Priests criticizing other faiths during homily

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruised_Reed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gotta be honest…we didn’t talk to him. At another point we were able to voice our concerns in an anonymous questionnaire. For some reason, we feel our family has found the microscope in that church (we’re guessing for voicing concerns over their R.E. program and mixed families, goals of the program for families like us, etc…) so we didn’t want to put ourselves in the spotlight anymore than we feel (felt) we were at the time.
Understandable. It would be your wife, the Catholic, who’d have to feel comfortable doing it. It is kind of like correcting your in-laws. It is always better to let the child of the parents be the one to open their eyes. Many devout Catholics hesitate to give their pastor any bad feedback. This probably isn’t a bad thing; most pastors have just plenty of the rest of us! 😉
 
I’ve heard this at just every church except Roman Catholic. One Baptist preacher, in fact, talked about urgent missionary work he was undertaking in Quebec because, “that province is mainly Catholic”.
 
I was told by the OP to “stay on topic”, but yeah, your response is a good one. Thnx
 
But why does a priest even need to discuss a different religion during a homily? If you have to point out the errors of other religions to build up your own then it sounds to me like something is lacking in your religion. It’s a weak position to work from. And there should never be a reason to disparage another faith tradition from the pulpit.
 
Homilies, while about Scripture, sometimes also include discussions of the life of the saint being memorialized at the Mass, or discussions of the feast being celebrated. Sometimes non-Catholic religions are naturally a part of these discussions. It’s kind of hard to have a discussion of St. Thomas More or Our Lady of Walsingham without at least touching on the errors of the Anglicans.
 
Yep last time I was in a Catholic Church. Got up walked out. I will not be referred to as an illegitimate child of a Lutheran Minister.
 
Those seem like valid reasons, it’s a part of history. It could be abused to make pointed comments. A preacher at non-Catholic church could bring up history in which Catholics behaved badly. Without nuance it could reinforce prejudice.The attitude and approach of the priest/preacher would matter a lot.
 
I remembered this morning why this stuck so firmly in my mind. When I was in high school the youth minister told me that priests do not or will not disparage other religions, like this was something reliable. I have believed it because with one exception I had never heard a priest bring up other beliefs and never pointed remarks. At the time (high school) we had two priests who were good homilists and were also approachable so when I was challenged by non-Catholic friends and classmates I was directed to ask one of them for answers. I was learning and engaging in apologetics before I knew what that was. But talking negatively, making gotcha statements, was not the approach modeled or practiced. That is why it’s surprising when I heard it in sermons at non-Catholic churches or that people had heard this kind of thing from priests during the homily. To reiterate, when I went to a service with a non- Catholic friend the pastor giving the sermon made a passing remark about “those Catholics” in a tone like “those poor, addled Catholics.” If he had said something specific I could have asked someone for the Catholic teaching. I’m asking those who think it’s okay to preach negatively if it was okay what that pastor said because that is the scenario I’m focusing on.
 
Holy Scripture actually talks about having nothing to do with heretics and schismatics. It talks about specific errors of heretics. So as far the Catholic Faith it is part of it to talk about the dangers of error.

People need to be warned of error by knowing the dangers of error. I mean doctors don’t just tell people not to smoke. They also tell them why they shouldn’t. They point out the danger of it.
 
But do we need to make remarks about other faiths?
To reiterate, when I went to a service with a non- Catholic friend the pastor giving the sermon made a passing remark about “those Catholics” in a tone like “those poor, addled Catholics.” If he had said something specific I could have asked someone for the Catholic teaching. I’m asking those who think it’s okay to preach negatively if it was okay what that pastor said because that is the scenario I’m focusing on.
Was that acceptable? That is what I’m trying to discuss here and what I described in my OP.
 
Priests are shepherds. They lead the flock. The homilies are also words of guiding.
If a priest sees one or other religion leading his flock into the pit he is obliged to point out the weakness in that religion and explain it. Bashing is just calling out names. Criticizing is another.
The only religion a priest cannot criticize is their own.
I don’t think people have a problem with hearing criticizing during homilies unless it somewhat makes them feel guilty. Guilt is not the end of the world. Faith is not parallel to conscience but has to aim higher without avoiding conscience.
If the critics the priest brings are well documented and of usage for his community they are all welcome imho.
The example you used is not a critic, is a simple silly comment meaning …what? A critic doesn’t leave you with sand in your eyes but makes you think things through.
 
