you are not welcome here...

[Paul_Folbrecht]

BSHoop96:
I see where you were coming from somewhat better now.

I may have stuck my foot in my mouth to some degree, but I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

What I meant was that many people, even very strongly pro-life people, are sometimes influenced by the image of the pro-life cause that the general media paints: that there are lots of wackos, and one must be careful to make it clear that they’re not “one of those”. When you tied in the fanaticism angle, that’s where I thought you were coming from. It was not an arrogant “I’m going to figure out how this guy thinks” intent at all, Ok?

(It was actually myself I was thinking of: until I learned to just stop relying on the mainstream media to portray any part of the life debate honestly, I think I experienced the same sort of subtle influence I was referring to. Does that make it seem less arrogant?)

Now, reading it all over again, I do see how you made the jump from A to B, and that there was a catalyst (the other poster’s comment). That’s why I’m acknowledging sticking my foot in my mouth. It’s true that you made one rather offhanded comment that has caused far too much discussion, and disagreement, for which I will take responsibility. (If I’d have seen this coming, for sure I would have kept it to myself! )

I would chalk this up partly to the form of communication: this sort of misunderstanding would not have occurred in person.

Anyway, I’m honestly sorry I offended: I never intended any sort of criticism of you personally at all, even if the subtle workings I’d suspected were in play - and I’ll take your word for it that they were not.

 

[BSHoop96]

I see where you were coming from somewhat better now.

I may have stuck my foot in my mouth to some degree, but I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

What I meant was that many people, even very strongly pro-life people, are sometimes influenced by the image of the pro-life cause that the general media paints: that there are lots of wackos, and one must be careful to make it clear that they’re not “one of those”. When you tied in the fanaticism angle, that’s where I thought you were coming from. It was not an arrogant “I’m going to figure out how this guy thinks” intent at all, Ok?

(It was actually myself I was thinking of: until I learned to just stop relying on the mainstream media to portray any part of the life debate honestly, I think I experienced the same sort of subtle influence I was referring to. Does that make it seem less arrogant?)

Now, reading it all over again, I do see how you made the jump from A to B, and that there was a catalyst (the other poster’s comment). That’s why I’m acknowledging sticking my foot in my mouth. It’s true that you made one rather offhanded comment that has caused far too much discussion, and disagreement, for which I will take responsibility. (If I’d have seen this coming, for sure I would have kept it to myself! )

I would chalk this up partly to the form of communication: this sort of misunderstanding would not have occurred in person.

Anyway, I’m honestly sorry I offended: I never intended any sort of criticism of you personally at all, even if the subtle workings I’d suspected were in play - and I’ll take your word for it that they were not.

Thank you. If it helps, I’ll just let you know that I haven’t watched mainstream media/news for yearsl!! yuk

 

[quiet52]

Many people, Catholics and non-Catholics, have criticized the Church for not speaking up more in Nazi Germany nearly 70 years ago, about Catholics becoming Nazis, about Nazi hatred towards Jews and the so-called “lesser” humans, and the mass-murder of Jews and others.

I wonder how many Catholic priests in Germany then believed they had to say “don’t do this” in nicey-nice ways, so as not to “offend” their congregations? I wonder how many Catholic priests who said “those who support this hatred are not welcome at the communion rail” were arrested, and perhaps were among the million Catholics who were gassed?

I thank God for the OP’s priest. The mass murders of our unborn children taking place every day SHOULD be addressed in abrasive, gruff, or otherwise-serious ways. Catholics who support abortion in ANY way, including within the voting booth, should be adamantly reminded by EVERY priest that they are not welcome to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord.

 

[et1jake]

Where is this Church? I want to go there!!!
Sounds as if he was deliberately making a point about the Sacrament and abortion while also showing that one can not be afraid to make a stance in support of the Church’s teaching.

My own father and mother where good (even great people), but they didn’t sugar coat much. And they didn’t hesitate to lay down the law (on my buttocks) when necessary. That is the same way I view this priest (from the info I have).

Even Jesus expelled the money changers from the Temple. It didn’t mean he didn’t have love for them!!! Some interpret this part of scripture from the viewpoint that He knocked the living daylights out of a few of them.

Tough love is sometimes the best love.

 

[elts1956]

ok, maybe i did not explain fully or properly, but it seems you guys are missing the intent of what i was saying. yes, the priest should protect the eucharist, yes pro-abortion people are in a state of sin and need to correct that, yes pro-abortion people should refrain from communion.

my point is his ATTITUDE. Christ wants people to get to heaven, and having the nasty attitude i see this priest displaying is not winning any souls for Christ. when he pro-abortion people come in contact with this type of attitude, the are only driven further away. shouldn’t we act in LOVE and KINDNESS, while still maintaining our Catholic morals? having the “your not welcome here” attitude is not acting out of love.

