Credible Evangelizing and the importance of consistency

[Motherwit]

It’s just my unsolicited opinion, but I have found that lots of Catholics are so passionate to impart the teachings of the Church that appeal to them, but destroy the very authority upon which they are credible to another.

For example, contraception is evil and we know that because it is taught by the Church via the encyclical Humanae Vitae. It has been spoken on by the Church and we take that seriously to our hearts as true.

If at the same time we argue that the sinfulness of environmental abuse is only personal opinion and open to personal interpretation despite being enshrined in the encyclical Laudato Si, the whole credibility of Church teaching and Encyclicals is undermined.

The most powerful way to evangelize is to be consistent in all things that the Church teaches.

To publicly disrespect Pope Francis and his authority based on your personal opinion of his mission, in turn diminishes the authority of the Papacy overall, to someone being evangelized. It takes a lot of humility to suppress our own opinions but when we understand how that kind of obedience to the living Magisterium, provides the basis for curious listeners to take that leap of trust and obedience, is a gift and powerful work of mercy.

Likewise, it is frustrating to witness Catholics being so passionate about wanting the government to ban abortion, but by the same token taking every chance they can to undermine the authority of the government to “infringe on our rights” even despite the common good and the individual good of the vulnerable in the community. Who is going to be moved by that sort of inconsistency? No genuine thinker would give it credit. It makes more sense to respect the authority of the government to ensure the rights of everyone even if it means putting limits of the rights of other individuals. That is part of ensuring equality.

Anyway, as I said I’ve given my unsolicited opinion about how to be more credible as an evangelizer.

 

[po18guy]

Consistency, yes but not relativism or the “seamless garment” ideology.

 

[Motherwit]

Consistency, yes but not relativism or the “seamless garment” ideology.

We have to be consistent about our attitude to all the issues that Scripture addresses without exception and that includes submission to the Church who have the authority to bind and loose.

I see a big problem with people being passionate about one issue but dismissive of others that Scripture and the Church address. Even children can detect that sort of dissociation and won’t trust it.

 

[commenter]

The most important message is always the one that most people right now are unfamiliar with, have forgotten, or has been driven from their heads by powerful opposition.

Several decades ago there was considerable support for prolife, and limited opposition. There was limited support for , or any understanding of, care of the environment.

Therefore the important message for one generation is not the same one for the next. The Church’s “consistency” does not follow the Secular model.

 

[po18guy]

What I am getting at is that we cannot load environmental efforts, and serving the poor and imprisoned on one side of the scale and use that to “balance” abortion.

Ah, but this is a losing battle, so happy new year!

 

[Motherwit]

What I am getting at is that we cannot load environmental efforts, and serving the poor and imprisoned on one side of the scale and use that to “balance” abortion.

Ah, but this is a losing battle, so happy new year!

I’m not wanting to debate seamless garment etc. I’m putting myself into the shoes of those who the Christian is witnessing to and how inconsistency makes the Christian point less credible as a general rule. Abortion is the worst sympton of the culture of death much like terminal cancer is the worst symptom of a culture of poor health.

So not practically connecting all the anti life behaviors that contribute to that worst outcome ie abortion, is like not realizing the anti health behaviors that lead to the worst outcome of terminal disease.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“seamless garment” ideology.

Genuinely what is wrong with that.

What I am getting at is that we cannot load environmental efforts, and serving the poor and imprisoned on one side of the scale and use that to “balance” abortion.

I think that you can be consistent, without sacrificing being against abortion.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s just my unsolicited opinion, but I have found that lots of Catholics are so passionate to impart the teachings of the Church that appeal to them, but destroy the very authority upon which they are credible to another.

For example, contraception is evil and we know that because it is taught by the Church via the encyclical Humanae Vitae. It has been spoken on by the Church and we take that seriously to our hearts as true.

If at the same time we argue that the sinfulness of environmental abuse is only personal opinion and open to personal interpretation despite being enshrined in the encyclical Laudato Si, the whole credibility of Church teaching and Encyclicals is undermined.

The most powerful way to evangelize is to be consistent in all things that the Church teaches.

To publicly disrespect Pope Francis and his authority based on your personal opinion of his mission, in turn diminishes the authority of the Papacy overall, to someone being evangelized. It takes a lot of humility to suppress our own opinions but when we understand how that kind of obedience to the living Magisterium, provides the basis for curious listeners to take that leap of trust and obedience, is a gift and powerful work of mercy.

Likewise, it is frustrating to witness Catholics being so passionate about wanting the government to ban abortion, but by the same token taking every chance they can to undermine the authority of the government to “infringe on our rights” even despite the common good and the individual good of the vulnerable in the community. Who is going to be moved by that sort of inconsistency? No genuine thinker would give it credit. It makes more sense to respect the authority of the government to ensure the rights of everyone even if it means putting limits of the rights of other individuals. That is part of ensuring equality.

