Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[clem456]

I’m sorry I can’t follow you.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m sorry I can’t follow you.

Which part of what I am saying?

 

[JReducation]

If you’ll pardon my persistance,

if you don’t know of any written reference to this that people can read, then how do you know that St. Francis forbid preaching to non-Catholics? Did you hear this from a superior or a teacher?

It’s part of what we learn in novitiate about St. Francis and the early friars.

I mean no disrespect, but it’s a line of argument I’ve seen you advance perhaps dozens of times since I joined CAF, a line of argument that seems contrary to the rest of the Catholic Faith *on the face of it *(may well just be my lack of understanding), and when something seems opposed to the rest of what I know about the Faith, I like to see a primary source, a Church document, or at least several persons’ interpretations of the point in question.

It’s not contrary to the faith at all. The faith does not say that anyone is to proselytize. We are bound to live by faith and to proclaim the faith by our lives.

You would not make a good religious if you need to see everything in writing. Most of what is taught in the major religious orders is taught by word of mouth from generation to generation. Many documents no longer exist or if they exist, they are not available to the public, because they are fragile or they are for internal forum only, on a need to know basis. This too is part of unquestioning obedience.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s not contrary to the faith at all. The faith does not say that anyone is to proselytize. We are bound to live by faith and to proclaim the faith by our lives.

I am not sure in what context you use the word Proselytizing here. If you mean call for conversion to the Christian faith, I think it is indeed a teaching of the faith, yes?

If you disagree, why did Christ appear to the Apostles and tell them to go preach the good news? He could have just said “keep my precepts and go charity work”, no? In Jesus’s words,

‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and** teaching them to obey everything** that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’ – Matthew 28:18-20

Also, is it not true that there are countless saints that the Church has canonized for actively trying to convert people to the faith? St. Patrick for an example is not known for just going to Ireland and doing charity work. He converted people to the faith.

We could speak of St. Paul perhaps. Or St. Peter, the first Pope. Or we could speak about all the Apostles for that matter. None of them opened any charity centers. They went and preached. St. Thomas is said to have gone as far as India, not to do charity but preach.

Quiet ironically, even St. Francis or early Franciscans like St. Anthony wanted to convert Muslims.

I could go on and on about other examples but I think you understand what I am saying.

I think we have to interpret everything in such light. And in this light, it seems to be true that some are not called to proselytize because that is not their gift. But proselytizing is an important part of evangelizing. No where has Christ equated doing charity work with evangelizing. Charity work is part of good works. It does not mean that using words to evangelize is not part of good works. They are both good works and NECESSARY.

One cannot say “doing charity work” is evangelization in itself because that is something that seems unheard of in the past of Catholicism or even Christianity. What has been accepted in the past is that living a life of good works is a good witness to Christ and that can cause interest in those around us toward considering our faith. But in and of itself, it cannot convert or be a reason for anyone to convert.

 

[Rich_C]

It’s part of what we learn in novitiate about St. Francis and the early friars.

Interesting. I look forward to getting other Franciscan’s take on this point. I wonder if the teaching has been passed down that way everywhere.

It’s not contrary to the faith at all. The faith does not say that anyone is to proselytize. We are bound to live by faith and to proclaim the faith by our lives.

I think you may have misunderstood me, brother.

I didn’t say the Faith says “so and so must proselytize.”

I said the Faith doesn’t say “so and so must not proselytize.” Which, if I understood you, is what you say St. Francis told the brothers of the province of the Holy Land.

Now, I’m just a layman who read the catechism, but imagine how strange that sounds to me. St. Francis is supposed to be the mirror of perfection, it’s as if Our Lord had said, “Go therefore and do not make disciples of all nations, and do not baptize them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

You would not make a good religious if you need to see everything in writing. Most of what is taught in the major religious orders is taught by word of mouth from generation to generation. Many documents no longer exist or if they exist, they are not available to the public, because they are fragile or they are for internal forum only, on a need to know basis. This too is part of unquestioning obedience.

I don’t need to see everything in writing, but only things that sound like they conflict with the rest of the Faith and that’s no slight toward you, brother. Don’t you think that’s wise, especially on the Internet?

In any case, thank you for your time, again.

 

[simple_soul]

I posted this on the prosilatizing thread but I thought it might belong on this thread to.

