Am I commiting the sin of pride?

[Rocky24]

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering if I’m being too harsh and arrogant when defending the Church.
For example, today, my teacher was talking about self-mortification and how that those who practise it are fanatics. I shot back by saying that Mother Teresa practised self-mortification and that she wasn’t fanatical. I didn’t yell it but I said it in an angry tone.
Days before that, we were reasearching about the Renaissance and I had to answer a question in the homework task about Martin Luther. I said that Martin Luther was nothing but a confused, heretical and disobedient monk who had no right to reform anything.
Am I being too harsh? If I am (probably yes), can I still defend the faith with passion? Is my ego getting in the way of my defending the faith? I’m only 14 so how can I stop it? I really don’t want to sound like a know it all or bigot. Please help me

 

[odile53]

Instead of “defending the faith with passion” in class, present your rebuttals calmly and logically, and be prepared to offer sources. “With passion” implies an emotional and poorly thought out response to a teacher’s statement. Yes, we are required to defend the faith, but the most convincing way to do so in a classroom situation is to back up our responses with facts.

If you know the syllabus of this course, read various articles and texts, such as the catechism, and check bibliography references at the end of each article, in other words, read the references as well.

You need to remember that you will be graded on your ability to use information, not on your faith. If you present factual evidence calmly and logically, your teacher will be more likely to respect that rather than blurting out a sound byte.

Take an example from Jesus Himself: He was able to present His teaching and refute the arguments of the Pharisees by actual references from earlier scriptures. Notice in the Gospels where He mentions things like “according to the prophets,” references like that. The fact that He could support every single thing He taught added the dimension that He really couldn’t successfully be argued with, and probably annoyed the Pharisees all the more.

One of the great beauties of the Catholic Church is its insistence on reason enlightened by faith. It is most successfully defended by an adequate knowledge and a reasoned voice.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Im just wondering what kind of a school you are attending? Is this in a Catholic school, a Lutheran school or a public school. The poster who suggested having sources to back up your statements is right on. You sound as though you may be in an environment that is hostile toward the Catholic faith.

 

[Rocky24]

Im just wondering what kind of a school you are attending? Is this in a Catholic school, a Lutheran school or a public school. The poster who suggested having sources to back up your statements is right on. You sound as though you may be in an environment that is hostile toward the Catholic faith.

Believe it or not, it’s a catholic school

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Well, that sheds a lot more light on this matter since you are in a Catholic school. I suggest you ask for a private meeting with your teacher to discuss your concerns about what is happening. Perhaps you can determine if your behavior/attitude only is the problem or if the teacher is indeed hostile toward the catholic faith. Once you have had a meeting with the teacher to clear up this point, you will be able to move on to a more positive learning experience. Keep us posted on this as I am very concerned for you and for your faithbuilding experience in learning more aobut our beautiful Catholic faith.

 

[Hokomai]

Passion can excite, and lead. Careful thought and reason convinces. Your object should be, through the marshaling of fact and careful argument, to compel your listener or reader to at least accept the intellectual force of what you say. Calling someone a ‘fanatic’ is a good example of passionate speech and it hasn’t done anything to convince you! Martin Luther himself is at his best when putting forward reasoned thinking, and at his worst when passionate and name-calling. Your description of him sounds a lot like the way he described others.

 

[Debora123]

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering if I’m being too harsh and arrogant when defending the Church.
For example, today, my teacher was talking about self-mortification and how that those who practise it are fanatics. I shot back by saying that Mother Teresa practised self-mortification and that she wasn’t fanatical. I didn’t yell it but I said it in an angry tone.
Days before that, we were reasearching about the Renaissance and I had to answer a question in the homework task about Martin Luther. I said that Martin Luther was nothing but a confused, heretical and disobedient monk who had no right to reform anything.
Am I being too harsh? If I am (probably yes), can I still defend the faith with passion? Is my ego getting in the way of my defending the faith? I’m only 14 so how can I stop it? I really don’t want to sound like a know it all or bigot. Please help me

Yes, you need to tone it down. Be charitable and polite.

And you really shouldn’t have said what you said about Martin Luther…

 

[ahs]

Passion can excite, and lead. Careful thought and reason convinces. Your object should be, through the marshaling of fact and careful argument, to compel your listener or reader to at least accept the intellectual force of what you say. Calling someone a ‘fanatic’ is a good example of passionate speech and it hasn’t done anything to convince you! Martin Luther himself is at his best when putting forward reasoned thinking, and at his worst when passionate and name-calling. Your description of him sounds a lot like the way he described others.

Exactly.
OP, if you resort to attacking the person (calling Luther what you caled him in this case) then you will lose your credibility with your audience. Yes, Luther was disobedient, a heretic, but that information must be presented in a meaningful and objective way, without letting your passion cloud the facts.
“Luther was disobedient because…” “Luther was a heretic as defined by the Catechism (and provide that definition) because he…” “…and for these reasons, we should look at his poor example and…”

Similarly, your teacher calling people “fanatics” is a subjective statement, that obviously set you off. Learn frmo her mistake. Don’t let your feelings/opinions get in the way of Truth. If self-mortification is an absurdity, then the teacher should be able to produce some credible facts to back that up. And if it is not, then you should be able to produce facts to back that up (which you did…just tone down the emotion a bit ).

-Dave

 

[Rocky24]

Exactly.
OP, if you resort to attacking the person (calling Luther what you caled him in this case) then you will lose your credibility with your audience. Yes, Luther was disobedient, a heretic, but that information must be presented in a meaningful and objective way, without letting your passion cloud the facts.
“Luther was disobedient because…” “Luther was a heretic as defined by the Catechism (and provide that definition) because he…” “…and for these reasons, we should look at his poor example and…”

Similarly, your teacher calling people “fanatics” is a subjective statement, that obviously set you off. Learn frmo her mistake. Don’t let your feelings/opinions get in the way of Truth. If self-mortification is an absurdity, then the teacher should be able to produce some credible facts to back that up. And if it is not, then you should be able to produce facts to back that up (which you did…just tone down the emotion a bit ).

-Dave

Ok…thanks!! I think my biggest mistake was letting my feelings get in the way of the truth(as you said). I’ll edit that part about Martin Luther on my homework and provide the information in a meaningful and charitable way. I’ll tone that emotion down a bit as well