Confused about all the talk of Charity

[DeoVindice1863]

I have noticed how so many people on CAF always criticize others about lack of charity, whether they be other posters or someone more famous, like Michael Voris. Many here bash Church Militant on their “presentation”, for not having “charity”, etc. Since so many people here are experts on charity, I wanted help. You see, there is this obscure Galilean Catholic that keeps doing and saying uncharitable things and I wanted your opinion on him. Do you think he lacks charity? I read about some of his questionable actions and will post them, with their sources, below:

"The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.” - John 2:13-17

“Do not think that I came to [a]bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." - Matthew 10:34-36

““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” -Mark 9:42

Now I’m no expert, like those of you that talk about Church Militant’s lack of charity, but to me those seem like very frightening actions that will turn off non-Catholics. Making a scourge of cords and driving people out of the Temple??? Overturning tables??? Saying he did not come to bring peace, but a sword!!! So, to all you charity experts out there criticizing others for lacking in “charity”, what are we to make of this obscure Galilean, this Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[Kathleen18]

Galilean Catholic

JESUS CHRIST was Jewish, not Catholic. There was no such thing as Catholicism during his lifetime on earth.
Furthermore JESUS CHRIST is HOLY and part of the TRINITY. Church Militant is not either of those things. Therefore a person can critize a “news” source.
You are comparing JESUS’S rightous anger with mere criticism? Why?

 

[Lou2U]

Perhaps you could try to clearly state your query, and not attempt to shame others by implying they would condemn the person at the centre of their faith?

 

[Ann_Stanton]

I have noticed how so many people on CAF always criticize others about lack of charity, whether they be other posters or someone more famous, like Michael Voris. Many here bash Church Militant on their “presentation”, for not having “charity”, etc.

I have never heard of Michael Voris or Church Militant; therefore, I do not complain about them. I will take time today and look them up. I have never seen any criticism of either one.

 

[Vico]

I wanted help. You see, there is this obscure Galilean Catholic that keeps doing and saying uncharitable things and I wanted your opinion on him …

Jesus Christ was never uncharitable. There are actions which are charitable which are expressions of righteous anger.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Just be nice. Be kind. Even when it is hard. It is the opposite of being hateful and nasty. I think it something most people can understand.

The Church militant sometimes make the mistake that they are the same as Jesus. They aren’t.

 

[Reuben_J]

I will try to be charitable in responding to your OP as much as I can.

I would think all the quotes you gave were irrelevant on about being charitable.

Here’s why.

In John 2:13-17, we are not Jesus. He was angry because people desecrated his Father’s house. You would probably do the same if people do that to your or your father’s house.

As for Mt 10:34-36, Jesus was not talking about bringing a literal sword. He was saying that there would be indeed people, even your loved ones, who would not believe, and therefore even though you are related, by our different belief we can go separate ways and even in conflict.

Mk 9:42 is a hyperbole about not to cause others to sin.

I do not see any issue of charity being involved there. One is about Jesus being angry because of his Father’s house being desecrated, which if it happens to us, we would likely to do the same.

The latter two are about teachings and revelation of what will happen when Jesus come.

 

[MT1926]

I don’t really have any thing to add on the verses, I think @Reuben_J hit it right on the nose. In a charitable way that is

Don’t really have an opinion on Church Militant, haven’t really watched his videos.

As for criticizing others for lack of charity in my experience, here on CAF and other forums, I have found the accusation of lack of charity is often valid. I think a good way to determine if someone is lacking charity would be to see their response. The ones that truly lack charity tend to throw out verses similar to the ones you just presented. and the ones that are wrongly accused usually apologize and point out why they said what they said or at least ask for further clarification on what they said that was uncharitable.

On a final note even if the 3 verses proved Jesus was uncharitable they would account for less than 1% of his life. Using that equation as long as the 1% of the accused’s posts on the web were the only uncharitable posts then I would agree they were wrongly accused.

Just my 2 cents.

God Bless

 

[Roguish]

I think your point can be summarized as “Jesus wasn’t particularly nice, so why do many of the people on CAF talk about Christianity as if it’s an exercise in being nice?”

If that’s your point, I think the question is valid. I agree that Christians obsess about niceness too much, at the cost of sincerity, and indeed at the cost of Zeal for His House. On the other hand, some niceness, in the form of charity or otherwise, is quite appropriate. Jesus was of of course charitable most of the time, and combative only on some occasions.

