A thought about being saintlike!

[Kevin12]

Hello all!!

I posted this thread in another section earlier by accident but I meant it to go here!

I often read posts by members asking is “this” a sin or is “that” a sin. Discussion ranges from masturbation, to cohabitation, to “making out”, etc. Many people are looking for confirmation that what they are already doing is “ok” and they can continue to do it. (Not everyone, but I suspect this is often the case.)

I have heard that the goal of every Catholic should be to become “A Saint!” Of course, not every Saint will be canonized, but when someone goes to heaven they are a saint. Also, of course being Saintlike involves the imitation of Christ Himself.

So my thought is merely that if we are called to be Saints, we should avoid any activity that is un-saintlike! “Can I make out with my gf if we are not married?” Ok…would it have been ok for Jesus to make-out with Mary Magdalene as long as they didn’t go “all the way?” Because if it is not a sin, then why not?

“Can I cohabit with my fiancee? We promise not to have sex!” Well, would any of the great saints of history have done this? Would you have approved of Therese of Lisieux shacking up with some guy, just until she entered the convent? She promises not to have sex!

When you put these questions into the context of what Jesus and the Saints would have done they are clear.

We are not perfect. This is why Jesus had to die on the cross and this is why he established the sacrament of confession. But…we are called to be Saints. Please!!! Be Saintlike! Avoid anything that can even remotely conceived of as a sin!

Christ did many things that others conceived of as sin, such as eating with sinners and having the disciples gather wheat on the Sabbath.

Also, your points of comparison make little sense to me. You Mary Magdeline was not in a relationship with Jesus. As for “making out” - if it is done with lust it is probably bad, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with an extended kiss, say, at the doorstep of two people involved in a chaste relationship.

Really, parts of your post seem scrupulous, but it is no surprise since this forum seems to attract scrupulous people, and then when they are all together they don’t realize their scruples are so because so many people seem to share them.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Therefore, going back to my original argument, if it was sinful for Jesus, it is sinful for you. This is not a “what would Jesus do?” statement. It points out the objective sinfulness of certain actions, beyond human feelings. Sin must be objectively evil. It is not something that is sinful for some people and not others. There are no reasons that make a sin “not sinful.” (If it qualifies as sin, of course. Grave matter, full knowledge, full consent."

But if something was not sinful for Jesus, then is also it not sinful for us? This is a discussion I’ve had several times over the last few years and it has not been fruitful. One the one hand, posters will say, “Jesus never did that/never would have done that, therefore it must be a sin.” But then when I point out things that Jesus did, other posters say, “well He was God and knew He could do that and none of us are that assured.” So what is it, if we follow Jesus into working on the Sabbath, or letting a prostitute give us a foot bath – openly where everybody can see and thus creates scandal (yes, Jesus created scandal by letting her continue after it was called to His attention) and thus fail to observe the ceremonial preparations such as washing of the cups and hands, consorting with sinners of all kinds on a regular basis and making tables with Him.

How come He can do that, but most self-proclaimed “100%” Catholics say it would be a sin for us to do these things. We are told not to hang around drunks and prostitutes, and yet Jesus did. As I mentioned, he let one of them give Him a foot rub in front of everybody. Not to mention sticking up for the one who poured oil on His feet. But He’s God, so He can do anything, but we can’t. So the only way I can reconcile all of this is to understand that it was what was in Jesus’s heart that constituted sin, not what He actually did. Because if we did the things He did – and not only without apology but attacking those who said anything about them – we would be sinners. So apparently we should not behave as Jesus behaved.

Put another way, if tonight I go to a “gentleman’s club” this evening and drink only water or mild wine and befriend the people there, then I would be following Jesus’s example, would I not? Does anyone wish to tell me that such an act would be grave matter?

