Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[Eufrosnia]

Whoah!!!

You are misunderstanding evangelization and Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa was beatified precisely under the title “Evangelist”. An evangelist is not always one who makes speeches or preaches sermons. Many evangelists such as Mother Teresa, Vincent de Paul, Francis of Assisi, John Bosco, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, and others preached incredible sermons on the Gospel through their life and their apostolic zeal.

First thing I would like to say is that I disagree with grouping Francis of Assisi together with those people. There is enough historical work done on St. Francis to show that the view of him as just a charity worker is untenable. He did actually proclaim teaching to the world.

As for the others in the list, its really not that much of a difficult challenge to convince me that I am wrong. All you have to do is show me how anyone can just be convinced that Christianity is true because of charity work. If there is no reason to think so, then there is no reason to believe so either. Yes?

Would you convert to Hinduism because you met a good Hindu? Would you convert to Buddhism because you met the Dalai lama? As great as these people are, they give us no reason through their actions to think that their respective religions are true. That is an attribution error to infer that if the actions are pleasing to us, the religion that encourages it must be true.

There does not have to be an overt effort to convert someone to Catholicism to make him an evangelist. One of the mandates that St. Francis… They’re only allowed to preach to Catholics. This is not new. This goes back to 1219.

This goes back to 1219 according to Franciscans. But history seems to disagree. There are enough claimed accounts of Francis himself trying his best to convert using ample words.

The other issues is that you are trying to make the Church Franciscan. To be Franciscan is for one person but might not be for the other. Even Christ will not be Franciscan because he first and foremost did a lot of preaching before he engaged in charity work. If Christ’s message was to just do charity to evangelize and for everything, then he failed to set a good example. Christ had enough power to start a bread stall with infinite output so that no one would be hungry in his town. He did not do that. Instead, he seem to hate the idea of people seeing him as someone to relieve them from their merely physical needs.

As I said before, obviously not everyone can be good evangelist. We all do our part. Franciscans today, do their part by charity work and perhaps by funding missionary work of others. I say “today” because I don’t think it was always the case. Life stories of the likes of St. Anthony of Padua seem to squarely disagree with seeing Franciscans as being charity organizations that never used words or tried to convert others since 1219. If Franciscans never used to convert, what was St. Anthony doing heading to Morocco to preach the gospel to Muslims? But, there is no real requirement that Franciscans need to reflect that. They follow their superior at a given time and that is what they are called to do. There is nothing wrong with that. But others have to do their part in proclaiming by giving reasons to convert. That requires use of words.

The idea that you can evangelize by being good is unreasonable. Even problematic. Not to mention the bigger issue of people not knowing how to clearly determine what is “good” or “bad” without religion. So a “good” Christian who opposes same sex marriage, contraception and abortion might look like the most out of touch person with reality to someone who considers those things as good.

In short, living a life of charity i.e. feeding the poor, is not evangelizing. That is just living out part of ones baptismal promises by doing good works pleasing to the Lord. Does it give reasons for others to convert? NO! Does it give reasons for others to imitate us? NO! Can there be those who convert through this? sure, but it does not change the fact that such a conversion is not based on any real reason other than an arbitrary attraction to the faith. This same attraction may disappear just as quickly when met with an objection or something they don’t like in their faith.

I guess what I am trying to point out is that doing charity work as evangelizing is like paying someone to convert. Is it good that they convert? Sure! But they have no real reason. At best, this can be seen as ground work. But it cannot be said to be evangelization in itself.

Perhaps this is the difference in how we are used to using the word Evangelizing. I think it will be more correct to see evangelizing as a long process of attracting and giving reasons to convert. The attraction can be done by charity work, making movies about biblical stories, sharing personal experience etc. But reasons to convert cannot be done through those things. That has to be through words. These reasons to convert itself can become the main attraction for many as well.

Instead of doing that, we have a situation where people are emphasizing more and more charity work and discouraging use of words or seeing it as disturbance of peace. That is problematic and that is what I oppose. In other words, removing use of words from the act of evangelizing is problematic.

So I am perfectly fine with saying Mother Theresa did the attraction part of evangelizing. But I am very much against saying that Mother Theresa gave reasons for people to convert, which is usually the way people try to frame her to the public (and understand the meaning of evangelizing). If anything, by her own words, she seems to have wanted them to be good followers of their own religion X. I think that is very problematic to label as evangelizing.

