you are not welcome here...

[Jacob_Fenton]

Hi Jacob,

You may have a point - allowing the heat of debate to descend to the point of uncharitability is not a good thing.

But, how does one react to someone who is willing to publicly argue that Church teaching should simply be ignored? Who makes completely silly and offensive comments that those who actually pay attention to, believe, and live by the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life are somehow backwards, or confused? Or that this is merely ‘politics’? These are the things that the King said. Please read his original post.

The Pope has made it clear that those who obstinately declare they are in favor of legal abortion cannot receive Holy Communion. It is a clear teaching - and one that is completely in harmony with Tradition going back all the way to the Didache.

I have, admittedly, little patience for Catholics who publicly flout Church teaching - I’m talking about posters here.

I agree with you a thousand percent. Absolutely I do! However, I simply think we should find a kinder way to get our message across to the OP. That’s my opinion though. Where I think I could justify a short tone or a lack of patience is with those who already know the faith (and by that I mean who knows if the OP is in line with the faith). But even then, do we really need fifteen pages to explain this or that to him? Does everyone need to repeat the same things?

Abortion is a sin? Absolutely! And Dang (the OP) admitted that a few posts ago.

Others, in their defense have said that they don’t know what the priest really did to drive others away and assume it was something conservative that drove liberals away. How do I know? I don’t. Instead the assumptions are that Deng is liberal. How do I know?! I don’t.

Okay, regardless of what the OP believes, and/or what the priest says, maybe we could focus on how to put the Christian faith in action.

So, we have established that Church has always held to the fact that abortion is the sinful act of murdering an unborn infant (and many proof texts have been cited on here by people more learned than me).

From this point, how can we equip the OP to share this message with others in his parish who would oppose this teaching?

And lastly, how can we encourage the OP to meet and get to know his new pastor?

Guys, I think if we can come together on this, we can send him away with a strengthening message for his church members who have fallen away, and good confidence in meeting and understanding his new pastor.

 

[Freshman88]

Who said she was?

The person who supports abortion must believe that abortion is okay, whereas the adulterer in the passage knew that their actions were wrong.

The adulterer needed forgiveness because she realized that her own life was gravely immoral whereas an abortion supporter needs correction as well as forgiveness because they still believe that their choices are moral. If they don’t realize how detrimental support of abortion can be, then they need to be admonished so that they can pulled out of their sin.

 

[CradleCath]

The way I see it is that we’ve been way too lax, way too long in the area of abortion. Our country went from a culture of life to one that actually debates whether or not a woman’s right to choose extends to the born alive aborted child–and babies are dying unheld and uncomforted in buckets all over this country.

Barbaric is too mild a description. If this were being done to puppies, PETA would be all over it.

 

[fix]

My first Pastor wasn’t liked and being a new Catholic I took a mental note of those who thought his attitude etc. wasn’t appropriate. I heard him bashed on more than one occasion. I loved him for his priesthood and admired his guts and zeal. I wish he were still my Pastor. I also took mental notes on the “politics” and opinions about Church laws of those who I found bashing him. I imagine wherever he is he’s speaking very loudly against today’s evils.

I think your post was great. It illustrates my point earlier that we are talking about Church going Catholics, not folks out there some place with no knowledge of the faith.

The first reponse is to say hey the mean priest was too harsh. Instead of thinking the best and seeking to see how we each can reform ourselves we seek out how to blame another.

We want to focus on “tone” because it seems mostly about us and what we want rather than focusing on what we should be focusing on.

 

[RyanML]

The person who supports abortion must believe that abortion is okay, whereas the adulterer in the passage knew that their actions were wrong.

The adulterer needed forgiveness because she realized that her own life was gravely immoral whereas an abortion supporter needs correction as well as forgiveness because they still believe that their choices are moral. If they don’t realize how detrimental support of abortion can be, then they need to be admonished so that they can pulled out of their sin.