I agree with you.

 

[EXdrinker]

Agreed. The current Holy Father’s encyclicals and statements made it much harder to evangelize. I think he wanted more discussion and dialogue but didn’t realize seeming inconsistencies make evangelizing harder.

 

[Motherwit]

Agreed. The current Holy Father’s encyclicals and statements made it much harder to evangelize. I think he wanted more discussion and dialogue but didn’t realize seeming inconsistencies make evangelizing harder.

For myself and many other Catholics leaning into the guidance of Pope Francis, the eschatological era is organically manifest in Francis’ Gospel Jesus. Jesus ticked off lots of people who were overly attached to ‘the rules’ and ‘the letter’ as well. Jesus evangelization drew lots of people to Him that weren’t acceptable to the ‘Church crowd’ and that is an eternal Scripture lesson to us today as well.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The problem is this—

Abortion is an event, a well-defined action. You either committed abortion or you didn’t.

Environmental concern is more nebulous. Maybe you recycle, or maybe you have solar panels on your roof, or maybe you’re a minimalist, or maybe you shop all second hand, or maybe you eat only organic food.
Is everybody obligated to do every thing on that list?

We are obligated to not commit the sin of abortion.

 

[commenter]

It’s just my unsolicited opinion, but I have found that lots of Catholics are so passionate to impart the teachings of the Church that appeal to them, but destroy the very authority upon which they are credible to another.

For example, contraception is evil and we know that because it is taught by the Church via the encyclical Humanae Vitae. It has been spoken on by the Church and we take that seriously to our hearts as true.

If at the same time we argue that the sinfulness of environmental abuse is only personal opinion and open to personal interpretation despite being enshrined in the encyclical Laudato Si, the whole credibility of Church teaching and Encyclicals is undermined.

The most powerful way to evangelize is to be consistent in all things that the Church teaches.

To publicly disrespect Pope Francis and his authority based on your personal opinion of his mission, in turn diminishes the authority of the Papacy overall, to someone being evangelized. It takes a lot of humility to suppress our own opinions but when we understand how that kind of obedience to the living Magisterium, provides the basis for curious listeners to take that leap of trust and obedience, is a gift and powerful work of mercy.

Likewise, it is frustrating to witness Catholics being so passionate about wanting the government to ban abortion, but by the same token taking every chance they can to undermine the authority of the government to “infringe on our rights” even despite the common good and the individual good of the vulnerable in the community. Who is going to be moved by that sort of inconsistency? No genuine thinker would give it credit. It makes more sense to respect the authority of the government to ensure the rights of everyone even if it means putting limits of the rights of other individuals. That is part of ensuring equality.

Anyway, as I said I’ve given my unsolicited opinion about how to be more credible as an evangelizer.

“We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong. We do not want, as the newspapers say, a church that will move with the world. We want a church that will move the world.”
G. K. Chesterton

 

[goout]

po18guy:

Consistency, yes but not relativism or the “seamless garment” ideology.

We have to be consistent about our attitude to all the issues that Scripture addresses without exception and that includes submission to the Church who have the authority to bind and loose.

I see a big problem with people being passionate about one issue but dismissive of others that Scripture and the Church address. Even children can detect that sort of dissociation and won’t trust it.

The point @po18guy is making is consistent with the Catholic Church’s specific teaching that some evils are unfortunately more pressing than others and require a primary focus.

I know where the point of contention is here:
It’s the false assertion that the pro life community is not concerned with all the other ministrations to human welfare. And that is patently false. And it hurts the pro life effort when people who are inside the Church damage the pro life effort by picking up this false assertion.

 

[goout]

EXdrinker:

Agreed. The current Holy Father’s encyclicals and statements made it much harder to evangelize. I think he wanted more discussion and dialogue but didn’t realize seeming inconsistencies make evangelizing harder.

For myself and many other Catholics leaning into the guidance of Pope Francis, the eschatological era is organically manifest in Francis’ Gospel Jesus. Jesus ticked off lots of people who were overly attached to ‘the rules’ and ‘the letter’ as well. Jesus evangelization drew lots of people to Him that weren’t acceptable to the ‘Church crowd’ and that is an eternal Scripture lesson to us today as well.

This sort of thinking can become a problem when it leads to political Christianity. And by that I am not referring to current politics.

I am referring to the dividing of Christianity between those who are in the wrong camp and those who supposedly “get it”. And all this using the Pope’s words, or using this Church teaching or that.

Christ came to make everyone un-comfortable with the status quo. And that discomfort starts in your very own house. And dividing people into “those who should be uncomfortable” and “those who are right on” with the Pope is not productive, and it’s not the Gospel.

We are all coming up short, whether progressive, conservative, whatever.