 

[simple_soul]

As far as I know, Mother Theresa did not actually evangelize. She did good works and merited much as a baptized Christian.
**I have never heard of any proclamation she made of the faith. **The most annoying line I hear attributed to her is “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”. That hardly is going to get anyone in to the Church.

It is my understanding that Her life is her proclamation. It might behoove us to reflect on it and come to understand why she said and did what she said and did.

For a Muslim, to be a good Muslim is to listen to the Imam. For some Imam’s, to the best of their knowledge and understanding, the Quran says to kill the infidel and convert the world by the sword. So if we act according to Mother Theresa, there are some serious issues here.

All I can say is that I would not want someone to accept my faith in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church just because I tell them to. I would want them to search and come to know their own beliefs and pray to God that they will come to understand what is or is not God’s Truth in what they believe. Hopefully in my actions and words it helps them to question what they believe and eventually through God’s Divine Love and Mercy the will come to know and accept the fullness of Truth found in the Catholic Church.

People hated Christ. That certainly was not because he was sinful, yes?

Neither you or I or them are Christ and sin will always hinder us either way. I believe this is something else that Pope Francis is trying to get us to see.

Elements of truth can be found in other religions. But this is just a technicality unless one can say which is truth and which is falsehood, yes? So to say which is truth or falsehood, one must be Christian, i.e. Catholic. Otherwise, people will just be giving their best guess. As far as a non-Christian is concerned, their whole religion is true. Us saying that they have some truth in them only makes them think that they have no reason whatsoever to embrace Christianity. You know what they will say? You have some truths in Christianity too.

This is why I believe it is so important that we as Christian Catholics get it right ourselves. We do nothing but add confusion when we ourselves do not know our faith well enough that it does not show through our actions that we live what we profess to believe with every fiber of our beings. I know I am still learning about my faith so I can see how people will look at me and read or hear what I say and think I have only some Truths.

Well, think about it this way. If you were a Hindu who thought Christians were good intentioned but a mislead group of people, what part of Mother Theresa makes you change your mind?
If I was a Hindu with that view, I don’t see anything changing.

Well, I can’t speak for a Hindu but I can speak for myself and I believe what I said above explains this

As far as I am aware, most of the saints were canonized (apart from Mother Theresa) for upholding teachings of Christ or proclaiming heroically. A person who just dies as a Christian does not relay anything unless they communicate they they are not afraid. But again we have WORDS. You do not canonize a Christian who died so that his family can get money from his life insurance, yes? So in this way, actions alone do not tell us much is my point.
So Mother Theresa helping the poor is GOOD works. That is something all Christians must try to do. But some have a greater calling. They are to try and feed the spiritual poverty i.e. evangelize. What you see today is that people have made “feeding the poor” = “evangelizing”. That is not true. Feeding the poor gives an example for Christians and encouragement or reminder to do good works. But it does not give reason for one to become Christian.
So Mother Theresa in that sense is worthy of imitation as a Christian. But not in the sense of exclusively doing charity work but in terms of making sure one does engage in charity as well. Some others may have to do more according to their gifts.

Since this is getting way out of topic here, perhaps you can open a new thread on this very specific issues of Mother Theresa - Good works - evangelizing, I would love to join it. Just PM me the link after you open it

It is my understanding that it is their heroic virtue of living a Christlike life that’s makes them Saints not so much what they say. How would we know if they have the heroic virtue that allows them to life Christlike lives if it was not for their actions? Again I believe this is something Pope Francis is trying to get us to be. More virtuous and so that God can transform us so that we can take Jesus Christ to the world.

EDIT: Something that I have read not officially though is that people complained that Mother Theresa used most of her finances to fund actual missionary work. Since this is an accusation by non-Catholics, I feel that this may indeed be true. So in this case, it is possible that Mother Theresa did engage in a secretive movement to actually evangelize. Perhaps the Church does not want to emphasize this aspect of her at this time because that work is ongoing.

What I mean to say by this is that I cannot claim if she did or did not do missionary work at all. Maybe she indeed do a lot of it by supporting it with funds. But my point here is that the charity work, most usually associated with her, is not evangelizing work in and of itself.

I do not know anything about funds and what they were exactly used for so I really can not comment on it but I can say from what I understand of her work is that it is evangelizing it just may not be seen by some as evangelizing.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It is my understanding that Her life is her proclamation. It might behoove us to reflect on it and come to understand why she said and did what she said and did.

But what is there to really understand or reflect as a non-Catholic? Mother Theresa did what she did because she thought that is what Christ, who she claims to be the son of God, asked her to do. But that does not give me or anyone else any reason to be Christian, yes?

