K
Kolbe300
Guest
Hi, OraLabora. Thank you for your posts. Your approach to this subject is very refreshing, to say the least.
Peace!
- Status
Peace!
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
LOL
Person A is gay.
Person B is Christian.
Person A: Hey there, Bob and I would like you to come over for dinner and cocktails tomorrow. We are planning our wedding and would like your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Person B: Sure, right after adoration I will come over.
Person A: great, you are one of the only Christians I know that dont tell us we are wrong!
Person B Um er… thanks?
Person A What do you want to bring to dinner? Wine? a desert?
Person B How about some Gregorian Chant!
Person A um er… thanks?
Next day:
person A: wow, Bob and I broke up last night. I converted to the Church, renounced my homosexuality and am living a Chaste life.
Person B: ( with evil hand wringing) Exactly as I planned.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
Exactly! And because it is absolutely common sense what to do or say to them to NOT help them in their sin. They are not “politically” protected. So we can say to a tax cheat. "its wrong! Don’t do it! Say that to a gay and suddenly you are somehow a judgmental person who is hurting others with your views…
N
Nate13
Guest
25% of the threads on the first page of the Moral Theology section are in some way related to sexual sin. I think that is a fair percentage considering you can’t watch tv, get on the internet, or go shopping without being pummeled with something sex related. If anything we aren’t talking about these issues enough. First Catholics are accused of being “sheltered” when it comes to sex, and now we are talking about sex too much?!?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
OraLabora
**And that’s the main thrust of my point, that we are to consider the entire person in relating to them, not just their sexuality, and in any event, preaching to someone about their sexuality, without having walked a mile in their shoes, probably isn’t very useful. **
Well, I’m in the prison ministry. I don’t feel I have to walk a mile in a prisoner’s shoes to be in that ministry. That is, I don’t think I have to be a murderer or a thief or a drug dealer to be of some service helping murderers, thieves, and drug dealers turn their lives around. So I think your analogy is a little off center there, buster!
So I guess it must really irk you no end to read that Paul admonished the man in Corinth, and all the Corinthians who went along with his incest.
“It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed….” (1 Corinthians 5:1-4)
You present yourself as someone who knows better than Paul. I think not.
**And that’s the main thrust of my point, that we are to consider the entire person in relating to them, not just their sexuality, and in any event, preaching to someone about their sexuality, without having walked a mile in their shoes, probably isn’t very useful. **
Well, I’m in the prison ministry. I don’t feel I have to walk a mile in a prisoner’s shoes to be in that ministry. That is, I don’t think I have to be a murderer or a thief or a drug dealer to be of some service helping murderers, thieves, and drug dealers turn their lives around. So I think your analogy is a little off center there, buster!
So I guess it must really irk you no end to read that Paul admonished the man in Corinth, and all the Corinthians who went along with his incest.
“It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed….” (1 Corinthians 5:1-4)
You present yourself as someone who knows better than Paul. I think not.
S
Spyral
Guest
- Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game. If what you’re saying is true, you should be able to express it in any language. Insisting on terms like “homosexual inclination,” “lifestyle,” or “nature” (in the natural law sense) is basically a fancy form of begging the question. It’s good and right in theological documents from the Vatican, for the Bishops, but it is bad practice in practical evangelism. Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested.*
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
- They could just stop engaging in sex
- You mean enroll in RCIA?
- Doesn’t make sense, those feelings wont vanish over right even if they eventually dissipate
- Cool beans
J
JMJourfam
Guest
Is it a work of mercy, for example admonish the sinner, when you disrespectfully persecute someone whom it is commonly known has gay inclinations but is trying their best to live a normal heterosexual life? I know some excellent Catholic folk, after the heart of God, who persecute even at church, a certain individual. Is it a righteous duty to pick on the disordered individual in the interest of, in a roundabout way, protecting the innocent?
M
melt7355
Guest
We are forgetting the most basic element to winning anyone to Christ, and that is prayer. If we pray for the gay person we are trying to convert, then the Holy Spirit will give us the words. It never works to try to scare anyone into heaven.
