Catholics shouldn't try to convert Jews

[jaimeleglise]

Yeah, but unfortunately it seems to me charity has grown cold and the fear of offense or being mislabled as a racist has taken over the charitable desire for our elder brothers to partake of all the riches of their birthright. It’s just a different spin on John 7:13. Coercion and persecution, not to mention the Nazis’ genocide should be condemned in the strongest terms. But the Church should not forget her diving founder’s call to teach all nations to observe what He taught, including His own nation, even if, like in Biblical times, the hearers are offended by the message.

I completely agree with you. Great explanation. I sure that many Jewish people would make fervent, devout Catholics.

 

[anthony022071]

Call me a ‘nuance-freak’ but I would say that evangelization is not about “converting someone”. It is about proclaiming the truth of Christ in the sincere hope that others might be receptive to it, in a spirit of love and openness. It is not an assertive attempt to change someone’s mind. To me, proclamation not only includes dialogue but is inseparable from it. Evangelization ultimately respects the integrity of the conscience of (even) an erring person, whereas proselytism (for example) is entirely one-sided and is not concerned at all with a common search for truth, merely the imposition of the truth upon another.

The goal of evangelization is to convert people so that they may be saved. Evangelization may be either boldly assertive or it may be a respectful dialogue. It depends on who you are talking to and their personality and attitude and how you think they are most likely to be persuaded.

Most of the instances of evangelization recorded in scripture are bold, public preaching and teaching, and even the instances of respectful dialogue are done with authoritative preaching and teaching. The one who evangelizes presents the truth clearly and pricks the conscience of the listener. He does not act as if he is only seeking the truth but has not yet attained it or as if he does not know more than the listener or that the listener has something to teach him.

Evangelization and proselytism are not necessarily different. And proselytism does not mean disrespectful, one-sided imposition on others. Its proper meaning is simply the attempt to convert people or missionary activity. And it is not necessarily wrong to “impose” the truth upon people. The need to speak the truth of the gospel and lead people to salvation is more important than respecting their feelings. Human respect should not be a hinderance to evangelization.

 

[Bookcat]

Jimmy Akin sets the record straight: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization

For example he notes regarding the headline here:

What does the document say about evangelization?

It acknowledges that Christians have a duty to evangelize and that this includes Jewish people.

Many in the media and the blogosphere got this wrong (big surprise) and reported that the Holy See was saying that Christians should not evangelize Jews, but the document says otherwise.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization/#ixzz3uKlns35B

 

[Peter_J]

Vatican issues a new document
Jimmy Akin sets the record straight

I’m guessing the headline writers will have a very good Christmas.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Jimmy Akin sets the record straight: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization

For example he notes regarding the headline here:

What does the document say about evangelization?

It acknowledges that Christians have a duty to evangelize and that this includes Jewish people.

Many in the media and the blogosphere got this wrong (big surprise) and reported that the Holy See was saying that Christians should not evangelize Jews, but the document says otherwise.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization/#ixzz3uKlns35B

Ummm, all respect intended, but I didn’t realize that Jimmy Akin has the final say.

I have learned a lot from the posts of Don Ruggero, a priest who has much knowledge about the international Church and also Jewish-Catholic relations.

 

[JimG]

Vatican issues a new document
Jimmy Akin sets the record straight

I’m guessing the headline writers will have a very good Christmas.

After reading the article, it seems to me that as long as there are documents being issued from the Vatican, there will always be a need for Jimmy Akin to try to explain them. It does not seem that there had been much if any change from past Church teaching.

“The good news is that the new document rejects the two paths view, both forcefully and repeatedly.”

There is also this:

“What is a bit surprising is that, instead of pointing to the Church’s established teaching that people who do not embrace the Christian faith through no fault of their own can be saved, the document points to elements in St. Paul’s thought in an attempt to show that he would have recognized the possibility of salvation for non-Christian Jews.”

But the Church does teach already the possibility of salvation for all, even those without formal acceptance of Christian faith. This doesn’t apply only to the Jewish people. So I don’t see much change here, if any.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization/#ixzz3uM5QxKjm

 

[gracepoole]

Vatican issues a new document
Jimmy Akin sets the record straight

I’m guessing the headline writers will have a very good Christmas.

Ah, of course. The completely expected “9 things to know” piece on this story. If predictability is a virtue, Akin is heaven bound.

 

[JimG]

Ah, of course. The completely expected “9 things to know” piece on this story. If predictability is a virtue, Akin is heaven bound.

Normally it takes several threads of nine pages at least, to try to unpack such Vatican documents, and then it is done with less clarity. And if clarity is a virtue, it seems to be one rarely practiced by the writers of such documents.

 

[gracepoole]

Normally it takes several threads of nine pages at least, to try to unpack such Vatican documents, and then it is done with less clarity. And if clarity is a virtue, it seems to be one rarely practiced by the writers of such documents.

I’ve never understood the zeitgeist around here for Akin, whose greatest talent as far as I can tell is exegetic gymnastics. I worry for his livelihood should the Church’s hierarchy start regularly making direct statements that need no hermeneutic acrobatics.

To each his own, I suppose. Though at the very least, I’d suggest he vary his writing style. Most thinking adults don’t require numbered points and can instead do nicely with transitional phrases.

 

[JimG]

I’ve never understood the zeitgeist around here for Akin, whose greatest talent as far as I can tell is exegetic gymnastics. I worry for his livelihood should the Church’s hierarchy start regularly making direct statements that need no hermeneutic acrobatics.

To each his own, I suppose. Though at the very least, I’d suggest he vary his writing style. Most thinking adults don’t require numbered points and can instead do nicely with transitional phrases.