All I can say is that I would not want someone to accept my faith in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church just because I tell them to… through God’s Divine Love and Mercy the will come to know and accept the fullness of Truth found in the Catholic Church.

Why should your actions lead anyone to second guess their own faith? They might just say “Simple soul has some good intentions and does good things. Its a shame that he believes in Christianity though”.

Also, I am not saying tell people to become Christians. That is not reason. Rather, I am saying that to evangelize is to give reasons for people to become Christian. Being able to do good charity work is not reasons to become Christian. One rejects Christianity or accepts it not because of its appeal but because its true or false.

Neither you or I or them are Christ and sin will always hinder us either way. I believe this is something else that Pope Francis is trying to get us to see.

If Christ, who did not sin, was not appealing, what makes you think that we can be any good at evangelizing that way?

This is why I believe it is so important that we as Christian Catholics get it right ourselves. We do nothing … know I am still learning about my faith so I can see how people will look at me and read or hear what I say and think I have only some Truths.

I agree that people need to know their faith. BUT, if faith is just something they picked because of seeing a person do charity and it appealed to them, then they really wont feel the need to learn the faith anyway. There is no reason. Just appeal. So based on appeal, they will pick and choose what they like. You cannot object to them because you never gave actual reason to think Christianity true. You only made it appealing to them.

Well, I can’t speak for a Hindu but I can speak for myself and I believe what I said above explains this

But aren’t you being biased? Why doesn’t a good Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist convince you that their religion is true? What makes you think they are the ones who have elements of truth and you have the fullest? They will say it is the other way around.

It is my understanding that it is their heroic virtue of living a Christlike life that’s makes them Saints not so much what they say. …Again I believe this is something Pope Francis is trying to get us to be. More virtuous and so that God can transform us so that we can take Jesus Christ to the world.

But we are not speaking of sainthood specifically. We are speaking of evangelizing. All saints were canonized because they did their best according to their state in life. A St. Peter evangelized using words and died for the faith. A Mother Theresa did charity work and in an indirect way, contributed to evangelizing. But that does not mean we can label charity work as evangelizing. That is like saying “All Good works = Evangelizing”. That is a mistake. The Church does not say in its mission that it has a right to do Charity. It says it has a right to evangelize.

I do not know anything about funds and what they were exactly used for so I really can not comment on it but I can say from what I understand of her work is that it is evangelizing it just may not be seen by some as evangelizing.

Well I think we can agree at least that in the sense of “converting others”, Mother Theresa did not really evangelize.

But if we were to define evangelizing as

1. giving reasons to consider Christianity true
2. attracting others to the faith
3. teaching the faith to others (usually other Christians since non-Christians wouldn’t care much)

then yes, we can categorize it as evangelizing because it meets (2) and (3). But what people like to do is forget (1). Perhaps some would even like to argue that (1) does not even exist or have a place in the Church. That I find problematic. (1) is what Christians have done throughout its history beginning with the early Church.

To be fair though, I think this thinking comes from how helpless many people feel in trying to do (1). For most people, it is frustrating. So the Church, perhaps to relieve frustration tends to emphasize that (2) and (3) can be done instead. But people have started to look at (1) as if it does not exist now. That is bad. There are people who are called to do (1) and get discouraged.

So I am ok if you want to say Mother Theresa did evangelizing work in the second sense. But you have to see that she did not give anyone reasons to convert. Not to presume her thoughts but her sayings usually tend to say that she did not even think (1) and (2) was needed. In saying “let a good X be a good X” tends to say that I don’t want to give reasons to them to think otherwise. I will just try to make mine look appealing. But since truth of religion is not based on how attractive it is, this thinking does not contribute to (1).

 

[simple_soul]

But what is there to really understand or reflect as a non-Catholic? Mother Theresa did what she did because she thought that is what Christ, who she claims to be the son of God, asked her to do. But that does not give me or anyone else any reason to be Christian, yes?

Why should your actions lead anyone to second guess their own faith? They might just say “Simple soul has some good intentions and does good things. Its a shame that he believes in Christianity though”.

Also, I am not saying tell people to become Christians. That is not reason. Rather, I am saying that to evangelize is to give reasons for people to become Christian. Being able to do good charity work is not reasons to become Christian. One rejects Christianity or accepts it not because of its appeal but because its true or false.

If Christ, who did not sin, was not appealing, what makes you think that we can be any good at evangelizing that way?