I don’t understand why there is disagreement. All I meant to say was that we can admonish sinners (are we not all sinners?) in a way that does not have to come across as condescending or angry. The point is not whether the woman caught in adultery knew what she was doing was wrong, but whether she should receive the just punishment of death according to the law, or be received with compassion and mercy. Our Lord chose the latter. If someone thinks that abortion is okay, they probably need to be educated. They may be ignorant of all sides of the issue. If they persist then they should be admonished, but I believe that can be done in a way that invites them to consider the truth, not turn them away from it. If they still refuse, then pray for them. Just my :twocents:

 

[BSHoop96]

Hi Jacob,

You may have a point - allowing the heat of debate to descend to the point of uncharitability is not a good thing.

But, how does one react to someone who is willing to publicly argue that Church teaching should simply be ignored? Who makes completely silly and offensive comments that those who actually pay attention to, believe, and live by the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life are somehow backwards, or confused? Or that this is merely ‘politics’? These are the things that the King said. Please read his original post.

The Pope has made it clear that those who obstinately declare they are in favor of legal abortion cannot receive Holy Communion. It is a clear teaching - and one that is completely in harmony with Tradition going back all the way to the Didache.

I have, admittedly, little patience for Catholics who publicly flout Church teaching - I’m talking about posters here.

Paul…back up a little. Are you talking about the OP? In fairness, the OP never supported abortion. He has even said that people who support abortion should not be receiving communion. His complaint was that he thought the manner in which the priest handled the situation was uncharitable and would alienate people. Now I don’t agree with that but in fairness let’s not put words in the mouth of the OP.

I am frustrated with him myself because he says things like “the priest made changes and alienated people” and then he won’t provide any examples, however, that does not mean he supports abortion.

 

[dang71]

I don’t understand why there is disagreement. All I meant to say was that we can admonish sinners (are we not all sinners?) in a way that does not have to come across as condescending or angry. The point is not whether the woman caught in adultery knew what she was doing was wrong, but whether she should receive the just punishment of death according to the law, or be received with compassion and mercy. Our Lord chose the latter. If someone thinks that abortion is okay, they probably need to be educated. They may be ignorant of all sides of the issue. If they persist then they should be admonished, but I believe that can be done in a way that invites them to consider the truth, not turn them away from it. If they still refuse, then pray for them. Just my :twocents:

thank you ryanml, this is exactly my point. i have not said anything in this thread that is contrary to church teaching, and in fact have specifically stated that i DO agree with church teaching. my point is we should not have the condescending, arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude with ANYONE. i have never heard of anyone being converted/reverted by the harsh attitude, but have heard many stories about those converted by the kind, caring, compassionate Catholic. even if people still reject church teaching, we should still treat them as creatures of God, with all the respect and dignity that brings forth. and as always, pray for them…

 

[fix]

thank you ryanml, this is exactly my point. i have not said anything in this thread that is contrary to church teaching, and in fact have specifically stated that i DO agree with church teaching. my point is we should not have the condescending, arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude with ANYONE. i have never heard of anyone being converted/reverted by the harsh attitude, but have heard many stories about those converted by the kind, caring, compassionate Catholic. even if people still reject church teaching, we should still treat them as creatures of God, with all the respect and dignity that brings forth. and as always, pray for them…

That is almost a straw man argument. No one supports harsh mean spirited treatment. The discussion is whether what you heard should be characterized as such.

 

[BSHoop96]

That is almost a straw man argument. No one supports harsh mean spirited treatment. The discussion is whether what you heard should be characterized as such.

Exactly.

Dang, now that you are back can you PLEASE tell us what some of the changes are that drove people away? It would help us determine the climate and mindset of the parish if we knew a little more. Besides that, I’m just snoopy.

 

[Nordar]

Exactly.

Dang, now that you are back can you PLEASE tell us what some of the changes are that drove people away? It would help us determine the climate and mindset of the parish if we knew a little more. Besides that, I’m just snoopy.

Dang please answer this question, also how do you know that The Priest had not spoken to these people that he was addressing before? How do you know that he had not already told them that unless they change their stance on abortion they will not be able to recieve Communion?

