A Modest Proposal

[CentralFLJames]

I agree-we win no converts with anger and hostility.

But we lose relevance and the ability to “salt the earth” by sitting quietly on the shelf of pacifism and will go stale and sterile in our ability to attract any attention or provoke change. Passion is good and not all anger is negative.

James

 

[Christopher68]

But we lose relevance and the ability to “salt the earth” by sitting quietly on the shelf of pacifism and will go stale and sterile in our ability to attract any attention or provoke change. Passion is good and not all anger is negative.

James

There is a vast difference here. No one is suggesting pacifism. We’re suggesting that we appeal to one’s better nature - as opposed to actively condemning and confronting them.

 

[Don_Schneider]

I agree-we win no converts with anger and hostility.

Dear Chris and Mking:

Then how do you explain that religions which will not tolerate internal dissent such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons continue to prosper and grow, while our Church can only claim such with ridiculously inflated worldwide membership figures consisting of totally nominal members as evidenced by greatly reduced Mass schedules?

No religion that does not take itself seriously will be taken seriously by others inside or outside of it. St. Paul admonishes: “Let there be no divisions among you.” Do you still recognize the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

As for Jenkins who uses a nominally Catholic institution to give an award and a platform to a man he well knows will do everything within his power to perpetuate the legalized murder of millions of children a year, I do not recognize him as a Catholic let alone a priest. I would not go to confession to Jenkins, and if I were dying and sufficiently rational to enforce my will, I would not accept last rites from him.

Any Catholic who votes for any “pro-choice” politician for any reason should be excommunicated if he or she unrepentantly acknowledges it; and should be admonished in church that he or she is already if he or she does not acknowledge it and that he or she is wasting his or her time attending.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Dear Chris and Mking:

Then how do you explain that religions which will not tolerate internal dissent such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons continue to prosper and grow, while our Church can only claim such with ridiculously inflated worldwide membership figures consisting of totally nominal members as evidenced by greatly reduced Mass schedules?

No religion that does not take itself seriously will be taken seriously by others inside or outside of it. St. Paul admonishes: “Let there be no divisions among you.” Do you still recognize the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

As for Jenkins who uses a nominally Catholic institution to give an award and a platform to a man he well knows will do everything within his power to perpetrate the legalized murder of millions of children a year, I do not recognize him as a Catholic let alone a priest. I would not go to confession to Jenkins, and if I were dying and sufficiently rational to enforce my will, I would not accept last rites from him.

Any Catholic who votes for any “pro-choice” politician for any reason should be excommunicated if he or she unrepentantly acknowledges it; and should be admonished in church that he or she is already if he or she does not acknowledge it and that he or she is wasting his or her time attending.

I only know from my own experience that nobody has ever convinced me of anything using fear or hostility.

 

[cephas161619]

No religion that does not take itself seriously will be taken seriously by others inside or outside of it. St. Paul admonishes: “Let there be no divisions among you.” Do you still recognize the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

I understand that quote to mean that we strive for unity, just as Christ prayed that we be one as he and the Father are one. When Christ tells us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, he does not want us to despair if we are not immediately perfect.

Now do you take your interpretation from official Church teaching or are you teaching your own interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Don_Schneider]

I only know from my own experience that nobody has ever convinced me of anything using fear or hostility.

If it is considered “hostile” to not wish to remain within communion with those who make possible the legalized murder of millions of children a year—according to the Church’s own teaching—then I confess to being hostile.

I do not desire to convince anyone with my arguments of anything other than convincing both the Church and the faithful to actually follow the word of God, through his most illustrious prophet Paul: “Shun the wicked man.”

In the face of simple logic, all those who think as you do respond with the same sort of pabulum that has rendered our Church into the sorry condition She finds Herself today.

 

[Don_Schneider]

I understand that quote to mean that we strive for unity, just as Christ prayed that we be one as he and the Father are one. When Christ tells us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, he does not want us to despair if we are not immediately perfect.

Now do you take your interpretation from official Church teaching or are you teaching your own interpretation of the Bible?

According to your logic, how many more millions of children must be butchered while we are “striving for unity”?

 

[cephas161619]

According to your logic, how many more millions of children must be butchered while we are “striving for unity”?

I don’t follow your logic. I suggest nothing of the sort. I’m talking about the quote which you bring up. If the quote appears twisted and out of context, then we need more of an explanation. I gave you a counter quote that put it in context. Please don’t twist my words or intentions.

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is a vast difference here. No one is suggesting pacifism. We’re suggesting that we appeal to one’s better nature - as opposed to actively condemning and confronting them.

So are you suggesting that the Catholic Church immediately change all its history and start removing all the hundreds of anathemas that have been issued condeming all heretics over the last 2,000 years?

Should we go back and revise the bible to soften the hundreds of verses where the apostles angrily condemned heretics and shook the dust from their feet and repeatedly condemned the Jews and those outside of the faith and the immoral?

Do we have a better more “enlightened” way now?