I say, “More power to him.” Maybe he has gotten the attention of some of those Catholics who think they have a choice when it comes to morals and supporting such a heinous crime as abortion.

 

[elts1956]

ok, maybe i did not explain fully or properly, but it seems you guys are missing the intent of what i was saying. yes, the priest should protect the eucharist, yes pro-abortion people are in a state of sin and need to correct that, yes pro-abortion people should refrain from communion.

my point is his ATTITUDE. Christ wants people to get to heaven, and having the nasty attitude i see this priest displaying is not winning any souls for Christ. when he pro-abortion people come in contact with this type of attitude, the are only driven further away. shouldn’t we act in LOVE and KINDNESS, while still maintaining our Catholic morals? having the “your not welcome here” attitude is not acting out of love.

Your priest has the obligation to teach his congregation. He did in a most direct and strong way. He wasn’t vieing in a popularity contest.

I for one, am extremely irriated that more of this type of lecture isn’t given in more Catholic Churches. We have lost so much regarding the teaching and believing in absolutes through the misunderstanding of what it means to be kind, “politically correct”. Your pastor is one of the most kind men I have heard of in many a year. He reminds me of the prophets in the Old Testament. Also the chain always breaks at its weakest link. He is certainly not weak. Say your prayers of thanksgiving for your pastor and try to deserve him.

 

[ConservativeOne]

I’m getting tired of “traditionalists” being considered to have “holier than thou” attitudes. Just what is it pro-abortion supporters are afraid of? Being told that they’re wrong by reason of the laws of the Catholic Church?

Ever park illegally? And when you get a parking ticket, do you think the police officer is trying to be better than you by reason of enforcing the law you just broke? By reason of the law, you had no business parking in an illegal spot. The ticket tells you how unwelcome you were there.

Consider the Church like a club. Clubs have rules. They follow certain standards. You like it or leave it (hopefully, you don’t leave in the case of the Church). If you don’t follow the rules - you’re not a member in good standing. Pro-abortionists / pro-choicers want the rules to suit their way even though the Catholic Church tells them otherwise.
That’s not how it works!

 

[elts1956]

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.

Dang, you don’t seem to understand how serious an ailment abortion is in our society. Yes, our society is sick and it’s not going to get well if we continually soft pedal the doctrines and teachings of the Church. Those members of your Church, or any other Catholic Church who are pro-abortion, or pro-choice, have already separated themselves from the complete teachings of our Church. It is time for them to make a choice. Either the Church in all its truths and glory, or the expedient way out by turning one’s back on what is moral and absolute.

For the past 35 years the platform of the pro abortionists has grown stronger because we have heard, "it’s okay to listen to your conscience, you decide what is right and wrong, I can’t tell if it is a sin for that person etc. etc. And these are some of the excuses from Catholics, even clergy, who should have been taught true Catechesis, but apparently weren’t. To me there are some absolutes that can not be watered down. The killing of innocents which has been approved by the U.S. government and continues in great measure because of the indecisiveness of some of the Catholic clergy is one of those absolutes which cries to the Heavens for Justice.

Everyone else in the secular world shouts as loud as they can when they feel their “rights” have been fouled. The unborn cannot shout, but we can shout for them. It is our duty to do so.

 

[elts1956]

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.

It all has to do with love and tact. If a priest preaches in a teaching, fatherly way that anyone who supports abortion must refrain from receiving communion until they repent and confess, then that’s wonderful. It’s the right thing to do. On the other hand if a priest is harsh and deliberately antagonistic there is a problem – and it’s with him.

And no, this sort of behavior is not justified by wanting to protect the Blessed Sacrament. That can be done in a tactful manner. The harsh delivery on the other hand just turns people off. Worse it could be a factor in where their souls ultimately end-up.

The “holier/better than thou” attitude seems to be all too common in extremists – both “liberal” and “conservative.”

Love and tact regarding abortion doesn’t mean fudge. Make up your mind what you believe and stand up for it. This priest did the right thing. He got people’s attention. I hope he continues.

 

[elts1956]

That pastor is not “100% correct.”

Teaching/preaching should be done in a tactful manner. Being deliberately harsh or antagonistic not only offends people, it makes them tune-out.

Okay, let’s take this scenario. The priest is in the pulpit telling a story on an experience which went like this. “The other day, I happened to walk by a small cafe, and when I looked in the window, I saw a man pointing a gun at the fellow behind the cash register. Suddenly the gun went off. What to do? Did the gunman “accidently” shoot the other fellow? If so, then he is not fully responsible for what happened. Then I thought, well I don’t know this man, so I really didn’t know what was in his heart when the gun went off, so I can’t really judge him. And then, maybe the gunman was high on drugs. So is he really responsible for his actions or is the person who sold him the drugs more responsible for the drugee’s actions? But then, maybe the man who sold the drugs was forced into selling them by unknown circumstances. Can I say he is guilty of an immoral action? Well, in the end, they will be judged by God. I just can’t be bothered with figuring out what is right and wrong this minute. I will have to think about it. Gee, who really was responsible for the murder?” This is called soft pedalling.

