Moral Correction

[Orionthehunter]

Jimbo, I first ask why you single this out as opposed to those other items that I pointed out that are more to the point of your position correction can’t be lived in a different way and be less confrontational?

Orion: According to Jimbo, He has allowed Satan to take over.

Jimbo’s response: I’m going to single this one out for rebuttal.

This is one of those glib, throwaway statements you see in internet debate. It has no meaning, and is only included to lampoon someone else.

The promise of indefectibility concerns doctrine, not behavior. Every reasonably informed Catholic knows this, and I’ll bet the poster does, too.

Every Bishop in the whole world could be a sniveling coward, and the promise of indefectibility would not even be touched. I was not referring to inerrant charism of the Teaching role of the Church. And I suspect you knew I wasn’t too. But you are by reference (the 10:1 ratio and other statements including the following are implying that the bulk of the Church and its leaders are complicit in the work of Satan by a deriliction of duty or temporal consideration (fear of not being liked, etc.). This is a very serious charge and certainly not charitable.

From Jimbo: Personally, I think there is a crisis of courage in the Church, and has been for decades. I think that, in every age, there is a great temptation that we are all subject to: To be very concerned about meaningless things while letting the important issues go by without engaging them.

Jimbo, I recall a talk by a chaplain of the Opus Dei (certainly no softy) about this very subject. He said before we could venture out to another we had to have four things that preceeded our act. First, we had to be living the life. Second, make sure that we have combined our efforts through prayer with the efforts always on-going with the Holy Spirit with the person. Third, make sure we have first been cultivating the soil for them to hear the message. Don’t throw seed upon stone but tilled ground. Fourth, remember we are embarking on a pastoral mission and not one of war. We don’t take a sword to one we are trying to save but medicine.

Jimbo, I don’t disagree that there are times for very direct confrontation of evil and pointing out that certain acts/attitudes are appropriate. But the conversion of the heart comes from the Holy Spirit. We can only be instruments used by Him. And conversions usually happen over long periods of time and is a building process. My evangelization call (bringing people to Christ) is one of a lifetime. The closer I am to the person, the more effective I can be. And, closeness sometimes requires great patience, gentleness, and diligence.

The Opus Dei chaplain that I reference earlier mentioned it sometimes means just allowing them to see what you have is something he wants and then wait for him to ask you how you get it. This is evidence of the Holy Spirit calling you to be His instrument.

Finally, he asked us to consider which will be more effective with our fallen family members.

“What you are doing is going to send you to Hell.”

" I love you and it pains me deeply to think that we might not spend eternity together. I fear that this sin could lead to your final damnation."

 

[Jimbo2]

*“What you are doing is going to send you to Hell.”

" I love you and it pains me deeply to think that we might not spend eternity together. I fear that this sin could lead to your final damnation."*

Which one of these, according to my definition, is “correction”?

(big false dichotomy alert sounding in the background)

 

[Jimbo2]

And hey, friends, keep those self-righteous PM’s coming, I can’t get enough of them! Maybe if you tell me enough times that my “anger” is indicative of deep-seated spiritual problems, I’ll start believing you and we can all go on retreat together and hold hands and sway.

OTOH, maybe I’m not angry, I’m just a person who has a different, possibly valid viewpoint about Catholic behavior. If I thought the things y’all are accusing St. Francis of are true (I don’t) I could try to start a Franics vs. Athanasius grudge match. However, I don’t think Francis and Athanasius would disagree at all about anything.

 

[dwc]

One thing that strikes me about the self - proclaimed pro-correction types is how they see so much serious sin around them. My life is just not that dramatic. If someone were to confide in me that they were going to have an abortion – well, sure, it’s clearly more charitable to correct than to let her condemn her soul and kill a child. Something similar to that has only happened once in my life. A friend confided she was having an affair with a married man. Again, a very clear situation and I had no problem trying to convince her that she was very wrong and needed to immediately stop (didn’t work, btw. She got pregnant by him and he divorced his wife.)

