Is Pope Francis reaching out to the prodigals and are some of us feeling like the older brother?

[Fevronia]

My method is to open up a dialog that hopefully leads them to accepting the truth, repenting of their sins, and entering the church. But if I open up my dialog with how sinful they are, It’s not likely they will keep the dialog open very long at all.

Talking to atheists in particular is a really delicate procedure. They don’t even believe in anything spiritual at all, let alone a concept of sin. What use is talking about sin to such a person? Don’t we first need to point them to God before we can address their sins?

I think there are two categories of persons here. With respect to atheists in general and non Catholics, we are talking about missionary activity. So missionaries can try different things because they are trying to meet them where they are (that is how it always has been).

But inside the Church, the matter is different. We must call out sins that are affecting our community and if someone is continuously engaging in it, excommunicate (as St. Paul says for sexual immorality). We must always say the sins from the pulpit. The Catholics cannot be confused as to what Church teaching is. It should be reminded at mass. Confession must be emphasized etc.

That is how the Church used to be. Now the Church just tries to hit both camps with one stone. So you have watered down doctrine and tactics inside the Church and outside of it. Many do not know what is actual Catholic teaching.

 

[Fevronia]

There is a lot of Enlightenment thought rearing its head. Especially about the individual and his rights.

Christ never tyrannized anyone, but to say because a man is free, didn’t mean that Christ didn’t beckon and plead, and as scripture says, use all means, to urge repentance.

The Saints lives, St. John the Baptist are all rebukes of this mentality that we are to be passive with how we engage with the world, because they are entitled to their enlightenment concept of rights. All of us deserve nothing. So to say that a sinner deserves this or that, for the wrong reasons, when it’s really a COUCHED excuse to take the easy way out when it comes to confronting the world.

I think Catholics have to evangelize WITHIN the Church first before we think about the world . St. Paul when he says to avoid sinners, he means those who are within the Church who should KNOW better.

I also think its unrealistic and a false charity when people are sing-song happy about the state of the Church. As if we’ve been continually on wing. Let us be realistic. We can’t even be of unity of mind, among an abundant amount of Catholics.

Agree with you 100%. The problem with the new approach is that there is no distinction between within and outside.

 

[jmcrae]

Exactly, so how is the “lets not talk about it much” going to work out for the Church? Gradually even the most Catholic person will erode in his/her faith.

I don’t think anyone is saying “don’t talk about it much,” but rather, don’t use a condemning tone of voice, and don’t be all high-and-mighty. Begin by speaking about the benefits of chastity, for example, instead of the horrors of Hell. Nobody believes in Hell any more except for you and me, so unless it’s just you and me, we need to leave Hell out of it for the time being, and focus on the good.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, someone was telling me that he is thinking of having his company be open on Sundays. I didn’t say, “You are disrespecting the Lord’s Day; you will go to Hell.”

Instead I said, “Do you worry that your employees will experience burn-out? Burn-out has a serious impact on productivity, you know, and it is also a leading cause of mental health problems. I hope you are considering the mental health and family lives of your employees, because they are good people, and they will do everything to try to please you, even work on Sundays if you ask them to. It’s so important to take good care of them.”

So, he is reconsidering opening his business on Sundays. But if I had taken the approach of telling him that it’s against the Church, and that it’s a mortal sin, do you think he would have paid any attention to me?

I doubt it.

Instead, I showed him that I care about him, I care about his business, and I care about the people who work for him. I showed him concern for his interests - the good that is good for him. Which as you pointed out earlier in the thread, is what we call Love.

Actually we CAN tell them what to do. This mentality that adults cannot be told what to do is again a cultural myth that we recently constructed. Adults takes orders from the governments, their employers, and so forth but they cannot take advise when its the Church.

They can be told what to do by the Church, but we as lay people can’t go around mistaking ourselves for the Church.

 

[Kopratic]

But what does it mean to love apart from telling them what is good and bad? Is it to feed them? Most of the time they are doing pretty alright. Is it to give them company? Most of the time one cannot follow them where they want to go and in what they want to do.

So I honestly do not see how there is a separate “love” from telling them good and bad.

Also, if we were to treat them as our best friend, why would they think they need to repent? I have met many an atheist (lapsed Catholic) who say “I am best friends with a Catholic and he doesn’t say there is anything wrong with what I do”.