 

[wynnejj]

Dang71 has a hot, hot topic that should hit a core nerve in every honest Catholic. That is, with all the political correctness in our society, and concern about turning Catholics away (from the collection plate?), there has been what amounts to a 35 year moratorium on the abortion issue at our local churches at Sunday Mass (where most Catholics get the ongoing catechesis). This topic, for me, has shaken my faith deeply as I observe just about every Sunday Mass attendee go to the communion rail, but I rarely hear a prayer petition to end abortion when just that week another 20,000 to 25,000 babies “bit the dust”.

If the Real Essence is in the Holy Eucharist, shouldn’t sensitivity to the abortion issue set in and a weekly prayer petition at Sunday Mass be the norm? I wrote to a parish priest about this and he basically said MYOB (mind your own business). If I posed that question as a point of scientific inquiry, my lab result would say that the Holy Eucharist is a placebo.

I have a different question to ask from the OP? What if instead the priest had explicitly said: “If you support abortion in your heart and action, you are STILL welcome at the communion rails?”

dang71, you’ve made me look at your thread for the last time. The topic is a great one, but the dialogue has devolved to the absurd, IMO.

 

[fix]

I have a different question to ask from the OP? What if instead the priest had explicitly said: “If you support abortion in your heart and action, you are STILL welcome at the communion rails?”

Or, what if he said you are not welcome at the communion rail if you engage in child porn, or beat your wife, or are a member of the Klan, or support drunk driving? Would there be a big critique of his tone or wording or anything else?

 

[dang71]

Originally Posted by BSHoop96
Dang, now that you are back can you PLEASE tell us what some of the changes are that drove people away? It would help us determine the climate and mindset of the parish if we knew a little more. Besides that, I’m just snoopy

i am not answering this because it is irrelevant. the changes he made are not the issue, it is HOW the priest handled the complaints about the changes, finally by publicly criticizing the complainants in a homily. truthfully, i couldn’t care less about the changes the priest made, i just think he handled it very inappropriately. for him to publicly criticize some parishoners only adds salt to the wound, and only ensures they will be a long time away from this specific church. i literally winced when he said “shame on you”, he was that confrontational. maybe he felt personally attacked/hurt, sure, and i sympathize, but Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and a priest should know better than to take the bad attitude he did. i am glad this priest takes a stand on abortion, as he should, but the “you’re not wanted here” attitude is not appropriate. the previous 4 or 5 pastors we had also took a stand against abortion, and publicly stated so in homilies and the like, but were never so abrasive and confrontational about it. i will ask the question again, how many people are ever won over by the strong-arm tactic, versus how many people are won over by the nice, kind Catholic compassionately sharing the TRUTH as taught by our Catholic Church?

 

[bilop]

i am not answering this because it is irrelevant. the changes he made are not the issue, it is HOW the priest handled the complaints about the changes, finally by publicly criticizing the complainants in a homily. truthfully, i couldn’t care less about the changes the priest made, i just think he handled it very inappropriately. for him to publicly criticize some parishoners only adds salt to the wound, and only ensures they will be a long time away from this specific church. i literally winced when he said “shame on you”, he was that confrontational. maybe he felt personally attacked/hurt, sure, and i sympathize, but Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and a priest should know better than to take the bad attitude he did. i am glad this priest takes a stand on abortion, as he should, but the “you’re not wanted here” attitude is not appropriate. the previous 4 or 5 pastors we had also took a stand against abortion, and publicly stated so in homilies and the like, but were never so abrasive and confrontational about it. i will ask the question again, how many people are ever won over by the strong-arm tactic, versus how many people are won over by the nice, kind Catholic compassionately sharing the TRUTH as taught by our Catholic Church?

Dange,

I’m sorry to have to say this, but your refusal to share the nature of the changes with us, make me think these changes were actually the quashing of abuses.

The nature of the change is ceratinly relevent. If those who complained are mad because the pastor stopped them from perpetrating abuses in the Mass, and then they complained to the bishop, then his calling them out from the pulpit is much more understandable.