I would also say that counterarguments along the lines of “yes but we are not Jesus”, or “that does not apply to us”, do not hold. We are clearly called to be Jesus-like, and to follow in his footsteps in all respects.

 

[TheLittleLady]

He commanded us to love our enemies, to do good to those who do bad things to us, to forgive, turn the other cheek, do let our good works shine so much people want to follow HIM because of us.

He never commanded us to turn over tables or to curse people.

There is a unique brand of meanness that is thinly veiled in religiosity. Don’t fall for it. Christ warned us against it in the parable of the late hired workers and the parable of the prodigal.

 

[Edward_H]

Jesus was the perfect Jew.

The perfected Jew is Catholic.

 

[semper_catholicus]

That makes sense.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think you referred to my post but I incidentally said we are not Jesus in pertaining to the incident at the temple. Jesus was angry because he was the Son of God. He was directly involved. Would we overturn the tables in the temple? It would not be appropriate for us to do that when we can do it in other ways.

As to be like Jesus - sure we are exhorted to be like him in charity and in character but we are not him. There are things that we cannot be like him, and being the Second Person of the Trinity is one.

 

[Wampa]

Perhaps you could try to clearly state your query, and not attempt to shame others by implying they would condemn the person at the centre of their faith?

Hits the nail on the head. The OP makes a particularly bad analogy (Voris is like Christ) and attempts to use it to imply those who disapprove of Voris’ approach must also disapprove of our Savior’s approach. It’s tough to have any sort of fruitful discussion after that kind of start.

Although I have at times enjoyed Voris (when he tamps down the over-the-top, in-your-face hyperbole) and I’ve said so on CAF, I think that as a general rule he probably does more harm than good to our cause due to his chosen style. I personally find I’m much better off listening to talks and videos by priests, who usually do a fantastic job of balancing the truth with charity.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

BIG difference between God’s righteous anger and a lack of graciousness in our dealings with each other. You’re taking those verses out of context. The same Jesus also told us to love one another, as He loved us, and to “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

And accusing Jesus, the perfect Son of God, of being uncharitable? I think you are either very deluded about Jesus or just trying to stir the pot.

 

[Escabrosa]

One thing I like about Michael Voris and his crew is that they are consistent and clear. They can be a little hard core at times, but you know where they stand. I like that clarity.

 

[Roguish]

@Reuben_J

There are things that we cannot be like him, and being the Second Person of the Trinity is one.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Various NT passages state quite unambiguosly that through knowing The Son, and believing in him whole-heartedly, we can become sons. In other words, sonship becomes intimately ours too:

“He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” (Ephesians 1:5)

“Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’” (Galatians 4:6)

“Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God–children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (John 1:12-13)

There is nothing in the NT to suggest that the sonship received by us (the adopted children) is different in nature from the Sonship of Christ Himself. The fact that the same term is used (i.e. “sonship”) rather suggests the opposite: that they are indeed the same.

Anyway, we’re totally off-topic

 

[TheLittleLady]

That gets dangerously close to the Mormon teaching that men become gods.

We do not become a person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Roguish]

That gets dangerously close to the Mormon teaching that men become gods.
We do not become a person of the Holy Trinity.

I know! They should fix those NT verses!

As for my Mormon friends – I have a handful – I’ll go tell them once again how wrong they are.

PS. Roguish’ usual disclaimer applies.

 

[AdamP88]

I think the OP makes an interesting point in that many people do confuse genuine charity with “being nice” or not offending people.

Sometimes genuine charity is not nice and may even be offensive.

An example:

In Ireland on Saturday abortion was voted in to the country by a two thirds majority of the voters.
Now, three quarters of Irish people identify as Catholic, and there are about 350,000 who attend mass regularly.
It stands to reason that a fairly large quantity of regular massgoers probably voted yes to abortion.

Since Saturday there have been several priests and Bishops criticised in the media for saying that Catholics who voted yes must go to confession and shouldn’t recieve the Eucharist.

One radio show had a few people on giving their opinions on the matter and many people described the words of the priests as “judgemental” and not consistent with the Christian message.

The truth of the matter is that they voted to legalise the killing of unborn babies and the Church is merely stating what has always been it’s teaching.
They feel that the Church is being uncharitable, but in actual fact the Church is saving them from committing the even worse sin of sacrelige, and trying to get them to repent.

Unfortunately the idea that speaking the truth is equal to uncharity is a strong one in modern society.