I agree that there is no point going out to non-Catholics with moral teaching all the time. I think even the Apostles say that. But we cannot compromise our standard to Catholics. We must preach the hard stuff from the pulpit. We must show the gravity of sins.

I’m not sure if you’re quite understanding the fact that we aren’t saying they don’t need to repent. We aren’t saying there’s a separate love for telling them good and bad. We aren’t saying that we should be best friends and imply that they don’t need to repent. What I said was very clear, and I made sure to stress that multiple times. What I said was that we should properly catechize them. It should stem from love. If you want to know the definition of love, read the Bible; it’s written all over. To love them apart from telling them what is right and wrong is to not abandon them. If that love means being friends with them in order to instruct them properly in the faith, then that’s what it means. When someone goes through RCIA, they are in a group. They are not told, “Learn the faith yourself. We’ll see you in a year.” They are not abandoned. Yes, they may have to learn some things on their own, but they always have the instructor or a priest to turn to should they need help. {Also, I am completely aware that not all RCIA programs are as good as they should be. I am talking about a good example of an RCIA program.} To love them is to stay with them. Sometimes that means life-long. Sometimes, that means one conversation. We can’t just yell, “You’re going to Hell if you keep sinning like that!” and walk away {which I’m not saying you said}. Yes, we want them to be on the road to Heaven. We must do this through love. Once again, this means not turning a blind eye and ignoring them and not abandoning them.

Well the truth is that the young generation is not doing well. Most Churches are empty and this is not directed at you but most young people do think they know the faith very well. There is no shortage of over confidence. Even the atheist who left the Church feels he knows the faith much better.

So I did not mean it as a personal thing. I am just giving you the state of the Church. We are not doing well and Europe is actually much worse off with respect to the youth.

Perhaps this is a problem in Europe. The churches around my area are generally packed with active, younger members. I do hope that the faith of my generation in Europe grows, though. That is very sad and unfortunate to hear.

 

[Veridical16]

To become Catholic, they have to go through the RCIA process, which includes learning the moral teachings of the Church, examining their consciences, and going to First Confession.

They would not come into the Church without being informed of what Church teaching is, or how to follow it. That would be unfair to them. But it would be done in a matter-of-fact, emotionless way.

On the contrary, there are many who depending on the parish who finish their RCIA thinking contraception is a teaching of the Church that can be ignored. That gay marriage and women priest are “open for discussion”

I know this because** I had the naivete of encountering a catechumen, when in conversation assuming they upheld all doctrines from being instructed for years – they said they can pick and choose what he rejects from Rome on certain issues. They basically came into the Church, a CAFETERIA CATHOLIC.** Even with the Catechism in his library and readings. So how did this happen? In what on appearance I thought, was a child of God returning home, they were just further affirmed as Catholic who converted to heterodoxy.

Whoever clergy was in charge of that parish allowed it. This was after his years of “instruction”

So that’s a false assumption to make that we can leave it up to their RCIA instruction.

We wouldn’t be all up in their faces screaming “SINNER” at them, or making them feel like lepers.

Even if no Christian was guilty of that for 50 years, if the sinner is not disposed he, will find any part of the Gospel or message of Christ to be offensive,.

We are now arguing about worrying about how we are perceived in blanket sweeps and accusations of what the Church stands for…First of all that is Puritanical. That has not been so much the case in what the Church has been guilty of ESPECIALLY in America and Especially in the 20th/21st century. It’s been quite the opposite.

Christ will always be offensive in this world from generation to generation. This new phenomena of preaching an – or desiring inoffensive Christ cannot stand.

Just pray for the virtue of prudence, that’s all we have to ask each other to do. Not SUBJECTIVE opinions of what may turn off the sinner.

 

[Fevronia]

I don’t think anyone is saying “don’t talk about it much,” but rather, don’t use a condemning tone of voice, and don’t be all high-and-mighty. Begin by speaking about the benefits of chastity, for example, instead of the horrors of Hell. Nobody believes in Hell any more except for you and me, so unless it’s just you and me, we need to leave Hell out of it for the time being, and focus on the good.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, someone was telling me that he is thinking of having his company be open on Sundays. I didn’t say, “You are disrespecting the Lord’s Day; you will go to Hell.”

