Cardinal Wuerl: Bishops and synod should meet people where they are

[gilliam]

One of the main challenges facing Catholic bishops today is to be clear about the church’s moral teachings but then also to meet people where they are in life without just admonishing them, Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl has said.

Wuerl – one of nine Americans attending the ongoing Oct. 4-25 Synod of Bishops – said one concern facing the prelates is wanting to have clarity about church teachings while knowing how to apply the teachings to where people are in their lives.

“I think that’s where the heart of the tension is, as if you can’t do both,” said the cardinal, speaking in an NCR interview Sunday.

“The church’s teaching is quite clear,” said Wuerl. “But the church’s pastoral life is the application of the teaching to where people are. And that’s always been the pastoral challenge of the church.”

“You have to speak with clarity, but then knowing what the fullness of the teaching is, you go out and meet people where they are,” he continued. “And the Holy Father keeps saying to us, ‘Accompany them.’”

“You don’t go out to meet people where they are to scold them,” he said. “You go out to bring them the truth but sometimes to be heard you have to let the person know you know their struggle if you’re going to accompany them at all.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/cardinal-wuerl-bishops-and-synod-should-meet-people-where-they-are

 

[Trident_H]

One of the main challenges facing Catholic bishops today is to be clear about the church’s moral teachings but then also to meet people where they are in life without just admonishing them, Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl has said.

Wuerl – one of nine Americans attending the ongoing Oct. 4-25 Synod of Bishops – said one concern facing the prelates is wanting to have clarity about church teachings while knowing how to apply the teachings to where people are in their lives.

“I think that’s where the heart of the tension is, as if you can’t do both,” said the cardinal, speaking in an NCR interview Sunday.

“The church’s teaching is quite clear,” said Wuerl. “But the church’s pastoral life is the application of the teaching to where people are. And that’s always been the pastoral challenge of the church.”

“You have to speak with clarity, but then knowing what the fullness of the teaching is, you go out and meet people where they are,” he continued. “And the Holy Father keeps saying to us, ‘Accompany them.’”

“You don’t go out to meet people where they are to scold them,” he said. “You go out to bring them the truth but sometimes to be heard you have to let the person know you know their struggle if you’re going to accompany them at all.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/cardinal-wuerl-bishops-and-synod-should-meet-people-where-they-are

Wow. A guy after my own heart. Right on. This is truth.

 

[St_Francis]

Where have we gotten so far with this bait-and-switch tactic? This is like a repeat of the birth control fiasco in the 1960s all over again, and also like all the ecumenical attempts.

*The Church is not going to change. *Christ told the apostles: If they do not listen to you, leave, and shake the dust of that town from your sandals."

It seems like the bishops think, if we could just put it in the right way, if we could just show we understand them, then we could… convert them.

Because the Church is not going to change. We enter into discussion, but discussion is based on the premise that each of those involved is willing to change. If it is not that way, then it is not a discussion! We are not going to reach a compromise each can agree to, it’s the Catholic way or the highway.

So what is the point of all this? We could do so much more if the bishops would lead us, the laity, into *true evangelization: *one person at a time, teaching the truths of the Catholic Church and letting people either listen or walk away.

We are not here to convince people. We are here to teach those who want to hear. This is what Christ did, and who are we to think we can do more than He did?

 

[Trident_H]

Where have we gotten so far with this bait-and-switch tactic? This is like a repeat of the birth control fiasco in the 1960s all over again, and also like all the ecumenical attempts.

*The Church is not going to change. *Christ told the apostles: If they do not listen to you, leave, and shake the dust of that town from your sandals."

It seems like the bishops think, if we could just put it in the right way, if we could just show we understand them, then we could… convert them.

Because the Church is not going to change. We enter into discussion, but discussion is based on the premise that each of those involved is willing to change. If it is not that way, then it is not a discussion! We are not going to reach a compromise each can agree to, it’s the Catholic way or the highway.

So what is the point of all this? We could do so much more if the bishops would lead us, the laity, into *true evangelization: *one person at a time, teaching the truths of the Catholic Church and letting people either listen or walk away.

We are not here to convince people. We are here to teach those who want to hear. This is what Christ did, and who are we to think we can do more than He did?

I think there’s a splice on this line. I think I need some clarity here. I mean when I’m hearing this Cardinal make this view known. I’m thinking he’s talking to each of us. To our own hearts here. That we need to welcome people where they’re at. And walk with them a bit. Like St. Paul did.

What I’m not so clear on is any idea that suggests the Church sort of adapt this as its way forward as an organization. I mean that can’t make any sense. Because the Church’s position is what you’re steering that person towards. It’s what you’re walking with them to take them to. But if the whole Church is bouncing all around bowing to everyone and patting them on the head really nice. Well that just makes the whole journey pointless. I mean what’s the point in guiding someone towards truth. Taking all that time to walk with them and all that. Only to arrive. And find that truth’s relative. That it’s just where you’re at. That’s your truth. And now here’s mine. So no. If that’s what he’s after he’s on the way to messing up a lot of things.