S
Springkeeper
Guest
“Never make fun of a fat person in the gym” comes to mind. If someone is at church and trying desperately to reconnect with the Lord than the last thing anyone should do is persecute him. The publican and the pharisee scenario comes to mind and we all know which one Jesus condemned. The Lord is ever patient with sinners who are earnestly seeking to do His will, His strongest condemnations are reserved for the self-righteous hypocrites who claimed they were doing His will and yet were driving repentant souls away.
Short story: At my former Baptist church, a young lady walked in who had done a lot of bad things but she was so repentant and remorseful it was clear she was ready to “come home” as it were. She was never given a chance. Rumors flew ceaselessly about her and she quickly fled never to return. I saw that happen again and again by people who claimed they were doing the will of God but were, in fact, a lot closer to hell than the ones they judged and condemned.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Give me a break. You’re playing the favorite Protestant trick, taking Bible quotes out of context, about something written in a letter to the community at large, to the elders of a Christian community about members of that community who were making a mockery of the community’s standards. For the most part when dialoguing with gays, we’re not talking to members of the Church. They are already on the outside. Some may be looking in, wondering if they can find peace and serenity when they realize that sexual gratification is not the real road to happiness and fulfillment. Yet many here would turn them away, rather than invite them in and let the Holy Spirit get on with its job. A faith journey starts with a single act of conversion, but it does not lead to instant perfection.So I guess it must really irk you no end to read that Paul admonished the man in Corinth, and all the Corinthians who went along with his incest.
“It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed….” (1 Corinthians 5:1-4)
You present yourself as someone who knows better than Paul. I think not.
I have no problems politically opposing some parts of the gay movement that I think are damaging. I wrote letters to my member of parliament opposing gay marriage for example, and I have no problems saying that communally, morality is going to hell in a hand basket.
What I try to avoid though is failing to see the log in my eye instead of the speck in the other’s eye.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Some people certainly use immature tactics in debate, and like to twist a person’s words beyond recognition.
I said that I think I would have as much luck at converting a gay person by taking them to the abbey to listen to Gregorian chant, than I would being judgmental with them.
Think about that for a minute, and apply the three filters before you answer.
Neither method is likely to be particularly effective. But at least one of them is harmless.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
In the same post, I quoted twice-over a sentence from an even earlier post in the thread. I had hoped that repetition would mean that the chances of misunderstanding or misreading would be reduced. Again, I think I may have been wrong. But hope springs eternal. Here’s the relevant sentence, repeated here for the fourth time in this thread:
Our obligation should be loving correction (I’ve written as much earlier in this thread), being martyrs/witnesses of the all-gracious goodness of God, even if (particularly if) that means we must suffer or die with, on behalf of, or on account of those to whom we would witness.
My recent posts to InSearch also expand upon this. What I’ve been reacting to in this thread has been the argument that Melinda’s list is somehow soft or worthless because it goes about correction in a way that is different from what I and many others associate with the word “chastisement.” When Charlemagne wrote that we are obligated to chastise, it seemed to me that the stress was being put on the wrong action: our obligation is to love. Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray (as I wrote above in the quote from previous posts). I was not once arguing against such a thing. I was trying to put the emphasis back on love. In addition, I was trying to make the point that if our correction amounts to “You’re going to hell, so repent” all the time, it won’t necessarily be the the most useful to those we’re trying to correct–and if we think that we can bludgeon people with the truth, which is an idea that was also introduced in this thread, then we do an injustice to the truth and to the people we are attempting to correct. Moreover, the moment we find ourselves wanting to bludgeon a brother or sister with the truth or with anything, perhaps we should examine ourselves and our motivations and reconsider our tactics.
The Psalmist prays (Psalm 141), “Let the righteous rather smite me friendly and reprove me. But let not their precious balms break my head.” My point, in part, has been that sometimes we forget the “friendly” part and wind up smashing heads instead of actually providing the loving correction that charity requires.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!
