Asking all priests: Why not talk about the hard issues at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patagonia1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Needless to say, those are some terrific issues for homilies, but I would love to see one of the follow issues sermonized:
  • Civility among people. Understanding that we can agree to disagree about many things in this world without acting disagreeably.
  • Respect for others, whether it be respect between men and women, children and teachers in school, students and other students (stopping bullying), respect for veterans, respect for seniors.
  • Giving back. There is a huge need in parishes and in life outside of church for volunteers. It seems like fewer people want to volunteer. It seems like many people are happy to let others do all of the volunteer work.
  • Blood donations. It is hard to get people to give of this life-giving substance.
    These are just a few things that come to mind.
 
Patagonia1 said:
Again, what is your solution? And what do you think will happen if the US disarms?
Click to expand...
  1. Russia will become by default the world’s sole nuclear superpower.
  2. Humanity will not have to endure the ravages of a global nuclear war. This is by far the most important consideration.
  3. The USA would have to depend on the Russian nuclear umbrella.
  4. Russia might then be able to persuade the other nuclear armed nations to disarm. England already has a nuclear weapons disarmament movement, and the United Nations has tried to pass a nuclear disarmament resolution.
I really do not think that Russia, as the world’s sole nuclear superpower, would try to enslave the USA or retake eastern Europe. I think that the Russians, like the rest of us, simply want to live in peace, free from the threat of nuclear annihilation.
 
undead_rat said:
And the Russians look upon their own arsenal of ICBMs exactly in the same way that we here in the USA do: to prevent their country’s enslavement by another.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. If Russia were to study U.S. history following WWII, and see the U.S. policy toward the Western side of the divided, defeated Germany, and the whole of defeated Japan, the U.S. lack of imperial ambitions toward both of those defeated enemies should be obvious. The U.S.- instead of looting and dominating them - helped them recover and rebuild. The U.S. was not an aggressor to fear.

Russia, on the other hand, proved that her ambitions were the opposite, and was indeed a nation to beware.
 
undead_rat said:
All that I can say is that “preventing enslavement by the west” is the reason that the Orthodox priests mention over and over again in this article:
…

MOSCOW (RNS) — The ban would constitute a signal change in the church’s official policy regarding Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...
And all I can ask is, “Does that surprise you?” Consider the relationship of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Russian government - that is, with Mr. Putin - and consider his persistent advances toward restoration of the Soviet empire with its world-wide ambitions - and the importance of nuclear power for that Soviet/communist dream of world domination - of course they will use that “noble reason” of self-defense for their political purposes.
 
And here in the USA we make use of exactly the same reason to justify our deployment of our nuclear weapons arsenals.
Furthermore, the fact that we actually see a debate about the propriety of endorsing ICBMs in the Russian Orthodox Church is proof that this Church is no longer rubber-stamping the policies of the State.

At least our blessed Francis has had the courage to call out the nuclear bomb for what it is: the greatest evil ever created by man. And it is a basic Christian principle that one cannot fight evil with evil and be successful. Apparently the world is going to have to learn this lesson the hard way.
 
The equivalency argument does not hold water. As I wrote above:
fide said:
If Russia were to study U.S. history following WWII, and see the U.S. policy toward the Western side of the divided, defeated Germany, and the whole of defeated Japan, the U.S. lack of imperial ambitions toward both of those defeated enemies should be obvious. The U.S.- instead of looting and dominating them - helped them recover and rebuild. The U.S. was not an aggressor to fear.

Russia, on the other hand, proved that her ambitions were the opposite, and was indeed a nation to beware.
Click to expand...
There really, really are major differences between these two nations. The Soviet Union had to keep fences and guards on their borders to keep their own people IN. America is trying to figure out how to limit the non-Americans breaking down barriers to get INTO this country. Do your math again, brother.

This argument is not the point of this thread, and it is leading in circles. I’m out of it; goodbye.
 
Last edited:
fide said:
If Russia were to study U.S. history following WWII, and see the U.S. policy toward the Western side of the divided, defeated Germany, and the whole of defeated Japan, the U.S. lack of imperial ambitions . . … should be obvious. . . .

