, but not that he might get out of Purgatory, since in erroneous RC theology. being in that place constitutes assurance of salvation.

However, while the Holy Spirit records approx. 200 prayers in Scripture in exampling and teaching how to pray and exhorting the same, there are zero prayers to Heaven anywhere in Scripture addressed to anyone in Heaven but God, except by pagans.

And praying for the dead was a latter development among some Jews, flowing from paganism.

...it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world...

These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good.

The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background... It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. (The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using Free Online OCR - convert scanned PDF and images to Word, JPEG to Word, emp. mine)

Also, as for these Maccabean Jews, a Jewish site tells us that the rededication of the Temple was,

led by Judas Maccabeus, third son of Mattathias the Hasmonean, whose successors established the Hasmonean high priesthood dynasty. But which were not a valid high priesthood due to invalid lineage, (Genesis 49:10) being not of the lineage of David, as the Zadoks were, and their line ended up opening the door to the Roman conquest. Their control ended when Herod eliminated every male in the Hasmonean line. (Though The Herodian Dynasty had Hasmonean blood thru two sons and two daughters. through Mariamne.)

Due to the unpopularity of its founders, Hanukkah itself came to be largely ignored within a few decades after its origins. Then when Rome’s crushing power began to be felt in Palestine, the people recognized in Hanukkah a message of hope that new Maccabees would rise and independence would be restored. - The Hasmonean Dynasty | My Jewish Learning

Though it's true that in a sense, Catholicity is permanent (not even excommunication takes away the permanent "mark" of baptism), it's baptism itself which is recognized as one's entry into the Catholic Church. All of my baptized RCIA students --- baptized in the Name of the Trinity in any church, Lutheran, Church of God in Christ, whatever --- are received by Confirmation, since they are already baptized, and we recognize that. So you can say all the validly baptized are, in that sense, Catholic. Even my husband, who was baptized in the Baptist church. The Catechism would call him certainly, but imperfectly, Catholic. Paragraph # 838 "Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." I sometimes find it confusing when one word is used in different senses.

The issue is not that Ted Kennedy Catholics are manifestly considered Catholic in the sense as your husband is, but as formally Catholic, members of your church of such standing as to be given ecclesiastical funerals, under the watchful eye of the Vatican no less. Thereby showing her interpretation of canon law, regardless and contrary to your rendering such to be excommunicated latae sentenciae. Biblical, what we do is the evidence of what we really believe, not mere professions. (Ja. 2:18)

Of course, once again you have been corrected on this before , but continue in your compelled defense of error.

I have never defended the disgraceful, scandalous violations of Canon Law by even the highest-positioned men in the Church. I noted, promptly, when it happened, Abortion Enthusiast Ted Kennedy’s grand funeral honors at the Cathedral in Boston, which looked and smelled like a canonization, when it should have featured a sermon on the terrible certainty of God’s Judgment and the chanting of the Dies Irae. Though I have decried Catholics’ failings frequently, perhaps I can leave it to you to do so continuously.

And just who are you to charge your leadership with disgraceful, scandalous violations of Canon Law? You mean to tell me that the laity are to ascertain the validity of the words and actions of Catholic leadership, from the pope down, based upon their judgment of what valid Catholic teaching is and means?

That essentially makes you a evangelical, who are to ascertain the validity of church teaching based upon their judgment of what ancient church teaching says. After all the NT church began in dissent from the judgment of the historical magisterium, as the laity ascertained an itinerant Preachers and His disciples were Scriptural men of God.

In contrast, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

And at one time the like of you were forbidden to engage in public debate the likes of me, while "religious submission of mind and of will" is required of non-definitive, non-infallible teaching of the universal Magisterium, which forbids public contradiction of the teaching.

Religious assent (religiosum obsequium) has never been compatible with what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith defines as "dissent," that is, "public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church" - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

(((sigh))) Canon 212 And tagline.

(((sigh))) You have also tried this before, but the only thing in Canon 212 that you can try to invoke in defense of public dissent is ,

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

I presume you consider yourself and cohorts to have the required knowledge, competence, and prestige, but invoking this shows how subject to interpretation Catholic teaching can be - the very thing RCs promote the magisterium as being the answer to.

You posted this in response to a list of papal teaching and the prohibition of public contradiction , and under the pretext of making "their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful" and having a "just and reasonable cause" RCs take it upon themselves to engage with those Rome (doctrinally) defines as "heretics," and publicly dissent from obedience to the pope, even with encyclicals, and often speak contrary to showing "reverence toward their pastors, and "the dignity of persons."

You can argue that you do not agree with those who disparage your pope and prelates and "Christian faithful," but i do not see you censuring such, while you dismiss as excoms those whom Rome manifestly affirms as members those who conservative "true" Catholics reject.

And besides the modern contradiction with past RC teaching (below), I am not impressed with Canon 1212 or your interpretation of it as sanctioning even your debates. At best Canon 1212 is too broad and ambiguous to do so, and you are not simply making your opinions known to the "Christian faithful" - which would to be "faithful" as per Rome would mean Catholics as per canon 831 which forbids writing in media which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion, as we do here - but are engaging in debate with "heretics" as per heretical Rome, as well as non-Christians.

All in all, what we have are RCs not following leadership with its current application/interpretation/clarification of historical RC teaching as docile sheep, but setting themselves up as judges of what is valid Catholic teaching based upon their interpretation of what that is, and interpreting modern teaching as sanctioning this.

For paradoxically, it is often traditional RCs who oppose modern changes who invoke canon 212 as supporting their public protests, yet canon 212 is a modernist adaptation to free speech values, without which then they would not be able to invoke canon law as supporting their public protests and debates, based upon their interpretation of it.

For in the past, RC were enjoined,

We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions

Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, in part,

This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public.... ..but when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy. But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization...That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

And currently,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.