Truth be told, I don’t read him regularly. But should the hierarchy start regularly making direct and clear statements with no need for exegesis, well, that is something devoutly to be desired, regardless of its impact on Mr. Akin!

 

[gracepoole]

Truth be told, I don’t read him regularly. But should the hierarchy start regularly making direct and clear statements with no need for exegesis, well, that is something devoutly to be desired, regardless of its impact on Mr. Akin!

 

[Peter_J]

Ah, of course. The completely expected “9 things to know” piece on this story. If predictability is a virtue, Akin is heaven bound.

As long as we’re being honest, I haven’t read his article thus far; but I just had to make a note of his commentary on a Vatican document being described as “Jimmy Akin sets the record straight”.

Now I’m just waiting for the post from a Protestant (or possibly Orthodox) saying “Well, I may not agree with him but of course all go Catholics do.”

 

[JimG]

The authors of this document say that it is not a magisterial document. Canonist Edward Peters disagrees with that characterization:

"And yet the PCRJ text claims that it “is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church”. Of course it is! "

A non-magisterial magisterial statement?

 

[phil19034]

Ummm, all respect intended, but I didn’t realize that Jimmy Akin has the final say.

I have learned a lot from the posts of Don Ruggero, a priest who has much knowledge about the international Church and also Jewish-Catholic relations.

No one said that Jimmy Akin has the final say. However, Jimmy Akin has a great ability to explain the faith in easy to understand terms, especially when the Church often uses complex language designed to maintain precise meaning for hundreds/thousands of years.

 

[Peter_J]

No one said that Jimmy Akin has the final say.

He doesn’t, at least not until he becomes Pope.

 

[JimG]

No one said that Jimmy Akin has the final say. However, Jimmy Akin has a great ability to explain the faith in easy to understand terms, especially when the Church often uses complex language designed to maintain precise meaning for hundreds/thousands of years.

The problem of course, is that some documents contain less than precise language. A document can be nuanced without being ambiguous. Too often, ambiguous language seems preferred.

 

[TMC]

The problem of course, is that some documents contain less than precise language. A document can be nuanced without being ambiguous. Too often, ambiguous language seems preferred.

Yes, and honestly Akin often glossed over or misses the nuance. I also find that he can “spin” to better match his own viewpoint. I much prefer reading the original. Church documents are sometimes nuanced or even ambiguous, but they really aren’t that difficult.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, and honestly Akin often glossed over or misses the nuance. I also find that he can “spin” to better match his own viewpoint.

I’m going to try and take a look at that blog post tonight, so I’ll keep ^^ this in mind.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that we could start a thread about it.

 

[commenter]

Yes, and honestly Akin often glossed over or misses the nuance. I also find that he can “spin” to better match his own viewpoint. I much prefer reading the original. Church documents are sometimes nuanced or even ambiguous, but they really aren’t that difficult.

Well, Mr. Akin does offer a useful service for many readers. I too can understand most Vatican documents, at least at face value. But some things I would miss. His articles address: What does the document say? What does it not say? What is the context? and What is this likely to mean in my ongoing life as a Catholic? The problem isn’t Akin, the problem is the way some use Vatican documents to push through their own agenda.

Documents don’t directly mislead people, they imply things and people jump to wrong conclusions, strongly helped by biased media. We live in an age of specialization. There are groups that live/breathe/eat Catholic/Anglican ecumenism, that regularly issue statements about how the TEC and Catholic Church are drawing closer together each year, we are on the verge of a breakthrough for unity! Specialists tend to live in a bubble (in this case a 1965 bubble) oblivious to other developments going on.

There are lots of other specialized groups, each of which has a contact at the Vatican. Somewhere there’s a Church Commission on the Shortage of Bees, for whom this is the Crisis of Christianity. Their Vatican document will be released April 2016. It will hint at the drastic changes in liturgy, dogma and Social Action that will be forthcoming, and that diocesan neglect of the bees MUST COME TO AN END. Akin will then write a commentary to put this in perspective that ecological concern is important, but Catholic doctrine is not changed. The media will say doctrine is changed.

The problem is the Vatican’s Communications office.

 

[TMC]

Well, Mr. Akin does offer a useful service for many readers. I too can understand most Vatican documents, at least at face value. But some things I would miss. His articles address: What does the document say? What does it not say? What is the context? and What is this likely to mean in my ongoing life as a Catholic? The problem isn’t Akin, the problem is the way some use Vatican documents to push through their own agenda.

Documents don’t directly mislead people, they imply things and people jump to wrong conclusions, strongly helped by biased media. We live in an age of specialization. There are groups that live/breathe/eat Catholic/Anglican ecumenism, that regularly issue statements about how the TEC and Catholic Church are drawing closer together each year, we are on the verge of a breakthrough for unity! Specialists tend to live in a bubble (in this case a 1965 bubble) oblivious to other developments going on.

There are lots of other specialized groups, each of which has a contact at the Vatican. Somewhere there’s a Church Commission on the Shortage of Bees, for whom this is the Crisis of Christianity. Their Vatican document will be released April 2016. It will hint at the drastic changes in liturgy, dogma and Social Action that will be forthcoming, and that diocesan neglect of the bees MUST COME TO AN END. Akin will then write a commentary to put this in perspective that ecological concern is important, but Catholic doctrine is not changed. The media will say doctrine is changed.

The problem is the Vatican’s Communications office.

I disagree to an extent. The problem is that the theology on some issues is complex, and on some issue the theology is unsettled. The Vatican documents attempt to reflect those complexities and uncertainties. I agree that they don’t always do a good job of that. But simply stripping away the complexities and uncertainties is also not the answer.