God Bless

 

[maggiemay2u]

i am not answering this because it is irrelevant. the changes he made are not the issue, it is HOW the priest handled the complaints about the changes, finally by publicly criticizing the complainants in a homily. truthfully, i couldn’t care less about the changes the priest made, i just think he handled it very inappropriately. for him to publicly criticize some parishoners only adds salt to the wound, and only ensures they will be a long time away from this specific church. i literally winced when he said “shame on you”, he was that confrontational. maybe he felt personally attacked/hurt, sure, and i sympathize, but Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and a priest should know better than to take the bad attitude he did. i am glad this priest takes a stand on abortion, as he should, but the “you’re not wanted here” attitude is not appropriate. the previous 4 or 5 pastors we had also took a stand against abortion, and publicly stated so in homilies and the like, but were never so abrasive and confrontational about it.** i will ask the question again, how many people are ever won over by the strong-arm tactic, versus how many people are won over by the nice, kind Catholic compassionately sharing the TRUTH as taught by our Catholic Church?**

(loosely translated, that means, I am)

And I’ll say it again. If the priest had counseled these folks previously and they ignored him (maybe like they ignored all those nice pastors before him) he had two choices–either confront from the pulpit anonymously or confront at the rail.

His job is to protect the Eucharist.

Unless you are one of the pro-abortionists to whom he addressed his comments, then you do cannot know what the priest has or has not done.

 

[BSHoop96]

Dange,

I’m sorry to have to say this, but your refusal to share the nature of the changes with us, make me think these changes were actually the quashing of abuses.

The nature of the change is ceratinly relevent. If those who complained are mad because the pastor stopped them from perpetrating abuses in the Mass, and then they complained to the bishop, then his calling them out from the pulpit is much more understandable.

God Bless

bilop, this is exactly what I was thinking. If the parish has people who are *whining *about the correction of abuses then they probably would not have an open mind about anything this priest said in the way of scolding.

Dang, I think that it what we are trying to determine. Was he really that hostile and criticial or was he just firm in his message? Determining the mindset of those that are unhappy with him sheds a lot of light on how they would “judge the tone” of what he said. People who are mad because a priest corrects abuses (if this is indeed what he did) tells a lot about their frame of mind.

However, you will not provide further enlightenment so further discussion is fruitless.

As for your question. Of course, kind sharing of the Catholic truth is preferred but sometimes at some point you have to stand up and tell it like it is. I am not going to criticize him for the way he handled this especially when you won’t “fill in the details.” I am not in a position to and frankly, don’t know that I ever would be on here.

 

[Nordar]

i am not answering this because it is irrelevant.

You just did! and thank you now I am done with this thread!

 

[palmas85]

thank you ryanml, this is exactly my point. i have not said anything in this thread that is contrary to church teaching, and in fact have specifically stated that i DO agree with church teaching. my point is we should not have the condescending, arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude with ANYONE. i have never heard of anyone being converted/reverted by the harsh attitude, but have heard many stories about those converted by the kind, caring, compassionate Catholic. even if people still reject church teaching, we should still treat them as creatures of God, with all the respect and dignity that brings forth. and as always, pray for them…

Hi Dang

Actually what the changes were is important, They are what led to the event that you have told us about. Without knowing what they are how can we in any way judge what happened?

Since we don’t know we can only speculate.

But lets look at things from what you have told us,

You made a point of telling us the Priest is a “traditionalist” Priest.

Well what exactly is a “traditionalist” Priest. FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, what? We don’t know. And what utter relevence is it to the discussion at hand?

The changes drove people away. That concerns me Dang. And your outright refusal to say what hey are concerns me even more and leads me to believe that maybe just maybe this parish wasn’t as conservative and orthodox as you have led us to believe. Either that or the people there are very sensitive,

These people complained to the Bishop. What did they tell the Bishop? What transpired? What they felt transpired? That their feelings were hurt, what?

What did the Bishop do? Censure the Priest? Tell the people he would look into it or blow the whole thing off?

