S
surfinpure
Guest
Augustine,
Well, I can understand and sympathize with your perspective, if only in this regard. I believe what you are saying is that you would like to speak to this particular area of the allegation and agree that, at least in this respect, there is something to the charge. Very well; I can accept that. I suppose I was thrown off because I am viewing the Church wholistically here, as the charge seems to be applied by my brother.
I will concede that, from the perspective that all priests are also men, complete with concupiscence, certainly some are bound to fall prey to certain temptations. Since gaining wealth in America is a far less obvious or abominable sin to the public than, say, immorality, it naturally follows that this would be a greater temptation to a priest.
I still stand by what I have said regarding the Lord Almighty’s judgment of sinners. I don’t believe it is even for us to speculate on. Also, I repeat emphatically that I would never equate spending on the part of a priest with homosexuality. While my Catechism is not handy, I can say with certainty that presuming sin on the part of another is a grave sin in itself. So perhaps you have seen a priest spend too much or save too much. That is as far as the observation can go. You cannot even declare that he has done so against his conscience. For all you know, he may have believed himself to be doing a good thing for a good reason. “Man looks on the outward appearance, but GOD looks on the heart.” Only our Lord can decide to what degree a man is culpable.
Regarding specifically the idea that overspending leads to confused sexual urges, I say “hogwash.” I know many men and women who are engulfed in materialism, and none of them to date has crossed the line into homosexuality. What’s more, in the case of Christians, materialism seems to serve as a substitute for other sins of the flesh, since it is culturally acceptabe. Unless you have had some personal experience in the matter or are trained in that specific area of moral psychology, I would suggest leaving the subject alone.
Well, I can understand and sympathize with your perspective, if only in this regard. I believe what you are saying is that you would like to speak to this particular area of the allegation and agree that, at least in this respect, there is something to the charge. Very well; I can accept that. I suppose I was thrown off because I am viewing the Church wholistically here, as the charge seems to be applied by my brother.
I will concede that, from the perspective that all priests are also men, complete with concupiscence, certainly some are bound to fall prey to certain temptations. Since gaining wealth in America is a far less obvious or abominable sin to the public than, say, immorality, it naturally follows that this would be a greater temptation to a priest.
I still stand by what I have said regarding the Lord Almighty’s judgment of sinners. I don’t believe it is even for us to speculate on. Also, I repeat emphatically that I would never equate spending on the part of a priest with homosexuality. While my Catechism is not handy, I can say with certainty that presuming sin on the part of another is a grave sin in itself. So perhaps you have seen a priest spend too much or save too much. That is as far as the observation can go. You cannot even declare that he has done so against his conscience. For all you know, he may have believed himself to be doing a good thing for a good reason. “Man looks on the outward appearance, but GOD looks on the heart.” Only our Lord can decide to what degree a man is culpable.
Regarding specifically the idea that overspending leads to confused sexual urges, I say “hogwash.” I know many men and women who are engulfed in materialism, and none of them to date has crossed the line into homosexuality. What’s more, in the case of Christians, materialism seems to serve as a substitute for other sins of the flesh, since it is culturally acceptabe. Unless you have had some personal experience in the matter or are trained in that specific area of moral psychology, I would suggest leaving the subject alone.
Surf(name removed by moderator)ure,
This was your original post:
“I need help in answering the allegation that the Church, particularly the Pope and the Vatican, is hypocritical (even Pharisaical) in that it ammasses and hoards great wealth, and that the Pope lives “like a king.” What in the world does one say to a thing like that?”
My first post was directed primarily to that. I said that I didn’t believe that this charge was true, about the Vatican at least. But that there was truth on the local level. When I briefly scanned the replies, I didn’t see much about the local Church. Only the Vatican, and others already gave some pretty good thoughts, imo.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve found that “answering” a person best begins with a solid effort to both understand and then see the possible validity in their objections and points before embarking on a “refutation”.
And that was one reason I posted what I did. I don’t think your brother is completely wrong or at least he isn’t crazy for thinking that. In my experience, if you don’t acknowledge that there may really be problems in this area, you will probably close him off to listening to you. He may end up feeling disrespected. If you completely disagree that there is a problem in the area of excessive wealth or luxury then that’s fine. Maybe there really isn’t this problem in your area of the country and so there is no need to address it with him because he hasn’t seen it.
But even if a person sees this as a problem, that doesn’t mean that the Church is not still the Church and he shouldn’t be Catholic. Whether sexual deviancy, covetousness or whatever, priests and bishops are human and some are bound to fall. There may be areas where certain problems or sins are more prevalent. Judas fell. Jesus picked him. Does that mean Jesus Christ wasn’t Jesus Christ?
Good luck in helping him.