Instead I said, “Do you worry that your employees will experience burn-out? Burn-out has a serious impact on productivity, you know, and it is also a leading cause of mental health problems. I hope you are considering the mental health and family lives of your employees, because they are good people, and they will do everything to try to please you, even work on Sundays if you ask them to. It’s so important to take good care of them.”

So, he is reconsidering opening his business on Sundays. But if I had taken the approach of telling him that it’s against the Church, and that it’s a mortal sin, do you think he would have paid any attention to me?

I doubt it.

Instead, I showed him that I care about him, I care about his business, and I care about the people who work for him. I showed him concern for his interests - the good that is good for him. Which as you pointed out earlier in the thread, is what we call Love.

Assuming this person is Catholic, what happens when he doesn’t listen at all? Do you continue to just treat him the same way? Should just pretend its ok?

The problem I find is that there is an implicit assumption that this method works 100%. It does not work 100% for sure because even Christ didn’t have a 100% conversion rate. So at some point, there must be some other action that follows. For an example, break of friendship or reduced contact to make them feel that we do not approve of what they do. Same treatment from family etc.

They can be told what to do by the Church, but we as lay people can’t go around mistaking ourselves for the Church.

No, we can and do have a responsibility to tell them. We are part of the Church. We cannot proclaim new doctrine but we are suppossed to instruct and correct based on existing doctrine.

 

[jmcrae]

Just pray for the virtue of prudence, that’s all we have to ask each other to do. Not SUBJECTIVE opinions of what may turn off the sinner.

All of us are sinners. Think of your own favourite sins, and think of how you would want people to approach you about them.

Jesus told us to treat others the same way we like to be treated.

 

[Veridical16]

1. I don’t think there are more evils today. It’s just that with the media and internet, we know about them. We read of hear of so many evils today. In the past, the news didn’t travel as easy.
   Now one can make a good argument that the media and internet is an easy medium for evil to infect us, and I agree that it does infect us. But that’s a different topic
2. The Church has always known what this message meant. But in the past, it was easier to rear children. So lots of parents used to teach children to live their morals without the reasons why. When asked “why” parents would say “because I said so!” That was good enough in the past.

Today, we can reference sites such as Catholic.com to learn the truth. But what if you were lost and you logged onto “protestantsrock.com” or some site with false teachings? Or if you role model was Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian growing up?

Today, people are asking why but have lots of places to go for mis-information. Because the of huge amount of mis-information out there, we have more prodigals who need to come home.

God bless

1. Man is as capable and as disposed to sin as he was in other centuries, but the 20th century is definitely an example that some centuries have less peace than others, and the bible itself illustrates that societies themselves can choose against God and therefore be more mired in Evil than other generations. To say the times we are in, are no different than times passed is to say that we never had a period of Christendom.
2. And why was it good enough? Because the role of the familly was strong then.

How the parent functioned in society was how close he was to the Christianization of his culture, it has been eroding since the enlightenment. They knew better than us now, precisely because religion was within their daily lives.
And that can still be true for individuals today. Wherever locally, there are parents rooted in the sacramental life of the Church who are still able to raise them well as Christians. Parents of the past did not need to be apologists or theologians or know St Thomas Aquinas. Prayer life and the sacramental life of the church, inspired the supernatural faith so the faith was brought up, they didn’t need to be theologians, and the implications of “because I said so” was not some superficial command of the child raised on the truths of the faith.
Its because the truths of the faith, was rooted in the society itself built by Christendom, where obedience to our parent and honoring them was not such a far fetched virtue – that child embraced his parents instruction. Also feminism helped to destroy the presence of the Mother’s office in raising the child in the Catholic families, as well as the unity of the spouses in a lot of our own society.

 

[jmcrae]

Assuming this person is Catholic, what happens when he doesn’t listen at all? Do you continue to just treat him the same way? Should just pretend its ok?

I am not his mother or his Confessor, and I’m not involved in any material way in his business, so, having told him my opinion, it is his decision to make. If he sins, it is not because he didn’t know the right thing to do, so I can’t be held responsible for it.

The problem I find is that there is an implicit assumption that this method works 100%. It does not work 100% for sure because even Christ didn’t have a 100% conversion rate. So at some point, there must be some other action that follows. For an example, break of friendship or reduced contact to make them feel that we do not approve of what they do. Same treatment from family etc.

