Posted on 09/06/2009 3:50:15 PM PDT by NYer
And in a big way. A lot of you have seen the great ads produced by a group called Catholics Come Home. The ads, evidently, are working. And spreading.
From the Los Angeles Times:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento is home to nearly 1 million Catholics. On a typical Sunday, less than 137,000 can be found in church.Curious to see what all the fuss is about? Check out the videos below. And you can find more at the Catholics Come Home link.
Now, using a strategy straight from the secular playbook, its leaders hope to lure back those who have drifted.
The diocese and nearly a dozen others across the country are preparing to air several thousand prime-time TV commercials in English and Spanish, inviting inactive Catholics to return to their religious roots.
In addition to Sacramento, dioceses in Chicago, Omaha, Providence, R.I., and four other cities will launch the “Catholics Come Home” advertising blitz during Advent, the period before Christmas.
Four more dioceses will follow during Lent next spring. Los Angeles is not among the initial group but could be part of a nationwide campaign slated for December 2010.
"I'm hoping that a significant number of people will give us another look," Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto said of the campaign. "Many Catholics have a sense of believing but not always a sense of belonging."
The potential audience is huge.
Only about one-quarter of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass every week, and a majority go to religious services a few times a year or less, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, which conducts social science research about the Catholic church.
Researchers there also found that two-thirds of Catholics believe they can be good members of their faith without attending Mass regularly.
Inactive Catholics cite a number of reasons for their absence. Many do not believe that missing Mass is a sin, the center reported. Others say they are too busy with family or work, or, as other analysts point out, are more interested in material happiness than spiritual fulfillment.
"There is a strange pattern of people who aren't practicing but still have beliefs and pick up parts of the faith," said Mark Gray, a research associate with the center. "They may give up meat on Fridays during Lent or attend Ash Wednesday services."
So here's the crux of the matter: to you the universe formed "naturally." This is because you are a uniformitarian who believes that scientists, by looking at the world that exists today, are seeing the same processes that brought it into existence in the first place. This reduces Genesis to "theological truths" and historical and scientific error.
The creation of the universe began with Yehi 'or (that's fiat lux to you) and concluded with the creation of Adam and Eve on the Sixth Day. Until the universe was fully formed and created at the end of those six days the laws of nature as we know them did not exist. As I have stated numerous times on this forum the original human gestation period was a matter of moments, and Adam and Eve brought forth their first five children with two acts of copulation on that Sixth Day (the human gestation period was lengthened to nine months as a punishment for the sin).
The world as it originally slipped from G-d's hands is beyond the purview of science, and all the more so the coming-into-being of that world. Your stubborn insistence on turning the supernatural formation of the universe into a natural phenomenon is uncalled for, but expected.
Have you a reply regarding the length of each day?
Sure. Each "evening" was twelve hours and each "morning" was twelve hours. You know what an "hour" is, right? Probably not. An "hour" is by definition "one twelfth of a day/night" (the absolute hour we know today is a medieval Arabic invention). In the winter daytime hours are short and nighttime hours are long. In the summer the opposite is the case.
But you're missing the point. You want to define "day" as zillions and zillions of years so you can believe the universe formed "naturally," when "nature" properly speaking didn't even exist until after the six days.
Mindreading?
That's not permitted on the Religion forum.
Yes. People who believe the "old testament" is parables and fables but that the "new testament" is the "literal word of G-d" deserve both that fellow and the "J*sus Seminar." It's just a dose of your own irreverent medicine.
Who are those people?
Or did you leave out a simple modifier ("some")?
I repeat: I am not primarily an anti-evolutionist. I am primarily an exponent of the first eleven chapters Genesis being literal history. I reject any theology that does this, whether it is "evolutionary" or not.
Per example, Adam being created from `afar and Eve from his side as he slept are historical facts, not theological parables (though they are loaded with theological meaning). If you come up with some non-evolutionary origin story that denies this then you'll learn what my focus is.
Are you aware that your friend vladimir998 is doesn't seem to agree with you?
Have you begun to gather that I don't care?
I was responding to refute the insinuation that believing in evolution means evolution happened without Divine interference.
Of course one may believe that evolution happened with Divine "interference." But to do so one must reject the historical and scientific inerrancy of Genesis. So big whoop.
Uh, yeah.
Okay.
...scientific inerrancy of Genesis...
Uh, yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
John 6 is obviously a spiritual allegory.
Are you a Christian?
“It’s just a dose of your own irreverent medicine.”
So because we don’t believe a certain way, it is your opinion that it was deserved that some sick degenerate put a nail in something we consider holy. That’ll teach us, eh?
Freegards
If you don't believe Genesis teaches literal, historical, "scientific" truth, then you have no business believing in something like the "real presence." Either the supernatural exists or it does not.
Lol! Now you're starting to sound like one of "those awful people from Arkansas!"
It isn't necessary to be a chr*stian to recognize hypocrisy when one sees it. As a matter of fact, chr*stianity seems to blind its adherents to hypocrisy.
Your continued effort to couple your literal view of Genesis with Transubstantiation is bizarre, since the Catechism does not claim any “scientific inerrancy” of Transubstantiation.
Or do you have a paragraph number I might have overlooked?
So there is no change then, and the "real presence" is symbolic (like Genesis).
I'm just at a loss as to why I would take guidance on the New Testament from someone who doesn't believe it.
I don't ask Hindus about the Torah either.
The change is real, and only perceptible to science in rare and miraculous cases.
I'm at a loss as to why a religion would call classify a book as its "scripture" and then insist it contains errors. Maybe you guys should just jettison the Hebrew Bible? That would be better than claiming that G-d can't tell the truth.
The Catholic Church does not do that.
You are conflating non-literal interpretation with a declaration of errors.
“If you don’t believe Genesis teaches literal, historical, “scientific” truth, then you have no business believing in something like the “real presence.” Either the supernatural exists or it does not.”
Telling someone what they should believe or not is fine with me. Taking something from them that they consider holy and putting a nail through it isn’t. Thinking that they deserve it is sick.
Freegards
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.