John, I think you misread the entire post. I appreciate your breaking down your understanding of that paragraph, and I see that your criticism is certainly valid if you were to excerpt that paragraph from the entirety of the post–or indeed, from it’s place in the line of thought I’ve been developing in this thread. It looks like another one of the problems that I encounter in these forums is that I assume that people will read things in context and take that context into consideration. I think I may have been wrong.
In the same post, I quoted twice-over a sentence from an even earlier post in the thread. I had hoped that repetition would mean that the chances of misunderstanding or misreading would be reduced. Again, I think I may have been wrong. But hope springs eternal. Here’s the relevant sentence, repeated here for the fourth time in this thread:
Our obligation should be loving correction (I’ve written as much earlier in this thread), being martyrs/witnesses of the all-gracious goodness of God, even if (particularly if) that means we must suffer or die with, on behalf of, or on account of those to whom we would witness.
My recent posts to InSearch also expand upon this. What I’ve been reacting to in this thread has been the argument that Melinda’s list is somehow soft or worthless because it goes about correction in a way that is different from what I and many others associate with the word “chastisement.” When Charlemagne wrote that we are obligated to chastise, it seemed to me that the stress was being put on the wrong action: our obligation is to love. Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray (as I wrote above in the quote from previous posts). I was not once arguing against such a thing. I was trying to put the emphasis back on love. In addition, I was trying to make the point that if our correction amounts to “You’re going to hell, so repent” all the time, it won’t necessarily be the the most useful to those we’re trying to correct–and if we think that we can bludgeon people with the truth, which is an idea that was also introduced in this thread, then we do an injustice to the truth and to the people we are attempting to correct. Moreover, the moment we find ourselves wanting to bludgeon a brother or sister with the truth or with anything, perhaps we should examine ourselves and our motivations and reconsider our tactics.
The Psalmist prays (Psalm 141), “Let the righteous rather smite me friendly and reprove me. But let not their precious balms break my head.” My point, in part, has been that sometimes we forget the “friendly” part and wind up smashing heads instead of actually providing the loving correction that charity requires.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
OraLabora
**What I try to avoid though is failing to see the log in my eye instead of the speck in the other’s eye. **
If Paul had thought like that, he would have had to be sleeping with his mother (the log in his eye) to avoid condemning the Corinthian who slept with his mother.
I just don’t get you. And I give up trying to.
The notion that we are not to cite scriptural passages to prove a case is simply absurd.
**What I try to avoid though is failing to see the log in my eye instead of the speck in the other’s eye. **
If Paul had thought like that, he would have had to be sleeping with his mother (the log in his eye) to avoid condemning the Corinthian who slept with his mother.
I just don’t get you. And I give up trying to.
The notion that we are not to cite scriptural passages to prove a case is simply absurd.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Paul was a leader of the Church with apostolic teaching authority, and a saint at that!OraLabora
**What I try to avoid though is failing to see the log in my eye instead of the speck in the other’s eye. **
If Paul had thought like that, he would have had to be sleeping with his mother (the log in his eye) to avoid condemning the Corinthian who slept with his mother.
I just don’t get you. And I give up trying to.
The notion that we are not to cite scriptural passages to prove a case is simply absurd.
We certainly don’t measure up to him, and we are also the laity. We can certainly write letters (to the editor, to our elected representatives, to our bishop, whatever) condemning what we see as moral laxity in our church and community. As I mentioned I did so on the issue of same-sex marriage (I was going to say “gay marriage” but then I realized that my wife and I have a gay marriage… because we are both very happy with each other! and we’re opposite sex… yes I do oppose the raping of the language to change the meaning of words), I wrote to my MP and to the Prime Minister (who at the time happened to worship at my parish church…)
But that’s quite a bit different than chastising an individual who engages us in dialogue isn’t it?
As for Bible scriptures… well quote away, but as you probably know it’s possible to find a quote that fits any point of an argument if one tries hard enough. We need to look at the big picture and that includes the Pharisee and the publican, the log in the eye, Jesus eating with sinners, the Good Thief on the cross, the prodigal son, and yes, Paul writing to the communities over which he had Authority, authentic authority through apostolic succession.