I remembered this morning why this stuck so firmly in my mind. When I was in high school the youth minister told me that priests do not or will not disparage other religions, like this was something reliable. I have believed it because with one exception I had never heard a priest bring up other beliefs and never pointed remarks. At the time (high school) we had two priests who were good homilists and were also approachable so when I was challenged by non-Catholic friends and classmates I was directed to ask one of them for answers. I was learning and engaging in apologetics before I knew what that was. But talking negatively, making gotcha statements, was not the approach modeled or practiced. That is why it’s surprising when I heard it in sermons at non-Catholic churches or that people had heard this kind of thing from priests during the homily. To reiterate, when I went to a service with a non- Catholic friend the pastor giving the sermon made a passing remark about “those Catholics” in a tone like “those poor, addled Catholics.” If he had said something specific I could have asked someone for the Catholic teaching. I’m asking those who think it’s okay to preach negatively if it was okay what that pastor said because that is the scenario I’m focusing on.
First off, a Catholic priest can rely on the truth that there isn’t any wrong-headed idea that some denomination is banking on that no one who has stayed in the pews could not have considered as a real possibility. We are a very big denomination, people do stay out of inertia even if they think the Church is wrong, and a homilist is, after all, preaching to those present.

Secondly, there are some preachers who have “little man” syndrome, by which they feel a need to put down denominations they feel they’re competing with–not just the wrong-headed idea, but the people who hold it. I have this suspicion that this is fairly rare generally and not confined to any certain denomination.

No, I don’t think it is a good idea to put down a denomination when the intention is to correct a misguided idea that not only does not represent the entirety of the denomination but which isn’t held by members of that denomination alone. Most homilists seem to operate on that principle.

I did hear a very weird homily once in which a deacon who’d served in the military talked about the Chinese military as having very little disregard for human life because they sent soldiers out to fight without guns when it was certain they were going to be mowed down by American weaponry. I thought that was a strange lesson to have taken away from that horrible experience. I don’t think he was particularly experienced as a homilist, though.
 
If a priest sees one or other religion leading his flock into the pit he is obliged to point out the weakness in that religion and explain it.
This is one senario I’ve considered because it would be vital to keep the parish from losing people over the newest fad church. But what is the best way to handle this. I read an article either Catholic Answers or Envoy magazine about a new non-Catholic church springing up and some of Catholics started going there. The pastor at the Catholic church got permission from the bishop to use “teaching homilies” (I think that’s what they were called). For several weeks the priest(s) homilies were a combination of catechesis and apologetics, covering questions that had started to surface because of this new church. I don’t know if the other church was mentioned but it wouldn’t need to be.
Bashing is just calling out names. Criticizing is another.
Yes, and it’s obvious I failed to make that distinction clear.
I don’t think people have a problem with hearing criticizing during homilies unless it somewhat makes them feel guilty. Guilt is not the end of the world. Faith is not parallel to conscience but has to aim higher without avoiding conscience.
Feeling convicted as the result of a homily should be expected. A priest at a conference said that priests should be lions at the pulpit and lambs in the confessional.
If the critics the priest brings are well documented and of usage for his community they are all welcome imho.
The example you used is not a critic, is a simple silly comment meaning …what? A critic doesn’t leave you with sand in your eyes but makes you think things through.
Argh… I’m having a hard time articulating an idea here. I’ll come back to this.
 
It’s been the opposite in my parish. The pastor has–on occasion–drawn inspiration from the signage at a storefront Baptist church located about two miles due West of the parish. It was once an ice cream parlor, he told us .
 
don’t know if the other church was mentioned but it wouldn’t need to be.
My parish priest spoke against hillianism on the second day of Easter. He did not mention which church but considered since the JW are usually at some street’s corner and they are hillianist he was addressing a social issue even if I wasn’t affected by it.
However he spoke directly against Hinduism and Buddhism as not being the ways Christ described. He said Zen is not revelation, is not the way to Heaven.
Was he milder with a neo-protestant denomination than with a non-Christian religion? Definitely. But as to why or whether he was wrong to do so I do not know. It is HIS job to figure it out. I hope and I pretty much believe it too that his charisma lead him to it. If I believe a priest misleads then why go to his church? As long as I am there I try to think what is his point considering it is valid.
If a priest ever encouraged action against the believers of some religion or denomination, I would change parish and/or pray at home exclusively.
Attacking ideas is what a priest sometimes must do. If he never does it, this also raises a question in my head.
Attacking people or encouraging to he must never do, no matter what some people say. That would be when it is closing time for me and the home altar will do should this ever happen.
 
My daughter dated a Jew and the guys in his fraternity used to tell him, “you killed my Savior.”
Mom? 🤣 This happened to my sister too… 🤣 The relationship did not survive btw, my sister kept thinking “you killed my God” 🤣 Shame…he was a nice chap too.

To the OP. No, my parish priest actually makes us pray for other religions. 😊
 
Mom? 🤣 This happened to my sister too… 🤣 The relationship did not survive btw, my sister kept thinking “you killed my God” 🤣 Shame…he was a nice chap too.
Maybe it’s that my experience is post Vatican II but I’ve never understood that. In fact the scenes with the Jews always remind me of my own responsibility for Christ’s suffering and death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top