Thank you Lucky for posting this I have always thought since finding out about her that she really lived up to this teaching of the CCC.
This is the part of the post I am referring to:

905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, "this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world."440

 

[Eufrosnia]

I posted this on the prosilatizing thread but I thought it might belong on this thread to.

I replied to your post on that thread.

 

[opus101]

Is there a difference between proselytizing and evangelizing?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Is there a difference between proselytizing and evangelizing?

As far as how the word is defined, I don’t think so. But people are making it out to be two different things for some reason. I opened a thread “Proselytizing” because the issue is off-topic on this thread now. Do join us there if you are interested in discussing more

 

[JReducation]

Interesting. I look forward to getting other Franciscan’s take on this point. I wonder if the teaching has been passed down that way everywhere.

I think you may have misunderstood me, brother.

I didn’t say the Faith says “so and so must proselytize.”

I said the Faith doesn’t say “so and so must not proselytize.” Which, if I understood you, is what you say St. Francis told the brothers of the province of the Holy Land.

Now, I’m just a layman who read the catechism, but imagine how strange that sounds to me. St. Francis is supposed to be the mirror of perfection, it’s as if Our Lord had said, “Go therefore and do not make disciples of all nations, and do not baptize them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

I don’t need to see everything in writing, but only things that sound like they conflict with the rest of the Faith and that’s no slight toward you, brother. Don’t you think that’s wise, especially on the Internet?

In any case, thank you for your time, again.

I am not sure in what context you use the word Proselytizing here. If you mean call for conversion to the Christian faith, I think it is indeed a teaching of the faith, yes?

If you disagree, why did Christ appear to the Apostles and tell them to go preach the good news? He could have just said “keep my precepts and go charity work”, no? In Jesus’s words,

Also, is it not true that there are countless saints that the Church has canonized for actively trying to convert people to the faith? St. Patrick for an example is not known for just going to Ireland and doing charity work. He converted people to the faith.

We could speak of St. Paul perhaps. Or St. Peter, the first Pope. Or we could speak about all the Apostles for that matter. None of them opened any charity centers. They went and preached. St. Thomas is said to have gone as far as India, not to do charity but preach.

Quiet ironically, even St. Francis or early Franciscans like St. Anthony wanted to convert Muslims.

I could go on and on about other examples but I think you understand what I am saying.

I’m beginning to see the problem with this conversation. I don’t think that we disagree. I’m thinking that we have two languages going on simultaneously and we’re thinking that it’s just English, which it’s not.

Allow me to explain. To the religious, the cleric, the theologian the term “evangelize” and the term “proselytize” are two very different activities. We attach proselytize to the method that Protestant, especially Fundamentalists, use to evangelize. It’s almost a zealous type of behavior. It lacks scholarship. It’s manner is almost “in your face.” It disregards the other person’s desire to listen. There is a disregard for the other person’s feelings and dignity. It is insistent. It is insensitive to consequences. In our circle, this is proselytizing. It’s pushing Christianity in a manner that is anything but intelligent, scholarly, and respectful of persons and culture.

Evangelizing is very gentle. It can be with words, spoken or printed. It can be through actions that attract attention and trigger questions on the part of the observer. It can be with example that makes a statement, without having to say much. It invites, it does not nag. Most importantly, it is very loving and never condescending. The evangelist never assumes that he is always right, nor that he is has to go out and save the world. He does not have a messianic complex. He has a message to share with anyone who WANTS to hear it, not with those who are not interested or not ready. This was very much the example that we got from the apostles and their disciples as we can see in the letters of the Fathers. Most of their writing targets the converted, not the non-believer.

When Francis tells the friars going to Jerusalem that they are not to try to convert the Muslims and Jews, he means that they are not to use words to proclaim the faith. He takes out the spoken part. Francis was certainly a preacher. However, most of his preaching was to his brothers and sisters in the order. He did write letters to those outside the order and did preach sermons to those who would listen. He never imposed himself on anyone who was not interested. When it became clear that there was a higher good in Jerusalem, ministering to the Christians who were losing their faith, preserving the sacred places for the Christian community, and serving the victims of horrible conflicts, he understood that standing on the corner or under a tent was going to get the friars kicked out or killed and that the Christians in Jerusalem and the holy sites would be lost forever.

When he returns to Italy and he informs Pope Gregory IX of his mission, it is Pope Gregory who agrees that nagging and proselytizing in Jerusalem is was not a good idea. We have to observe that they are speaking about a very specific situation. This situation was so specific, that the Holy See took charge of this particular Franciscan mission to ensure that it’s carried out according to the understanding of St. Francis and Pope Gregory. To this day, this mission exists and operates the same way. Recently, under Pope Benedict, the “not preaching to Jews” has been expanded beyond the Holy Land.