Aside from that, people that I know aren’t committing serious sin that I see and they aren’t telling me about it. I’m certainly not afraid of confrontation, but I don’t want to misinterpret something and “correct” someone only to be dead wrong. I know my children better than I know any other people on earth, yet I still occasionally misjudge them or their motives. So, some of us who may come across as “afraid” to offend might just not want to wrongly and unfairly confront someone and so wait until we’re more certain it’s sin.

Orion, great post. I’m printing out the part from the Opus Dei priest.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m certainly not afraid of confrontation, but I don’t want to misinterpret something and “correct” someone only to be dead wrong. I know my children better than I know any other people on earth, yet I still occasionally misjudge them or their motives. So, some of us who may come across as “afraid” to offend might just not want to wrongly and unfairly confront someone and so wait until we’re more certain it’s sin.

You don’t run around looking for people to pin the Scarlet Letter on, so you can gloat over them?

Maybe you and I should form a support group, CWRDFHTT* Anonymous.

• Catholics Who Really Don’t Feel Holier Than Thou.

 

[dwc]

Maybe you and I should form a support group, CWRDFHTT* Anonymous.

• Catholics Who Really Don’t Feel Holier Than Thou.

Vern, you can be president, I’ll be vice president. Anyone else want to join our club?

 

[Jimbo2]

I have an example, an anecdote.

I was in a Catechist meeting at the parish, about 20 people were in attendance. Sister Fruit Loop was leading.

Sr. gave us a group activity to do, including some readings, and in a rare flash of orthodoxy, Sr. included a reading about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

One of the Catechists stood and began to preach against the perpetual virginity. He opined that in the original Greek, there was no word for “virgin” and the NT only said that Mary was a “young woman”.

I presume he was mistaking the issue with almah and bethulah in OT Hebrew and confusing it with NT Greek…but really, who knows.

In any case, he let it be known thathe believed neither in the Virgin Birth nor the Perpetual Virginity. He was (and is) engaged in teaching 6th grade CCD.

After he finished his diatribe, I waited a few seconds for sister to step in, but she instead began to proceed with the next section. I stood, interrupted Sr., and refuted the man. The man angrily stormed out.

Sr. took me aside and told me that I was wrong to refute him, that we had to have “respect for others and their theologies”.

I took Sr. before the pastor, the pastor sided w/ Sr. I tried to take Sr. before the Bishop, the Bishop refused to get involved.

I have been afflicted by dozens and dozens of people who have told me that I am “judgmental”, “narrow mided”, “medeival”, “traditionalist” and many other things because of this. Some have told me that I did not show love to the man.

I say, hogwash. There were 18 other catechists in that room whose souls are on the line when they teach the youth. We cannot let such craziness go unchallenged.

We need backbone.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you can be president, I’ll be vice president. Anyone else want to join our club?

We’re gonna need a lot of vice presidents, because we’ll be dealing gently with a lot of vice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have an example, an anecdote.

I was in a Catechist meeting at the parish, about 20 people were in attendance. Sister Fruit Loop was leading.

Sr. gave us a group activity to do, including some readings, and in a rare flash of orthodoxy, Sr. included a reading about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

One of the Catechists stood and began to preach against the perpetual virginity. He opined that in the original Greek, there was no word for “virgin” and the NT only said that Mary was a “young woman”.

I presume he was mistaking the issue with almah and bethulah in OT Hebrew and confusing it with NT Greek…but really, who knows.

In any case, he let it be known thathe believed neither in the Virgin Birth nor the Perpetual Virginity. He was (and is) engaged in teaching 6th grade CCD.

After he finished his diatribe, I waited a few seconds for sister to step in, but she instead began to proceed with the next section. I stood, interrupted Sr., and refuted the man. The man angrily stormed out.

Sr. took me aside and told me that I was wrong to refute him, that we had to have “respect for others and their theologies”.

I took Sr. before the pastor, the pastor sided w/ Sr. I tried to take Sr. before the Bishop, the Bishop refused to get involved.

I have been afflicted by dozens and dozens of people who have told me that I am “judgmental”, “narrow mided”, “medeival”, “traditionalist” and many other things because of this. Some have told me that I did not show love to the man.