Make sense? I thought not. Well neither does hiding behind a rock when it comes to fighting abortion. And the priest in Dang’s parish is certainly not hiding behind a rock. No matter which way the parishioners took his talk, he was standing up, making a moral decision and taking an absolute stance. Something of a rarity in this society.

 

[elts1956]

That pastor is not “100% correct.”

Teaching/preaching should be done in a tactful manner. Being deliberately harsh or antagonistic not only offends people, it makes them tune-out.

No way! By antagonizing people to the point where they leave, he’s doing nothing except putting souls in jeopardy.

There are some POWERFUL preachers out there like Frs. John Corapi and Bill Casey who do not become offensive or antagonistic.

It sounds like this priest might need to mature a bit.

The people who can not take the truth are the ones who place their own souls in jeopardy.

 

[elts1956]

It would be interesting how people on this thread would respond if the priest preached strongly against those who question VC2. If he tore into those who deviated from what the Church actually directs – say those who insist on kneeling during the Agnus Dei despite differing directions from the local bishop; those who condemn the practice of proceeding up for a blessing during confession even if the local ordinary allows it; those who condemn the use of any EMsHC, etc. etc.

This priest is playing to the “traditionalist” mindset. Don’t expect an non-skewed group of responses on this forum…

Whether we would react strongly or not would not cause anyone’s death. Abortion does. Get your values and priorities in order.

 

[elts1956]

It would be interesting how people on this thread would respond if the priest preached strongly against those who question VC2. If he tore into those who deviated from what the Church actually directs – say those who insist on kneeling during the Agnus Dei despite differing directions from the local bishop; those who condemn the practice of proceeding up for a blessing during confession even if the local ordinary allows it; those who condemn the use of any EMsHC, etc. etc.

This priest is playing to the “traditionalist” mindset. Don’t expect an non-skewed group of responses on this forum…

1 Corinthians 13:1:

If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become sounding brass or clanging cymbal.

This man lacks love.

Many of these types believe their supposed zeal covers their behavior, but they are blinded by spiritual pride. It is an interesting dynamic. Someone should do a study on it.

I’ve noticed many of the same people have all kinds of food phobias, and immunization conspiracy theories, and other similar complexes. Anyone who doesn’t completely agree with every thought is an enemy of the True Faith. It must be some form of scrupulosity, maybe even paranoia.

It sure sounds as if he is based on the OP. In any event you certainly do not know that he is not acting this way.

The fact is we weren’t there and we should refrain from lionizing any priest who is turning people away from his parish. That much HAS been established.

I SERIOUSLY doubt people are actually leaving due to the contents of the message. I would strongly suspect they are leaving due to its delivery and tone.

I think we all should pray for more priests like the one you descibred.

You must understand that hating the sin is not hating the sinner. And telling people they are sinners (and thus, not welcome at the communion rail) is not hating them, but loving them instead, by sending a STRONG message, that nowadays many souls are not used to hear, that supporting abortion is a mortal sin. Many people are IGNORANT of the Church teaching, and using such a strong tone is necessary ir order to make people understand this isn’t “some strange idea of the Pope, or of Cardinal A, or of Bishop C” but is THE Church teaching.

Deo Gratias!

And it is also like hitting a mule between the ears to get his attention. Deo Gratias.

 

[elts1956]

If there were, He would have treated them with love and kindness.

Would you? Think about it - God Himself is screaming at you like a maniac, throwing things at you. Would you convert to that?

Is that what this priest did? I didn’t hear that. He was blunt and forceful to the dunderheads that were present at the Mass who believe it is up to our conscience when it comes to making a moral decision regarding an absolute like abortion.

 

[elts1956]

If there were, He would have treated them with love and kindness.

Would you? Think about it - God Himself is screaming at you like a maniac, throwing things at you. Would you convert to that?

my opinion is that he should act charitably and invite people back to grace and the truth of the church. saying you’re not welcome here is the same as saying you’re not wanted here, and that is absolutely incorrect. i am thankful to God that He welcomes me back through confession, and so should we welcome people back and try to encourage them to come back to God. shutting the door on someone serves no purpose.

