Account: "Catholic priest defends criticism of ‘pride’ celebrations: ‘This is about saving souls’."

[mdgspencer]

Catholic priest defends criticism of 'pride' celebrations: 'This is about saving souls' - LifeSite

"This not about exclusion, this is not about judging others, this is about saving souls and bringing people the power of the blood of Christ,” Father Metrejean said after this received a great deal of attention.

The priest was both defended and critized. There was even a petition to have him removed from his parish.

 

[Mythicalbio]

Interesting article. Maybe it’s best if Catholics don’t use church doctrine as a running commentary on social happenings

 

[Maximian]

We have no option. We must stick to the truth as a comment on the times. Remember Lowell?

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,

And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble,
When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
And 'tis prosperous to be just;

Then it is the brave man chooses
While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue
Of the faith they had denied

 

[Elizabeth3]

Maybe it’s best if Catholics don’t use church doctrine as a running commentary on social happenings

Yes! You are so right. Remember when Jesus said to stay in your own churches and talk amongst yourselves preaching nothing to anyone on the outside unless they knock on the door and inquire "What are y’all talking about in there?

 

[Dolphin]

Maybe it’s best if Catholics don’t use church doctrine as a running commentary on social happenings

Literally the same as saying “maybe Catholics should shut up and let others keep on sinning”

I can’t speak for you, but I’d rather try and help others then watch them go down in (literal) flames

 

[sealabeag]

Haha thanks for the laugh.

 

[sealabeag]

Really? We should only tell some about Jesus Christ and our faith if asked? Evangelisation is the primary purpose of the Church. We should be shouting it from the rooftops. There is no pay grade when it comes to evangelisation.

 

[Elizabeth3]

If someone explicitly asks for our view, we should express it in most charitable manner. But only “IF” we are asked. It is not our place to criticize even with the best intentions. It is above our “pay grade”.

Where in the world does this idea come from? It’s not Catholic. It sounds Amish.

 

[meltzerboy2]

As a Catholic, a priest, and an American, he has a right to criticize, only he should make sure he does not “kill” with kindness.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I was under the impression that ONLY the Holy Spirit can convert people.

He works through us though.

Proper humility, loving attitude toward others.

Which is what this priest maintained with his facebook response to the post.

Not some “get in their face” and try to browbeat them.

But you didn’t say that in your original post. You said we should only share the faith IF asked. The issue isn’t over how to share but whether and when to share. No one was advocating for this.

 

[sealabeag]

I was under the impression that ONLY the Holy Spirit can convert people.

The Holy Spirit gives the grace of conversion, yes. But without the human action of sharing the faith, the Holy Spirit cannot act - God has always acted through human beings. We are not spiritual creatures, we are spirit and body. Otherwise why did Jesus commission his followers to go out and preach to the whole world, at the cost of their lives?

Our primary “job” is to pray for them, and provide the best example we can. Proper humility, loving attitude toward others.

Yep, you’re right. Prayer is paramount, but after prayer and good example comes the actual act of sharing our faith with others, with words. It is totally essential, otherwise how will others hear about Christ?

Not some “get in their face” and try to browbeat them. That would be counterproductive - to say the least.

Of course. I haven’t seen anyone suggest browbeating anyone.

Also “criticism” is not evangelization. I suspect that you would be upset if some Muslim would stop you and forcefully try to teach you about the error of your ways.

Criticism, maybe not. But calling out sin as sin certainly is, although it must be done with love. It must be done, though.

I suspect that you would be upset if some Muslim would stop you and forcefully try to teach you about the error of your ways.

I would. Nobody is suggesting forced conversion, though. If I tell someone about Christ, or I tell someone something is a sin, it is then up to them to choose. Nobody is trying to force anyone here.

 

[mary77]

" Tell the truth and then Run!"

 

[BornInMarch]

The Priest could have been more tactful. You won’t get many flies with vinegar.