I say, hogwash. There were 18 other catechists in that room whose souls are on the line when they teach the youth. We cannot let such craziness go unchallenged.

We need backbone.

And the moral of this story is, Confrontation often doesn’t work.

Can you think of a different approach you could have tried that might have succeeded?

 

[Jimbo2]

I took Vern off of “ignore” and read his post. I’m glad I did. It gives me a chance to get at the heart of the matter.

Can you think of a different approach you could have tried that might have succeeded?

I did succeed. The 18 got to hear the teaching of the Church defended, they are less likely to fall for such rubbish the future. They, and the children they teach, will benefit.

The heretic is not my concern. He has chosen his side, formal heresy. Sister has chosen to cooperate with formal heresy. The Bishop has chosen cowardice. They have all made their choices.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I took Vern off of “ignore” and read his post. I’m glad I did. It gives me a chance to get at the heart of the matter.

Can you think of a different approach you could have tried that might have succeeded?

I did succeed. The 18 got to hear the teaching of the Church defended, they are less likely to fall for such rubbish the future. They, and the children they teach, will benefit.

Hearing is one thing, being convinced is another. Are they all staunchly on your side now, rejecting the “heretic,” the sister and the pastor?

I
The heretic is not my concern. He has chosen his side, formal heresy. Sister has chosen to cooperate with formal heresy. The Bishop has chosen cowardice. They have all made their choices.

And you can’t think of anything you could do to win them over?

 

[dwc]

I did succeed. The 18 got to hear the teaching of the Church defended, they are less likely to fall for such rubbish the future.

Oh, they heard you alright, but did they listen? Were they persuaded that you were right? In order to persuade and convince people one must first have their respect. You interrupted the leader of the group (Sister “Frootloop” as you call her), then you berated one of their peers in what appears to be a publicly humiliating manner. Neither your priest nor your bishop sided with you. Think maybe the priest at least had some feedback from the other people there? I do.

My belief is the only message you got through to this group of catechists had nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity but a lot to do with you.

 

[Jimbo2]

Hearing is one thing, being convinced is another. Are they all staunchly on your side now, rejecting the “heretic,” the sister and the pastor?

I am not reposnsible for their decisions, only my own.

And you can’t think of anything you could do to win them over?

I think your entire premise is flawed. We are not used car salesmen. We have to hold clerics accoutable to the vows they have taken. Catechists cannot be allowed to teach heresy in CCD clasrooms. Good lay Catholics are allowed to be outraged at such things, and should be. All of this overweening sweetness has not accomplished anything in the Church, it has simply given us a Church full of weenies who get walked on by heretics.

I note with some irony that Catholic Answers has been trashed for being too strident on numerous occasions…

 

[Jimbo2]

My belief is the only message you got through to this group of catechists had nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity but a lot to do with you.

Virtue is vice and vice is virute. What was that about Satan taking over?

 

[dwc]

Uh, I meant that you were rude and disrespectful in manner. Are these virtues now?

 

[Jimbo2]

No, I meant cowardice and tolerating heresy are supposed to be vices.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I took Vern off of “ignore” and read his post. I’m glad I did. It gives me a chance to get at the heart of the matter.

Can you think of a different approach you could have tried that might have succeeded?

I did succeed. The 18 got to hear the teaching of the Church defended, they are less likely to fall for such rubbish the future. They, and the children they teach, will benefit.

The heretic is not my concern. He has chosen his side, formal heresy. Sister has chosen to cooperate with formal heresy. The Bishop has chosen cowardice. They have all made their choices.

Sounds to me like you did the right thing. This man has no right to his theologies if he is teaching for the parish CCD program. If he calls himself roman catholic there is only one theology. He can’t insert and delete parts he doesn’t like.

Likely your pastor is short handed on teachers and is in a pickle. Still, he should know better.

I’ve had similar encounters with people during our weekly meetings where we are learning a deeper love of the Eucharistic. Someone always wants to introduce their “theology”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hearing is one thing, being convinced is another. Are they all staunchly on your side now, rejecting the “heretic,” the sister and the pastor?

I am not reposnsible for their decisions, only my own.

Then why did you step in at all? What was your intention?