Do you think we can soften the language on all the following NT verses to get more people comfortable with a single faith Christianity so as not to leave any child behind or hurt any feelings?

Here is just a sample of the hundreds of bible verses that we would have to “re-express” in the more postive and inclusionary feel-good “no child left behind” language of the age. Think you are up to the re-write of the bible?

**Matthew **

While insulting the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist calls an entire generation a “generation of vipers.” 3:7

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned “with unquenchable fire.” 3:10, 12

Jesus says that many go down the path to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 7:19

“the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:12

Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6

Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21

“Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” 10:33

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24

“He that is not with me is against me.” 12:30

“Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.” 12:31-32

Jesus pulls no punches and often called people names. One of his favorites was to call his adversaries a “generation of vipers.” 12:34

Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 13:41-42, 50

Jesus calls the Pharisees “hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous.” 15:2-3

Jesus condemns the Jews for being “the children of them which killed the prophets.” 23:31
Jesus blames his the Jews for “all the righteous blood” from Abel to Zecharias, 23:35

Jesus tells us that evil doers will be cast into an “everlasting fire.” 25:41

“His blood be on us, and on our children.” This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus . 27:25

Mark
Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a “dog” before agreeing to cast out the devil. 7:27

If you’re ashamed of Jesus, he’ll be ashamed of you and sent to hell. 8:38

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don’t will be damned. 16:16

**Luke **
Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 3:9

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned “with fire unquenchable.” 3:17

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants “thrust down to hell” for not “receiving” his disciples. 10:10-15

Jesus says, “He that is not with me is against me.” 11:23

Those who “blaspheme against the Holy Ghost” will never be forgiven. 12:10

**John **

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

The “wrath of God” is on all unbelievers. 3:36

John says that Jesus “would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” 7:1

No one could speak openly about Jesus “for fear of the Jews.” 7:13

If you don’t believe in Jesus, you will “die in your sins” and land in hell. 8:24

Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil. 8:44

If you don’t believe in Jesus you are going to hell. 12:48

Jesus is the only way to heaven. All other religions lead to hell. 14:6

If you follow Jesus’ teachings, God will love you – otherwise…it’s hell. 14:21

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Now that Jesus has come, non-believers have no excuse for not believing in him. 15:22

**Acts **

More alarming teachings about evil non-Christians (Jews):
3:14-15, 3:23, 4:12, 5:30 ,7:51-52, 9:22-23,10:39,12:1-3, 12:23, 13:45-46, 13:50, 23:12-15, 14:2-5, 17:5, 13, 18:6,18:12, 20:19 , 21:27, 31 , 23:27, 26:21

Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11

Christians burn non-Chrisitian teachings when Paul’s converts at Ephesus burn 50,000 silver pieces worth of books. 19:19

---

There are many dozens more teachings that are very specific and very hard to soften.

James

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Cephas:

We do not gain unity by tolerating those who outwardly or implicitly deny Church teaching. I want all the world to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a “pro-choice” Catholic. We gain that unity by expelling those who both deny Church teaching on abortion and facilitate its continued existence. We do this in accordance with St. Paul’s admonishment to the faithful (as I just stated): “Shun the wicked man.”

If you deny that the word “wicked” applies to someone who acts (including voting) to make possible legalized abortion, then any further dialogue between us in pointless.

On the other hand, if you did not mean to imply that we should tolerate those in communion with us who favor legalized child murder, then I did indeed misinterpret what you intended, and I do apologize.

 

[Wollie]

I don’t think we should start by excommunicating people. But the Church should start standing for what it actually TEACHES. More sermons about the dignity of life from conception to natural death. More sermons on the disorder of contraceptives, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and masturbation. I’m sure there are more topics that are in the catechism that we tend to not hear so much about on sunday. We should always teach these things with love, but what kind of love is it to let your brothers, sisters, or children fall from grace? I think if the Church made a strong push towards letting its members and the world know what it actually teaches then there would be no need for excommunications.

Imagine if this sunday we got a sermon on the evils of abortion and how anyone who supports abortion is outside of Catholic teaching.

Next sunday was a sermon about the grave disorder of pre-marital sex and how it is a mortal sin. If you are in mortal sin you cannot receive Communion (in fact it is sinful to do so).

I think the answer lies not in kicking people out but explaining why they are not really Catholic in the first place. We should always do this in love. But we should let people know, a Catholic with options in called a protestant.

 

[chain]

Good point - if the church actually had some occasional sermons about church teachings and explained that people who refused these truth were already outside the church and not in communion with the church - it would not be necessary to call them by name.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I don’t think we should start by excommunicating people. But the Church should start standing for what it actually TEACHES. More sermons about the dignity of life from conception to natural death. More sermons on the disorder of contraceptives, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and masturbation. I’m sure there are more topics that are in the catechism that we tend to not hear so much about on sunday. We should always teach these things with love, but what kind of love is it to let your brothers, sisters, or children fall from grace? I think if the Church made a strong push towards letting its members and the world know what it actually teaches then there would be no need for excommunications.