That’s one of many reasons I agree with St. Teresa that the interior disposition of someone committing the sin is more important than the act itself. Grave matter, without full knowledge and intent, is not mortally sinful, and I assert that sin that is not grave matter but has full knowledge and intent is just as much a separation from God as a mortal sin. Perhaps the Church makes the distinction so people would have a yardstick of when a sin is “bad enough” that they can’t receive Communion? It leads me to suspect the distinction between what does and does not constitute grave matter, is really quite arbitrary. The only reason I have respect for the distinctions is that the Holy Catholic Church makes the distinctions and she claims the authority to do this. The Church has a structure to uphold that must last throughout many generations. For those things, this sort of dualistic thinking is probably necessary because it is easily structured and categorized … and it keeps the bureaucracy more constant over time than to get into the “messy” issue of our interior dispositions. We as individuals are each unique in the eyes of God and must pay attention not only to what we do, but why we do it.

Alan

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

I think I see the OP’s point, and at the risk of oversimplifying, I wonder if it could be thought of in this way: the question is not what Jesus would or would not do; the question is what am I going to do in Jesus? The wrong question is “Lord, is this too far from You?” The right question is “Lord, will this bring me closer to Your Heart?” – Am I, at this particular moment of moral choice, “feeling for the edges”, or am I striving to seek the Center?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think I see the OP’s point, and at the risk of oversimplifying, I wonder if it could be thought of in this way: the question is not what Jesus would or would not do; the question is what am I going to do in Jesus? The wrong question is “Lord, is this too far from You?” The right question is “Lord, will this bring me closer to Your Heart?” – Am I, at this particular moment of moral choice, “feeling for the edges”, or am I striving to seek the Center?

I think your questions are spot on. I like your ideas about how to look at it, but I took the OP’s post, as clarified in Post 20, to be less about interior disposition and more about outward behavior that is defined as “grave matter.” The questions you ask, IMO, are the right questions; however, the OP (correct me if I’m wrong) was suggesting that such questions are dangerous because they lead to personal interpretation which allows too much wiggle room and is skewed by desire for sinful things and is a Protestant viewpoint. Of course outward behavior is easy to observe and sometimes it can be “objectively” determined that grave matter has taken place; I like to shoot for a much higher standard. Looking toward grave matter as the basic definition of whether something is sinful may keep one in good graces with the Church but IMO not with God.

My point is that to be saintlike, there is no need to distinguish grave matter from non-grave matter, because it matters not to me (or to St. Teresa) whether it is grave matter or not. If knowledge and intent are there, it doesn’t matter whether it is observable as a mortal sin by an “objective” observer. And since the thread is about being saintlike, I suggest we move past ostensible obedience to the precepts and laws of the Church – which I admit is a good first step – and into thought processes that will take us to the next level toward Divine Union.

Alan

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

I think your questions are spot on. I like your ideas about how to look at it, but I took the OP’s post, as clarified in Post 20, to be less about interior disposition and more about outward behavior that is defined as “grave matter.” The questions you ask, IMO, are the right questions; however, the OP (correct me if I’m wrong) was suggesting that such questions are dangerous because they lead to personal interpretation which allows too much wiggle room and is skewed by desire for sinful things and is a Protestant viewpoint. Of course outward behavior is easy to observe and sometimes it can be “objectively” determined that grave matter has taken place; I like to shoot for a much higher standard. Looking toward grave matter as the basic definition of whether something is sinful may keep one in good graces with the Church but IMO not with God.

My point is that to be saintlike, there is no need to distinguish grave matter from non-grave matter, because it matters not to me (or to St. Teresa) whether it is grave matter or not. If knowledge and intent are there, it doesn’t matter whether it is observable as a mortal sin by an “objective” observer. And since the thread is about being saintlike, I suggest we move past ostensible obedience to the precepts and laws of the Church – which I admit is a good first step – and into thought processes that will take us to the next level toward Divine Union.

