"Believe it or get out"

[LJH1980]

I work in a hospital. I disagree with your assumptions

Many people come to the hospital who are not willing to do what is required to recover from their illness. We call them “non-compliant.”

I can’t begin to tell you how many diabetics do not take their insulin, monitor their blood glucose levels, eat the foods that will help them keep their blood glucose under control, or exercise. It’s sad, but I have to admit that if I were diabetic, I would have a very difficult time with the discipline required to remain compliant and be healthy. It’s tough…

There are two main differences here.
A: A lack of will is not the same as a lack of belief. If the diabetic knows that they should take their insulin, but doesn’t, then that is the same as a person who knows that they shouldn’t look lustfully at others, but succumbs to the temptation. That’s human frailty, and that’s what God’s forgiveness is for.
On the other hand, if you prescribed insulin for a patient, and they said “no, you’re wrong. I don’t need insulin, I need antibiotics (or narcotics) and you have to give them to me.” you might try to convince the patient, but you wouldn’t just say “ok, we’ll support your belief and give you what you think you need, just to keep you coming back so we can change your mind.”

B: You are not speaking as the divine. I once had an NP misdiagnose my bacterially-infected brown recluse bite as a herpetic whitlow (for those not in health care, that’s like misdiagnosing a semi truck as a volkswagon beetle). But if I went face to face with God, and He told me “I have given you a herpetic whitlow,” I would believe Him. When God says “I made Heaven, and I made the rules about how to get in, and these are those rules…” it takes a certain kind of arrogance to say “nah… I know better than that.”

You could say (and many around the world do) that, “the god I believe in did not make those rules” But then your god is not the Catholic God, and you are therefore not a Catholic.

 

[Newbie2]

The purpose of a hospital is to bring people into health and wholeness. One way is to minister to the unhealthy and support them in their recovery of health. Another way to reduce the number of the sick in the hospital is to turn them out onto the street. Both approaches will reduce the number of sick people in the hospital. Only the first will do so by making them whole.

Exactly! Excellent analogy.

Some people in the hospital are not getting better because they don’t think the medicine will work.

We don’t say, “You’re not getting better in our hospital, so you need to just get out”.

 

[Deb_H]

I can’t even relate to people my age anymore. It’s lonely and I’d like to get married without getting divorced. I don’t believe in dating for the sake of dating, so society treats me as if there’s something wrong with me, that I have “emotional problems that need to be addressed with a psychologist” because I’ve never dated before. Seriously?! At work people think I’m odd because I don’t have any kids. I didn’t realize I’m supposed to be single with kids. People think I’m a prude 'cause I don’t want to dress in a manner that would leave me to a likely wardrobe malfunction, or because I find it offensive and disrespectful when guys talk crude around me. Apparently I’m supposed to be flexible and be “one of the guys.”

Keep up the good work Love Divine . It IS really hard , the rewards however are huge ! I am proud to call you sister in Christ ! :extrahappy: See if you cant connect with some homeschoolers , they are more apt ( at least the Christian ones ) to stand with you in kissing dating goodby . I have a friend who has attended something in the neighborhood of 25 + weddings in the last 8 years where the parties have not even kissed until pronounced man and wife … WHOOT WHOOT ! You are not alone lovey , keep an eye out there are others . Cheers and thanks for the witness !

 

[Chatter163]

I can’t even relate to people my age anymore. It’s lonely and I’d like to get married without getting divorced. I don’t believe in dating for the sake of dating, so society treats me as if there’s something wrong with me, that I have “emotional problems that need to be addressed with a psychologist” because I’ve never dated before. Seriously?! At work people think I’m odd because I don’t have any kids. I didn’t realize I’m supposed to be single with kids. People think I’m a prude 'cause I don’t want to dress in a manner that would leave me to a likely wardrobe malfunction, or because I find it offensive and disrespectful when guys talk crude around me. Apparently I’m supposed to be flexible and be “one of the guys.”

All excellent observations, sad to say. Regarding the manner of dress, it is a sorry state of affairs when a woman must dress according to the notions of male sexual fantasies. But that is indeed what has happened to our culture. Women, especially young women, have been objectified and must make them selves up and dress in a way that is ultimately designed to appeal to male fantasies, especially adolescent males. TV sitcoms have been instrumental in this. Last season an episode of Rules of Engagement featured a 12-year old boy telling the 38-year old female star that he would do something that she needed him to do if she flashed him her breasts. Since the scene was at a wedding reception, she was dressed accordingly. She did not, of course, but she giggled and still managed to indicate that she was flattered by the request. This was an example of adolescent fantasy being written into a show.