If through your actions you drove them away, instead of attracting them to the truth, you cannot wash your hands like Pilate.

And you can’t think of anything you could do to win them over?

I think your entire premise is flawed. We are not used car salesmen. We have to hold clerics accoutable to the vows they have taken.

That’s what Bishops are for – to hold clerics accountable.

Catechists cannot be allowed to teach heresy in CCD clasrooms.

And did you succeed in winning over everyone to your position?

If not, can you think of some other way you could have accomplished what you set out to do?

Good lay Catholics are allowed to be outraged at such things, and should be. All of this overweening sweetness has not accomplished anything in the Church, it has simply given us a Church full of weenies who get walked on by heretics.

But did you** succeed** in winning over everyone to your position?

I note with some irony that Catholic Answers has been trashed for being too strident on numerous occasions…

Trashed by whom?

 

[Orionthehunter]

And hey, friends, keep those self-righteous PM’s coming, I can’t get enough of them! Maybe if you tell me enough times that my “anger” is indicative of deep-seated spiritual problems, I’ll start believing you and we can all go on retreat together and hold hands and sway.

OTOH, maybe I’m not angry, I’m just a person who has a different, possibly valid viewpoint about Catholic behavior. If I thought the things y’all are accusing St. Francis of are true (I don’t) I could try to start a Franics vs. Athanasius grudge match. However, I don’t think Francis and Athanasius would disagree at all about anything.

Jimbo, maybe they are just in private trying to practice what you are preaching- Moral correction.

In another post, you tell us an anecdote where you confronted one espousing a view contrary to a Doctrine of the Church.

I hate to keep referring to St. Francis* but he is the person given a great deal of credit for rebuilding the Church at the a time of crisis (somethign that you claim is the situation today). One of his teachings was that to love the Eucharist and by extention the Church was to always love and respect the Priests (even the errant ones) and to always show that love by our words and action.

While not entirely applicable as nuns are consecrated (not ordained), there is an element of applicability to nuns. Where is the charity in referring to her as “Sr. Fruit Loop”?

*On a side note, St. Francis was not a Priest.

Jimbo, if your tone and attitude when you rose up in confrontation was similar to the way you have characterized those on this thread who have tried to temper your view toward “pacifists” or explain how they see other means of correction can be effective and appropriate in certain situations and for them personally, I am not surprised that your correct message was overshadowed by your delivery. Note what was bolded below.

Additionally, to address too things Sr. said to you:

1. respect others: This is exactly what it means to have charity. Note 1822 in the Catechism says “Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.”
2. respect their theologies: We are obligated to not agree with errant theologies. In fact, there are times, places, means, and ways to express the errancy of wrong teaching. But similar to how our condemnation of another’s sin can boil over to a condemnation of the person, condemnation of a person’s beliefs can boil over to a condemnation of the person. Your exact words were that you rose and “refuted the man.” This belies an attitude that you made it personal. Your delivery overshadowed the message.

A few years ago, I was on the RCIA team. For a couple of months, our pastor was on a 90 day sabbatical to learn spiritual direction and how to direct Ignatian retreats. Because the substitute Priest was an older retired Priest w/ limited energy and RCIA was on Sunday nights, the team had to do the teaching. One time there was a night where a fellow team member didn’t get a few matters exactly right. Afterward, we discussed it with her and she was convinced she had it right so we went to the substitute Priest who in private illuminated us all (none of us were exactly right). The next week, Father came by to clarify the particular teaching.

My point is that nobody was confronted or admonished in public and the RCIA class still got the right lessen (just a week later). If the “anecdote” you mentioned had been handled with first a presumption of charity and not a resort to repudiation and public admonishment, I think you might have found more support with the Pastor, understanding from the Sister, respect from the class, and relationship with the man with the errant theology.

From the Catechism:

1889 Without the help of grace, men would not know how “to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse.” (see CC25) This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of justice, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.”

CC 25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:

The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My belief is the only message you got through to this group of catechists had nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity but a lot to do with you.

Virtue is vice and vice is virute. What was that about Satan taking over?

Have you considred that if you “turned people off” you may well be acting as his agent?