I agree that people need to know their faith. BUT, if faith is just something they picked because of seeing a person do charity and it appealed to them, then they really wont feel the need to learn the faith anyway. There is no reason. Just appeal. So based on appeal, they will pick and choose what they like. You cannot object to them because you never gave actual reason to think Christianity true. You only made it appealing to them.

But aren’t you being biased? Why doesn’t a good Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist convince you that their religion is true? What makes you think they are the ones who have elements of truth and you have the fullest? They will say it is the other way around.

But we are not speaking of sainthood specifically. We are speaking of evangelizing. All saints were canonized because they did their best according to their state in life. A St. Peter evangelized using words and died for the faith. A Mother Theresa did charity work and in an indirect way, contributed to evangelizing. But that does not mean we can label charity work as evangelizing. That is like saying “All Good works = Evangelizing”. That is a mistake. The Church does not say in its mission that it has a right to do Charity. It says it has a right to evangelize.

Well I think we can agree at least that in the sense of “converting others”, Mother Theresa did not really evangelize.

But if were to define evangelizing as

1. giving reasons to consider Christianity true
2. attracting others to the faith
3. teaching the faith to others (usually other Christians since non-Christians wouldn’t care much)

then yes, we can categorize it as evangelizing because it meets (2) and (3). But what people like to do is forget (1). Perhaps some would even like to argue that (1) does not even exist or have a place in the Church. That I find problematic. (1) is what Christians have done throughout its history beginning with the early Church.

To be fair though, I think this thinking comes from how helpless many people feel in trying to do (1). For most people, it is frustrating. So the Church, perhaps to relieve frustration tends to emphasize that (2) and (3) can be done instead. But people have started to look at (1) as if it does not exist now. That is bad. There are people who are called to do (1) and get discouraged.

So I am ok if you want to say Mother Theresa did evangelizing work in the second sense. But you have to see that she did not give anyone reasons to convert. Not to presume her thoughts but her saying usually tend to say that she did not even think (1) and (2) was needed. In saying “let a good X be a good X” tends to say that I don’t want to give reasons to them to think otherwise. I will just try to make mine look appealing. But since truth of religion is not based on how attractive it is, this thinking does not contribute to (1).

Well at this point I will have to back out of our conversation and no I can not say that “we can agree” or just say yes to your yes. But this is not why I am backing out right now. I would like to try to understand what you are saying but I have too many duties right now and trying to respond from a phone is not working. One thing I will say is I beleive you are trying to seperate good works from evagelizing and I am pretty sure that because good works are such an intricate part of our faith that you can not seperate it from evangelization.

 

[clem456]

Evangelization…
We have a neophyte who went through our RCIA program and entered the Church at Easter.
He is married to a Catholic wife for 20+ years, they sent their kids through 12 years of Catholic school and he never entered the Church. He had to attend all the sacrament prep at our parish (which is really fundamentally sound stuff) for his 2 kids, and never became Catholic.

His son left for college and became involved in Catholic campus ministry. They do all sorts of outreach, helping the poor, praying at abortion clinics, scripture studies. The father was inspired by the son to enter RCIA, not because the son preached the truth to him, but because the father saw it in action, in addition to hearing it. The son did not preach his father into the Church with words, the son lives his life as a disciple of Christ, and that proved irresistible to his father. The father saw how his son lives his life and said “I want that”.

In the RCIA program, the USCCB makes it very clear that it is not just a doctrinal program. In fact it is to be called the RCIA “process”, not program. The primary tool of evangelization in RCIA is Christian witness, which includes learning the truth. For the team members, this means being who we are, and sharing our lives with people. This means doing the seemingly mundane things like cookies and coffee before the day’s talk, going to lunch, etc…It means being real with people…team members who have problems in their lives share them with the candidates. All this evangelization makes fertile ground for the reception of the truth.
We first try to honestly be who we are as Catholics and share it.

 

[McCall1981]

But what is there to really understand or reflect as a non-Catholic? Mother Theresa did what she did because she thought that is what Christ, who she claims to be the son of God, asked her to do. But that does not give me or anyone else any reason to be Christian, yes?

Why should your actions lead anyone to second guess their own faith? They might just say “Simple soul has some good intentions and does good things. Its a shame that he believes in Christianity though”.

Also, I am not saying tell people to become Christians. That is not reason. Rather, I am saying that to evangelize is to give reasons for people to become Christian. Being able to do good charity work is not reasons to become Christian. One rejects Christianity or accepts it not because of its appeal but because its true or false.