This means that there is no proselytizing. It does not mean that one does not respond to questions or that one hides one’s faith. Evangelization, as it is understood by clerics, religious and theologians can be very silent. There is a balance that knows when to speak and when to say nothing and let one’s gestures do the speaking. St. Francis was an expert in this.

I think that we need to distinguish between the Protestant understanding of evangelization and the Catholic understanding.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m beginning to see the problem with this conversation. I don’t think that we disagree. I’m thinking that we have two languages going on simultaneously and we’re thinking that it’s just English, which it’s not.

Allow me to explain. To the religious, the cleric, the theologian the term “evangelize” and the term “proselytize” are two very different activities. We attach proselytize to the method that Protestant, especially Fundamentalists, use to evangelize. It’s almost a zealous type of behavior. It lacks scholarship. It’s manner is almost “in your face.” It disregards the other person’s desire to listen. There is a disregard for the other person’s feelings and dignity. It is insistent. It is insensitive to consequences. In our circle, this is proselytizing. It’s pushing Christianity in a manner that is anything but intelligent, scholarly, and respectful of persons and culture.

Evangelizing is very gentle. It can be with words, spoken or printed. It can be through actions that attract attention and trigger questions on the part of the observer. It can be with example that makes a statement, without having to say much. It invites, it does not nag. Most importantly, it is very loving and never condescending. The evangelist never assumes that he is always right, nor that he is has to go out and save the world. He does not have a messianic complex. He has a message to share with anyone who WANTS to hear it, not with those who are not interested or not ready. This was very much the example that we got from the apostles and their disciples as we can see in the letters of the Fathers. Most of their writing targets the converted, not the non-believer.

When Francis tells the friars going to Jerusalem that they are not to try to convert the Muslims and Jews, he means that they are not to use words to proclaim the faith. He takes out the spoken part. Francis was certainly a preacher. However, most of his preaching was to his brothers and sisters in the order. He did write letters to those outside the order and did preach sermons to those who would listen. He never imposed himself on anyone who was not interested. When it became clear that there was a higher good in Jerusalem, ministering to the Christians who were losing their faith, preserving the sacred places for the Christian community, and serving the victims of horrible conflicts, he understood that standing on the corner or under a tent was going to get the friars kicked out or killed and that the Christians in Jerusalem and the holy sites would be lost forever.

When he returns to Italy and he informs Pope Gregory IX of his mission, it is Pope Gregory who agrees that nagging and proselytizing in Jerusalem is was not a good idea. We have to observe that they are speaking about a very specific situation. This situation was so specific, that the Holy See took charge of this particular Franciscan mission to ensure that it’s carried out according to the understanding of St. Francis and Pope Gregory. To this day, this mission exists and operates the same way. Recently, under Pope Benedict, the “not preaching to Jews” has been expanded beyond the Holy Land.

This means that there is no proselytizing. It does not mean that one does not respond to questions or that one hides one’s faith. Evangelization, as it is understood by clerics, religious and theologians can be very silent. There is a balance that knows when to speak and when to say nothing and let one’s gestures do the speaking. St. Francis was an expert in this.

I think that we need to distinguish between the Protestant understanding of evangelization and the Catholic understanding.

This does shed some light on the issue. However, I am still against grouping charity work or witness through life as evangelization itself. Because that is not reason for anyone to convert and is only an appeal to the feelings of the other person. So I feel that this is where we disagree. You seem to want to say that doing good works and living a good Christian life is evangelization by itself. I contend that it is not, and that it is only part of the evangelizing process. The other part is based on giving reasons to convert and I mean intellectual ones.

For me, the Protestant notions and Catholics notions of today are very similar in its core because both try to convert others using emotional appeal. Catholics hope that their silent living by witness will convince someone. The Protestant hopes that they can get people to know that Christianity is true if they somehow manage to make them read the Bible, say a prayer to Christ, get baptized etc.

My point is that both are unreasonable. If you want someone to convert,

1. You must show why Christianity is true
2. You must show why there is no real reason to think the other religions true

Both of these are essential and can only be done by giving clear explanations. Otherwise we would only be asking others to make arbitrary choices.

