D
- Status
S
strugglingalong
Guest
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Well, hasn’t this turned into quite the little discussion! 
It certainly is interesting to read the wide breadth of opinions.
I understand the whole “tough love” / turning tables over / brood of vipers type of thing. But that does not mean there is no wrong way to speak the truth. I think that being blunt can be taken too far. Whether that occurred in this case, I cannot say as I was not there. Perhaps the priest’s technique would have been more appropriate had he been addressing a known pro-choice Catholic audience?
Here’s a question to ponder. Have you, or anyone you’ve ever known, been converted based on the overtly harsh speaking of a Catholic? In other words, have you ever witnessed the “tough love” strategy actually work? I myself have never seen it, so I’d be very interested to hear feedback. As a matter of fact, don’t answer here. I’ll start another thread on it.
It certainly is interesting to read the wide breadth of opinions.I understand the whole “tough love” / turning tables over / brood of vipers type of thing. But that does not mean there is no wrong way to speak the truth. I think that being blunt can be taken too far. Whether that occurred in this case, I cannot say as I was not there. Perhaps the priest’s technique would have been more appropriate had he been addressing a known pro-choice Catholic audience?
Here’s a question to ponder. Have you, or anyone you’ve ever known, been converted based on the overtly harsh speaking of a Catholic? In other words, have you ever witnessed the “tough love” strategy actually work? I myself have never seen it, so I’d be very interested to hear feedback. As a matter of fact, don’t answer here. I’ll start another thread on it.
F
fix
Guest
But, you seem impute such an attitude to another. We have no way of knowing his heart. His words are another matter.
I cannot judge his heart. His words, as reported, are not uncharitable.
F
fix
Guest
I want to provide some thoughts. We are talking about a priest, during mass, addressing Catholics.Here’s a question to ponder. Have you, or anyone you’ve ever known, been converted based on the overtly harsh speaking of a Catholic? In other words, have you ever witnessed the “tough love” strategy actually work? I myself have never seen it, so I’d be very interested to hear feedback. As a matter of fact, don’t answer here. I’ll start another thread on it.
We are not talking about someone going up to a stranger and yelling at them that they are going to hell and should never step foot in a Church.
Is it really uncharitable, or wildly over the top, to reinforce what is common Church teaching? I mean what is next getting offended when we hear at mass that we must forgive our enemies?
Is the problem here really that one priest was clear about the seriousness of grave sin or is it that we simply refuse to hear what we need to hear?
C
CradleCath
Guest
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I see you point, but the OP also mentioned that the priest publicly criticized those who expressed their concerns to the bishop during his homily. Regardless of whether the priest is right or wrong, or whether his tone was or was not too harsh, that strikes me as bad form and somewhat uncharitable. I can understand people being very hurt and turned off by such a thing, and I can’t see it winning anyone to the faith.
L
Lee_M
Guest
As some of the posters on here can back me up on this, I would not be labeled a traditionalist when it comes to the Holy Mass. I love the Norvus Ordo when done reverently.
However, WE NEED MORE PRIESTS LIKE THIS ONE! There are millions of babies murdered each year. It is the biggest holocaust in history. This has been going on legally since 1973. That is 35 years for priests to be polite and cuddly and tell us softly that we shouldn’t be supporting pro-abortion politicians. So while these priests are being polite and cuddly, there are more babies being killed everyday. It is time for some priests to have the strength and courage to get MAD and tell the people who support these politicians that they are not going to sit back and take it anymore. The “polite” messages are not sinking in.
We have this traditional priest in our area who is being put to the test. The parish has lost approximately 30% of its members. People are writing to the bishop and complaining and you hear all kinds of gossip about him. When I asked someone who attended the parish why they don’t like the priest, they respond, “He is too serious during Mass”.
Others have complained because he won’t allow them to play Amazing Grace at a funeral Mass. Some have complained that he won’t let a lay person give a eulogy during the Mass or he won’t let them pick their “own” reading out of the bible. These people that I have talked with are not converts. They are Cradle Catholics. If they would listen to him or doing any research at all, they would know that Amazing Grace shouldn’t be in a Catholic Mass because it’s lyrics doesn’t reflect Catholic doctrine. They should know that lay people don’t give eulogies during the Mass. They believe that the Church should be serving “THEM” instead of them serving God. I haven’t heard one legitimate complaint about this priest yet he is being raked over the coals because he is traditional. People don’t like him preaching about abortion or birth control. They wan’t a priest who is like the majority of the other priests who avoid these subjects. I just pray to God that he sends us more priests like the OP has and then maybe it will sink into these people’s heads that they shouldn’t support these pro-abortion politicians. When enough Catholics quit supporting these politicians, something will be done.