Alan

I think you are exactly right, sir, and I thank you for your kind comments. As I read some of the posts under discussion, however, I see not so much a concern about what constitutes grave matter - though that is certainly present - but more often it seems to be questions about what constitutes “sufficient reflection” and “full consent” - “I know this was wrong, but I did it impulsively, or while I was doing it, I was hating it and hating myself for doing it…did I sin badly enough to stay away from the Eucharist?” You know - how many interior dispositions can dance on the head of a pin? That’s the Gordian knot that needs cutting with something very sharp, in my opinion.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think you are exactly right, sir, and I thank you for your kind comments. As I read some of the posts under discussion, however, I see not so much a concern about what constitutes grave matter - though that is certainly present - but more often it seems to be questions about what constitutes “sufficient reflection” and “full consent” - “I know this was wrong, but I did it impulsively, or while I was doing it, I was hating it and hating myself for doing it…did I sin badly enough to stay away from the Eucharist?” You know - how many interior dispositions can dance on the head of a pin? That’s the Gordian knot that needs cutting with something very sharp, in my opinion.

 

[eyesopening]

That’s one of many reasons I agree with St. Teresa that the interior disposition of someone committing the sin is more important than the act itself. Grave matter, without full knowledge and intent, is not mortally sinful, and I assert that sin that is not grave matter but has full knowledge and intent is just as much a separation from God as a mortal sin. Perhaps the Church makes the distinction so people would have a yardstick of when a sin is “bad enough” that they can’t receive Communion? It leads me to suspect the distinction between what does and does not constitute grave matter, is really quite arbitrary. The only reason I have respect for the distinctions is that the Holy Catholic Church makes the distinctions and she claims the authority to do this. The Church has a structure to uphold that must last throughout many generations. For those things, this sort of dualistic thinking is probably necessary because it is easily structured and categorized … and it keeps the bureaucracy more constant over time than to get into the “messy” issue of our interior dispositions. We as individuals are each unique in the eyes of God and must pay attention not only to what we do, but why we do it.

Alan

I think I see the OP’s point, and at the risk of oversimplifying, I wonder if it could be thought of in this way: the question is not what Jesus would or would not do; the question is what am I going to do in Jesus? The wrong question is “Lord, is this too far from You?” The right question is “Lord, will this bring me closer to Your Heart?” – Am I, at this particular moment of moral choice, “feeling for the edges”, or am I striving to seek the Center?

I absolutely agree with all of this. I apologize for not communicating as well as other posters, but I must admit that I feel that my words are being picked on a bit. I did not intend to imply a sort of legalistic mentality. I believe that why we do things are far more important than what we do. Witnessing to patrons of a gentlemen’s club may seem scandalous, but as you rightly pointed out, you are not going there for the “attractions” but rather to do God’s work.

My original post, as I stated earlier, was geared more to the type of person who wants confirmation of their sinful behavior from other posters. The church teaches that it is wrong to live together before marriage. A caveat of this of course is that the couple in question is doing this for a) convenience b) a desire to try it out c) financial reasons (sharing rent, etc). These reasons do not constitute an exception to the Church’s laws. (Regardless of how one feels about them.) I personally cannot think of a reason why a couple should need to live together before they are married. JUST GET MARRIED if you absolutely must live together. That is the simplest solution! (Obviously I am not referring to well established couples who live chastely until an annulment, etc.)

My point I guess (and I’m sorry if I am not using established terminology) is that Saints of any caliber attempt to make decisions that are in keeping with Church teaching and that edify the spirit and come closer to God. These Saints are held up to us as models. There are many types of Saints as well, and not all of them made the same decisions, but they all tried to make Godly decisions. Groping your girlfriend before you are married is not a Godly choice. So to the person who writes in and asks “is it ok to make out with my gf?” the answer is NO. Ask yourself, is this something good for my spirit? NO! Does this please God? NO! And I can’t think of any Saint in history that would have said otherwise! For this reason we look toward the Saints as models of virtue and we would do well to imitate them.

