Interview with a Professor

[Elijah_Baley]

Having received an unsolicited phone call from a professor at a Catholic university to which I had applied, I took the opportunity to ask several questions. Towards the end of the interview, I thought to ask the most obvious question:

*To what extent does your Catholic identity influence your teaching?
*
Oh, I think it’s great. I think the better parts of Catholic social teaching, like helping the poor and that sort of thing, are just wonderful.

He went on to describe some of the associated programs. I didn’t hear much because “better parts” stuck in my mind as red flag.

You said “better parts.” What, then, are the worse parts?

Well, you know, some people will use religion to condemn people to Hell and that kind of thing, and so I’m not too hot on that. Or, “Homosexual marriage is an abomination.” But I really like liberation theology.

Something tells me this is exactly what I needed to hear.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Something tells me this is exactly what I needed to hear.

I’d say it’s half and half. His comment on gay marriage was stupid but he does have a point about condemning people to Hell. More than once, I’ve found people saying priests should go back to having sermons about hell but obviously don’t know how such sermons were no better than fundamentalist ones.

 

[laszlo]

I’d say it’s half and half. His comment on gay marriage was stupid but he does have a point about condemning people to Hell. More than once, I’ve found people saying priests should go back to having sermons about hell but obviously don’t know how such sermons were no better than fundamentalist ones.

If ones car runs toward the cliff, what is better: to close one’s eyes, or to recognize the danger and navigate to the the other direction?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If ones car runs toward the cliff, what is better: to close one’s eyes, or to recognize the danger and navigate to the the other direction?

Apples and oranges. You can prove the existence of the cliff.

Debates about the existence of hell? It can go on and on and on…

 

[Orogeny]

Debates about the existence of hell? It can go on and on and on…

I generally agree with you regarding condemning people to hell, but I disagree with your logic here. The existence of hell is not up for debate in the Church. Hell exists just as assuredly as heaven exists.

From the Catechism:

**1035 **The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

It may be an interesting debate from a philosophical standpoint, but the Church is clear on its existence.

Peace

Tim

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Apples and oranges. You can prove the existence of the cliff.

Debates about the existence of hell? It can go on and on and on…

Well, Jesus said that hell is real. Just because you don’t like this fact, doesn’t mean it is not true.

I have to say you’re the most anti-Catholic Catholic I’ve seen on the forum. You really don’t like the faith and the Catholic practices. That is such a shame. Why is that?

 

[thomas_jd]

Apples and oranges. You can prove the existence of the cliff.

Debates about the existence of hell? It can go on and on and on…

One can deny the existence of hell all the way up to their arrival.

 

[archangel04]

I’d say it’s half and half. His comment on gay marriage was stupid but he does have a point about condemning people to Hell. More than once, I’ve found people saying priests should go back to having sermons about hell but obviously don’t know how such sermons were no better than fundamentalist ones.

It’s one thing to going back and talking about the real dangers of hell, and the things that can lead us there, if there is a problem with that, then those who have a problem with that have a major problem with Christ because he spoke about this more then heaven itself. It’s another thing to point fingers and claim to know an individual’s or group destination in eternity, this is wrong because God will have have the final decision on this.

 

[archangel04]

Apples and oranges. You can prove the existence of the cliff.

Debates about the existence of hell? It can go on and on and on…

I am not sure if I get you, are you saying that the existence of hell is something up for debate? If so, then you are incorrect, because the Church firmly belive in an eteranl hell, from the very begening.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It’s one thing to going back and talking about the real dangers of hell, and the things that can lead us there, if there is a problem with that, then those who have a problem with that have a major problem with Christ because he spoke about this more then heaven itself. It’s another thing to point fingers and claim to know an individual’s or group destination in eternity, this is wrong because God will have have the final decision on this.

It may sound easy to differentiate at first but in practice, the line can blur real quickly. I mean you can describe how horrible hell is but when you start talking about what takes you there, you may, indirectly, imply that certain people might go to hell. For instance (now this is just an example so nobody stretch it), a priest were to decry drinking is a sin or dancing is a sin and it will lead us to hell.

Now enter a person who does both drinking and dancing in good moderation, however, he also starts having questions. When he hears his sermon, don’t you think at the very least he finds himself being judgmentally condemned by the priest?

One can deny the existence of hell all the way up to their arrival.

See. Now that’s just the exact behavior that people such as the OPs professor have in mind. You really think you’re going to convert people with that?

Well, Jesus said that hell is real. Just because you don’t like this fact, doesn’t mean it is not true.

I have to say you’re the most anti-Catholic Catholic I’ve seen on the forum. You really don’t like the faith and the Catholic practices. That is such a shame. Why is that?

What? Okay I’m going to ignore that last ad hom but I did not deny the existence of hell. I just simply acknowledged that nobody buys it anymore at face value.

Besides, I find it more morally mature to justify one’s ethics on something higher than fear of punishment.

I generally agree with you regarding condemning people to hell, but I disagree with your logic here. The existence of hell is not up for debate in the Church. Hell exists just as assuredly as heaven exists.

From the Catechism:

It may be an interesting debate from a philosophical standpoint, but the Church is clear on its existence.

I am not sure if I get you, are you saying that the existence of hell is something up for debate? If so, then you are incorrect, because the Church firmly belive in an eteranl hell, from the very begening.

Of course Hell exists. It’s just that in these times you can’t say it anymore without putting the burden of proof upon yourself. The doubt of its existence has spread already to the population like a disease, a disease that renders the message incomprehensible or worse, counterproductive.

If a priest intends to preach about hell, he might as well have a public debate instead of a mass if you catch my drift.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have read that a young man once told Saint [Padre] Pio that he didn’t believe in hell. St Pio told him not to worry; he would when he got there.

 

[Timothy17]

One can deny the existence of hell all the way up to their arrival.

LOL, I do love these (almost stereotypical) “Old-School Irish Priest” remarks. They exhibit a certain genius of whit.

And it is also perfectly true, so while being almost purely funny, are nonetheless truly grave subject matter.

 

[maurin]

See. Now that’s just the exact behavior that people such as the OPs professor have in mind. You really think you’re going to convert people with that?

if we’re sitting in front of 2 Grey hound buses, one which is going to Montreal, and the other which is going to Key West, and you tell me you want to go to Montreal, but I direct you onto the one which is going to Key West, plus I give you a transfer ticket to St Louis Missouri, then another for Montreal for there, do you really think, even though I got you to Montreal, that I did you any favors?