 

[Funvod]

I get the sentiment, but the priest’s initial response strikes me as a bit tone deaf. Saying things like “cancel PC culture” isn’t going to help with evangelizing.
Right idea, but poor execution.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Through our good works, through our love for others.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Evangelization is tricky, but social media isn’t really the most effective way to do it. I don’t think the priest did anything wrong though.

 

[Poet]

Not the same. Not even close. Catholics should keep on praying for everyone. If someone explicitly asks for our view, we should express it in most charitable manner. But only “IF” we are asked. It is not our place to criticize even with the best intentions. It is above our “pay grade”.

I feel the same about lifeboats. If the ship is going down, I’m not going to force anyone to use my way of saving themselves. They can sink or try to swim or search the ship for the lifeboats. But I’m going to tell them about the lifeboats I know about ONLY IF they ask me. Anything else is above my pay grade.

 

[Poet]

I find interesting parallels between the current corona responses and these morality questions.

We’re told we must wear a mask (and shut up about any headaches or asthma or other problems they might cause) ‘for the good of others.’ Because what I do might affect someone else.

However, those same people are often the same ones who refuse to acknowledge that what they do and the behaviors they have promoted for 40+ years now, also affect all of us in both practical, definable ways and spiritual ways.

Pre-marital sex and legalizing birth control have resulted in exactly what the pope (John XXIII?) warned of before it happened. Unplanned pregnancies, abortion, single parents, broken families, increased poverty as a result of single parent homes, and increased welfare burden for which we all pay. Then there are the social results that come with being raised in a single family home–while many of these kids do very well, children from fatherless homes especially are more likely to have social problems, including crime, that impact all of us.

Homosexuality? Yes, it affects me if I’m being forced to say I support it, against my faith, if people are trying to force me to take part in gay weddings, if people are teaching my kids that this behavior is acceptable and if they end up losing their souls for doing something in direct contradiction to what the Bible and our faith say is God’s will. Yes, that affects me and mine.

Any form of sexual license and immorality leads to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, which leads to lost work time and increased medical bills, thus increased insurance rates. Those who stay healthy end up picking up the slack both at work and in paying increased insurance rates.

So why is it that when it comes to corona we’re expected to do as we’re told because (we’re told) our actions may affect ourselves and everyone. But when it comes to homosexuality or other behaviors that have some moral foundation, that ALSO ultimately affect the person in question, society, and all of us, we’re instructed to sit down and shut up?

Anyone who feels they have a right to tell others what to do in one area must accept that others likewise may voice opinions about how someone else’s behavior impacts us.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But when it comes to homosexuality or other behaviors that have some moral foundation, that ALSO ultimately affect the person in question, society, and all of us, we’re instructed to sit down and shut up?

Because from the secular standpoint only physical effects matter.

 

[Thorolfr]

Any form of sexual license and immorality leads to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, which leads to lost work time and increased medical bills, thus increased insurance rates. Those who stay healthy end up picking up the slack both at work and in paying increased insurance rates.

So why is it that when it comes to corona we’re expected to do as we’re told because (we’re told) our actions may affect ourselves and everyone. But when it comes to homosexuality or other behaviors that have some moral foundation, that ALSO ultimately affect the person in question, society, and all of us, we’re instructed to sit down and shut up?

Anyone who feels they have a right to tell others what to do in one area must accept that others likewise may voice opinions about how someone else’s behavior impacts us.

Homosexuality by itself doesn’t result in sexually transmitted diseases. Gay couples are just as capable as straight couples of being in monogamous relationships and staying healthy.

And there’s quite a big difference between someone refusing to wear a mask or practice social distancing, getting infected with the coronavirus and then infecting several other people, some of whom might be elderly or have chronic health conditions and end up dying, on the one hand, and someone gay asking you to come to their wedding or getting a sexually transmitted disease and having a miniscule impact on your insurance rates, on the other hand.