Why is it up to us to punish them? Isn’t that God’s job, or someone who is in authority over that person?

No, we can and do have a responsibility to tell them. We are part of the Church. We cannot proclaim new doctrine but we are suppossed to instruct and correct based on existing doctrine.

We have the responsibility to tell them, yes. We aren’t responsible for their actions, though. They are. It’s a bad idea to think you can control other people’s behaviour. This idea leads to unhappiness all the way around.

The only thing you can do, in the case of people who are your equals or your superiors, is make suggestions, and pray for them.

 

[Fevronia]

I’m not sure if you’re quite understanding the fact that we aren’t saying they don’t need to repent. We aren’t saying there’s a separate love for telling them good and bad. We aren’t saying that we should be best friends and imply that they don’t need to repent. What I said was very clear, and I made sure to stress that multiple times. What I said was that we should properly catechize them. It should stem from love. If you want to know the definition of love, read the Bible; it’s written all over. To love them apart from telling them what is right and wrong is to not abandon them. If that love means being friends with them in order to instruct them properly in the faith, then that’s what it means. When someone goes through RCIA, they are in a group. They are not told, “Learn the faith yourself. We’ll see you in a year.” They are not abandoned. Yes, they may have to learn some things on their own, but they always have the instructor or a priest to turn to should they need help. {Also, I am completely aware that not all RCIA programs are as good as they should be. I am talking about a good example of an RCIA program.} To love them is to stay with them. Sometimes that means life-long. Sometimes, that means one conversation. We can’t just yell, “You’re going to Hell if you keep sinning like that!” and walk away {which I’m not saying you said}. Yes, we want them to be on the road to Heaven. We must do this through love. Once again, this means not turning a blind eye and ignoring them and not abandoning them.

Your notion of love (which you haven’t yet defined precisely) is impractical. You want to draw the line at friendship. Someone else might draw the line somewhere else. For a “loving pastor”, the RCIA itself might be off limits to teach the faith.

But you are talking about the impact for outsiders. I am more interested in what happens to insiders while the priest gives mushy homilies.

Perhaps this is a problem in Europe. The churches around my area are generally packed with active, younger members. I do hope that the faith of my generation in Europe grows, though. That is very sad and unfortunate to hear.

Ok, I am not saying this to be harsh on you. But looking around at your own parish and area and concluding that “its a European problem” is a bit of an error.

Both continents are not doing well. That is what the Church has said at least. Europe I admit is in pretty bad shape. North America is not the shining example either (especially when you control for factors like immigration).

 

[Robyn_p]

But what does it mean to love apart from telling them what is good and bad? Is it to feed them? Most of the time they are doing pretty alright. Is it to give them company? Most of the time one cannot follow them where they want to go and in what they want to do.

So I honestly do not see how there is a separate “love” from telling them good and bad.

Also, if we were to treat them as our best friend, why would they think they need to repent? I have met many an atheist (lapsed Catholic) who say "I am best friends with a Catholic and he doesn’t say there is anything wrong with what I do.

Yes, you’re right, we can’t separate love from the truth. That’s been the mistake in catechesis over the years. The Pope isn’t advocating for that kind of approach however. He DID NOT say that we can’t tell people about sin. He never said sin isn’t a big deal, he never said we shouldn’t preach the truth. If that’s what he meant than he wouldn’t have said the harsh things he said about abortion today or all the things he’s said in the past.

All he said was we can’t stop at simply telling people about sin, but we have to give them hope. We have to show them the way out. We have to show them the reason for our joy, and that’s Jesus. We can’t just say things like, “abortion is evil”… and think thats it. We have to go further and say “look, these things won’t make you happy, it will only lead to death, but I know the One Person who can give you the peace and joy you want.” That’s the way to do it, and that’s what Francis wants. Keep the focus on Christ. Not sentimental, but the way Our Lord himself reached people.

There has to be a balance. You’re right that the Church in America hasn’t had it right in decades, we are in trouble. It either goes way to far with truth at the expense of love, or way to far with love at the expense of truth. But I have a feeling Pope Francis, since he seems to be striking a good balance, might be the one to change that.