The U.S. was not an aggressor to fear.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t “obvious” to the Vietnamese who lost millions of citizens in their effort to be free of French enslavement, an effort that was vigorously opposed by the USA.
 
Last edited:
undead_rat said:
possession
Click to expand...
Seriously, Undead_Rat… It is outright self-serving and rude on your part to turn a worthy topic that has received good interests and wide participation from members on this forum into a spectacle of your obsession that went on endless loops that led to no where on a different thread.

Yes, we get it. You want and believe that the entire world should disarm itself of nuclear weapons because of it being the biggest sin (because you said so)and everyone, including tyrants, terrorists, and evil people, agree that it’s bad. Therefore, if the free world disarms itself—so would all the bad/evil actors. The bad/evil actors would see the potential destruction of nuclear weapons, and would never use them to serve their evil purposes. They would then see their bad ways and wow to never return to them. Once the entire world gets rid of all the nuclear weapons, no one would ever get back to it. Perhaps, the world would finally get world peace…

Now, could we go back to the original topic on this thread—which is why priests are hesitant to talk about hard issues at Mass?
 
Last edited:
Please see post #198. I never said that Russia or the entire world would disarm their nuclear weapons. What I said was the the USA would have to rely on the protection of the Russian nuclear umbrella. You may think that such is a bad idea. I think that suffering the consequences of a global nuclear war is an even worse one. That disaster is predicted in our Holy Scripture my friend. The timeline is this century.

As for the thread topic, our priests, both Catholic and Episcopal, don’t talk about the necessity of unilateral nuclear disarmament because 1. they don’t understand the inevitability of the coming global nuclear war, and 2. because the idea of such a disarmament is very unpopular (as we see on this thread.) It is, indeed, a hard issue. Perhaps the hardest of them all.
 
The whole premise about nuclear disarmament is everyone must disarm their nuclear arsenal—not just the free world. This is so because of the potential damage of it poses to the whole world. This was the point Pope Francis was making. I don’t recall Pope Francis, or any popes, has ever said that only Russia can have nuclear weapons.

Why would the US disarm itself entrusting its security and its fate to the Russia (Putin)? This is absolute non-sense. It is the most insane thing I have heard here at CAF. You know what. I will check out and not wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
Randolph said:
The whole premise about nuclear disarmament is everyone must disarm their nuclear arsenal—not just the free world. . . .

This was the point Pope Francis was making.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis has not prohibited unilateral nuclear disarmament by any country, nor has he said that the USA must have nuclear weapons. He has condemned the very possession of these evil devices.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-05/features/papal-condemnation-nuclear-deterrence-what-next
Randolph said:
Why would the US disarm itself entrusting its security and its fate to the Russia (Putin)?
Click to expand...
I have answered this question several times. The reason for unilateral nuclear disarmament is because the inevitable consequence for failing to do so is a global nuclear war.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...cesco_20171110_convegno-disarmointegrale.html
 
Last edited:
The “hard issues” are apropos if related to the readings. Maybe if some major occurrence affects the parish. Otherwise, why not attend a local mission, in which area or itinerant priests frequently broach those difficult subjects.

As he preaches missions, Fr. Wade Menezes of the Fathers of Mercy often addresses the final four things: death, judgment, heaven, hell.

Not much tougher than that.
 
I actually believe those things are talked about too much.

In the midwest US where we live, there is constant talk about abortion, gay marriage and sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. It would be nice to have the fullness of Catholic teaching including it social doctrine.

I understand that not all geographies are the same and that in some areas gay marriage, abortion and pre-marital sex are avoided.

