S
seekerz
Guest
Being “unmerciful” to error does not necessitate being judgmental and legalistic. To understand that, we just need to compare the ways of our Lord Jesus with that of the scribes and the Pharisees.
- Status
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
If you asked the Pope or the Magisterium who will win the world series this year, you may or may not get the right answer. However if you were to ask them about something relating to faith and morals (their area of expertise) you should expect the right answer, at least I would think!Exactly.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Some people would call this “sloppy agape.” Jesus did however make a whip and kick the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. Some people might call that “uncharitable”
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Every time someone wants to defend their pride, their judgmental attitude towards others and their lecturing tone they bring out Jesus in the Temple.Some people would call this “sloppy agape.” Jesus did however make a whip and kick the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. Some people might call that “uncharitable”
That was ONE incident reported by the Gospel authors. How many other incidents of Jesus treating sinners with compassion and love are recorded in the Gospels?
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Sorry. Not trying to be prideful or judgmental. I was just trying to bring out that though Jesus was compassionate and loving with sinners (such as the adultress) he could also show an other attitude towards those who were judgmental and overly religious and legalistic. (I know I have some very big and very painful planks in my eyes so I’m careful when it comes to removing splinters from other peoples eyes). I could really use your prayers in dealing with my faults. Thank you.
S
seekerz
Guest
The buyers and sellers were desecrating “the House of God”; there is wrong and then there is wrong. Direct affronts to God fall into the latter category.Some people would call this “sloppy agape.” Jesus did however make a whip and kick the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. Some people might call that “uncharitable”
What does this incident have to do with being legalistic (putting the exact letter of the law before the purpose of the law) or judgmental (condemning other people for their imperfections while ignoring or downplaying our own)?
What do you want to bet that those same buyers and sellers were made to adhere to every ritual, tradition and rule by the Temple priests who were too caught up in ‘enforcement’ to notice their affront to the One to whom the Temple belonged?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The article is essentially an opinion piece; mostly an interpretation of what the Cardinal believed, even of what he said in large part.
I don’t think it tells us anything we can rely on. There probably are sources that do.
I don’t think it tells us anything we can rely on. There probably are sources that do.
S
superamazingman
Guest
There is nothing wrong with being frank when people are very wrong like this, and should know better. And if by “legalistic,” you mean “calling a spade a spade, and an intrinsic evil such as gay marriage exactly that: evil”, then yes, we are going to be legalistic, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Would you call Jesus judgemental for calling the pharasees a “brood of vipers”? How about “a den of thieves”? How about driving the money changers out of the temple?
S
superamazingman
Guest
Note also what he said every time: “go and sin no more.” He accepted them and loved them, but also asked them to change their ways, and stop doing what they were doing.
G
gus
Guest
In my view much opposition to the Church involves
wanting your particular sin to longer be considered a sin by the Church.
We are all sinners .
Salvation comes through repentance.
At. at some level we all know when we are sinning.
Some are more reluctant to admit it.
If the Catholic Church changed one thing about sin it would be Apostate.
Blurring the lines by some in the Church have resulted in a much weakened Church
wanting your particular sin to longer be considered a sin by the Church.
We are all sinners .
Salvation comes through repentance.
At. at some level we all know when we are sinning.
Some are more reluctant to admit it.
If the Catholic Church changed one thing about sin it would be Apostate.
Blurring the lines by some in the Church have resulted in a much weakened Church
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Even incidents like driving the money changers out of the Temple and calling the Pharisees “brood of vipers” was an act of love. Giving those people a chance to change their act. He could just as well have called lightening to strike them.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
But it does not give US the license to act as judge and jury over our brothers and sisters. I’m tired of people using that incident over and over as an excuse for boorish behavior. “Well Jesus threw the money changers out, so I can call that person evil and I can tell them what miserable sinners they are and how they should run their lives”
Until we reach the state of perfection that Jesus lived in, we have no business throwing over tables.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
I haven’t thrown over a table in at least—20 minutes! And my license to practice as judge and jury was revoked years ago!
Peace to you my friend!
S
Seeker1961
Guest
I wasn’t being specific to you…that’s why I used US. We all have our moments where we take God’s job away from Him.I haven’t thrown over a table in at least—20 minutes! And my license to practice as judge and jury was revoked years ago!