 

[Fevronia]

I am not his mother or his Confessor, and I’m not involved in any material way in his business, so, having told him my opinion, it is his decision to make. If he sins, it is not because he didn’t know the right thing to do, so I can’t be held responsible for it.

Why is it up to us to punish them? Isn’t that God’s job, or someone who is in authority over that person?

St. Paul seems to be clear that we should remove an individual who continues to sin from the community. Otherwise how is he ever going to realize his mistakes?

We have the responsibility to tell them, yes. We aren’t responsible for their actions, though. They are. It’s a bad idea to think you can control other people’s behaviour. This idea leads to unhappiness all the way around.

The only thing you can do, in the case of people who are your equals or your superiors, is make suggestions, and pray for them.

We cannot control them. But we can do more than say “hey, that other way would have given you a lot of profit”. We can maybe follow it up with “you know the Church says X right?”. If he says “so what” or “I don’t believe in the Church that much”, you can start talking with him more and explain why he should.

That is how we strengthen each other inside the Church. Simply telling them right and wrong from a utilitarian perspective is moot. It’s like we are setting them up to leaving the Church, no?

Again, just saying because I do not know what sort of relationship you have with this person or if he is Catholic.

 

[jmcrae]

Your notion of love (which you haven’t yet defined precisely) is impractical. You want to draw the line at friendship. Someone else might draw the line somewhere else. For a “loving pastor”, the RCIA itself might be off limits to teach the faith.

I don’t know why you think love (courtesy) is opposed to right doctrine.

Surely it is the essential core of right doctrine.

I have never encountered an RCIA that didn’t teach the moral precepts of the Church.

I’ve met students who didn’t learn them, but I never met any RCIA Catechist or priest who didn’t teach them.

There are very few priests left today who give “mushy homilies.” Most of the homilies I hear these days are straight to the point. It’s 40 Days for Life where I live right now, and all of the preaching is on the evils of abortion.

 

[Veridical16]

All of us are sinners. Think of your own favourite sins, and think of how you would want people to approach you about them.

Jesus told us to treat others the same way we like to be treated.

When I picked and chose what i wanted to believe when I was younger, I wish I had a family member or Catholic friend who was orthodox in the faith to say, I was mistaken…
When I scandalized others, in identifying as a Catholic, and supporting policies that attacked Holy Mother Church. I had wish someone would have corrected me, when I misled others, no better than the Senators and the Pelosis of the world…

When I proudly identified as a Catholic, in a cultural sense, to my atheist friends, because I felt better approved, “i’m not like one of those weird fundamentalists who believe in Jesusaurs” I had wished I known a Catholic who could have said “hey, you’re making a fool of yourself”

And when it did happen when I said awful things about others or in my youthful irreverence, I did not appreciate when it was happening – but it helped me to go and confess those old sins later years , in reflecting on how my neighbor called me out on that sin against the 5th commandment.

To make someone uncomfortable does not mean, they are preaching their faith wrongly to them. And even pagans are able to admonish each other, even when they don’t call it sins.

In fact, it is what we ought to do, we ought to help our neighbors see the good. Not just leave everyone as if we are all on personal islands towards salvation.

 

[mikecash]

So here is a honest question I would like to ask from all posters on this thread.

This story of the Prodigal Son was known for 2000 years and different Saints and Church fathers have written on it.

How is it that until yesterday (or 50 years ago), we did not know what it meant? Or how is it that for ~1950 years, our Church didn’t grasp this message but we in the 20th century where there are moral evils unlike in anytime before and the faith is dwindling have grasped what it means?

Just honest questions if anyone wants to take a jab at answering.

Reading St. Paul, moral evil was pretty bad in the Roman Empire. The world was in darkness. Christ came. People accepted Christ. The world changed. As new Son’s of God, our gentile ancestors gave up their sinful ways.

Sixty years ago, sin was still basically sin. All Christendom believed in the same basic moral law. Then, there was a sexual revolution. The buzzword was we’d had 1900 years of “sexual repression.” The culture changed. Everyone wanted to throw off sin. Fast forward thirty years. Now, its the text message hook up culture for people under 25. No need for attachments. No real shame for one night stands. The internet came along. Now, the most vile pornography is a click away. In pre-cana recently, Father told us that 50% of the men in the room were addicted to internet pornography based upon statistics. God bless all of you who have lived good Christian lives all your life. I have not, but I found the truth. I lived 27 years, lost.