 

[Love_Divine]

All excellent observations, sad to say. Regarding the manner of dress, it is a sorry state of affairs when a woman must dress according to the notions of male sexual fantasies. But that is indeed what has happened to our culture. Women, especially young women, have been objectified and must make them selves up and dress in a way that is ultimately designed to appeal to male fantasies, especially adolescent males. TV sitcoms have been instrumental in this. Last season an episode of Rules of Engagement featured a 12-year old boy telling the 38-year old female star that he would do something that she needed him to do if she flashed him her breasts. Since the scene was at a wedding reception, she was dressed accordingly. She did not, of course, but she giggled and still managed to indicate that she was flattered by the request. This was an example of adolescent fantasy being written into a show.

Bleh, it’s no wonder I pretty much don’t watch TV anymore.

Anyone know if there’s a Christian magazine that’s like Cosmo, only less, uh, lustful. Some of the stuff in it is pretty decent, but it’s consumed by sex. This month’s article has some do you give off a good in bed vibe quiz. Wow. “Men write you off as being uninterested in sex if you seem too buttoned up…] Feeling sexy in your skin will give you the guts to chat up your seatmate or make out with your date.”

I started looking around church for young single looking guys. Yeah, the average age of the congregation is 80. Even going to different masses. I went to a Saturday night mass and I was the youngest person there by at least 30 years.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I was raised in a Catholic family, and went to a Jesuit university, so I have attended a fair number of Catholic masses, and though I do not consider myself a Catholic (for reasons to be discussed momentarily), I’ve known a great many people who do.

One of the things I find interesting about Catholosism is the central authority figure. Instead of letting each priest/bishop decide what he views divine policy to be, there is a set standard that all must adhere to.
What this means is, as you all obviously know, there are a list of things that you must believe to be a Catholic.

The problem I have is that many people who claim to be Catholic don’t believe 100% of church doctorine, and that that is permitted in an attempt to get a wider following. For myself, I agree with most of it, but even if I were 99.99% in agreement, that still means I disagree on one point, which means I think the Papacy is wrong (or, to be more accurate, not essentially right), which means that I am not a Catholic.

But I have never heard a sermon by a priest in which he called out these people, and I’ve wondered if anyone else has?

Shouldn’t a priest get up and say to the congregation “If you don’t believe that saints grant miracles, then get out now. If you don’t believe that condoms are sinful, get out now. If you don’t believe that every person you know, who follows any other faith is going to suffer eternally while you live in bliss, then get out. We don’t want your money, and we don’t want your moral relativism. Leave.”

So my question is twofold:
1: Has anyone heard a sermon in which the priest was intentionally beligerant to confront people that they have to believe 100% of the doctorine or they aren’t Catholic?

2: Would anyone actually want such a sermon, if it led to smaller congregations that actually believed the doctorine instead of larger congregations that pick and choose what they follow, diluting the faith?

I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m trolling; I don’t intend to. I am simply irked by the apathetic aproach my generation takes toward religion, adopting a title and a group identity, but without knowing what they actually believe.

Yes many times…Father Corapi, FSSP priests etc. etc. etc. Yes, I want those sermons that teach the authentic and whole Catholic faith. Go to Vatican I documents (doctrinall counsel), Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8…it spells out what a person must believe to be Catholic…No one ever said it was easy.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[po18guy]

I work in a hospital. I disagree with your assumptions

Rather than an assumption, I was making an observation, based on 31 years of contacts with all forms of illness - specifically mental illnesses, in situations of crisis. I failed to explain myself properly yet again. My point was that another’s analogy of the Church as a hospital for the spirtually ill assumed that those who are ill actually want to comply and heal, rather than disrupt. This is “usually” the case, in my experience. You have correctly pointed out the numerous and varied bad behaviors of “patients” who claim to want healing, but in fact are only trying to manipulate others for their own ends. They can be deceptive, abusive, self-absorbed, medication-seeking and a drain on the overall organization. And, so it also is with Catholics who will not comply with Catholic teaching.

The ill normally do not lobby the hospital administrator or board to alter protocols to suit their preferences, as often occurs in the Church. These would be the unfaithful or dissident Catholics who remain in the Church, but really have no intention of complying with Catholic teaching. While there, they attempt to insinuate their personal preferences into the practice of the faith. Sorry for any offense that my lack of clarity may have caused.

 

[japhy]

+JMJ+

1: Has anyone heard a sermon in which the priest was intentionally beligerant to confront people that they have to believe 100% of the doctorine or they aren’t Catholic?

2: Would anyone actually want such a sermon, if it led to smaller congregations that actually believed the doctorine instead of larger congregations that pick and choose what they follow, diluting the faith?

A priest, while he can and should give a sermon in which sin is justly condemned and sinners are justly called to repent, should not give a sermon to the effect of “be 100% Catholic now or leave now.” That is not his job. I recommend you read the parable of the weeds among the wheat. (cf. Matt. 13:24-30) It is very possible a priest could “root up the wheat along with the weeds” by preaching that way; I mean, he could turn faithful Catholics off by being his attitude.

Sinners come to the Church to be made perfect. The Church is a hospital for sinners as much as it is a refuge for saints. If a cafeteria Catholic is not welcome in the Catholic Church, where will he learn the true faith?