But then what do I know… I just hang out with Benedictines and try to emulate how they deal with sinners who happen to come their way.
Oh and PS… the log in our eye… etc… it was never meant to mean that the other person is guilty of exactly the same sin.
N
Nate13
Guest
Well if Paul is out of our reach then so is Jesus. If we are not good enough to strive to be able to imitate Paul, then Jesus must for sure be out of our reach.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Deo Volente
**When Charlemagne wrote that we are obligated to chastise, it seemed to me that the stress was being put on the wrong action: our obligation is to love. Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray (as I wrote above in the quote from previous posts). I was not once arguing against such a thing. I was trying to put the emphasis back on love. In addition, I was trying to make the point that if our correction amounts to “You’re going to hell, so repent” all the time, it won’t necessarily be the the most useful to those we’re trying to correct–and if we think that we can bludgeon people with the truth, which is an idea that was also introduced in this thread, then we do an injustice to the truth and to the people we are attempting to correct. Moreover, the moment we find ourselves wanting to bludgeon a brother or sister with the truth or with anything, perhaps we should examine ourselves and our motivations and reconsider our tactics.
The Psalmist prays (Psalm 141), “Let the righteous rather smite me friendly and reprove me. But let not their precious balms break my head.” My point, in part, has been that sometimes we forget the “friendly” part and wind up smashing heads instead of actually providing the loving correction that charity requires.**
To imply that someone in this forum may be bludgeoning others or smashing heads, as you have just done, strikes me as uncharitable to the nth degree. Neither John nor I have done any such thing. So to whom are you referring? Are you referring to people who taunt homosexuals with their brokenness, or who actually punish them by smashing their heads and bludgeoning them, or even killing them?
The only part of your post that makes any sense is the following:
** Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray …**
But then you had to go and spoil it with all that blah, blah, blah.
**When Charlemagne wrote that we are obligated to chastise, it seemed to me that the stress was being put on the wrong action: our obligation is to love. Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray (as I wrote above in the quote from previous posts). I was not once arguing against such a thing. I was trying to put the emphasis back on love. In addition, I was trying to make the point that if our correction amounts to “You’re going to hell, so repent” all the time, it won’t necessarily be the the most useful to those we’re trying to correct–and if we think that we can bludgeon people with the truth, which is an idea that was also introduced in this thread, then we do an injustice to the truth and to the people we are attempting to correct. Moreover, the moment we find ourselves wanting to bludgeon a brother or sister with the truth or with anything, perhaps we should examine ourselves and our motivations and reconsider our tactics.
The Psalmist prays (Psalm 141), “Let the righteous rather smite me friendly and reprove me. But let not their precious balms break my head.” My point, in part, has been that sometimes we forget the “friendly” part and wind up smashing heads instead of actually providing the loving correction that charity requires.**
To imply that someone in this forum may be bludgeoning others or smashing heads, as you have just done, strikes me as uncharitable to the nth degree. Neither John nor I have done any such thing. So to whom are you referring? Are you referring to people who taunt homosexuals with their brokenness, or who actually punish them by smashing their heads and bludgeoning them, or even killing them?
The only part of your post that makes any sense is the following:
** Of course loving each other means correcting each other when we go astray …**
But then you had to go and spoil it with all that blah, blah, blah.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I’ve not been speaking categorically when I’ve been speaking of cruelty. I’ve not even been accusing anyone here of cruelty. My impression has been that when someone questions chastisement as valuable always and everywhere and with everyone–particularly when it’s pointed out that, on account of our own sin, chastisement so often becomes more valuable to the self-conception of the one chastising than to the one being chastised–many folks here seem to feel like their right to chastise with impunity is being threatened (as if such a thing even existed in the first place), and that Christianity is being emasculated. I find such reactions puzzling, if not downright troubling, for the reasons I’ve written.
You may have seen my post to John in which I try to address a related concern. Chastisement, it seems to me, is a particular kind of correction which is characterized by it’s severity. When Israel is said to have been chastised, usually people wind up dead, children are naked and starving in the streets, and whole populations are sold into slavery. These days, if someone reacts with startling vehemence to something that is relatively trivial, it’s not uncommon for us to say something like, “Yeah, I put one lump of sugar in his coffee, and then he starts chastising me about not putting in four, and when I told him to calm down, he bit my head off and stormed out of the room.”