He said those who believe the act of abortion should be left up to individual choice ie. pro-abortionist, pro-choice, were not welcome at the COMMUNION RAIL. He did not say, never darken the doorway of this church again, but left the door open for them to repent if they so choose to save their souls. If I were him, I wouldn’t say “please” either. They are adults, can read and should know the teachings of the Catholic Church. If they don’t, then they should learn them. Receiving an admonishment from the pulpit regarding a major teaching of the Catholic Church is not an every Sunday happening. This should give them a CLUE that somewhere, something just doesn’t quite add up. According to Church teaching, believing abortion is only a secular issue results in one being in the state of Mortal sin because it is also a MORAL issue AND against the teachings of the Church. Those in “any” mortal sin may not receive Communion. Your pastor is right on. If I knew his address, or parish, I would personally send him a congratulatory letter and thank him for having the backbone for doing what should be done in each and every Catholic Church until everyone understands this is not a teaching that can be misunderstood. Evil cannot be fought with soft words.

 

[elts1956]

You seem to say “traditionalists” with quite a bit of distaste in your mouth. And just to make things more clear and put them in perspective, I am far from a “traditionalist” – I only attend the Latin Mass occasionally and usually when there isn’t another Mass, don’t wear a veil, don’t have a burning desire to return to the Latin Mass, etc…and I agree with all the posts praising your priest whom you are fortunate to have.

Moddycoddling unrepentant public sinners by a feel-good attitude hasn’t worked thus far…beating them with a feather and feeding them sugar failed…may as well tell it like it is.

Glad

Off topic, but a statement. TLM is only a “part” of being a Traditionalist. Another thread? But then there have been so many and I don’t think anyone was convinced of anything???

 

[elts1956]

You seem to say “traditionalists” with quite a bit of distaste in your mouth. And just to make things more clear and put them in perspective, I am far from a “traditionalist” – I only attend the Latin Mass occasionally and usually when there isn’t another Mass, don’t wear a veil, don’t have a burning desire to return to the Latin Mass, etc…and I agree with all the posts praising your priest whom you are fortunate to have.

Moddycoddling unrepentant public sinners by a feel-good attitude hasn’t worked thus far…beating them with a feather and feeding them sugar failed…may as well tell it like it is.

Glad

Some thoughts about being polite and not driving people away from the church.

If our first pope was thin-skinned, he might have left the church when Jesus said to Peter “Get out of my sight, you satan! You are trying to make me trip and fall. You are not judging by God’s standards but by man’s.”

Jesus also drove the money-lenders from temple. He did not say - “Look, guys. You are certainly allowed to desecrate this house of God week after week with sacrilege. You know it is wrong and you incorrigibly continue in defiance of all that is holy, but I am willing to work with you in a discussion group after services.”

Personally, I have real issues with the Truth of the Consecration, when I see week after week just about all Sunday Mass participants go to the Holy Eucharist when I know in speaking with them how unquestionably soft they are on abortion, even in the face of 50 million murders in 35 years.

Please keep me in your prayers, so that my faith in the Holy Eucharist is restored.

Perhaps we should pray that all of our faith should be restored in people. After all, it isn’t the Eucharist’s fault that people are deceitful.

 

[elts1956]

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,

If they can read, watch TV, log on to the internet, listen to a sermon, they have no excuse but their own stiff necks for not knowing the teaching of the Church about abortion. Excuse them, no I won’t. Pray for them as sinners, yes I will.

 

[elts1956]

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,

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.

Great post.

 

[elts1956]

I can assure you, this cuts both ways. For years in my previous parish, we had a conservative, by the book, life trumps all, “I am the least among you” humble pastor. Now we have the “yeah, life’s important, but what about the war…” pastor who is in lock step with the loony liberal, university town mentality. He demonstrates the same arrogance that is inherent in far left activists. He has corrected the official Church translation of scripture, making no bones about the fact he is smarter than the translators. Embrace of the homosexual life style, the war, illegal immigration, and other social issues, are now tied to the sermons. He is as silent on pro aborts receiving communion as Wuerl, Mahony and Neiderhauer.

Yes, there were petitions…they went to the LA diocese office

The die hards that remain there because they hope his replacement will be better, and they want to be buried out of a church “where people know my name.” Others are parishioners because the kids attend the school and it’s just easier, Once the kids are finished, so are they.

What’s wrong with a little “shame on you”? My mom said that to me more than once, and she loved the daylights out of me. Equating “gentleness” with love is a product of flawed thinking. Some of Christ’s harshest words were directed at those He loved the most.

If it hasn’t been drummed into the heads of the faithful that those in serious sin are not welcome at the communion rail, then it should be. The Eucharist is the single most precious gift Christ gives us as members of His family. To undermine it or cavalierly brush off our responsibility to be in our most ready state is shameful.

Bravo to your brave pastor.

I couldn’t agree more. This PC Catholic religion that we’ve had for the past 40 yrs., is not working.

Don’t know if statistics are available CC, but I personally don’t lump all non-catholics in the same abortion basket. Quite likely there are many non-catholics who disapporve of abortion.