It would be nice to have balance… and the fullness of the Church’s teaching was passed on.
 
po18guy said:
The “hard issues” are apropos if related to the readings. Maybe if some major occurrence affects the parish. Otherwise, why not attend a local mission, in which area or itinerant priests frequently broach those difficult subjects.
Click to expand...
just wondering if you think the,…
…parable of the vineyard owner to see its application to our times [IN A PERIOD OF “CLIMATE CHANGE”]. Here is a brief summary:
A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.
Click to expand...
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-p...ent-and-we-must-heed-the-warnings-of-our-lady
Click to expand...
is apropos?

since you posted,…
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
I note that conventional wisdom fall heavily on one side of this argument and that any and all opposing, or even critical viewpoints tend to be ignored or suppressed. [Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax]
Click to expand...
 
just wondering if you have ever considered that the
…parable of the vineyard owner seems apropos to a homily about “climate change”. Here is a brief summary:
A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.
Click to expand...
National Catholic Register
Click to expand...
and FWIW science can show that mankind does indeed have the ability to change the climate on this planet
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
my dad was an engineer and my mom had a chemistry back ground and worked in various medical labs,… so I was lucky in that my parents placed an emphasis on understanding basic science,… sadly most kids (who grow up to be adults) are never taught that understanding basic science is the key to understanding big problems give you an example,… when I was a kid, my mom told me a simple poem that I still remember,… “little drops of water and little grains of sand, make the might ocean and the pleasan…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I’ll assume that you did not drink the progressive left’s Kool Aid on this one. Is the climiate changing? Of course it is! The question is: Why?

There is a ton of money, governmental power and control in the argument that man is to blame and therefore must be taxed, aborted and euthanized so as to lessen the burden on their god of earth.

What if God wills the climate change? Ever think of that? It is predicted by Saint Peter in his second letter. Read 2 Peter 3.

Ever listen to a view point which challenges your own? Try it, as you age and mature, you’ll come to like it. How about this: socialist Norwegian Nobel Laureate and physicist Ivar Giaver who was askeed to serve on a MMGW panel and was shocked at what he found. The data indicates that the change is inconsistent with the industrial age/Co2 output, and other factors. He is far from alone.

 
Although I’m not a Catholic, I don’t think the pulpit is the place that these issues need to be addressed from. I think they should be addressed in public, in town squares, on the street corners. When a sermon is given in church, the priest/pastor is essentially preaching to those who already believe- otherwise they wouldn’t be there- and who presumably already know what’s what. It’s the ‘unwashed masses’ outside the church doors who need to hear the message loud and clear. I have noted in posts elsewhere that what I’m NOT seeing from the Church- ANY Church, Catholic or Protestant- is that old-school FIRE that would get people to thinking and reassessing their life choices. The images of Southern Baptist preachers with their fire-and-brimstone sermons notwithstanding, but where is that intensity today? Has Christianity sold it all in pursuit of being politically correct and offending no one?

For the Catholics (I’m not sure what the Protestant equivalent is, if any) what’s the point of having a rite of excommunication if you’re not going to use it to help combat the wealth of wrongdoing out there?
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
What if God wills the climate change? Ever think of that? It is predicted by Saint Peter in his second letter. Read 2 Peter 3.

Ever listen to a view point which challenges your own?
Click to expand...
yup,… I do,… question is do you? and from what I can tell reading this and various other threads,… seems you do not!
His area of research is completely unrelated to the environment. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about - he says so himself:“I don’t publish anything on this.”

Deacon using parish bulletins to take potshots at conservatives - #56 by adgloriam
Click to expand...
and,…
His charts were bogus. (most didn’t cite references, the rest out of context)

Deacon using parish bulletins to take potshots at conservatives - #62 by adgloriam
Click to expand...
since you specifically mentioned 2 Peter 3 (the Destruction of the earth)


FWIW couple of things first came to my mind,…

first WRT “faith” and science

http://www.mvchurchofchrist.org/blog/2018/07/16/ignorance-isnt-bliss

AND second,… WRT why ignore “faith and science,…” then the question then becomes one of motive,… or “pop psychology”

 
Last edited:
AYKM? As a Catholic, I LIVE in a world of opposing thoughts. They are nearly 100% of what is broadcast, printed, tweeted, FaceBooked, instagramed, spoken of - you name it. We are programmed to believe that it is truer than truth. You may not see that, if you agree with the current trend.

Well, we were browbeaten and harangued over “the coming ice-age” in 1970. Blah blah blah…

I divorced myself from the worldly and media bilge. I do not drink the KoolAid simply because it is offered to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top