 

[simple_soul]

I’m beginning to see the problem with this conversation. I don’t think that we disagree. I’m thinking that we have two languages going on simultaneously and we’re thinking that it’s just English, which it’s not.

Allow me to explain. To the religious, the cleric, the theologian the term “evangelize” and the term “proselytize” are two very different activities. We attach proselytize to the method that Protestant, especially Fundamentalists, use to evangelize. It’s almost a zealous type of behavior. It lacks scholarship. It’s manner is almost “in your face.” It disregards the other person’s desire to listen. There is a disregard for the other person’s feelings and dignity. It is insistent. It is insensitive to consequences. In our circle, this is proselytizing. It’s pushing Christianity in a manner that is anything but intelligent, scholarly, and respectful of persons and culture.

Evangelizing is very gentle. It can be with words, spoken or printed. It can be through actions that attract attention and trigger questions on the part of the observer. It can be with example that makes a statement, without having to say much. It invites, it does not nag. Most importantly, it is very loving and never condescending. The evangelist never assumes that he is always right, nor that he is has to go out and save the world. He does not have a messianic complex. He has a message to share with anyone who WANTS to hear it, not with those who are not interested or not ready. This was very much the example that we got from the apostles and their disciples as we can see in the letters of the Fathers. Most of their writing targets the converted, not the non-believer.

When Francis tells the friars going to Jerusalem that they are not to try to convert the Muslims and Jews, he means that they are not to use words to proclaim the faith. He takes out the spoken part. Francis was certainly a preacher. However, most of his preaching was to his brothers and sisters in the order. He did write letters to those outside the order and did preach sermons to those who would listen. He never imposed himself on anyone who was not interested. When it became clear that there was a higher good in Jerusalem, ministering to the Christians who were losing their faith, preserving the sacred places for the Christian community, and serving the victims of horrible conflicts, he understood that standing on the corner or under a tent was going to get the friars kicked out or killed and that the Christians in Jerusalem and the holy sites would be lost forever.

When he returns to Italy and he informs Pope Gregory IX of his mission, it is Pope Gregory who agrees that nagging and proselytizing in Jerusalem is was not a good idea. We have to observe that they are speaking about a very specific situation. This situation was so specific, that the Holy See took charge of this particular Franciscan mission to ensure that it’s carried out according to the understanding of St. Francis and Pope Gregory. To this day, this mission exists and operates the same way. Recently, under Pope Benedict, the “not preaching to Jews” has been expanded beyond the Holy Land.

This means that there is no proselytizing. It does not mean that one does not respond to questions or that one hides one’s faith. Evangelization, as it is understood by clerics, religious and theologians can be very silent. There is a balance that knows when to speak and when to say nothing and let one’s gestures do the speaking. St. Francis was an expert in this.

I think that we need to distinguish between the Protestant understanding of evangelization and the Catholic understanding.

Brother Jay, I just wanted to thank you for this post. The way you described evangelization reminded me of 1 Cor. 13. it prompted me to read it again and I found it very healing.
Will try to let myself absorb it as much as I can.

 

[JReducation]

This does shed some light on the issue. However, I am still against grouping charity work or witness through life as evangelization itself.

I can tell that you’re against it. But the Church does not share your opinion. The Church places a great deal of faith in the grace of the Holy Spirit to speak through words and through gestures. Both need not happen at the same time. Sometimes, one is more appropriate than the other.

Because that is not reason for anyone to convert and is only an appeal to the feelings of the other person. So I feel that this is where we disagree.

You and many great missionaries disagree, not to mention you and Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis.

You seem to want to say that doing good works and living a good Christian life is evangelization by itself. I contend that it is not, and that it is only part of the evangelizing process.

Once upon a time, St. Francis asked Br. Leo to go with him to preach. The arrived at the town. Br. Leo followed Francis waiting to see where they would stop to preach. As they went through the town, Francis greeted everyone and showed great love for the people of that place. When they reached the gate at the other side of the town, Br. Leo asked the Holy Father, “Where are we going to preach?” To which the Holy Father answered, “We just did.”

Both of these are essential and can only be done by giving clear explanations. Otherwise we would only be asking others to make arbitrary choices.

That was not my experience and the Franciscans never tried to convince me to become Catholic. They showed me Catholicism through the way that they imitated Francis’ love for Christ.

I know that I’m not a great luminary. If an ox like me can see that there is something out of the ordinary to these men, others who are more intelligent can see it more quickly and probably understand it with less questions than I asked.