Imagine if this sunday we got a sermon on the evils of abortion and how anyone who supports abortion is outside of Catholic teaching.

Next sunday was a sermon about the grave disorder of pre-marital sex and how it is a mortal sin. If you are in mortal sin you cannot receive Communion (in fact it is sinful to do so).

I think the answer lies not in kicking people out but explaining why they are not really Catholic in the first place. We should always do this in love. But we should let people know, a Catholic with options in called a protestant.

I think the main reason we do not hear that is $$$$. Too many Catholics with deep pockets also support controversial positions-abortion, ABC, premarital sex…

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for your response. I understand your points.

On a related issue, I read the speech that Fr. Jenkins gave at Notre Dame during the Obama visit controversy. In his speech, he made the following comments:

“When we face differences with fellow citizens, we will be tested: do we keep trying, with love and a generous spirit, to appeal to ethical principles that might be pursuasive to others - or do we condemn others for not seeing the truth that we see? The first approach can lead to healing, the second to hostility.”

Fr. Jenkins comments are also an appropriate response to the original post of this thread.

And from a practical standpoint, there is a vast difference between ‘pursuading’ someone as opposed to ‘coercing’ them. The ‘hardline’ approach is the wrong one, in my opinion.

And yet it seems that people such as yourself keep missing the point.
I do not believe that people who disagree with the Church should be coerced into compliance. I believe that people who do not agree with the Catholic Church stop calling themselves Catholic. It is an abomination.
Suppose these people, these representatives go to congress, swear the oath to uphold the constitution and then immediately begin to publically proclaim that certain parts of the the constitution are wrong and that they will not uphold them. Should they be allowed to remain in Congress after they have violated their oath?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I agree-we win no converts with anger and hostility.

If a person came to RCIA, and after completing RCIA still held beliefs contrary to Church doctrine should they be allowed to Enter the Church?
The obvious answer is no they should not.
This is not hostility, it is simple logic that, if you don’t agree with the defined dogmas of a group you do not claim membership in that group.
The same thing here. If these persons do not hold to Church Dogma they should not call themselves Catholic. If they insist, then the Church has no option other than to seperate them. This is not hostility, it is justice and fair play.
Finally it should be noted that the Church has already tried persuasion with these people and I hope she will continue to do so.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

There is a vast difference here. No one is suggesting pacifism. We’re suggesting that we appeal to one’s better nature - as opposed to actively condemning and confronting them.

And if, after several years of attempting to appeal to their “higher natures”, they still hold views in opposition to Church teaching what then.
You’ve tried - They’ve refused.
Do you give up and let them stay - thus “rubberstamping” their belief, or do you ask them to leave the communion of the Church since tehy obviously do not believe in the church?

Peace
James

 

[Christopher68]

And yet it seems that people such as yourself keep missing the point.
I do not believe that people who disagree with the Church should be coerced into compliance. I believe that people who do not agree with the Catholic Church stop calling themselves Catholic. It is an abomination.
Suppose these people, these representatives go to congress, swear the oath to uphold the constitution and then immediately begin to publically proclaim that certain parts of the the constitution are wrong and that they will not uphold them. Should they be allowed to remain in Congress after they have violated their oath?

Peace
James

Both Republicans and Democrats have been blatantly ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution for years! If we applied your rule, then Ron Paul would be the only member of Congress remaining!

I have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have been reading in detail. I admit, there are times when I am reading the Catechism when I struggle with some of the teachings and ask a lot of ‘why’ type questions, as I have always been an inquisitive person. Usually, these questions result in bringing me closer to God, not further away.

 

[Wollie]

I really do think that we are scared that by proclaiming what we really believe the Church, in America, will lose money. We should remember that Jesus told us that even the birds are provided for by G-d, how much more do we think he will provide for His earthly body?

I think its a lack of faith on our part as the Church. We should grow some backbones, and realize that not everyone’s gonna like it!

The louder we shout what we actually believe, the more people will:

1. Take us seriously.
2. Leave if they don’t agree.
3. Consider the fact that they may need to change in order to consider themselves Catholic.

 

[JRKH]

I think the main reason we do not hear that is $$$$. Too many Catholics with deep pockets also support controversial positions-abortion, ABC, premarital sex…

And if what you say here is true, the Church is in even worse shape.

Peace
James

 

[mkingdomlvr]

And if what you say here is true, the Church is in even worse shape.

Peace
James

I recently moved South, and I must admit that the evangelical Christian pastors around here have no such hesitation in preaching their beliefs-and their churches are full every Sunday. The Catholic church down here is also far more forceful in regard to preaching against homosexuality and abortion than they were up North where I used to live. I’ve also heard sermons here that call politicians out by name-which I never heard back in NJ. The Masses here are packed to the rafters, so it hasn’t been an issue.

My feeling is that in a more liberal area, Priests were more concerned about losing members and donations. Down here, people are more conservative and would not disagree with Priests talking tough.