Matthew Kelly

[jmcrae]

I did sort of wonder why he isn’t a priest himself, actually.

I assume it’s because he’s married.

He came to my city about a year ago, and I wasn’t all that enthused about him, but the young adults from my parish were absolutely thrilled, so we got a set of his DVDs and had them for our Young Adults group (yes, with permission) for a few months. We’re on to deeper stuff, now.

I see him as a kind of Dale Carnegie for the current generation - he teaches basic communication skills and life skills in an engaging and memorable way.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

He says that we may have had free will before we were born. this is not in line with Church teaching and I use it as an example of how he isn’t all that intellectual but more enigmatic.

Matt,
I had to chuckle a bit over your phrasing here – “[not] all that intellectual but more enigmatic”.

Perhaps you are being overly charitable in your description of that theory (note, I am limiting myself solely to the theory of free will before we were born.) I know otherwise worthy authors make mistakes sometimes, and sometimes certain ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny, so I don’t want to turn this into a dissection of this one point on page four of one book. But, as ideas go, it’s a doozy of one. And I think I’d describe it differently than “enigmatic”.

Here’s the actual quote from page four of the 2004 edition of “Rhythm of Life”:

Others may argue that the did not choose the country they were born in or the parents they were born to. How do we know we didn’t choose these things? We are all endowed with free will. Did we not have this free will before we were born? Perhaps one day we will realize that we have chosen much more than we have even imagined.

(can anyone confirm if this is in the current editions of the book?)
​

Strictly speaking we did, of course, have free will before we were born – in the sense that a) one of the powers of the human soul is the will and b)we have a soul before we are born.

It’s difficult, though, to see how a child in the womb would exercise that free will and make a choice about what country they will be born, in the sense of affecting the outcome.

Much more difficult, it seems to me, is to see how a child would choose his own parents, in the sense of affecting the outcome. Obviously, if the choice comes after conception the child didn’t choose those parents in this sense. And if the choice comes before conception one would have to hold the preexistence of souls, which is untenable.

In all three of the above scenarios (choice of country, choice of parents after conception, choice of parents before conception) an additional difficulty is that these choices are “wiped” from our memory somehow before birth. At least, I myself seem to have forgotten that I made those choices.

I can imagine a possible solution: perhaps a child can freely assent to being born, i.e. join his will with God’s will, thereby freely ratifying God’s choice of parents and country. The problems with this solution are that 1)it isn’t really satisfying in the way of “choosing to affect the outcome” sort of way and 2)it doesn’t solve the problem of our amnesia about these choices.

Besides, any meaningful choice has some data to base a choice upon – even the unsatisfying “ratifying choice”. How did the child know anything about his county and his parents? Did God present the knowledge to the child in the womb? (Surely not before the womb!) And if so, why? Do some children, when confronted with the prospect of being born to Jack and Brenda in Baltimore decide to take their chances elsewhere?

So, I am left scratching my head a bit.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled program. . .

VC

 

[Ailina]

I assume it’s because he’s married.

He came to my city about a year ago, and I wasn’t all that enthused about him, but the young adults from my parish were absolutely thrilled, so we got a set of his DVDs and had them for our Young Adults group (yes, with permission) for a few months. We’re on to deeper stuff, now.

I see him as a kind of Dale Carnegie for the current generation - he teaches basic communication skills and life skills in an engaging and memorable way.

That is his focus: to draw the young people in. And then those young people can go from there. (Are you part of St. Michael’s Parish then? I have friends who attend that church, and I sometimes take my teens to the Lifeteen Mass there).

 

[GAHere]

I thought he did a good job but after a 45 minutes of ‘yes or yes’ I wanted to stand up and yell, “Stop manipulating the audience!”.

:yup: I hear ya! Not that it’s bad that he does that, because I do understand why, but after a short while it just comes across as ‘uhm’, ‘yeah’, ‘y’know?’, words placed where a pause should be. I’ve only listened to one of his series so far. It was good, but I haven’t started the other two series because I’m not ready for that same tone and afraid the ‘yes or yes’ will be scattered through again.

