Posted on 09/06/2001 10:57:15 PM PDT by patent
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
So a good Jew CAN'T be saved?
Either he can or he can't. There are those on Free Republic who would have expected this bishop, while praying over his dying friend, to perform the rite of baptism.
The bishop, to his credit, did not do this. Nothing complicated; he just left the soul of his friend in the hands of God.
With the hordes of anti-Catholics, both on FreeRepublic and abroad, accusing Catholics of believing that "all you have to do is be a good person and you get to Heaven," I would think you shoudl be more careful in claiming to espouse authentic Church teachings.
The anti-Catholics who want to be anti-Catholic will continue to say whatever it is they are going to say. It IS in keeping with authentic Catholic teaching that those who honestly seek God, though they are not in formal communion with the Catholic Church, nevertheless can reach salvation. Murphy knew this, and so do you.
The "congregation's attention," during the celebration of the Eucharist, should be on the celebration and not the tabernacle.
I say the casual attitude many Catholics (and Protestants, for that matter) have toward attire in Church is societal; people formerly dressed up for jury duty, to travel on planes, to go to the symphony, to go to work.. THey don't anymore.
Vatican II has very little to do with the overall "business casual" manner of dress that has evolved over the last twenty years.
Since these Tridentines wouldn't be caught dead in a "Novus Ordo" church, they'd wear football helmets to Mass if the pastor told them to.
Football helmets would be highly inappropriate. We leave that type of garb to the Novus Ordo Sports Masses. You know, cheerleaders, pom poms, and the lay ministers leading the parish in the old college songs.
"... By all accounts, he was a strong leader who championed affordable housing, accessible health care and international relief."I am highly suspicious of Murphy, and even as a member of the Diocese, cannot in good conscience support the man."They note that the flip side of his orthodoxy is his championing of Catholic social justice teachings, which often translate into positions considered "liberal" in the contemporary American political context. Using a weekly column in the archdiocesan newspaper as his bully pulpit, he has argued energetically against the death penalty and welfare overhaul, for instance, called for an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba and, in general, advocated on behalf of poor and marginalized people."
"Women's ordination is not a question of social justice"
"...and collaborated on social justice projects.
"They say they would expect him to take a strong interest in the controversies surrounding immigrant day laborers, the dearth of affordable housing in Long Island and the shortage of priests."
Anyone who champions "social justice," which is simply socialism, will do more to hurt the nation than to help it. Despite his pedigree, Murphy appears ignorant of the danger of that doctrine. It will, in the long term, impose immense cost on us all - while exacerbating the very problems advocates of "social justice" ostensibly wish to solve. And we all know this, deep down.
I would invite Murphy to explain what makes "social" justice more desirable than traditional justice, and why we should pursue it. Were he to do that, and do so candidly, I'm sure some of the praise for him on this thread might be tempered by a bit more reason, and caution.
Wearing the cloth does not sanitize terrible ideas. I grow tired of my fellow Catholics who believe it does.
Football helmets would be highly inappropriate. We leave that type of garb to the Novus Ordo Sports Masses. You know, cheerleaders, pom poms, and the lay ministers leading the parish in the old college songs.
Touche!
By the way, isn't it interesting how a bishop who seems to adhere to the very bare minimum allowed by the Faith is somehow portrayed as a "hard-liner"? Is it "hardline" to follow the speed limit? Is it "hardline" to not cheat on your taxes? Is not the law of God and the Church (even if not Catholic) all the more important than mere civil law? So why the big write-up of a bishop who refuses lesbian priests? This is what happens when athiests are made religion editors in newspapers.
Murphy would say, as JPII does, that social justice is mandated by Jesus, in the Gospels.
You know, turning the other cheek, giving your coat to the man who doesn't have one, stuff like that.
I, like you, find clerics who decry capitalism usually don't know what they're talking about. However, if you can listen to today's Gospel, for instance, about leaving all possessions and following Jesus, and not be a little uncomfortable, then you are, indeed, a saint.
And when the majority of American Bishops remain silent on the abuses you mention.
Problem is, that is not "social justice."
I have no problem with clergy advocating personal charity. That, in my opinion, more accurately reflects Christ's message. But sadly, I don't believe Murphy stops there. Reread the specfics of what I quoted from the original article. I see Ralph Nader beneath the robes.
And where does "justice" figure into the idea of charity? Commonly understood, justice implies (and often mandates) the use of the state power to enforce law equitably among citizens. While the exercise of charity never has been predicated on such consolidations of power. So why now?
"Social Justice" is meant to apply the concept of individual equality under law to arbitrary groups of people, to affect the equality of outcomes of social processes. And it does so irrespective of the fairness of those same processes. Anyone who believes this is "charity" is simply falling prey to the ruse.
I do not believe for a moment that the term "social justice" is meant to be used interchangeably for "charity" by the clergy. Simply because words mean things, and I have heard one of my local priests repeatedly pray, during mass, for "governments to help the poor, save the environment, make affordable housing," along with a litany of causes descibed daily by the political left as "social justice." Just as Murphy seems to. And this is certainly not "Rendering unto Caesar."
It is mere salesmanship, designed to promote wealth redistribution as morality. And worse yet, with a blind eye to the consolidations of state power required to enforce it. Consolidations of state power, that historically, need eventually to destroy the influence of religion over the citizenry.