I’ve pondered what seems to be the strategy of the Holy Father. As others have said, it seems to be get people in the door, show them the love of Christ, then catechise them, then they will repent. If you don’t believe in sin, you won’t respond well to being told you are sinning. I didn’t. If you don’t know Christ is the Son of the Living God, you won’t feel the need to repent. I never did.

If this is the Pope’s strategy, it could work. My generation (under 30) is lost, Catholic and Protestant. In my former life, I knew very few devout Christians my age. But, I knew many who were searching. One opinion or another, everyone is now talking about Pope Francis.

When the Church evangelized the world, Christians were showing them something new. Now, the Church is what people say their grandparents did. Maybe once they understand Easter and Christmas aren’t days just for gifts and chocolates, they’ll realize how wonderful it is to be a Christian, mercy and justice.

May be the Holy Father will show them the way home.

 

[Fevronia]

Yes, you’re right, we can’t separate love from the truth. That’s been the mistake in catechesis over the years. The Pope isn’t advocating for that kind of approach however. He DID NOT say that we can’t tell people about sin. He never said sin isn’t a big deal, he never said we shouldn’t preach the truth. If that’s what he meant than he wouldn’t have said the harsh things he said about abortion today or all the things he’s said in the past.

All he said was we can’t stop at simply telling people about sin, but we have to give them hope. We have to show them the way out. We have to show them the reason for our joy, and that’s Jesus. We can’t just say things like, “abortion is evil”… and think thats it. We have to go further and say “look, these things won’t make you happy, it will only lead to death, but I know the One Person who can give you the peace and joy you want.” That’s the way to do it, and that’s what Francis wants. Keep the focus on Christ. Not sentimental, but the way Our Lord himself reached people.

There has to be a balance. You’re right that the Church in America hasn’t had it right in decades, we are in trouble. It either goes way to far with truth at the expense of love, or way to far with love at the expense of truth. But I have a feeling Pope Francis, since he seems to be striking a good balance, might be the one to change that.

But he did say

*“According to St. Ignatius, great principles must be embodied in the circumstances of place, time and people. In his own way, John XXIII adopted this attitude with regard to the government of the church, when he repeated the motto, ‘See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.’ John XXIII saw all things, the maximum dimension, but he chose to correct a few, the minimum dimension.”
*

Don’t most people already leave the Church because they find those things they leave it for makes them happy?

Almost every person who leaves the Church does so over a moral issue. They then later become atheist but that is another story.

So ok, can we agree on this much. Every priest should without compromise give moral instruction and condemn faith errors in their homilies and during confession. Can we agree on that?

How we choose to reach the outside world is honestly anyone’s guess as long as they don’t compromise how things work within the Church. The problem I have is that the Pope’s stance changes the approach within as well.

 

[Fevronia]

Reading St. Paul, moral evil was pretty bad in the Roman Empire. The world was in darkness. Christ came. People accepted Christ. The world changed. As new Son’s of God, our gentile ancestors gave up their sinful ways.

Sixty years ago, sin was still basically sin. All Christendom believed in the same basic moral law. Then, there was a sexual revolution. The buzzword was we’d had 1900 years of “sexual repression.” The culture changed. Everyone wanted to throw off sin. Fast forward thirty years. Now, its the text message hook up culture for people under 25. No need for attachments. No real shame for one night stands. The internet came along. Now, the most vile pornography is a click away. In pre-cana recently, Father told us that 50% of the men in the room were addicted to internet pornography based upon statistics. God bless all of you who have lived good Christian lives all your life. I have not, but I found the truth. I lived 27 years, lost.

I’ve pondered what seems to be the strategy of the Holy Father. As others have said, it seems to be get people in the door, show them the love of Christ, then catechise them, then they will repent. If you don’t believe in sin, you won’t respond well to being told you are sinning. I didn’t. If you don’t know Christ is the Son of the Living God, you won’t feel the need to repent. I never did.

If this is the Pope’s strategy, it could work. My generation (under 30) is lost, Catholic and Protestant. In my former life, I knew very few devout Christians my age. But, I knew many who were searching. One opinion or another, everyone is now talking about Pope Francis.