I mean I understand why he might want to do it. I understand that it can be hard to hold a line in things. But we need our front lines to stay put. We can’t keep retreating. And always have to build new walls. Always have to start over. Where we’re at.

I don’t know. I could be misunderstanding stuff here.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[Demetra2]

One of the main challenges facing Catholic bishops today is to be clear about the church’s moral teachings but then also to meet people where they are in life without just admonishing them, Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl has said.

Wuerl – one of nine Americans attending the ongoing Oct. 4-25 Synod of Bishops – said one concern facing the prelates is wanting to have clarity about church teachings while knowing how to apply the teachings to where people are in their lives.

“I think that’s where the heart of the tension is, as if you can’t do both,” said the cardinal, speaking in an NCR interview Sunday.

“The church’s teaching is quite clear,” said Wuerl. “But the church’s pastoral life is the application of the teaching to where people are. And that’s always been the pastoral challenge of the church.”

“You have to speak with clarity, but then knowing what the fullness of the teaching is, you go out and meet people where they are,” he continued. “And the Holy Father keeps saying to us, ‘Accompany them.’”

“You don’t go out to meet people where they are to scold them,” he said. “You go out to bring them the truth but sometimes to be heard you have to let the person know you know their struggle if you’re going to accompany them at all.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/cardinal-wuerl-bishops-and-synod-should-meet-people-where-they-are

I’m a little suspicious of the actual application of “meeting people where they are”. Hopefully it doesn’t mean watering down the truth and fullness of the church in order to make people feel comfy in their particular sin. I like the idea of inviting people to have a relationship with God and to come back to church to hear the truth. In many cases the truth will hurt but if they can hang in there with that hurt and really want God in their lives then meeting them where they live will be fruitful. If not, it’s pointless and will just affirm them in their sin.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Having followed Francis’s visit to the US rather closely, Wuerl seems to echo Francis here.

 

[johnnyc176]

Jesus didn’t walk very far with the adulteress woman before He told her not to sin anymore.

 

[johnnyc176]

.
Letting someone know “you know their struggle” isn’t “baiting and switching”.
It’s called empathy and connecting with other human beings.

The bishops* are* trying to lead, but it seems many here will not listen.
Do the bishops not know what “true evangelization” is? Really? Nor the pope?

Didn’t Jesus sit down with “sinners” and show compassion? Didn’t Jesus go around and talk to people from village to village and try to actively teach a message?
Yes, he did. He went to the people and he sat down with them where they were, as this Cardinal is saying.
If you want people to listen in the first place, you have to talk to them and make them feel comfortable enough to listen, as he so rightly points out.

If you think the church should only “teach those who want to hear,” it will miss out on thousands and thousands of people who would’ve been happy to listen with just a little help.
But so be it.

.

Jesus was not worried about who was comfortable or who was not. He spoke the Truth. Actually His intent was to make people uncomfortable. He didn’t water down His teaching even if it meant people would walk away.

After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him

 

[St_Francis]

**Trident, DaddyGirl, **

Naturally when we talk with people individually we do as you suggest, but the scenarios I alluded to are not one-on-one, they are corporate, they are the mass aggregation of the divorced-and-remarried, the corporate other ecclesial communities.

What does it mean for the Catholic Church *as a whole *to meet the divorced-and-remarried *as a whole? *All that the latter have in common is an unwillingness to accept the Church’s position regarding the general situation in which they find themselves, which is in an objective state of adultery but wanting to partake of the Eucharist.

 

[Trident_H]

**Trident, DaddyGirl, **

Naturally when we talk with people individually we do as you suggest, but the scenarios I alluded to are not one-on-one, they are corporate, they are the mass aggregation of the divorced-and-remarried, the corporate other ecclesial communities.

What does it mean for the Catholic Church *as a whole *to meet the divorced-and-remarried *as a whole? *All that the latter have in common is an unwillingness to accept the Church’s position regarding the general situation in which they find themselves, which is in an objective state of adultery but wanting to partake of the Eucharist.

Well if it’s a top down approach. Instead of a peer to peer thing. Well then I agree with you. I don’t see how it can work out. We need leadership. Not buddies on this.

 

[St_Francis]

.
Letting someone know “you know their struggle” isn’t “baiting and switching”.
It’s called empathy and connecting with other human beings.

The bishops* are* trying to lead, but it seems many here will not listen.
Do the bishops not know what “true evangelization” is? Really? Nor the pope?

Didn’t Jesus sit down with “sinners” and show compassion? Didn’t Jesus go around and talk to people from village to village and try to actively teach a message?
Yes, he did. He went to the people and he sat down with them where they were, as this Cardinal is saying.
If you want people to listen in the first place, you have to talk to them and make them feel comfortable enough to listen, as he so rightly points out.