Kind of the same with Fr. Corapi. His style is consistently the same. Every talk is wonderful, of course, but getting through more than 3 or 4 takes effort on my part. Guess I’d say the same about Archbishop Sheen. I have to let time pass between listens or mix them up a bit.

 

[Matt33]

I assume it’s because he’s married.

He came to my city about a year ago, and I wasn’t all that enthused about him, but the young adults from my parish were absolutely thrilled, so we got a set of his DVDs and had them for our Young Adults group (yes, with permission) for a few months. We’re on to deeper stuff, now.

I see him as a kind of Dale Carnegie for the current generation - he teaches basic communication skills and life skills in an engaging and memorable way.

He is not married but I agree with your assesment.

 

[Matt33]

Matt,
I had to chuckle a bit over your phrasing here – “[not] all that intellectual but more enigmatic”.

Perhaps you are being overly charitable in your description of that theory (note, I am limiting myself solely to the theory of free will before we were born.) I know otherwise worthy authors make mistakes sometimes, and sometimes certain ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny, so I don’t want to turn this into a dissection of this one point on page four of one book. But, as ideas go, it’s a doozy of one. And I think I’d describe it differently than “enigmatic”.

Here’s the actual quote from page four of the 2004 edition of “Rhythm of Life”:

(can anyone confirm if this is in the current editions of the book?)
​

Strictly speaking we did, of course, have free will before we were born – in the sense that a) one of the powers of the human soul is the will and b)we have a soul before we are born.

It’s difficult, though, to see how a child in the womb would exercise that free will and make a choice about what country they will be born, in the sense of affecting the outcome.

Much more difficult, it seems to me, is to see how a child would choose his own parents, in the sense of affecting the outcome. Obviously, if the choice comes after conception the child didn’t choose those parents in this sense. And if the choice comes before conception one would have to hold the preexistence of souls, which is untenable.

In all three of the above scenarios (choice of country, choice of parents after conception, choice of parents before conception) an additional difficulty is that these choices are “wiped” from our memory somehow before birth. At least, I myself seem to have forgotten that I made those choices.

I can imagine a possible solution: perhaps a child can freely assent to being born, i.e. join his will with God’s will, thereby freely ratifying God’s choice of parents and country. The problems with this solution are that 1)it isn’t really satisfying in the way of “choosing to affect the outcome” sort of way and 2)it doesn’t solve the problem of our amnesia about these choices.

Besides, any meaningful choice has some data to base a choice upon – even the unsatisfying “ratifying choice”. How did the child know anything about his county and his parents? Did God present the knowledge to the child in the womb? (Surely not before the womb!) And if so, why? Do some children, when confronted with the prospect of being born to Jack and Brenda in Baltimore decide to take their chances elsewhere?

So, I am left scratching my head a bit.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled program. . .

VC

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. However The Catholic Church does not teach that we have souls before birth. As Michele Arnold puts it in the AA forum --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person’s soul is created immediately by God at the moment of conception. It does not exist before that time. Using NFP for just cause, as the Church allows, is not “frivolous.” God allows human beings to cooperate with him in the creation of new human beings and he takes into account human free will in doing so. If a couple does not have just cause to use NFP and uses it for selfish reasons, the couple may be culpable for their selfishness.

The “Well of souls” heresey pops up from time to time but is probably most prevalent today in the Mormon faith and various New age beliefs. I think it comes from a confusion of an “immortal soul” which the Church teaches that we have. Immortal does not mean it existed before but only that it will exist from the moment of its creation forward. This is primarily what I was talking about with Matthew Kelly being wrong. But you are right… I dare Matthew Kelly to go to India and tell a mother who just lost her child that everything is 'choices" This is an example of Matthew Kelly not thinking through his own assertions.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. However The Catholic Church does not teach that we have souls before birth.

Just to clarify, neither do I hold so, as I hold the teaching of the Church. I don’t want anyone to read your comment above as corrective of me.