The post in the beginning was meant to call to attention the fact that some people post questions and they want a particular type of answer. The answer they want is one that relieves their guilt over a particular action. I tried to make an umbrella statement (unsuccessfully apparently) that would answer all of these questions and point these individuals to a more Godly decision making path. I’m not really sure how the discussion turned into a critique of me being overly scrupulous and legalistic. I am really sorry if that is how I came across but hopefully this post clarifies some things.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The post in the beginning was meant to call to attention the fact that some people post questions and they want a particular type of answer. The answer they want is one that relieves their guilt over a particular action. I tried to make an umbrella statement (unsuccessfully apparently) that would answer all of these questions and point these individuals to a more Godly decision making path. I’m not really sure how the discussion turned into a critique of me being overly scrupulous and legalistic. I am really sorry if that is how I came across but hopefully this post clarifies some things.

Yes, it clarifies some things, and I’m sorry if I added too much baggage. But you are right; I have seen poster who want to know if something is a sin and it’s pretty likely from the way they post that they are, in fact, trying to figure out a way to justify their own wrong behavior. So since that was your main point, I agree with it!

Alan

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

Yes, it clarifies some things, and I’m sorry if I added too much baggage. But you are right; I have seen poster who want to know if something is a sin and it’s pretty likely from the way they post that they are, in fact, trying to figure out a way to justify their own wrong behavior. So since that was your main point, I agree with it!

Alan

Me too! I do see this fairly often. A while back, I was conversationally posting with a young man who had “wondered” if the browser he was using was capable or not of accessing certain “content”, so he thought he’d better try it, so that if it could, he would know not to do it in the future, and if it couldn’t, he could relax and not worry about it - at any rate, that’s what I think he was attempting to say (we can tie ourselves up in such knots sometimes). What I tried to suggest to him, from extensive and horrific personal experience, was that the thought “I’ll just…” is the first step off a very high cliff.

 

[Kevin12]

My point I guess (and I’m sorry if I am not using established terminology) is that Saints of any caliber attempt to make decisions that are in keeping with Church teaching and that edify the spirit and come closer to God. These Saints are held up to us as models. There are many types of Saints as well, and not all of them made the same decisions, but they all tried to make Godly decisions. Groping your girlfriend before you are married is not a Godly choice. So to the person who writes in and asks “is it ok to make out with my gf?” the answer is NO. Ask yourself, is this something good for my spirit? NO! Does this please God? NO! And I can’t think of any Saint in history that would have said otherwise! For this reason we look toward the Saints as models of virtue and we would do well to imitate them.

The post in the beginning was meant to call to attention the fact that some people post questions and they want a particular type of answer. The answer they want is one that relieves their guilt over a particular action. I tried to make an umbrella statement (unsuccessfully apparently) that would answer all of these questions and point these individuals to a more Godly decision making path. I’m not really sure how the discussion turned into a critique of me being overly scrupulous and legalistic. I am really sorry if that is how I came across but hopefully this post clarifies some things.

Not all “making out” involves groping. As I have said before, not all physical contact is unchaste, even kissing more than a few seconds - what matters is in your heart.

I said you seemed scrupulous because you want to put blanket judgments on situations that the Church has made no categorical judgment on as if it we were talking about contraception.

However, I will agree with you that there are many people who make such posts who are essentially baiting the ultra-traditionalists who think women shouldn’t wear pants because they want the occasion to disagree with them. I know that I often feel the desire to do this because I strongly disagree with such sentiments. However, I think you might ask yourself if you are not baiting those you consider not to be upholding as “saintly” a lifestyle as you think they should so you can wag your finger at them, rather than expressing a genuine concern about their spiritual welfare. I am not saying this is the case, but I will reaffirm my long held belief that spiritual pride is the way the devil tempts the saintly more than any other.

 

[eyesopening]

Not all “making out” involves groping. As I have said before, not all physical contact is unchaste, even kissing more than a few seconds - what matters is in your heart.

I said you seemed scrupulous because you want to put blanket judgments on situations that the Church has made no categorical judgment on as if it we were talking about contraception.

However, I will agree with you that there are many people who make such posts who are essentially baiting the ultra-traditionalists who think women shouldn’t wear pants because they want the occasion to disagree with them. I know that I often feel the desire to do this because I strongly disagree with such sentiments. However, I think you might ask yourself if you are not baiting those you consider not to be upholding as “saintly” a lifestyle as you think they should so you can wag your finger at them, rather than expressing a genuine concern about their spiritual welfare. I am not saying this is the case, but I will reaffirm my long held belief that spiritual pride is the way the devil tempts the saintly more than any other.