To define "justice" in terms of what material things people should, by default, possess in relation to one another is socialism. There is no escaping that. Just as there is no escaping its historical harm. And we do disservice to the God that gave us the ability to recognize harm when we allow other men to promote it, ostensibly in his name.
So ask yourself why "charity" is not used to describe the practices advocated by Murphy, and you'll have your answer. Catholics who understand politics and economics, I believe, do not want to accept the truth of what is happening to their church.
----
Then what use is there for evangelism if this is the creed by which we are to live? Answer: NOTHING. Yes, it is *POSSIBLE*, for someone to be saved (Jew, gentile, black, white, purple) apart from formal communion with the Catholic Church. But only if that person possesses 'invincible ignorance' --- they are innocently unaware of the necessity of being in formal communion with the Catholic Church. This of course also applies to the noble savage example - of someone who lives in a remote part of the world and never comes into contact with a missionary and has no possible way of coming to know the historical figure of Christ.
But it's important to note that we cannot use this doctrine as a crutch for saying, "Well, he's a good guy, he's happy in his life, why should I bother him with those pesky little details of the necessity of the body and blood of Christ." No - if we do that, then we sin and we due grave disservice by not professing the truth. Are you willing to gamble a person's eternal soul, possibly to hell, on the remote outside chance that that person resided innocently in invincible ignorance? And it's also important to note that invincible ignornance rests on the precept of "through no fault of their own." In this day and age, it is a VERY long stretch to say that someone could go through life in American society, with the opportunity to at least LOOK INTO the authenticity and legitimacy and necessity of the Catholic Church. In modern society there is an almost superabundant amount of opportunities for someone to seek out the truth, or at the least, be confronted with it.
I suspect this man had ample opportunity to look into the authenticity of the Catholic Church. He obviously chose to remain a Jew.
And the good bishop left his friend's soul in the hands of God. Is the bishop "sinning" by praying the Jewish prayer of the dying with his friend?
Mother Teresa did not push her Catholicism on the people she ministered to. In fact, I heard her say "We should help Hindus be good Hindus,."
Most evangelism comes from a life lived in imitation of Christ. I leave it to God to look into each man's heart.
*** Obviously. And if he did look into the authenticity of the Catholic Church and felt the pangs of conscience that perhaps it WAS what it claimed, and Jesus WAS who he claimed, then his immortal soul would be in grave peril. This is Catholic teaching. Like it or lump it. I'm not going to make the jump and render any observation on his situation with God, because this is too much a hypothetical game. ****
-----
And the good bishop left his friend's soul in the hands of God. Is the bishop "sinning" by praying the Jewish prayer of the dying with his friend?
**** Of course not. What an absurd question. And unfairly couched as well, I might add - unless this was a rhetorical question. But I'll ask you an equally unfairly couched question -- Was the bishop sinning in not witnessing of Jesus Christ to his dying friend and the fact that Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus? Let me put it another way -- we know that it's POSSIBLE for someone who doesn't profess a salvific belief in Christ to be saved, if through no fault of their own, they were ignorant of the fact, yet they lived a life according to the best of their consciences, and they did their best to ***INFORM*** their consciences. But we also know that it is GUARANTEED that anyone who places their faith in Christ, loves Him, and accepts Him as their Savior, *WILL* go to Heaven (provided this is a saving faith where the person responds to God's grace and accepts the Grace freely given by God). In a situation where your friend is dying, do you think it better to entrust Him to the *POSSIBILITY* that he might reach Heaven, or do you think it's better to attempt at the CERTAINTY for him to reach Heaven? ****
-----
Mother Teresa did not push her Catholicism on the people she ministered to. In fact, I heard her say "We should help Hindus be good Hindus,."
**** Yes, I am aware of Mother Theresa's evangelistic style. And I certainly think she is a shining example of what the love of Christ can do in a human person. "Preach constantly, and when necessary, use words." But I would be willing to bet that Mother Theresa wanted more than anything for the whole world to know the magnificence of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrifice of the Son of God for our Salvation. Put her quotation in context of her life. I think she would be dismayed to think that people thought she believed that all things being equal, it didn't really matter if someone was Catholic or not - just so long as they led a good life. What a bunch of baloney. *****
------
Most evangelism comes from a life lived in imitation of Christ. I leave it to God to look into each man's heart.
***** Yes it does. And I do too. *****
You ought to come to Mass with me some time. You'd get the shock of your life.
His friends said that one cannot begin to understand Murphy without knowing the life-changing impact that Rome had on a bright, impressionable young man. "If the Latin School gave you an enhanced notion of what it meant to be an American and a citizen of Boston, then going to Rome gave you an enhanced notion of what it meant to be Catholic, and of the life of the church all over the world," Conley said. Other alumni of the Greg, as it is often called, talk about the rigor of classes and exams given exclusively in Latin. Murphy talks about his enduring love affair with Rome, a city that to this day he calls home. "We used to refer to it as the Murphy Romanticism," Sheehan said. "It was this enormous enthusiasm for Italy, for the Holy See, for the pope and for the Roman curia.
I followed a different path, but boy does this ever resonate with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.