However, WE NEED MORE PRIESTS LIKE THIS ONE! There are millions of babies murdered each year. It is the biggest holocaust in history. This has been going on legally since 1973. That is 35 years for priests to be polite and cuddly and tell us softly that we shouldn’t be supporting pro-abortion politicians. So while these priests are being polite and cuddly, there are more babies being killed everyday. It is time for some priests to have the strength and courage to get MAD and tell the people who support these politicians that they are not going to sit back and take it anymore. The “polite” messages are not sinking in.
We have this traditional priest in our area who is being put to the test. The parish has lost approximately 30% of its members. People are writing to the bishop and complaining and you hear all kinds of gossip about him. When I asked someone who attended the parish why they don’t like the priest, they respond, “He is too serious during Mass”.
Others have complained because he won’t allow them to play Amazing Grace at a funeral Mass. Some have complained that he won’t let a lay person give a eulogy during the Mass or he won’t let them pick their “own” reading out of the bible. These people that I have talked with are not converts. They are Cradle Catholics. If they would listen to him or doing any research at all, they would know that Amazing Grace shouldn’t be in a Catholic Mass because it’s lyrics doesn’t reflect Catholic doctrine. They should know that lay people don’t give eulogies during the Mass. They believe that the Church should be serving “THEM” instead of them serving God. I haven’t heard one legitimate complaint about this priest yet he is being raked over the coals because he is traditional. People don’t like him preaching about abortion or birth control. They wan’t a priest who is like the majority of the other priests who avoid these subjects. I just pray to God that he sends us more priests like the OP has and then maybe it will sink into these people’s heads that they shouldn’t support these pro-abortion politicians. When enough Catholics quit supporting these politicians, something will be done.
F
fix
Guest
Ok, if that is reported accurately then I would agree with you. The focus seems to be that he said they are unwelcome at the communion rail. The OP takes great offense at that. My point is they are unwelcome there as the Church states. They should be denied communion. Not simply as a punishment but as an act of charity, true charity, that they will reform their lives.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I find it very interesting the way some will find certain quotes, taken out of context, to support things that are totally contrary to the message Jesus spoke. Whe our Protestant brothers and sisters do such thing we call it “prooftexting”, but when we do it…
By his very actions of “dining with sinners and tax collectors”, Jesus showed how he felt sinners need to be treated. “Only the sick need a physician.” Unfortunately we seem to have a whole bunch of people who don’t see themselves as sick–*a la *the Pharisee and Tax Collector parable–but are more than willing to judge sickness on others and decide who is “worthy enough” to come to the table. The pure and simple fact is that there is not a single one of us who is worthy beyond God calling us worthy.
Then there is the whole overturning the tables of the moneychangers story, which is being used here to justify “tough love.” Balderdash! It is quite clear that people just don’t get why Jesus did this. It was purely and simply because there was a group of the “righteous” putting obstacles in the way of people who desired to seek God. Essentially “charging” people for access like a tollbooth. THAT is what Jesus would not tolerate.
Quite likely it would be these priests who think they can send people away from God until the pass the worthiness test whom Jesus would be chasing out of the temple. The righteous ones thinking they get to decide which of God’s people get to come to Him. I have no doubt they would be among those criticizing Jesus for eating with the sinners.
“He loved us while we were yet in sin.” We need to get past this idea that God thinks like we do. God loves us until we are capable of loving Him back, because we don’t know how to love Him. Only the Spirit in each of us knows how to love God and thus prays for us with “inexpressable groanings” because we can’t begin to know how.
Yes, I am one of those who was driven away for decades by people like this. I can only give eternal thanks to God that I finally encountered some who DID mirror His face in a way that I could come in gratitude and repentance. Had this crowd been around when I started to come back there is no question I would have bolted for good.
Should one receive communion in a state of mortal sin? Of course not. But mortal sin requires full consent and full knowledge. Many have not come to that point for whatever reason, though their actions may indeed be grave. MAN cannot judge mortal sin as he cannot know the heart of another. That is between each individual and God.
Peace,
By his very actions of “dining with sinners and tax collectors”, Jesus showed how he felt sinners need to be treated. “Only the sick need a physician.” Unfortunately we seem to have a whole bunch of people who don’t see themselves as sick–*a la *the Pharisee and Tax Collector parable–but are more than willing to judge sickness on others and decide who is “worthy enough” to come to the table. The pure and simple fact is that there is not a single one of us who is worthy beyond God calling us worthy.
Then there is the whole overturning the tables of the moneychangers story, which is being used here to justify “tough love.” Balderdash! It is quite clear that people just don’t get why Jesus did this. It was purely and simply because there was a group of the “righteous” putting obstacles in the way of people who desired to seek God. Essentially “charging” people for access like a tollbooth. THAT is what Jesus would not tolerate.
Quite likely it would be these priests who think they can send people away from God until the pass the worthiness test whom Jesus would be chasing out of the temple. The righteous ones thinking they get to decide which of God’s people get to come to Him. I have no doubt they would be among those criticizing Jesus for eating with the sinners.