 

[RPRPsych]

I think that we need to distinguish between the Protestant understanding of evangelization and the Catholic understanding.

And herein lies the crux of the whole matter. In today’s world, Protestant culture (because of its link to American culture) has a huge influence. When people hear “evangelization”, they think of things like Campus Crusade and revival meetings, which are entirely in the Protestant tradition; the idea that another way, a Catholic way, exists is quite alien to them.

One can be a “convert” by having an emotional experience or answering an altar call; whether the same person will stick it out and be a “disciple” is a quite different question.

 

[JReducation]

And herein lies the crux of the whole matter. In today’s world, Protestant culture (because of its link to American culture) has a huge influence. When people hear “evangelization”, they think of things like Campus Crusade and revival meetings, which are entirely in the Protestant tradition; the idea that another way, a Catholic way, exists is quite alien to them.

One can be a “convert” by having an emotional experience or answering an altar call; whether the same person will stick it out and be a “disciple” is a quite different question.

I believe that this is why we’re seeing a significant increase in the number of confessions since the papal election. Pope Francis knows how to use this “Catholic” method of evangelization. He does not need to say much. People are being moved by his example.

The week after his installation, we had 500 confessions in one day.

 

[RPRPsych]

I believe that this is why we’re seeing a significant increase in the number of confessions since the papal election. Pope Francis knows how to use this “Catholic” method of evangelization. He does not need to say much. People are being moved by his example.

The week after his installation, we had 500 confessions in one day.

That’s very interesting, because I remember making my confession soon after his installation too! Chalk that up to our good Pope.

 

[McCall1981]

I believe that this is why we’re seeing a significant increase in the number of confessions since the papal election. Pope Francis knows how to use this “Catholic” method of evangelization. He does not need to say much. People are being moved by his example.

The week after his installation, we had 500 confessions in one day.

While I’m dont doubt youre right about this, to be fair, amongst the “traditionalist” types that I know, myself included, the most praised thing about Pope Francis so far has been his homilies (at least in my observation). Ive seen even the ones that dont like him grudgingly admit that he has given some good strong homilies. His homilies were the first thing I liked about him, and I know some others that felt the same way.

 

[JReducation]

While I’m dont doubt youre right about this, to be fair, amongst the “traditionalist” types that I know, myself included, the most praised thing about Pope Francis so far has been his homilies (at least in my observation). Ive seen even the ones that dont like him grudgingly admit that he has given some good strong homilies. His homilies were the first thing I liked about him, and I know some others that felt the same way.

His homilies are excellent. What people are commenting on when they come is how his demeanor, personality, joy, charity and simplicity had caused them to stop and examine themselves against his example of Gospel living and they realize how short they fall.

 

[JReducation]

I also do a lot of spiritual direction, in person and by email. I use St. Francis de Sales method, which is excellent for distance. Many people are telling me that they realize that they have been far from the Church, something to which they had not paid special attention or had not been a priority before they noticed Pope Francis.

I’ve had non-Catholics and even non-Christians say that he is softening their attitude toward Catholicism.

I find that pope do well with specific audiences, which is natural. We have different personalities. Pope John Paul was awesome with youth. The resurgence in vocations among the young is his influence and the birth of new forms of religious life is also his influence.

Pope Benedict had a strong influence in the more traditional and scholarly circles. This was good too. These folks had become skeptics about the Church. He helped them see that the Church is changing and yet remains the same Church. Christ is better understood, but not different. He also addressed issues that needed to be corrected, but did not offend or attack anyone. He was very gentle in his manner. He showed the traditionalists and the scholars that one can correct without being harsh or unfeeling. Thanks to his intervention, the number of religious brothers is rising rapidly.

Pope Francis seems to be attracting the attention of the fallen away Catholic and the non-Catholic.

One thing that they have in common is that they’re scholarly heavyweights.

 

[McCall1981]

His homilies are excellent. What people are commenting on when they come is how his demeanor, personality, joy, charity and simplicity had caused them to stop and examine themselves against his example of Gospel living and they realize how short they fall.

Well, it probably depends on where that person is initially coming from. I just mean I have noticed people on some more traditionalist websites and such who haven’t responded to Francis’ demeanor (and even actively dislike his style/demeanor) but have come to like him because of his homilies. And his homilies are the aspect of Francis that is most “attractive” to me personally, not his style or actions. Maybe I’m the exception though.