 

[goout]

po18guy:

“seamless garment” ideology.

Genuinely what is wrong with that.

What I am getting at is that we cannot load environmental efforts, and serving the poor and imprisoned on one side of the scale and use that to “balance” abortion.

I think that you can be consistent, without sacrificing being against abortion.

Consistent?
Where I live, the prolife community does the hard work of supporting mothers and children. There is a guy who coordinates sidewalk vigils and makes contacts with mothers in need. Money is raised for people. Cribs are bought, and diapers, and rent paid.

On one side of my home I have a Christian couple who has adopted a girl from Eastern Europe and a boy from Africa. On the other side is a Christian couple who has adopted 3 children through open adoptions. Collections were taken to help pay the mother’s expenses etc…These are hugely expensive but they have done it 3 times.

Our deacon raised 2 adopted children. Our local pregnancy center does a wide range of pre and post birth aid.
I could go on and on with the aid the pro life community gives to general human welfare.

Can I ask you to refrain from perpetuating the false canard that the pro life community is inconsistent on issues of human welfare? It’s just false.

 

[Motherwit]

The point @po18guy is making is consistent with the Catholic Church’s specific teaching that some evils are unfortunately more pressing than others and require a primary focus.

I know where the point of contention is here:
It’s the false assertion that the pro life community is not concerned with all the other ministrations to human welfare. And that is patently false. And it hurts the pro life effort when people who are inside the Church damage the pro life effort by picking up this false assertion.

Just to be clear, I’m the pro life community too. I was a paid up member of Right to Life through the 80’s and 90’s. So from my late teens I was actively participating in anti abortion measures. But that worldview has come from my obedience to all the teachings of the Church and that continues up to today. That includes Pope StJPII’s teaching about the ‘culture of death’ that facilitates legal abortion and now that includes Pope Francis’ emphasis on the destruction of nature as facilitating the destruction of human life.

From Laudato si…

119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a “thou” capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the “Thou” of God. Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.

120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.[97]

121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.[98]

 

[Motherwit]

If I can be permitted to re-state that embracing the guidance of Pope Francis just as fully as we embrace the guidance of past Popes, we are on the right track to have a genuine credible apologetics for evangelization. I personally believe that the Holy Spirit is calling Catholics to do this through Francis.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

EXdrinker:

Agreed. The current Holy Father’s encyclicals and statements made it much harder to evangelize. I think he wanted more discussion and dialogue but didn’t realize seeming inconsistencies make evangelizing harder.

For myself and many other Catholics leaning into the guidance of Pope Francis, the eschatological era is organically manifest in Francis’ Gospel Jesus. Jesus ticked off lots of people who were overly attached to ‘the rules’ and ‘the letter’ as well. Jesus evangelization drew lots of people to Him that weren’t acceptable to the ‘Church crowd’ and that is an eternal Scripture lesson to us today as well.

This sort of thinking can become a problem when it leads to political Christianity. And by that I am not referring to current politics.

I am referring to the dividing of Christianity between those who are in the wrong camp and those who supposedly “get it”. And all this using the Pope’s words, or using this Church teaching or that.

Christ came to make everyone un-comfortable with the status quo. And that discomfort starts in your very own house. And dividing people into “those who should be uncomfortable” and “those who are right on” with the Pope is not productive, and it’s not the Gospel.

We are all coming up short, whether progressive, conservative, whatever.

I don’t believe that you are acknowledging that a huge problem within the Church is the diminishment of the authority of Pope Francis. It isn’t even subtle. As a devoted Catholic I can’t ignore that and as I’ve made a point of warning my children about the danger of it, now that the forum is closing, I want to warn whoever is inclined to listen, about it. I want to say to people that you will never go wrong in your faith life if you ‘think with the Church’ whoever is Pope. The very promise that roots us to Truth is that the Church is guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit of Christ. There will be people in your life that try to shake that by minimizing Pope Francis as a holy guide. Have faith that you can never go wrong or astray by keeping the faith no matter who guides you from the Seat of Peter.

 

[goout]

I agree there is a problem accepting P Francis’ charism of authority, and that problem extends generally to all legitimate authority that threatens the modern notion of radical autonomy. Radical autonomy is a distortion of freedom and extends across all political and ideological boundaries. P Francis is not the sole target of rebellion by any means.

Anyone wanting a deeper vision of P Francis leadership style and his vocation please look up

I’ve posted this several times on CAF and it received very few views. Many people don’t want to understand P Franics, they prefer politics over obedience.

I’m not disputing the Pope is the target of rebellion, I’m disputing the politico/religious framework you put around it and the way the pro life movement is viewed in it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The point @po18guy is making is consistent with the Catholic Church’s specific teaching that some evils are unfortunately more pressing than others and require a primary focus.

Primacy and consistency are not mutually eclusive.