I
ipwnuathalo
Guest
Oh, man up. Discussion is not hate. Where do people get that idea?!?
- Status
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
Jesus was clear that tax collecting (which was similar to extortion in those days) and prostitution were wrong. He was clear that he did not love those acts but those people. I am sure he counseled the prostitutes that what they were doing were wrong and should sin no more. I do not see this from the Jesuits in this case.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
Do you love a heroin addict by giving him heroin? He would really appreciate you for it.
We can make judgments on people’s actions. We cannot, as you pointed out, make judgments on the people who perform those actions. Thus we can, with scriptural and Church guidance, make the judgment that Hinduism is false and should not be encouraged by us doing actions that might legitimize this faith; like worshiping in their temple. Likewise we cannot make a judgment on the soul of a Hindu since we do not know why he/she would stay in that religion.
If we cannot make judgments on actions then we have no way of knowing what is a sin. You are stating a moral relativistic principle; which is also false.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
Moral relativism…and false. Are you Catholic?
P
pyro_alchemist
Guest
I once prayed at a Buddhist temple in Bagio Philippines. I wasn’t praying to Buddha. I was praying to God for the conversion of the Buddhists.
L
Lepanto
Guest
That is very salutary.
But as I already asked, to whom were the Jesuits praying?
C
Coleski
Guest
To JosephDavid did I say I was sinless? I did not. The fact that I know that I am so sinful is why I choose the narrow path. It’s not that I am able to stay on it with some inhuman perfection. It’s that as imperfect and naturally sinful that we, you and me, are that we must know what the path is. Our imperfect reason and our pleasure and will to sin is what leads us astray. That’s why I so mistrust Hinduism where even demons are worshipped. I am so sick and tired of your kind telling us not to judge. If someone was headed over the edge of a cliff unawares would you warn him or her, or would you say nothing lest you infringe on their precious independance? Showing up at Hindu shrines to pray has a definitive message and that message is that there is not definite messages.
We are talking about Heaven and Hell here. I chide Father Education because I have never read a thread were he defends orthodoxy. Liberals are always rebelling against orthodoxy and it is they who always claim the way to Heaven is broad and wide in direct conflict with the words of our Savior. He is our Savior for a reason and that reason is that he is God and God not man sets the rules, the narrow path if you will.
We are talking about Heaven and Hell here. I chide Father Education because I have never read a thread were he defends orthodoxy. Liberals are always rebelling against orthodoxy and it is they who always claim the way to Heaven is broad and wide in direct conflict with the words of our Savior. He is our Savior for a reason and that reason is that he is God and God not man sets the rules, the narrow path if you will.
V
Veridical16
Guest
You need to stop paying attention to people spreading falsehoods about Jesus.
It’s about as annoying as when I see the comments that Jesus went over to Asia, and that explains why he has similar teachings to “the Buddha”, etc. And claim that Christianity is ripped off from Eastern religions and incorporated into Judaism.
Jesus was not India, Krishna ain’t like Jesus, these suggestions are just as arbitrary as Joseph’ Smiths suggestion that Jesus’ went to preach to White Native Americans in North America…this is all just speculation and hogwash to get people to have a dimmer view on Jesus’ incarnation himself.
He was an obedient son to Mary and lived like an ordinary Jew and human most likely.
I also can’t believe people are defending these actions, it’s obvious. Respecting others’ free wills to worship false beliefs is one thing, actually holding your tongue about the Truth you know, and saying it’s just as good as what you believe is another.
V
Veridical16
Guest
Thank you, ipw, and davidwilson. That sounds more correct. I don’t understand why people have no problem with it, it’s right there in the Bible as a warning. Some people like to deceive themselves I don’t get it.
Also great points about Mother Theresa and the Pope not being an argument. People forget that they could sin too, and it’s not a rebuke of them being exemplary Christians. We all can recount moments, where we’ve realized “I probably shouldn’t have done that” and to pray in this Idol Shrine, is one of those moments for those Jesuits.
I’m appalled at people condoning these actions. It is common sense.
In their view on Christian charity, the only people who sin, are the people who actually realize “hey, people can be at fault in their actions” yet the people who have reservations about these actions like Kissing the Koran, or praying in a Shrine, are the ones who sin?
The only Christians who sin, according to some in this thread, are ones who disagree with other Christians??
Yes we are to “love” everybody, but to some that I guess, means agreeing with everything your neighbor does? Even if we can see from what we’re taught as Christians, that they might not being doing the right thing??
Didn’t Jesus tell us to rebuke our fellow Christians when they’re wrong? and aren’t Paul, James and Peters arguments every now and then, actually being recorded, in our New Testament, an example of that.
Is Paul an unloving disciple because he pointed out Peter’s hypocrisy, despite being the Pope?
