What is the difference between self-control and repression?
I grew up a Catholic southerner with a deep and abiding respect for authority. (That reads: few people around me held or understood my beliefs.)
Our pastor, Father Bill was a Franciscan Friar. He was a monk. A vow of chastity. A vow of poverty. Everything he used on a daily basis was technically the property of the church. I thought that guy was badass. I really admired his sacrifice and dedication and thought that such a lifestyle brought clarity and strength.
Now it seems much more likely that such a lifestyle could be horribly alienating, even damaging, and would certainly get in the way of the connecting and understanding work of the priesthood.
Because of my upbringing, I limited certain behaviors, and beat myself up pretty bad when I didn't successfully limit others. I'm starting to see how even this could be damaging, but having never explored these issues openly, I lack a frame of reference.
Surely there is still such a thing as healthy self-control. Apparently, there is such a thing as harmful repression. What are the criteria for determining where to draw the line? If "all things are permissible, but only some things are beneficial," how do you set your boundaries?
Does everybody either adopt a given frame of reference (like good little Mormons and Catholics) or just play with boundaries in youth until they get burned and retreat?
How badly do most people get hurt before they frame their version of a healthy lifestyle?
I know this is a lot of questions, and folks have probably been working this out all their lives. But I went from being a pretty mature kid to a really naive adult, and I've only just now noticed the change.