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."
A claim that is doubly bizarre, since there are no parts that offend science and the "if" at the beginning is an insurmountable obstacle to your relevance.
...you attribute it to God and then insist it is full of historical and scientific errors...
Nope. It's got nothing to do with errors. It's about the wisdom to know what is literal and what is allegory.
BTW, your hypocrisy and inconsistency as to when you will listen to "science" and when you will not is what led that crazy guy in Minnesota to do what he did.
My hypocrisy did that?
That's claim is beneath you. I'll accept your apology.
“”I also know that the Roman Catholic Church, because of its size, it often the target of all those that hate Christianity.””
The Catholic Church has been hated since Christ founded the Church. It is to be expected too..
As the late Bishop Sheen once said...
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.
If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness...”
If I accepted the "new testament," I'd accept all of it, not just the parts that don't offend "science."
A claim that is doubly bizarre, since there are no parts that offend science
So, science doesn't have the authority to declare that dead people don't come back to life, that people can't be born from virgins, loaves and fishes don't multiply (other than by dividing them!), or that bread and wine don't become flesh and blood, but it does have the authority to sit in judgment of G-d's historical account of the creation? Interesting. (Please pardon my use of a euphemism here.)
...you attribute it to God and then insist it is full of historical and scientific errors...
Nope. It's got nothing to do with errors. It's about the wisdom to know what is literal and what is allegory.
And who determines what is literal and what is allegory? The ancient popes? The church fathers? The councils? No sirree. "Science" determines what is literal and what is allegory. Except that "science" dare not do the same thing to the "new testament" that it does to the "old" our you'll tell it where to get off.
My hypocrisy did that?
You and every Catholic who shares your hypocritical inconsistency. Absolutely. The same goes for the J*sus Seminar.
That's claim is beneath you.
The claim is true.
I'll accept your apology.
That'll be hard to do, seeing as how I'm not giving one.
Except for one important fact. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Church founded by Christ Himself and against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
I also know that the Roman Catholic Church, because of its size, it often the target of all those that hate Christianity.
You also understand why? By the very nature of its 2,000 year history of an uninterrupted line of successors to St. Peter, the pope is the clearest and easiest target. Even the secularist media understand that.
Where Peter is, there is the Church.
Ambrose of Milan - 389AD
Apologies for not pinging you to my post #264
So why does your "unchanging" church interpret Genesis differently than it did 2000 years ago?
What's the difference between changing the interpretation of Genesis and changing the teaching on abortion, birth control, or women priests?
Amazing. You claim my hypocrisy (as you call it) caused some guy in Minnesota to do bad things, and see no reason to apologize for such a stunningly bizarre accusation.
It must be easier for someone like you to lie about me and defame me, since I'm a Catholic and you thus have a head start.
It must be easier for someone like you to lie about me and defame me, since I'm a Catholic and you thus have a head start.
::Sigh:: You want to make it personal? I stand by my assertion that the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Catholics like you are in part responsible for what he did. Yes I do. He couldn't understand why you folks are "hep" enough to reject the literal sense of Genesis but suddenly become fundies when it comes to John 6. Neither do I. Neither can anyone else with a grain of intellectual consistency.
You already have, by accusing me personally of making some guy in Minnesota go batty.
Purgatory denies the power of God and the completeness of the sacrifice of Jesus.
Mariology = "discourse about Mary", or "account of Mary" -- generally "conversation about Mary's role, if any, in salvation." How the existence or use of the term could be blasphemous escapes me. To say, "Mary has no role in salvation," is to engage in Mariology.
I can handle your own personal interpretation of Scripture, but your own personal interpretation of English and your own personal interpretation of what the Church teaches ... well it's that kind of nonsense that has led me to back off from conversations here.
So many of the protestant attacks begin with erecting a straw man that after a while I wonder whether there is any interest in truth at all. Certainly, when the argument begins with falsehood and relies on bullying, insult, and perseveration the natural conclusion is that even if the antagonist believes there is a truth, he doesn't much believe in the Truth's power to vindicate Himself.
Lots of statements; no specifics. Please cite examples with valid references.
Rather than answer you now, I’ll post a thread sometime in the next few days covering the answer. I don’t have time today, and it deserves fuller discussion that available here. I’ll ping you, and anyone else who desires a noggins up when I get it done.
::Sigh:: Let's take a look at what I actually said.
BTW, your hypocrisy and inconsistency as to when you will listen to "science" and when you will not is what led that crazy guy in Minnesota to do what he did.
While I should have used the word "this" instead of "your," I believe I explained to you that I was referring to all Catholics who de-literalize Genesis but refuse to de-literalize John 6. Surely you don't think that I believe that that fellow knows you personally?
I stand by the intent of my statement. If you want to ignore the hypocrisy and how it provoked his actions and instead want to jump on me for alleging that you personally were the guy who drove him to it . . . well, since you have no defense, I can't say I blame you.
Jump on you?
That is exactly what you did. And then:
I'll accept your apology.
That'll be hard to do, seeing as how I'm not giving one.
I'm very glad you posted this stuff. You indict yourself with every word.
That is what you said.
ZC,
You wrote:
“I stand by my assertion that the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Catholics like you are in part responsible for what he did. Yes I do. He couldn’t understand why you folks are “hep” enough to reject the literal sense of Genesis but suddenly become fundies when it comes to John 6. Neither do I. Neither can anyone else with a grain of intellectual consistency.”
ZC, isn’t possible that the nutty professor in Minnesota did what he did because of his own tunnel vision? He could only see his own point of view to the point of going nuts and making a complete jacka$$ out of himself.
Haven’t I warned you - in fraternal charity - about the dangers of wrapping yourself up in this ONE issue to the point where you get tunnel vision?
What's the difference between changing the interpretation of Genesis and changing the teaching on abortion, birth control, or women priests?
Lots of statements; no specifics. Please cite examples with valid references.
Ms. NYer, I asked a simple question. If the church fathers interpreted Genesis literally (with the exception of Augustine; everyone knows about Augustine); if Leo XIII's Arcanum taught that Adam was created from "slime" on the sixth day, put to sleep, and then Eve taken from his side, then on what grounds do you as a faithful Catholic have to change these prior interpretations into mere allegories? What's the difference between what you have done and liberal pro-abort and pro-gay Catholics have done with the things they disagree with?
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."The phrase "access to heaven" is unclear. So is the relationship between your statement and the thing you quote. The Catholic Church does not teach, nor does the matter you quote say that "Access to heaven" is granted by some kind of acknowledgment.
Amen. Maranatha (but don’t let me be too scared, please?)
Welcome back!
Take this in fraternal charity: when every single Catholic poster stands by evolution and "modern science" while simultaneously "having the faith of a little child" with regard to the gospels, it drives anyone with a sense of consistency batty.
When the only other Catholic on this forum besides you and wideawake who interprets Genesis literally absolutely refuses to publicly disagree with his co-religionists, and when "ultra-traditionalist" Catholics (who shall remain nameless) ignore the whole inerrancy debate altogether, it sends a very clear message: a refusal to see the Bible as absolutely free of all errors of any kind whatsoever is part of the Catholic identity.
No wonder the Kolbe Center and Scripture Catholic can't make any headway. They're regarded as "nor really Catholic."
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.