Really, I am annoyed with Christians using “that’s not very loving” when they see others speaking up, to use fair criticisms against others’ actions. I mean, if Paul can disagree with Peter, the Christians opining and disagreeing with the Jesuits, should at least be given a little leeway to their concerns about their shepherds.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
That is good. Did the Buddhists know you were praying for their salvation or did they just see another person praying to their god/great nothingness? If it was the later you did a disservice to them since in their minds, through an ad populum argument, the validity of their faith was supported.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s very offensive. Have you read anything that I have written on these threads, especially in the area of vocations and spirituality before you make such a statement?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Stylites
Guest
Seems to be a statement seeped in mendacity. Please try to do better. I for one will accept as my brother-in-Christ any charitable and honest Hindu (or heretic and apostate) over a mendacious Christian.
L
Lepanto
Guest
Exactly how was Jesus lying when He said that narrow is path to Heaven while broad is the path to Hell? (Mt 7:13-14)
J
JReducation
Guest
Jesus was not lying. I don’t think that was what Sylelites was referring to. I think that he was referring to the allegation that I’m always on the side of apostates and heretics. I’m not sure where that comes from, because I’m actually very orthodox in my spirituality and theology. I’m simply not in agreement with the need to put anyone down, in a case such as this, because we don’t have enough information.
Based on the little information that we have, I don’t see anything different from Mother Teresa praying in a Hindue Temple, but remaining totally faithful to Christ and performing one miracle after her death. John Paul II and Benedict XVI praying in a Mosque or Synagogue and remaining faithful to the Church and to the Gospel.
Unless someone can say with certitude that these Jesuits were unfaithful to the Gospel, there is not much to comment here. To make such a judgement based on appearances is niether charitable nor does it achieve anything for the soul of the person who makes the statement or those who read it.
I’ve always been influence by something that the great Dominican historians have always said about their spiritual father, Dominic. They tell us that Dominic always told the Brother Preachers that their words must alwasy be: true, charitable, sound charitable, feel charitble to the listener, be filled with great humility, and bear fruits of great charity on the part of the listener. I’ve always found this to be one of the most inspiring teachings of St. Dominic for all who attempt to evangelize.
I think this is what made someone like Mother Teresa such an inspiration for so many people, not just Christians. Her words and actions were always shrouded in truth and moved others to works of charity. Whether she prayed in a Hindu temple or before the Eucharist, she was always very much like Dominic. She was a preacher of truth in charity. It was a very gentle charity, much like Dominic.
Sometimes, we who post on these threads forget that important detail. We forget to be gentle. It’s not impossible to embrace both truth and gentleness. They actually can work together. I know that some people’s personality are more dynamic and more filled with fire than others. But for some people, like Mother and Dominic, their style was much more gentle and subtle. For all we know, this may be the style of these Jesuits. We just don’t know any more than what is printed in this story. So we can’t really make any kind of a value jugement, except about the externals. Those judgements don’t really help anyone very much.
I will say this, whatever helps to get the attention of non-believers, as long as it’s moral, is worth trying.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Are you in a position to determine this? How can you make such an allegation without proof?
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Perhaps you should reread the catechism on what constitutes a mortal sin?
- The thought, word or action must be wrong.
- The sinner must know this.
- The sinner must give full consent to this.
Perhaps you should know learn what moral relativism is before you use it incorrectly.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.
If you wish to review the subject, please see [thread=132852]Charity[/thread] for specifics, or [thread=116150]CAF rules[/thread] for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
If you wish to review the subject, please see [thread=132852]Charity[/thread] for specifics, or [thread=116150]CAF rules[/thread] for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
If your interpretation is correct then one of the Corporal works of mercy is impossible to do (admonish sinners).
The above criteria can be judged via external evidence. If we do not have a particular evidence then we cannot make that judgement on that action.
- Hinduism in wrong; that is an objective truth.
- If the Hindus do not know this then the Jesuits should have admonished them rather than praying in their temple. Once admonished, then the second criteria is accomplished.
3)I think everyone in the article were acting of their own free will.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
This is where the difference between judging an action versus judging someone’s soul is important. We do not need to know someone’s heart to judge that their actions are wrong. Their culpability might be mitigated due to their circumstances and what is in their hearts but that is up to God to weigh.
The actions of the Jesuits were wrong.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
“An event like this “is sure to have greater effects in creating goodwill, and help people of all faiths to have a change in attitude toward other religions,” Basu told UCA News.”
As Catholics we do not need to have a change of attitude towards other religions as long as our attitude is grounded in Catholic Doctrine. This Hindu is not excited by learning that Catholicism holds that his religion is false and that Catholicism holds the fullness of Truth. The is excited that the Jesuits are helping to bring Catholics towards Hinduism.
- Status