Now, before I’m accused of trying to redefine terms, let me just say that I realize that sometimes a loving and severe hand is needed when we’re in need of correction. But I’ve noticed in these forums, and in my own actions in life, that we often think we have the loving part covered if we just take care of the severe part. So, for me, a focus on chastisement which seems to eclipse a focus on love means that we are often more willing, due to our fallen natures, to be severe when severity is not called for. I think, in fact, that only the holiest of people can get away with dishing out the severest of chastisements without falling into the sin of pride. For the rest of us, I think that just focusing on loving each other and correcting each other in and with love when we go astray is the best course of action.
What chafes, insofar as anything chafes, is the subtle or subtextual assumption that because I’m a homosexual, I have a very specific subversive agenda and a very specific set of values that is handed to me by my controllers in the vast homosexual lobby/conspiracy. It’s difficult to engage in a conversation when someone thinks they know what you’re saying before you say it. But it’s annoying when people repeat back to you their dark fantasy of the wicked and subversive things you supposedly said as if that fantasy bears any resemblance to what you actually said. I’ve encountered that on these forums a few more times than I would like, but it’s not a universal experience. And really, in terms of annoying or chafing things, it’s not the worst one can experience in this life.
[CONTINUED…]
Hi, Michelle. I think, like InSearch, you were reading a lot into what I wrote. Here’s my response to InSearch which addresses your assertion:
I’ve not been speaking categorically when I’ve been speaking of cruelty. I’ve not even been accusing anyone here of cruelty. My impression has been that when someone questions chastisement as valuable always and everywhere and with everyone–particularly when it’s pointed out that, on account of our own sin, chastisement so often becomes more valuable to the self-conception of the one chastising than to the one being chastised–many folks here seem to feel like their right to chastise with impunity is being threatened (as if such a thing even existed in the first place), and that Christianity is being emasculated. I find such reactions puzzling, if not downright troubling, for the reasons I’ve written.
You may have seen my post to John in which I try to address a related concern. Chastisement, it seems to me, is a particular kind of correction which is characterized by it’s severity. When Israel is said to have been chastised, usually people wind up dead, children are naked and starving in the streets, and whole populations are sold into slavery. These days, if someone reacts with startling vehemence to something that is relatively trivial, it’s not uncommon for us to say something like, “Yeah, I put one lump of sugar in his coffee, and then he starts chastising me about not putting in four, and when I told him to calm down, he bit my head off and stormed out of the room.”
Now, before I’m accused of trying to redefine terms, let me just say that I realize that sometimes a loving and severe hand is needed when we’re in need of correction. But I’ve noticed in these forums, and in my own actions in life, that we often think we have the loving part covered if we just take care of the severe part. So, for me, a focus on chastisement which seems to eclipse a focus on love means that we are often more willing, due to our fallen natures, to be severe when severity is not called for. I think, in fact, that only the holiest of people can get away with dishing out the severest of chastisements without falling into the sin of pride. For the rest of us, I think that just focusing on loving each other and correcting each other in and with love when we go astray is the best course of action.
Not really, Michelle–it doesn’t chafe at all. You assume a lot about my actions.
What chafes, insofar as anything chafes, is the subtle or subtextual assumption that because I’m a homosexual, I have a very specific subversive agenda and a very specific set of values that is handed to me by my controllers in the vast homosexual lobby/conspiracy. It’s difficult to engage in a conversation when someone thinks they know what you’re saying before you say it. But it’s annoying when people repeat back to you their dark fantasy of the wicked and subversive things you supposedly said as if that fantasy bears any resemblance to what you actually said. I’ve encountered that on these forums a few more times than I would like, but it’s not a universal experience. And really, in terms of annoying or chafing things, it’s not the worst one can experience in this life.
Why should someone’s beliefs, honestly and lovingly expressed, be so painful to me simply because I disagree with them in a few (albeit important, perhaps) details?