I suppose our definition of “making-out” differs. I do not consider a prolonged kiss to be “making out”.

 

[Kevin12]

I suppose our definition of “making-out” differs. I do not consider a prolonged kiss to be “making out”.

Well then, I guess it was just a bit of confusion between us. If you take making out to imply groping, then I agree, that isn’t something unmarried couple should do.

 

[eyesopening]

Well then, I guess it was just a bit of confusion between us. If you take making out to imply groping, then I agree, that isn’t something unmarried couple should do.

 

[MarkInOregon]

or letting a prostitute give us a foot bath – openly where everybody can see and thus creates scandal (yes, Jesus created scandal by letting her continue after it was called to His attention) and thus fail to observe the ceremonial preparations such as washing of the cups and hands, consorting with sinners of all kinds on a regular basis and making tables with Him.

How come He can do that, but most self-proclaimed “100%” Catholics say it would be a sin for us to do these things. We are told not to hang around drunks and prostitutes, and yet Jesus did. As I mentioned, he let one of them give Him a foot rub in front of everybody. Not to mention sticking up for the one who poured oil on His feet. But He’s God, so He can do anything, but we can’t. So the only way I can reconcile all of this is to understand that it was what was in Jesus’s heart that constituted sin, not what He actually did. Because if we did the things He did – and not only without apology but attacking those who said anything about them – we would be sinners. So apparently we should not behave as Jesus behaved.

I am not sure you are properly characterizing what Jesus did. I invite you to go back and read the stories you are citing and thinking about. Jesus did not just “hang around with” drunks and prostitutes or “consort” with them. In the first story you cite above the sinful woman learned where Jesus was dining and she came to Jesus, bathed his feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, kissed them and annointed them. She is repentant and paying homage to Jesus --and Jesus forgives her. They are not “hanging out” nor “consorting” and to classify it as such and call what she did a “foot rub” is, in my opinion, to mischarcterize what occurred. I think even Jesus own commentary on what occurred disagrees with your characterization.

Put another way, if tonight I go to a “gentleman’s club” this evening and drink only water or mild wine and befriend the people there, then I would be following Jesus’s example, would I not?

I think it depends what you mean by befriend and what your intentions are. Jesus had clear intentions–he proclaimed the kingdom of God, he called us to repentence, he called us to do the will of his Father as he traveled around. If you look I think you will find that most of the time the sinners sought out Jesus and they were repentant. Jesus wasn’t just hanging out enjoying the company of sinners whom he let continue on in their sin. Jesus proclaimed the truth boldly and with authority and the people sought him out to listen to him and to seek forgiveness. Not to hang out and consort.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I am not sure you are properly characterizing what Jesus did. I invite you to go back and read the stories you are citing and thinking about. Jesus did not just “hang around with” drunks and prostitutes or “consort” with them. In the first story you cite above the sinful woman learned where Jesus was dining and she came to Jesus, bathed his feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, kissed them and annointed them. She is repentant and paying homage to Jesus --and Jesus forgives her. They are not “hanging out” nor “consorting” and to classify it as such and call what she did a “foot rub” is, in my opinion, to mischarcterize what occurred. I think even Jesus own commentary on what occurred disagrees with your characterization.

The reason I characterized it the way I did, was to reflect the sensationalism and the scandal that He even allowed her to touch Him, and then defended her when He was called on it. That’s the way it went down in the public arena, anyway – regardless of the spiritual component of the situation between God and the woman.

I think it depends what you mean by befriend and what your intentions are. Jesus had clear intentions–he proclaimed the kingdom of God, he called us to repentence, he called us to do the will of his Father as he traveled around. If you look I think you will find that most of the time the sinners sought out Jesus and they were repentant. Jesus wasn’t just hanging out enjoying the company of sinners whom he let continue on in their sin. Jesus proclaimed the truth boldly and with authority and the people sought him out to listen to him and to seek forgiveness. Not to hang out and consort.