If Christ, who did not sin, was not appealing, what makes you think that we can be any good at evangelizing that way?

I agree that people need to know their faith. BUT, if faith is just something they picked because of seeing a person do charity and it appealed to them, then they really want feel the need to learn the faith anyway. There is no reason. Just appeal. So based on appeal, they will pick and choose what they like. You cannot object to them because you never gave actual reason to think Christianity true. You only made it appealing to them.

But aren’t you being biased? Why doesn’t a good Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist convince you that their religion is true? What makes you think they are the ones who have elements of truth and you have the fullest? They will say it is the other way around.

But we are not speaking of sainthood specifically. We are speaking of evangelizing. All saints were canonized because they did their best according to their state in life. A St. Peter evangelized using words and died for the faith. A Mother Theresa did charity work and in an indirect way, contributed to evangelizing. But that does not mean we can label charity work as evangelizing. That is like saying “All Good works = Evangelizing”. That is a mistake. The Church does not say in its mission that it has a right to do Charity. It says it has a right to evangelize.

Well I think we can agree at least that in the sense of “converting others”, Mother Theresa did not really evangelize.

But if were to define evangelizing as

1. giving reasons to consider Christianity true
2. attracting others to the faith
3. teaching the faith to others (usually other Christians since non-Christians wouldn’t care much)

then yes, we can categorize it as evangelizing because it meets (2) and (3). But what people like to do is forget (1). Perhaps some would even like to argue that (1) does not even exist or have a place in the Church. That I find problematic. (1) is what Christians have done throughout its history beginning with the early Church.

To be fair though, I think this thinking comes from how helpless many people feel in trying to do (1). For most people, it is frustrating. So the Church, perhaps to relieve frustration tends to emphasize that (2) and (3) can be done instead. But people have started to look at (1) as if it does not exist now. That is bad. There are people who are called to do (1) and get discouraged.

So I am ok if you want to say Mother Theresa did evangelizing work in the second sense. But you have to see that she did not give anyone reasons to convert. Not to presume her thoughts but her saying usually tend to say that she did not even think (1) and (2) was needed. In saying “let a good X be a good X” tends to say that I don’t want to give reasons to them to think otherwise. I will just try to make mine look appealing. But since truth of religion is not based on how attractive it is, this thinking does not contribute to (1).

Good post. If we define evangelizing purely through doing good works we run into problems quickly.

Some would seem to say “the act of feeding the poor is, in and of itself, evangelization”. But what if a Muslim feeds the poor. The act (feeding the poor) is exactly the same, and if evangelization can be purely based on this good work and nothing else, then we would be forced to say that a Muslim feeding the poor is evangelizing (for Christ). Clearly this is not true.

The distinction is that when a Christian evangelizes through their works, they are doing so for Christ, and as a response to Christ. The purpose is to show Christ to others through our actions, so that they will (hopefully) embrace Christ and His Church.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there is a diffeerence between evangelizing through doing good works vs. simply doing good works. The difference is in the intent, the purpose and how the good works are done. If the good works are an attempt to lead the other person to Christ, its evangelization. If the good works are not an attempt to lead the other person to Christ, this is not evangelization.

 

[clem456]

And I was going to add…this is what is so powerful about the witness of Pope Francis, living a simple life, touching and hugging the disabled and poor, preaching the sermons he does.
People are thirsting for that kind of world and when they see it and hear it, it draws them in. So I am glad he lives his vocation, I trust that he has a true calling from God, and I don’t want him to be anyone else but him.

 

[Eufrosnia]

And I was going to add…this is what is so powerful about the witness of Pope Francis, living a simple life, touching and hugging the disabled and poor, preaching the sermons he does.
People are thirsting for that kind of world and when they see it and hear it, it draws them in. So I am glad he lives his vocation, I trust that he has a true calling from God, and I don’t want him to be anyone else but him.

Agreed. But the goal should not be for us all to be little Pope Francis’s. Pope Francis is doing his part to the best of his ability in getting people to open themselves to Christianity. Others in the Church have to do work to give these people reasons to actually become Christian. So this means speaking to people and giving them reasons to be Christian.

Most people on the other hand will have us believe that we just need a Church filled with the likes of Pope Francis clones. That won’t get us anywhere. People will just become ever open, take a peak or have a test drive and leave.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Good post. If we define evangelizing purely through doing good works we run into problems quickly.