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
The thing is–I don’t remember seeing God in the unemployment line, the angels being laid off, or the Holy Spirit applying for Food Stamps. Frankly I wouldn’t WANT God’s job. I could never handle the stress.I wasn’t being specific to you…that’s why I used US. We all have our moments where we take God’s job away from Him.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You don’t care for Archbishop Sheen’s remark --taken in the context he made it? Notice he doesn’t say unmerciful to the PERSON but to the error. Isn’t that a lot like 'hate the sin, love the sinner"? Hate is a pretty strong word but we are indeed supposed to hate sin, right? Shouldn’t we hate error? We shouldn’t like it, surely., . .we shouldn’t even tolerate it if by ‘tolerate’ you mean accept it as if there was just no chance to ever change it. . .right?
I just don’t get where the poster’s comment about the Archbishop’s quote was taken by you to automatically mean ‘being judgmental and legalistic’. . .maybe I missed a post or two?
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
I must have been in the basement feeding my pet monster when those posts were made>
H
Havard
Guest
You’re absolutely right. Most of my Catholic-school and Confirmation classmates and have now cohabited before marriage. Most have had premarital sex many times over before in various relationships, and even casual sex is not uncommon. Nearly all of them use artificial birth control. Most think no fault divorce and remarriage should be “an option”.
Never once have I ever heard them even attempt a theological defense of their actions. It’s just what they want to do, so they choose to believe it’s no longer sinful.
S
superamazingman
Guest
No one is advocating judging his soul’s state, something reserved to God alone. HOWEVER, we are judging his actions (and comments), and that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Like Bishop Sheen said, we need to love the sinner (the person, their soul), but hate the sin (their actions).
Judging actions are a-ok. And what this cardinal said was seriously wrong and hurtful to the church. He. was. wrong. There, I said it.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
I wish I had the strength to read the article and the rest of the responses, but such things seem to be too predictable and just make me want to cry.
I am glad that I read your response Gus, though. Not that I agree with it entirely but it is reasoned and reasonable.
I don’t think that much of the opposition to the Church comes from people wanting their particular sin to not be a sin. My experience is that most people who oppose the church do so for sympathetic reasons. They are wrong, but they are wrong based on compassion. There are quite a few heterosexual people who are against the Church’s teaching about homosexuality, for example, because they sympathize with homosexuals as being an oppressed minority. I have known quite a few people who are pro-choice even though they wouldn’t have an abortion because of sympathy for women who get pregnant and are stigmatized by society for getting that way. Many of them are outraged with how society treats women in that situation and for conservatives for doing what they perceive as nothing while some parents abuse their children physically and mentally and neglect them.
I disagree with these people but I have sympathy. I share their passions and feel just as strongly as they do, but due to the strength of the Church and her teaching I also have strong compassion for the sanctity of marriage and of the human life of the unborn child. Their beliefs and the Church’s are not mutually exclusive. Their passions are a subset of the Church’s.
The only way that we can reach these people is if we show them that we share their passions and invite them to see the whole story. We need to show them that the Church does not call them to extinguish their passion but to grow compassion in other areas.
Exactly!
Salvation comes entirely from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ through his sacrifice on the cross. We participate in that salvation through repentance and deeds and through the grace of the sacraments. I am not so daring as to suggest who exactly is the most reluctant to admit they are sinners, though.
There are plenty of ‘traditions’ that are of man that can be changed because they are not sins. An easy example of this are the priestly vestments; not that I am in favor of changing that. Part of the problem the Church suffers is that in the recent past it blurred too much the traditions of man as being sins. If you did not live before Vatican II talk to someone who has. My experience is that you will find a Church that taught many things (although they were not officially part of the catechism as sins) as being sins that are not sins and greatly exaggerated other sins. If you attended a protestant ceremony such as a wedding you would go to hell. Or if you dared to eat meat on Friday, you would go straight to hell. Even going to a Catholic Church of another ethnicity could be a damning offense.
The Church walks a narrow tightrope. There are still a lot of traditions of man that are treated as the Word of God by those who should know better. The leaders of the Church know better, but often the most conservative lay people still do not. The Church has to better explain what is tradition and what is sin while at the same time remaining faithful to the message originally entrusted to her by Christ. And not only do they have to remain faithful but they have to be SEEN as remaining faithful which is much harder.
- Status