I was pointing out the difficulties with Mr. Kelley’s point. There is a possible construction one may give it that might be permissible (i.e does not involve pre-existence of souls) but it eviscerates the point itself and retains other problems (i.e. the notion of the exercise of the power of the soul, the source of data, the subsequent amnesia, the fittingness or purpose of the whole thing, etc.).

My point was, essentially, that at least regarding this idea Mr. Kelly was more than just enigmatic. . . I’d say it seems erroneous.

VC

 

[Matt33]

sorry I misunderstood Glad we are strait now.

 

[jmcrae]

That is his focus: to draw the young people in. And then those young people can go from there. (Are you part of St. Michael’s Parish then? I have friends who attend that church, and I sometimes take my teens to the Lifeteen Mass there).

No, my Youth Program is at St. Cecilia’s. (Pray for our program.)

 

[BradW]

I thought he did a good job but after a 45 minutes of ‘yes or yes’ I wanted to stand up and yell, “Stop manipulating the audience!”.

Oh yeah, that Matthew Kelly. I’ve just heard one CD by him, and while it was very good, that one mannerism really grated on me by the third use. It’s clever and unexpected the first time, cute the second, but by the third… bleh.

 

[NPS]

I’d never heard of Matthew Kelly until this thread.

Whether someone is “lite” or fits certain people’s tastes doesn’t matter.

The only thing which matters is–

Is he faithful to the teachings of the Church?

Is he helping people stay faithful to the teachings of the Church

If YES—then that is the main thing. We need more and more of these types of guys and gals—good speakers who are good, faithful Catholics. Doesn’t matter if they are priests, nuns, scholars or whatever. Can they hold an audience? Can they help?

Look, folks—A person like this is really, really helpful to the Church. Listen to any “christian radio” [non-Catholic] station and you’ll hear talks by dozens of these types of people all around the clock. These talks are very helpful to a lot of people. They give christians a “pick-me-up” during a hard day. They can lead people into further exploration of the faith and can even turn a person’s life around.

Of course, also on much of christian radio you get a lot of error portrayed as rock-solid-Truth. If a guy like Kelly is speaking from a basis of True Church teaching then I am completely for the guy—regardless of whether or not I’d rather listen to Scott Hahn or Fr. Corapi etc etc.

 

[KarlaZ]

Well said MPS

 

[MarysGirls]

He is not married but I agree with your assesment.

He’s actually engaged at the moment.

Matt33, you should feel blessed that you get such great speakers at your parish! I mean, Mark Hart, Matthew Kelly, Matt Maher? I wish they would come to my church too! I have The Rythm of Life, and Rediscovering Catholicism and I think he’s great. Not only does he have a great message, but I found that he presents it in such a way that makes it easy to follow. Also I agree with NPS.

 

[BlueDogMN]

Matthew Kelly’s CDs and Books have inspired me to dive into the Catechism, the Bible and shed much of the worlds desires for my life. Listening to him as inspired me to seek the truth and live the faith… I have listened to many apologists and tried to understand all of the arguments but have never been inspired… Perhaps his methods are too simple or not theological enough; however I am a simple man. I am finding meaning in my life by letting the church guide me. Matthew Kelly is not a savior rather he gave me a nudge me towards the right path toward HIM! (How can that be wrong?confused: )

 

[ScareBear]

Blue Dog,

I agree!!!

I have really enjoyed Rediscover Catholicism. It’s a great book for even a non-Catholic student like me. I’ve recommended to many others.

I love that it’s pretty simple and concise. He hits the high points and it’s an excellent springboard for learning and practicing more.

SB

 

[CrazyRachel]

Wow. Well I absolutely love Matthew Kelly. He is victim of people spreading lies about him and trying to get him into trouble for something he never did and managed to keep his life together and keep a good sense of humour and thankfully the mud didnt stick. Also I never knew he wrote these kind of books or gave these kind of talks! This is lovely news to me.