“He loved us while we were yet in sin.” We need to get past this idea that God thinks like we do. God loves us until we are capable of loving Him back, because we don’t know how to love Him. Only the Spirit in each of us knows how to love God and thus prays for us with “inexpressable groanings” because we can’t begin to know how.
Yes, I am one of those who was driven away for decades by people like this. I can only give eternal thanks to God that I finally encountered some who DID mirror His face in a way that I could come in gratitude and repentance. Had this crowd been around when I started to come back there is no question I would have bolted for good.
Should one receive communion in a state of mortal sin? Of course not. But mortal sin requires full consent and full knowledge. Many have not come to that point for whatever reason, though their actions may indeed be grave. MAN cannot judge mortal sin as he cannot know the heart of another. That is between each individual and God.
Peace,
W
wynnejj
Guest
To many who have family members who behave very - aye, criminally - badly, it is called “Tough Love”. Not being strict is called “coddling” and “enabling”. “Tough Love” in a house that has well-defined rules of behaviour only works if the integrity of the house and its teaching are consistent and true. It fails when the house’s teachings are inconsistent and in error. When inconsistencies and errors are recognizable by the one being chastised, the hypocrisy is an obstacle to helping the offender to understand his offense. “Tough Love” should be used sparingly and for the more serious offenses that are intolerable. Coddling and enabling the crime of abortion destroys the truth and integrity of the house. It must be considered intolerable, IMO.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I agree with that. I credit it with too much singing of “All Are Welcome” in our parishes. We’ve sung it so much we’ve started to believe that it’s Church doctrine. And don’t even get me started on pro multis!
I guess I can see both sides. I can imagine someone saying “All are not welcome” in a way that is unnecessarily alienating and off-putting. But I can imagine (and, actually, have heard it said) in a way that is honest, yet not alienating. I guess it just goes to show the limitations of commenting on situations where we were not ourselves present.
G
GladCatholic
Guest
Well, I’d have to say when these parishioners successfully have this priest thrown out of the parish, send him on over to my diocese…oh, that’s right–our bishop is sending orthodox teach-the-truth-as-it-is priests overseas and out to the boondocks.
Glad
Glad
F
fix
Guest
Right, as I write this I am thinking about all the posts I have read at this site where someone will quote a Vatican document and then someone will mention hate. As in simply mentioning the bible, or CCC, or some such thing is hateful.I agree with that. I credit it with too much singing of “All Are Welcome” in our parishes. We’ve sung it so much we’ve started to believe that it’s Church doctrine. And don’t even get me started on pro multis!
I guess I can see both sides. I can imagine someone saying “All are not welcome” in a way that is unnecessarily alienating and off-putting. But I can imagine (and, actually, have heard it said) in a way that is honest, yet not alienating. I guess it just goes to show the limitations of commenting on situations where we were not ourselves present.
That is why I think cases like the OP *could be *similar. I think each of us is eager to find offense especially when it comes to certain moral issues. We really do not want to face the fact we may need to change the way we live.
To be sure, we should always act in love. The problem is every case is different. People perceive reality differently. People have different sensibilities.
Just see the threads about Fr. Corapi as one example. There are people who claimed to be “turned off” simply by the way he speaks.
W
wynnejj
Guest
A very valid point, the distinction between grave sin and mortal sin. Kind of like the distinction between sound and hearing. Kind of like “you’re not welcome” and “you’re not welcome at the communion rails”. One says you’re not worthy EVER, the other says you’re not worthy WHEN. Sounds like an example of proper teaching authority to me, IMO.
E
estesbob
Guest
I wish all priests had this much concern for the souls of their parishioners. Your are blessed to have him.
E
estesbob
Guest
I guarantee you he would be welcome in the diocese of Denver!
D
dang71
Guest
saying “you are not welcome here” shows a bad attitude, and is incorrect. as i have written before, all are welcome, but some must get back into a state of grace before receiving the Eucharist. being in a state of sin does not mean someone is “uninvited” or unwelcome, it does mean, however, that there is a serious situation that needs to be corrected.
if instead the priest had said “if you support abortion (or are in a state of sin), please come see me BEFORE you decide to receive the Eucharist”, then there would not be any issue here. the priest would not be compromising any church doctrine, but would be much more charitable, and therefore much more likely to win over those who are in a state of sin.
i think many people are confusing the issue. the priest is correct in saying those in a state of sin should not receive communion. he is incorrect in saying they are not welcome, and he is incorrect in taking the strong-arm attitude.
if instead the priest had said “if you support abortion (or are in a state of sin), please come see me BEFORE you decide to receive the Eucharist”, then there would not be any issue here. the priest would not be compromising any church doctrine, but would be much more charitable, and therefore much more likely to win over those who are in a state of sin.
i think many people are confusing the issue. the priest is correct in saying those in a state of sin should not receive communion. he is incorrect in saying they are not welcome, and he is incorrect in taking the strong-arm attitude.
E
estesbob
Guest
He said they’re not welcome at the communion rail. That seems be totally in line with what you’re saying
- Status