I am not saying that dissenters and pick-and-choosers be given free rein in the Church, to act as they will, teach what they will, receive Communion all the while having mortal sins crowding their souls.

What I am saying is that the remedy for them is in the Church, not outside it. It’s like a doctor saying to his patient, “be in perfect health or get out!” His vocation is to accept the sick and heal them.

 

[Flame4]

The church is and should be firm yet loving. Yes, we should let people know that they must believe certain things. However we shouldn’t tell people to , “get out.” Teach them why we believe things (to the extent possible) and let them know it is mandatory to accept it. However we don’t kick people out of the Church. I think that is one of the wonderful things about the Church: its authority. But once you are baptised, you are baptised forever.

 

[twopekinguys]

I was raised in a Catholic family, and went to a Jesuit university, so I have attended a fair number of Catholic masses, and though I do not consider myself a Catholic (for reasons to be discussed momentarily), I’ve known a great many people who do.

One of the things I find interesting about Catholosism is the central authority figure. Instead of letting each priest/bishop decide what he views divine policy to be, there is a set standard that all must adhere to.
What this means is, as you all obviously know, there are a list of things that you must believe to be a Catholic.

The problem I have is that many people who claim to be Catholic don’t believe 100% of church doctorine, and that that is permitted in an attempt to get a wider following. For myself, I agree with most of it, but even if I were 99.99% in agreement, that still means I disagree on one point, which means I think the Papacy is wrong (or, to be more accurate, not essentially right), which means that I am not a Catholic.

But I have never heard a sermon by a priest in which he called out these people, and I’ve wondered if anyone else has?

Shouldn’t a priest get up and say to the congregation “If you don’t believe that saints grant miracles, then get out now. If you don’t believe that condoms are sinful, get out now. If you don’t believe that every person you know, who follows any other faith is going to suffer eternally while you live in bliss, then get out. We don’t want your money, and we don’t want your moral relativism. Leave.”

So my question is twofold:
1: Has anyone heard a sermon in which the priest was intentionally beligerant to confront people that they have to believe 100% of the doctorine or they aren’t Catholic?

2: Would anyone actually want such a sermon, if it led to smaller congregations that actually believed the doctorine instead of larger congregations that pick and choose what they follow, diluting the faith?

I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m trolling; I don’t intend to. I am simply irked by the apathetic aproach my generation takes toward religion, adopting a title and a group identity, but without knowing what they actually believe.

I think you’ve received some very good answers, but I have a question for you.

You state that you don’t consider yourself Catholic, but yet you have identified yourself as Catholic, in your religious preference.

Could you try to explain the contradiction?

I think it might help some of us understand where you’re coming from a little better.

 

[johnnykins]

I was raised in a Catholic family, and went to a Jesuit university, so I have attended a fair number of Catholic masses, and though I do not consider myself a Catholic (for reasons to be discussed momentarily), I’ve known a great many people who do.

One of the things I find interesting about Catholosism is the central authority figure. Instead of letting each priest/bishop decide what he views divine policy to be, there is a set standard that all must adhere to.
What this means is, as you all obviously know, there are a list of things that you must believe to be a Catholic.

The problem I have is that many people who claim to be Catholic don’t believe 100% of church doctorine, and that that is permitted in an attempt to get a wider following. For myself, I agree with most of it, but even if I were 99.99% in agreement, that still means I disagree on one point, which means I think the Papacy is wrong (or, to be more accurate, not essentially right), which means that I am not a Catholic.

But I have never heard a sermon by a priest in which he called out these people, and I’ve wondered if anyone else has?

Shouldn’t a priest get up and say to the congregation “If you don’t believe that saints grant miracles, then get out now. If you don’t believe that condoms are sinful, get out now. If you don’t believe that every person you know, who follows any other faith is going to suffer eternally while you live in bliss, then get out. We don’t want your money, and we don’t want your moral relativism. Leave.”

So my question is twofold:
1: Has anyone heard a sermon in which the priest was intentionally beligerant to confront people that they have to believe 100% of the doctorine or they aren’t Catholic?

2: Would anyone actually want such a sermon, if it led to smaller congregations that actually believed the doctorine instead of larger congregations that pick and choose what they follow, diluting the faith?

I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m trolling; I don’t intend to. I am simply irked by the apathetic aproach my generation takes toward religion, adopting a title and a group identity, but without knowing what they actually believe.

Unfortunately for someone with a “Catholic” education you didn’t all the facts. Heresy is the denial of dogma. As long as you don’t deny dogma you can very easily be a Catholic - even with doubts as long as those doubts do not rise to denial. Plus, many matters of doctrine do not constitute dogma, although like dogma you may not deny authoritative doctrine willynilly. Nonetheless you can doubt and even deny, if you have an informed conscience and do not publicly deny, the doctrine. Many other matters are simply pious beliefs or theolegoumae - permitted but not required beliefs.

So unless you are denying dogma you can be a Catholic.,