I understand your concern. And yes, I was talking hypothetically like if I wanted to go in there to somehow minister to them, not engage in lewd behavior myself. Again from the point of scandal, though, this is what Jesus did. And I’m sure if I told my wife, in all sincerity, that I was leaving her home and going to Jezebel’s this evening so that I could show love and mercy to the people there, it would be misconstrued.

For all appearances, then, Jesus was always doing things that invited scandal, and often put himself in situations that for any of the rest of us would constitute “near occasion of sin.”

Here’s how it came across publicly:

Luke 5:29-32
Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were at table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”

So part of His job was to “hang around with” sinners. I never said He shared in their sins. :nope:

So I ask, could I have gotten away with these things, and if not then how am I to follow Jesus’s example 100% and not create scandal or put myself in near occasion of sin? Apparently it’s not by doing what He did.

Hint: I believe we are to follow the heart of Jesus 100%, not His specific actions. If I were to ape His actions, I would be needlessly crucified – needlessly because He already did it for us all.

Heb 10:12-14
But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.

And that’s why I hold what some might call a “relativistic” view about sin. What you do may or may not be sinful depending on the context. Who is doing it, and for what purpose, etc. Not just depending on “my personal preferences,” like the OP is talking about. I agree with the OP about that. It isn’t about fitting the rules to the preferences; it’s about correctly interpreting the rules, which are embodied in a living, breathing Human and not any amount of written words. St. Paul says that once we are born of the spirit we are freed from the law of sin and death.

Mark 15:1-7
The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

So to them he addressed this parable. “What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost oned until he finds it? And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’

I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

If Jesus were here with me today in Wichita, would He go to Jezebel’s to find His lost sheep? Or would He instead say, “I do not wish to create public scandal by being seen at such a place. Can you imagine what they would say on the evening news?”

Alan

 

[MarkInOregon]

The reason I characterized it the way I did, was to reflect the sensationalism and the scandal that He even allowed her to touch Him, and then defended her when He was called on it. That’s the way it went down in the public arena, anyway – regardless of the spiritual component of the situation between God and the woman.

I understand your concern. And yes, I was talking hypothetically like if I wanted to go in there to somehow minister to them, not engage in lewd behavior myself. Again from the point of scandal, though, this is what Jesus did. And I’m sure if I told my wife, in all sincerity, that I was leaving her home and going to Jezebel’s this evening so that I could show love and mercy to the people there, it would be misconstrued.

For all appearances, then, Jesus was always doing things that invited scandal, and often put himself in situations that for any of the rest of us would constitute “near occasion of sin.”

So part of His job was to “hang around with” sinners. I never said He shared in their sins. :nope:

So I ask, could I have gotten away with these things, and if not then how am I to follow Jesus’s example 100% and not create scandal or put myself in near occasion of sin? Apparently it’s not by doing what He did.

Hint: I believe we are to follow the heart of Jesus 100%, not His specific actions.

And that’s why I hold what some might call a “relativistic” view about sin. What you do may or may not be sinful depending on the context. Who is doing it, and for what purpose, etc. Not just depending on “my personal preferences,” like the OP is talking aboutfrom the law of sin and death.

Mark 15:1-7

The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

So to them he addressed this parable. “What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost oned until he finds it? And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’

I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.
If Jesus were here with me today in Wichita, would He go to Jezebel’s to find His lost sheep? Or would He instead say, “I do not wish to create public scandal by being seen at such a place. Can you imagine what they would say on the evening news?”

I’d like to try to explain my quibble with your characterization–and preface it by saying that I know I will not do it very well.

When we use phrases such as “hung out” and “consort” - they have meanings for those who here them. They imply an acceptance–not just of the people but of their behavior. In fact that is how I usually encounter them – people throwing out the idea or implying that Jesus acccepted all behavior because “he hung out with sinners”. It may be that you and I have a different idea of what “hanging out” is.