I wouldn’t limit it to one piece, Michelle. Of sinners, I’m the worst. But whether or not my homosexuality is something I’ve yet to give to God–you may be surprised.
Why should it? If I believed that everyone should agree with me all the time, I’d be a sight more delusional than I probably already am. And while one person’s “adamantly saying the same thing” may be another person’s idea of monotony, there’s nothing especially disturbing about monotony…apart, perhaps, from a tendency to complacency. But one person’s perception of complacency is another’s experience of peace, so…what can you do? In the end, I can’t fault people for actually believing what they purportedly believe and expressing it as such.
[CONTINUED…]
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]
It does concern me when people say things like, “I’m sorry for your pain” in contexts like this because, particularly when one is not in pain, or at least not in the pain one’s interlocutor believes one is in, it comes across as, “I think you should be pain,” or, “It surprises me that you are not in pain.” Which, to me, in this context, says, “You being in pain proves that the choices that I’ve made are correct.” I’d like to tell you, though, Michelle, and it may prove a comfort to you: you being right about the choices you’ve made has nothing to do with whether or not I’m in pain. It seems to me that you’ve made the choices that have brought you closer to God, and that’s more than terrific. But my pain, or the pain of anyone else whom you believe to be (rightly or wrongly) in a situation comparable to your former state, does not have anything to do with the choices you’ve made.
Wishing you a peaceful Advent and a Happy Christmas!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!
I appreciate your sympathy. We all have our various spiritual aches and pains, Michelle. I don’t think, though, that we necessarily experience the same ones in exactly the same ways. Your conversion story was very particular to you, and I’m glad that you’ve experienced the grace of God in your life and are happy in your walk with him.
It does concern me when people say things like, “I’m sorry for your pain” in contexts like this because, particularly when one is not in pain, or at least not in the pain one’s interlocutor believes one is in, it comes across as, “I think you should be pain,” or, “It surprises me that you are not in pain.” Which, to me, in this context, says, “You being in pain proves that the choices that I’ve made are correct.” I’d like to tell you, though, Michelle, and it may prove a comfort to you: you being right about the choices you’ve made has nothing to do with whether or not I’m in pain. It seems to me that you’ve made the choices that have brought you closer to God, and that’s more than terrific. But my pain, or the pain of anyone else whom you believe to be (rightly or wrongly) in a situation comparable to your former state, does not have anything to do with the choices you’ve made.
I wasn’t aware that that was what I was doing. I apologize if that’s how it came across!
Wishing you a peaceful Advent and a Happy Christmas!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
OraLabora
**
As for Bible scriptures… well quote away, but as you probably know it’s possible to find a quote that fits any point of an argument if one tries hard enough. We need to look at the big picture and that includes the Pharisee and the publican, the log in the eye, Jesus eating with sinners, the Good Thief on the cross, the prodigal son, and yes, Paul writing to the communities over which he had Authority, authentic authority through apostolic succession.**
Oh, believe me, I too have eaten with many sinners: rapists, child molesters, thieves, drug dealers … even murderers. If you really want to get that log out of your eye, try out the prison ministry.
The Benedictines will cheer you on.
When I eat with those sinners, I am eating humble pie. It will not taste good, but it’s good for you.
“I was in prison and you visited me.” Matthew 25:36
**
As for Bible scriptures… well quote away, but as you probably know it’s possible to find a quote that fits any point of an argument if one tries hard enough. We need to look at the big picture and that includes the Pharisee and the publican, the log in the eye, Jesus eating with sinners, the Good Thief on the cross, the prodigal son, and yes, Paul writing to the communities over which he had Authority, authentic authority through apostolic succession.**
Oh, believe me, I too have eaten with many sinners: rapists, child molesters, thieves, drug dealers … even murderers. If you really want to get that log out of your eye, try out the prison ministry.
The Benedictines will cheer you on.When I eat with those sinners, I am eating humble pie. It will not taste good, but it’s good for you.
“I was in prison and you visited me.” Matthew 25:36
- Status