Some would seem to say “the act of feeding the poor is, in and of itself, evangelization”. But what if a Muslim feeds the poor. The act (feeding the poor) is exactly the same, and if evangelization can be purely based on this good work and nothing else, then we would be forced to say that a Muslim feeding the poor is evangelizing (for Christ). Clearly this is not true.

The distinction is that when a Christian evangelizes through their works, they are doing so for Christ, and as a response to Christ. The purpose is to show Christ to others through our actions, so that they will (hopefully) embrace Christ and His Church.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there is a diffeerence between evangelizing through doing good works vs. simply doing good works. The difference is in the intent, the purpose and how the good works are done. If the good works are an attempt to lead the other person to Christ, its evangelization. If the good works are not an attempt to lead the other person to Christ, this is not evangelization.

Exactly. People seem to forget that there are people who do good works that are non-Catholics too. If there are such people, it obviously does not give us reasons to think on that basis alone that Christianity is true. So one has to use words.

The way I personally see it, doing good works can allow one to get close to others and build bridges of communication and trust. Then one can use these bridges to communicate the reasons why one is Christian. But increasingly, there is an emphasis on the building bridges part and discouragement on the communication part (probably what makes ecumenism start to look like a joke as well). That gives a look of religious indifferentism and co-existence as being the only concern.

Also, I think the good works need to be conditioned by prudence. I am sometimes very frustrated to hear how a Church decides to help fund and build a mosque right around the area of the Church. We can’t be that clueless as to the impact it will have on the not so well formed Christians in the Church.

 

[simple_soul]

Agreed. But the goal should not be for us all to be little Pope Francis’s. Pope Francis is doing his part to the best of his ability in getting people to open themselves to Christianity. Others in the Church have to do work to give these people reasons to actually become Christian. So this means speaking to people and giving them reasons to be Christian.

Most people on the other hand will have us believe that we just need a Church filled with the likes of Pope Francis clones. That won’t get us anywhere. People will just become ever open, take a peak or have a test drive and leave.

Oh but we do need to become little Pope Francis, each in our own unique little way.

PS to add to my last post if you could some how condence or shorten what you say I might be better able to understand and reply.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Oh but we do need to become little Pope Francis, each in our own unique little way.

What I meant to say was that we can’t all have the same mission to just do good works alone. Just like in the early Church, some will preach, some will help the preachers with finances, some will open up the world to Christianity by charity works and building trust etc.

PS to add to my last post if you could some how condence or shorten what you say I might be better able to understand and reply.

My point is that evangelizing cannot be just good works by themselves. They must be followed up with words. Now the person who did the good works might be incapable of following up with words. That is ok. But others in the Church will be better equipped to do that and they have to take over using that bridge that was built.

So with respect to Mother Theresa, I feel that she opened up many to the Christian faith. But she herself, according to her popular sayings, seemed to have been reluctant or against the idea of using that bridge to start communication to give reasons for people to convert. That I feel is not good.

To explain, I am not blaming Mother Theresa for not using that bridge. She may not have been capable of that sort of work. But it somewhat irks me that she said things that could be considered as giving the idea that she discourages such usage. Indeed, many have used her sayings to justify exactly that.

In short, I disagree with your claim that doing good works is in itself a complete act of evangelizing. I object that it is only part of what constitutes evangelizing and one must give reasons to complete the work of evangelizing.

To quote a report from EWTN today (ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=7477)

But, he asked, do Christians today really believe in the power of their baptism?

“Is it sufficient for evangelization? Or do we rather ‘hope’ that the priest should speak, that the bishop might speak?”

This way of seeing Christianity often carries with it the attitude of, ‘I was baptized, I made Confirmation, First Communion … I have my identity card, alright.’ And now, go to sleep quietly, you are a Christian,” the Pope explained.

Instead, he said that believers must be “faithful to the Spirit, to proclaim Jesus with our lives, through our witness and our words.”

Notice, even Pope Francis uses words to teach the faithful. He uses his humility to open people up to him. Then he communicates the truths and give reasons to support his claims using words

 

[clem456]

Agreed. But the goal should not be for us all to be little Pope Francis’s.

I’d like to be a little Pope Francis myself. I wish we all aspired to be like him, or to let him inspire us in our vocations.
All the saints have lives worth emulating. They spoke words, they used reason, but the witness of their lives goes on, it bears fruit.

Pope Francis is doing his part to the best of his ability in getting people to open themselves to Christianity. Others in the Church have to do work to give these people reasons to actually become Christian. So this means speaking to people and giving them reasons to be Christian.