And in reality I don’t read the gospels as showing Jesus “hanging out” with sinners. There are not, to my reading, any examples in the gospel of Jesus doing anything like going down to the local strip club and hanging out to find lost sheep. Jesus might pass by Jezabel’s and see a dancer outside smoking and call to her–“follow me” and if she dropped everything and followed him–I can see him dining at her house. She might even call up her friends and tell them about Jesus and invite them to a banquet for him. The question is how do we extend this same call. How can we minister to the sinner, how can we help them find Christ, experience conversion, amend their life and join us at the banquet (read mass)–even if others at the banquet are scandelized–when they should be rejoicing.

What I see in the gospels - is Jesus traveling from town to town teaching–often in the synagogue or where the crowds gather around him. The sinners seek him out. When he dines at Zacchaeus house–it is because Zacchaeus went to great lengths to seek Jesus out and he made amends for his past. These sinners come to Jesus repentant, seeking and Jesus forgives them. What the Pharisees find most scandelous is that he forgives sins–something only God can do. It is the authority the Jesus claims that really had them up in arms.

Jesus did not turn away those sinners who answered the call and sought him out, but I see no example of him running down to the local night club to hang out with sinners. I see him in a constant state of travel from town to town preaching and teaching to great crowds that flock to him. It just seems fundamentally different. The way in which Jesus hung around with sinners -as we all do-- was that he hung around with people–people who are sinners–but I don’t think that is what we are talking about. I am guessing this is a topic for another thread–an examination of Jesus actual actions and the objections… From my perspective often times the Pharisees objections to Jesus actions are akin to those of people today who take great objection to the way some dress for mass–but that is a whole other can of worms. I fear, that as I said at the start, I have not expressed myself very well. I am guessing that we probably do not fundamentally disagree – I just have concerns regarding how what you expressed will be taken by those who wish to down play the reality of sin.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’d like to try to explain my quibble with your characterization–and preface it by saying that I know I will not do it very well.

When we use phrases such as “hung out” and “consort” - they have meanings for those who here them. They imply an acceptance–not just of the people but of their behavior. In fact that is how I usually encounter them – people throwing out the idea or implying that Jesus acccepted all behavior because “he hung out with sinners”. It may be that you and I have a different idea of what “hanging out” is.

And in reality I don’t read the gospels as showing Jesus “hanging out” with sinners. There are not, to my reading, any examples in the gospel of Jesus doing anything like going down to the local strip club and hanging out to find lost sheep. Jesus might pass by Jezabel’s and see a dancer outside smoking and call to her–“follow me” and if she dropped everything and followed him–I can see him dining at her house. She might even call up her friends and tell them about Jesus and invite them to a banquet for him. The question is how do we extend this same call. How can we minister to the sinner, how can we help them find Christ, experience conversion, amend their life and join us at the banquet (read mass)–even if others at the banquet are scandelized–when they should be rejoicing.

What I see in the gospels - is Jesus traveling from town to town teaching–often in the synagogue or where the crowds gather around him. The sinners seek him out. When he dines at Zacchaeus house–it is because Zacchaeus went to great lengths to seek Jesus out and he made amends for his past. These sinners come to Jesus repentant, seeking and Jesus forgives them. What the Pharisees find most scandelous is that he forgives sins–something only God can do. It is the authority the Jesus claims that really had them up in arms.

Jesus did not turn away those sinners who answered the call and sought him out, but I see no example of him running down to the local night club to hang out with sinners. I see him in a constant state of travel from town to town preaching and teaching to great crowds that flock to him. It just seems fundamentally different. The way in which Jesus hung around with sinners -as we all do-- was that he hung around with people–people who are sinners–but I don’t think that is what we are talking about. I am guessing this is a topic for another thread–an examination of Jesus actual actions and the objections… From my perspective often times the Pharisees objections to Jesus actions are akin to those of people today who take great objection to the way some dress for mass–but that is a whole other can of worms. I fear, that as I said at the start, I have not expressed myself very well. I am guessing that we probably do not fundamentally disagree – I just have concerns regarding how what you expressed will be taken by those who wish to down play the reality of sin.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

Thank you for reading and replying to my post. :tiphat:

I see what you mean. We know he ate with sinners, and we know they sought Him out, and at time they came across His path, but we don’t have him “going fishing” in a place where people aren’t ready to accept Him anyway – because the only “bait” he carries is His love, which they can freely accept or refuse.