If you think the church should only “teach those who want to hear,” it will miss out on thousands and thousands of people who would’ve been happy to listen with just a little help.
But so be it.

I am sorry to have not been more clear. Christ did indeed dine with sinners. However, He also accepted that there would be those who rejected Him and what He had to say, and what did He do about them?

60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’

61 Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?

62 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?

63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

64 ‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray him.

65 He went on, ‘This is why I told you that no one could come to me except by the gift of the Father.’

66 After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more.

67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘What about you, do you want to go away too?’

 

[Sy_Noe]

I am sorry to have not been more clear. Christ did indeed dine with sinners. However, He also accepted that there would be those who rejected Him and what He had to say, and what did He do about them?

60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’

61 Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?

62 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?

63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

64 ‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray him.

65 He went on, ‘This is why I told you that no one could come to me except by the gift of the Father.’

66 After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more.

67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘What about you, do you want to go away too?’

There of course is not agreement among followers of and believers in Christ today, if there ever completely was, on exactly what it was He was saying that troubled these people. Whether He was speaking literally about eating His flesh (Catholic view) and the people had difficulty with that. Or if He was speaking figuratively where eating meant believing in His upcoming sacrifice on the cross or if He was speaking figuratively/spiritually in verse 63 but the people were still thinking He was speaking literally. And if that’s why they walked. Not wanting to turn the thread into a discussion of Jn 6. Only that I’m unsure your post is proof of anything.

 

[johnnyc176]

There of course is not agreement among followers of and believers in Christ today, if there ever completely was, on exactly what it was He was saying that troubled these people. Whether He was speaking literally about eating His flesh (Catholic view) and the people had difficulty with that. Or if He was speaking figuratively where eating meant believing in His upcoming sacrifice on the cross or if He was speaking figuratively/spiritually in verse 63 but the people were still thinking He was speaking literally. And if that’s why they walked. Not wanting to turn the thread into a discussion of Jn 6. Only that I’m unsure your post is proof of anything.

Of course you ignore Jesus’s words. Your protestant.

The Jews knew exactly what He was saying…

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Did Jesus say oh no that’s not what I meant? No…He reiterated what He meant…In fact He doubled down on what He was saying…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.

The fact that there is not agreement among some Christians doesn’t mean squat. The Catholic Church has been fighting heresy and protestantism almost from the beginning when Christ established the Catholic Church. Look up arianism or gnoticism

 

[St_Francis]

There of course is not agreement among followers of and believers in Christ today, if there ever completely was, on exactly what it was He was saying that troubled these people. Whether He was speaking literally about eating His flesh (Catholic view) and the people had difficulty with that. Or if He was speaking figuratively where eating meant believing in His upcoming sacrifice on the cross or if He was speaking figuratively/spiritually in verse 63 but the people were still thinking He was speaking literally. And if that’s why they walked. Not wanting to turn the thread into a discussion of Jn 6. Only that I’m unsure your post is proof of anything.

I do not want to derail the thread either. I posted this as a second example of how Christ responded to those who rejected Him or His teachings, and however one interprets what He said there, it is clear that He did not run after those who left.

 

[san_jorge]

Jesus didn’t walk very far with the adulteress woman before He told her not to sin anymore.

He was as loving as anyone would want their Bishop to be. Jesus accompanied the woman.
When was the last time you saw your local Bishop…in public…in the town square…in a local prominent park…at a university or regular school…in a hospital…a prison…a shopping mall just chilling with the local peeps?

"Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

Jesus rocks in how He handled the woman…pure love…total regard for her…He didn’t whip out the Charles Chaput / Raymond Burke two by four wood to hit her over the head.

Sacred Scriptures are really cool. When you take them in context

Oremus

AMDG

 

[Genesis315]

Meeting people where they are and accompanying them are all fine as long as we don’t accompany them into the pit–rather, if our bishops meet us on the broad road, they should guide us to and accompany us down the narrow one, not accompany us down the broad one.

Anyway, I think Pope Paschal II summed up the idea of meeting people where they are nicely, as quote in St. Pius X’s encyclical Communium Rerum–to lift the fallen man, stoop down to him to help him up, but don’t fall too:
Pope Paschal II as quoted by Pope St. Pius X:

For if the one standing erect merely holds out his hand to a fallen man, he will never lift him unless he too bends down a little. Besides, although this act of stooping may seem like the act of falling, it never goes so far as to lose the equilibrium of rectitude" (In lib. iii. Epist. S. Anselmi, ep. 140).

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_21041909_communium-rerum.html

 

[St_Francis]

These words of Cardinal Arinze are much more to the point, I think.

He explains that one in an objectively sinful situation cannot approach the sacraments on the grounds that their conscience tells them they are all right, because in this situation, their conscience is wrong.

He uses the analogy of a doctor faced with a patient with a bad wound. The doctor needs to clean and care for it and adminster medicine, bit the patient says all it needs is a bandage. Clearly the doctor needs to explain the truth to the patient and treat the wound properly.