The Priest attacks these people in a sermon and tells them shame on you… Well how did he do that? Did he call them out by name? Point then out as manifest sinners and publicly embarrass them? I though they left the Parish. Were others there who supported this group and whatever it was they were opposed to?
There are way too many variables in this.

Then the Priest says those that support abortion are not welcome at the Communion Rail. Well Dang, they are not. You yourself say you agree with that. Is that what the problem was? Was a group of parishners part of a pro choice movement and had been trying to use Parish facilities as a base for their operations? I have seen that happen before and the group was un ceremoniously driven from the Church property.

You state in another post that this Priests attitude mirrors that of many “traditionalists” that you know. Well Dang, what does that have to do with anything? That seems almost as if you are casting a wide accusatory net towards “traditionalists” as being bad people for lack of a better word.

I think that without knowing the changes that were made by the Priest and whether or not they were substantial, this thread really boils down to one thing.

You don’t care for this Priest probably because he is strict and brusque and offended your sensibilities… But there is really nothing wrong with that. Priests are human. Nothing in their job description says that they are to be perfect at all times.

At least that is the impression I get. I asked you to help us out, help us understand the situation better, but you won’t. What else are we to believe?

 

[maggiemay2u]

You just did! and thank you now I am done with this thread!

I’m with you. I never say never, but I think we’ve beaten this dead horse until only the tale remains.

 

[dang71]

Hi Dang

Actually what the changes were is important, They are what led to the event that you have told us about. Without knowing what they are how can we in any way judge what happened?

Since we don’t know we can only speculate.

But lets look at things from what you have told us,

You made a point of telling us the Priest is a “traditionalist” Priest.

Well what exactly is a “traditionalist” Priest. FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, what? We don’t know. And what utter relevence is it to the discussion at hand?

The changes drove people away. That concerns me Dang. And your outright refusal to say what hey are concerns me even more and leads me to believe that maybe just maybe this parish wasn’t as conservative and orthodox as you have led us to believe. Either that or the people there are very sensitive,

These people complained to the Bishop. What did they tell the Bishop? What transpired? What they felt transpired? That their feelings were hurt, what?

What did the Bishop do? Censure the Priest? Tell the people he would look into it or blow the whole thing off?

The Priest attacks these people in a sermon and tells them shame on you… Well how did he do that? Did he call them out by name? Point then out as manifest sinners and publicly embarrass them? I though they left the Parish. Were others there who supported this group and whatever it was they were opposed to?
There are way too many variables in this.

Then the Priest says those that support abortion are not welcome at the Communion Rail. Well Dang, they are not. You yourself say you agree with that. Is that what the problem was? Was a group of parishners part of a pro choice movement and had been trying to use Parish facilities as a base for their operations? I have seen that happen before and the group was un ceremoniously driven from the Church property.

You state in another post that this Priests attitude mirrors that of many “traditionalists” that you know. Well Dang, what does that have to do with anything? That seems almost as if you are casting a wide accusatory net towards “traditionalists” as being bad people for lack of a better word.

I think that without knowing the changes that were made by the Priest and whether or not they were substantial, this thread really boils down to one thing.

You don’t care for this Priest probably because he is strict and brusque and offended your sensibilities… But there is really nothing wrong with that. Priests are human. Nothing in their job description says that they are to be perfect at all times.

At least that is the impression I get. I asked you to help us out, help us understand the situation better, but you won’t. What else are we to believe?

it seems to me, you are only using the details of the example to avoid talking about what the example actually represents. let’s forget about this priest and his antics for the moment, and take this as an academic exercise. does the strong-arm tactic ever work in converting/reverting people? no, it doesn’t. and it seems to me the reason you are focusing on the details of the example instead of what it represents is because you do not want to admit that it doesn’t work. love your enemy, as Jesus says. showing love towards those you don’t want to show love to is quite difficult. it is easy to get angry and shout and yell at those we don’t agree with, it is difficult to show love towards those we find reprehensible.