But why is it that sinners seem to be the ones who hear His call most? Because the worse they think of their own sins, the more they will be drawn to the love of God.

You make a good point. My focus was on what it looked like to the “rumor mill.” If there were rumors that He ate with sinners, apparently in that culture that was a pretty bad thing. So whether it’s comparable to a “drive by” of a strip club to rescue a soul, v. going inside one to find them, the result is you end up being seen leaving the place, with a sinner. And the imaginations of the busybodies is going to fill in the blanks. So when Jesus ate with sinners, He was doing something back in His day that I believe would be referred to if done likewise in the present tense, of “creating scandal.” To me it’s unquestionable that there was scandal. And Jesus knew it, and chose to keep doing the things He did. It’s all about judging from appearances v. making a right judgment.

Alan

 

[Kevin12]

I see what you mean. We know he ate with sinners, and we know they sought Him out, and at time they came across His path, but we don’t have him “going fishing” in a place where people aren’t ready to accept Him anyway – because the only “bait” he carries is His love, which they can freely accept or refuse.

I think you’re totally wrong here. We are supposed to go fishing, and the Lord definitely went fishing. “I came not the call the righteous, but sinners”. If they were already seeking him, he would need to call them in the first place.

There was a man who needed to go fishing in a place called Nineveh where the people probably weren’t going to accept God anyway, but the fisher though so because he was judging as men judge, not as God. If you’re not willing to go fishing, the Lord may just fish you like he fished that fisher.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I think you’re totally wrong here. We are supposed to go fishing, and the Lord definitely went fishing. “I came not the call the righteous, but sinners”. If they were already seeking him, he would need to call them in the first place.

There was a man who needed to go fishing in a place called Nineveh where the people probably weren’t going to accept God anyway, but the fisher though so because he was judging as men judge, not as God. If you’re not willing to go fishing, the Lord may just fish you like he fished that fisher.

I know this wasn’t directed to me but since it involves Alan’s response to me – I’d like to say that I don’t think Alan was saying we shouldn’t go fishing, and I certainly wasn’t saying Christ didn’t go fishing–or call people. The gist of the back and forth between Alan and myself is not about fishing or calling people but rather about what people mean when they say Christ “hung out” with sinners and the actual nature of Christs interaction with those deemed sinners in his day (because as we know we all all sinners).

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Kevin12]

I know this wasn’t directed to me but since it involves Alan’s response to me – I’d like to say that I don’t think Alan was saying we shouldn’t go fishing, and I certainly wasn’t saying Christ didn’t go fishing–or call people. The gist of the back and forth between Alan and myself is not about fishing or calling people but rather about what people mean when they say Christ “hung out” with sinners and the actual nature of Christs interaction with those deemed sinners in his day (because as we know we all all sinners).

The peace of Christ,
Mark

What I mean is, Christ “hung out” with, shared a table with, people you would probably deem bad. As Aquinas showed, charity or love is friendship, and the charity of Christ is above all others. Christ would have called sinners, and again, not just sinners in the sense that everyone is, but strippers and drug dealers, and people I know those on CAF have the least compassion for, like unrepentant homosexuals or abortionists. He would have “hung out” with them and he would have loved them in spite of their grave sins, and not the sort of patronizing, self-righteous mockery of love that is so often offered by Catholics toward those who we see as undermining Catholic values, but real love.

I just cannot disagree more with the sentiments I see expressed in this thread. And I know that many will say, I’m not like that, but I know it is so because that mockery of love is in my own heart, that I am weak in compassion, that I am slothful in love, that I am complacent. I am always condemning others and forgetting to love. Even now, self-righteousness is gnawing at me. All of us, our love is nowhere near what it should be.