When the Church evangelized the world, Christians were showing them something new. Now, the Church is what people say their grandparents did. Maybe once they understand Easter and Christmas aren’t days just for gifts and chocolates, they’ll realize how wonderful it is to be a Christian, mercy and justice.

May be the Holy Father will show them the way home.

After they come through the door, who is going to show the way? The priest is not the one because he doesn’t believe in correction of big things but little things according to Pope Francis. So basically you have a person who just became “Catholic” but remains whoever they were before. No?

 

[Veridical16]

When the Church evangelized the world, Christians were showing them something new. . Maybe once they understand Easter and Christmas aren’t days just for gifts and chocolates, they’ll realize how wonderful it is to be a Christian, mercy and justice.

Man knows he sins, even when he denies that “sin exists.” The nature of man remains the same, its his will that oscillates. The pagans of old, were no less disposed than the Pagans of new. The only problem is , the pagans today are without no excuse so it’s even more imperative to roll up sleeves, not throw up our hands that the culture is lost. We are defeated people that’s why we need a Savior, and when we bury Christ, the Church is exposed to how defeated humanity is.

Now, the Church is what people say their grandparents did

Have you read Chesterton’s St Francis of Assisi? He talks about how after 1st millenia, the Church was seen as old hat, as St. Francis was coming onto the scene.

Don’t buy into the idea that Christianity bore fruits in Roman Empire because it was seen as some sort of novelty.

 

[Kopratic]

Your notion of love (which you haven’t yet defined precisely) is impractical. You want to draw the line at friendship. Someone else might draw the line somewhere else. For a “loving pastor”, the RCIA itself might be off limits to teach the faith.

But you are talking about the impact for outsiders. I am more interested in what happens to insiders while the priest gives mushy homilies.

What you are doing is twisting my words. To be perfectly honest {and I don’t mean this to be rude}, you are reminding me of a {protestant} group that comes to my school every other Tuesday and literally yells at people walking by, telling them that they are sinners and are all going to Hell. They honestly think that they are preaching love. You and I both need to do our best to fully understand each other. We may not agree, but at least we can understand.

I believe I did define my “notion” of love precisely. However, I am only human, so I do apologize if it didn’t come across clearly. The noun: God. The verb: to not abandon them. Furthermore, it means being selfless, as Bl. Pope John Paul II put it. If we do things with true love, we put God at the forefront and we die to ourselves. It’s quite simple, really. Just like we shouldn’t abandon the outsiders and push them even further away, we also shouldn’t abandon the insiders. And, honestly, if the priest gives a mushy homily, why should we judge him for that? Is a homily preaching about the realities of Hell better than a homily preaching about the realities of Heaven? Yes, if the priest is preaching errors in his homily, he should be told. In virtually every single thread I’ve seen here regarding an error spoken or done by their priest, the members here at CAF have advised them to talk to the priest about it first, then go to the pastor, then the bishop, etc. So, what about the insiders who have to listen to “mushy homilies”? If there are any errors in the homily, we should tell them what they are and why. That being said, some people respond differently to different preaching styles. If someone responds well to a homily that is harsh {yet loving and containing no error} in tone, that’s not a bad thing. Likewise, if someone responds well to a homily that is mushy {yet loving and containing no error} in tone, that is not a bad thing.

Ok, I am not saying this to be harsh on you. But looking around at your own parish and area and concluding that “its a European problem” is a bit of an error.

Both continents are not doing well. That is what the Church has said at least. Europe I admit is in pretty bad shape. North America is not the shining example either (especially when you control for factors like immigration).

Noted. Thank you, and I do apologize at my earlier statement regarding this. I in no way meant to imply that because my area is doing well, that’s it’s only a Europe problem.
At the same time, however, you cannot make assumptions that everyone in the “younger generations” knows absolutely nothing about the faith. That is simply not true, and I know for a fact that my area is not an exception to the rule.

 

[Kopratic]

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to continue in this discussion currently. It’s getting close to midnight, and I have to be up early tomorrow.

To be honest, I usually avoid talks like this completely since debating {as you probably can tell} isn’t my forte. This was a definite stepping out of my comfort zone, so I thank you all for this opportunity!

Goodnight, everyone! Keep up the great discussions.