Is Evangelization inherently in Conflict?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphonsus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is the wrong way to look at it. Being a witness to the truth matters. In dealing with the poor, I’ve found some people to be more talkative than others, and some that won’t say a word. I try to add a ‘God bless’ or even ask if they go to church. These are my neighbors and I’m there to help. Not because I think I’m holier but because I want to.
 
Woah, too much Wall of Text for me to read all that. May I kindly suggest that you read the forum FAQ/TOS guidelines for length of posts, consecutive replies, and agenda posting?

I don’t think you’re really interested in a discussion, you seem to have come here with a preconceived idea that you want to share in the form of very long essays. So I will just say, You say Tomato, I say Tomahto, and further suggest that conciseness is an excellent quality that didn’t used to come easily to me either but some folks who advised me, especially a boss I had, helped me see the value of it.
Have a nice day!
 
This point is excellent. If we keep more members by Pope Francis’s change in tone. It is hard to say, this is a statistical question for which I do not know the answer to which “tone” is best for evangelization.

In reply to edwest211, nobody disagrees that being a witness to Truth matters, the question is “emphasis.” That is, talking about sin to a lesser degree, but still talking about it somewhat… aka. Pope Francis’s change in tone. But like I have said before, I do not know the answer to this question, I will need to look into the data and studies and research more.
 
Last edited:
First, I was intending to reply to a whole group of comments. I received 7 replies in the intermittent time that I was away, so I replied with three consecutive comments (I should not have replied to all the comments by replying to your post). But you had three comments, albeit shorter, to mine. I will make sure to keep my replies being no more than two long comments from now on.

As far as “agenda.” You posted a statement I think is egregiously erroneous… was that part of your “agenda?” The statement I disagree with is that lust is not the biggest sin Catholics face today. So I had to reply with sophisticated logical argumentation. If you want to take each point one at a time, fine.

But I had to reply, lest people were misled by the content of the posts I was seeing. Why is it that I have an agenda, but the other posters did not?
 
Last edited:
I found my way by hearing about how to help the poor from other Christians. A little help, if possible, goes a long way. And some people do engage me in conversation. I also found I could no longer just drive by people holding signs like: “Hungry. Homeless. Please help.”
 
I think I’d say to think of the change in tone as not just deemphasizing certain sins. It’s not just about who stays, but about leading people deeper into the truth. But I think that there’s a certain focus we can be prone to in this day and age, that leads to us thinking those beset by sins other than the sexual ones are better or holier. And that turns away those on the outside because it comes off as simply an attack. But I think a key part of evangelism is saying that I, too, am a sinner saved by the grace of God. They may not be sins of a sexual nature, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a sinner.
 
alphonsus1 said:
Is it worth having a country where 20 percent of the US calls themselves Catholic, but perhaps 5 percent of the US follows its morality?

Or a country where 5 percent of the US call themselves Catholic and all 5 percent follow Catholic morality?
Click to expand...
Let me ask this a different way.

A country where 20% calls themselves Catholic, but only 15% confess failing to follow Catholic morality? The other 5% sees no need to be reconciled to the Church.

Or a country where 5% call themselves Catholic and all 5% do not see a need for reconciliation?

If we are having a discussion about fidelity to Catholic morality, we should include traditional Catholic elements like penance, forgiveness and sacramental confession.
 
DarkLight said:
But we’re talking about evangelism. And hearing sexual sin singled out is not going to be good for evangelization, because it gives people the idea they’re some special category of horrible sinner, and who wants to be that?
Click to expand...
Well, I think evangelizing is kind of n individual thing. If someone asks me about the Faith, I’ll answer their questions. 'IVe talked with people more about aspects of the Faith they don’t understand, like the Eucharist, praying to Mary, maybe because I’ve mostly talked with seriois Protestants.

I don’t go around telling people they should be Catholic and give up sex. Even though I think that 😉
 
I tell people about going to church. About remaking that connection to God. So many are living like pagans. I heard that from a Church official. I don’t lecture anyone.
 
Interesting quote: But the resulting dilution of doctrine along with a relaxation of moral standards has only served to further hollow out the Church by creating the impression that it has nothing to offer that can’t be supplied more efficiently by secular society.

From this article, “Europe’s War on Christianity,” totally different topic.
 
Much better approach!

“You are a beloved Child of God, and therefore you must flee from sin!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top