People come to the Church for different reasons. Some to please spouses or parents.
In my experience, most people who are committed to becoming Catholic have a conversion experience, and from what I have seen, it is not reason-based. That doesn’t mean they are acting unreasonably. They are inspired to leave behind ways of behaving and thinking and plunge in. It involves getting your intellect out of the way to a great degree. Look at transubstantiation for instance. People don’t come to the Church because they suddenly grasp intellectually, the source and summit of our faith.

Most people on the other hand will have us believe that we just need a Church filled with the likes of Pope Francis clones. That won’t get us anywhere. People will just become ever open, take a peak or have a test drive and leave.

We all have protestant or atheist friends. We have discussed Christianity between us forever. People are attached to doctrines and ways of thinking and do not part with them -just cause the Curch says so-. They will however, participate in studies together, serve on projects together, pray together, basically loving one another and the people around us. There is no more effective evangelization than that. I can talk all I want but if I am not willing to love with the witness of my life, the words and reasoning are useless. A huge challenge for me.

 

[simple_soul]

Sorry I clipped your post but two things I really need to address.1st

What I meant to say was that we can’t all have the same mission to just do good works alone. Just like in the early Church, some will preach, some will help the preachers with finances, some will open up the world to Christianity by charity works and building trust etc.

No one from this thread has claimed other wise. But what I am trying to say is we all have to do good works toward the people we interact with on a daily basis
2nd

In short, I disagree with **your claim that doing good works is in itself a complete act of evangelizing. **I object that it is only part of what constitutes evangelizing and one must give reasons to complete the work of evangelizing.

I never claimed such a thing.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Eufrosnia, I personally know of a man who was attracted to and converted by Mother Teresa’s example. He was a cardiologist at the hospital where I worked. He has written a book on it and gave up his cardiology practice to open free medical clinics associated with her work. He has been associated with the Missionaries of Charity since the early 90’s. I heard his personal testimony of his transformation and he goes around the country giving his testimony. He worked at my hospital in the 80’s and early 90’s. He became Mother’s cardiologist in the US.

The name of his book is Mother Teresa’s Prescription and the author is Paul Wright, MD. It is available on Amazon and from Barnes and Noble.

The Bible says the early Christians were known by their love. Their service to each other became a witness to the world and attracted followers. Yes, some also preached the word, but that alone will not necessarily convert. Unless there is a reason, people may not be convinced. Why should they believe one person over another? When they see how true Christians live, how they love, how service to others brings them joy and peace, then they are convinced. Many people have a longing for something they cannot name, and when they see and interact with Christians who are living a life of service and charity and see the peace and joy they have, they want it. Acts of charity certainly can become a powerful tool for evangelization. This is the essence of Dr Wright’s story. And then he goes round evangelizing others. Do an internet search and read the testimonies of people and what converted them to Christianity. Many times you will read that it was from observation of how Christians lived and loved. Acts of charity are love in action to a Christian. This is Biblical.

Eufrosnia, you really have no idea how many people have been converted by Mother Theresa"s example. They probably are not doing as Dr. Wright does and going around writing books and giving testimonies. But this is one man that was brought to conversion by observing her charity. And the likelihood is that many others have been also and some of their stories may be on the internet also. This is a big world. I read one testimony from a college student who visited her in India and her example of love and service transformed her life also. I cannot remember her name or I would link it.

 

[McCall1981]

What I meant to say was that we can’t all have the same mission to just do good works alone. Just like in the early Church, some will preach, some will help the preachers with finances, some will open up the world to Christianity by charity works and building trust etc.

My point is that evangelizing cannot be just good works by themselves. They must be followed up with words. Now the person who did the good works might be incapable of following up with words. That is ok. But others in the Church will be better equipped to do that and they have to take over using that bridge that was built.

So with respect to Mother Theresa, I feel that she opened up many to the Christian faith. But she herself, according to her popular sayings, seemed to have been reluctant or against the idea of using that bridge to start communication to give reasons for people to convert. That I feel is not good.

To explain, I am not blaming Mother Theresa for not using that bridge. She may not have been capable of that sort of work. But it somewhat irks me that she said things that could be considered as giving the idea that she discourages such usage. Indeed, many have used her sayings to justify exactly that.

In short, I disagree with your claim that doing good works is in itself a complete act of evangelizing. I object that it is only part of what constitutes evangelizing and one must give reasons to complete the work of evangelizing.

To quote a report from EWTN today (ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=7477)

Notice, even Pope Francis uses words to teach the faithful. He uses his humility to open people up to him. Then he communicates the truths and give reasons to support his claims using words

This is what I was going to say.

In his very first homily to the Cardinals after he was elected Pope Francis said, “We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord.”

This is the distinction I’m trying to make.

 

[clem456]

…
When they see how true Christians live, how they love, how service to others brings them joy and peace, then they are convinced. Many people have a longing for something they cannot name, and when they see and interact with Christians who are living a life of service and charity and see the peace and joy they have, they want it. …

This.

 

[simple_soul]

This is what I was going to say.

In his very first homily to the Cardinals after he was elected Pope Francis said, “We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord.”

This is the distinction I’m trying to make.

I don’t beleive any one here is disputing this. It is the “seemingly” claim that Blessed Mother Theresa’s good works and the good works of other saintly people are some how equated to being a charitable NGO. Personally I beleive that what Pope Feancis is saying is that we can’t be doing Good works just because God says we have to. We have to do it because we genuinely love people as Jesus loves them. If we don’t then it becomes a charity like an NGO.

 

[clem456]

If you look at the central truth of our faith: Christ crucified in sacficial love…
there are no reasonable or adequate words. He gives his entire self in sacrificial love. He is the Son of God who loves, and he is faithful to who He is, to the end. His preaching was not effective enough evidently,his persuasion was not enought evidently. His force of will to convert is powerful enough, but he respects our free will. He gives his life even to those who reject the truth. It all seems very foolish, but faith makes the foolish fruitful in our lives.

 

[McCall1981]

When they see how true Christians live, how they love, how service to others brings them joy and peace, then they are convinced. Many people have a longing for something they cannot name, and when they see and interact with Christians who are living a life of service and charity and see the peace and joy they have, they want it. Acts of charity certainly can become a powerful tool for evangelization.

This is all true, but I would draw attention to the bolded. By saying “interact with Christians”, you are implying that the Christian identity of the person doing the good deeds is fundamental to the good deed and apparent to the other person. And that is exactly what I’m saying is necessary, the Christian identity/purpose of the works has to be acknowledged or known. If not, the person receiving the good deeds wouldn’t even know Christianity was involved at all. When a person doing good works ignores, or even actively hides, the Chrisitan identity, then there is literally no difference between their good deeds and those of a Muslim or an atheist, and thus there is no evangelization.

As for the Mother Theresa example, it was well known that she was Catholic. She was not ignoring or hiding her Catholic identity, so that when she helped someone they knew that Catholicism was central to her identity and that it was the cause of her works. That is why people could be drawn to Catholicism by her works. but if we ignore or hide the Catholicism, our works can’t draw anyone anywhere at all because there is nothing to draw them to.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’d like to be a little Pope Francis myself. I wish we all aspired to be like him, or to let him inspire us in our vocations.
All the saints have lives worth emulating. They spoke words, they used reason, but the witness of their lives goes on, it bears fruit.

Sure, but you don’t convert because of who they are.

People come to the Church for different reasons. Some to please spouses or parents.
In my experience, most people who are committed to becoming Catholic have a conversion experience, and from what I have seen, it is not reason-based. That doesn’t mean they are acting unreasonably. They are inspired to leave behind ways of behaving and thinking and plunge in. It involves getting your intellect out of the way to a great degree. Look at transubstantiation for instance. People don’t come to the Church because they suddenly grasp intellectually, the source and summit of our faith.

My point is not that people join the church or other religions for various reasons. My point is that most of them are not reasonable. There is no point in joining a church because ones spouse is of that church. You join a religion because its true. Not because of its utilitarian value.

So while there are those who come for various reasons, we should always strive to bring them in through reason or at least educate them of the reasons.

We all have protestant or atheist friends. We have discussed Christianity between us forever. People are attached to doctrines and ways of thinking and do not part with them -just cause the Curch says so-. They will however, participate in studies together, serve on projects together, pray together, basically loving one another and the people around us. There is no more effective evangelization than that. I can talk all I want but if I am not willing to love with the witness of my life, the words and reasoning are useless. A huge challenge for me.

That is not evangelization at all. That is trying to get along because the person does not know how to communicate reasons or know of any reasons to begin with. Why does “I have been not very successful at giving reason” have to translate to “no one can and we must just co-exist?”

As I asked once before, what part of living a good life gives REASON to think that any religion is true?