Posted on 09/20/2013 3:30:31 AM PDT by NYer
These people came to Jesus only because they were attracted to him and not driven away by him because they were sinners. None of them would have dared approach him if he had been haranguing against tax collectors and soldiers.
The Pope kept saying we have to get back to the sources, and the source of things such as our opposition to abortion is because we value life, the life of every human being (as made in the Image and Likeness of God), no matter how humble (as Francis said yesterday in his talk to a medical association). So we’ve got to present our opposition in terms of the Church’s constant and unvarying assertion of the value of every human life, whether that of the unborn or the handicapped or any other vulnerable, unimportant group.
It has always done this, only tapering off, oddly, after Vatican II, and it should do so more visibly again. I think if female religious orders would stop trying to be priestettes and regroup around things like caring for the sick and the marginalized, for example, it would bring back this witness to the love and concern of the Church for human life. It may convert hearts and minds in the way nothing else can, not even talking about abortion constantly, because pro-abortion people simply have their hands over their ears when it comes to that topic.
So perhaps it is the Jesuit in him, but remember, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Many Jesuits were among our early missionaries here and died horrible deaths at the hands of the people they were attempting to convert, and the Jesuits have always had a sort of militant evangelical approach, using unconventional ways and going to places that looked hopeless.
Yes, I agree. I think unless we present that message, we’re not going to have any takers.
And it does exactly what the rhythm method does.
I find comments of both of you to be helpful and insightful; we’ll just have to see what works, I guess.
It might be that in these end times when Satan is so powerful the nice approached will get steamrolled, although it could still work on an individual basis. These days, the sinners have organized into blocs ready with Alinsky tactics to turn the message back against the Church and toward their own purposes (look, the pope accepts us just the way we are now).
Then you will appreciate Phil Lawler's take on the interview:
For the past several weeks—and more than ever in the past 24 hours, since the release of the Pope’s blockbuster interview in America-- friends have been complaining that the Holy Father has a tendency to say things in a way that could cause confusion. He makes statements that the media can easily distort, they say. And they’re undoubtedly right.But there’s a precedent for that way of speaking. Jesus made people uncomfortable. The Lord’s words and gestures were often misinterpreted, and his critics found it easy to put things in an unfavorable light. Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners, they charged; He didn’t show sufficient respect for the Law. Now the Vicar of Christ is subject to similar accusations. Somehow it fits.
Would it be better, really, if the Pope limited himself to statements that could not possibly be distorted? Should he stop trying to make subtle distinctions, or making new observations about controversial topics? That would be a form of self-censorship: shaping the message to suit the media. Far better, I think for the Pope to speak frankly, telling the truth in and out of season, letting the chips fall where they may.
That's the feeling I get. Once people accept the teachings of Christianity they'll reject abortion and so many other things Christians abhor about today's moral decline.
I also think his strong stand on abortion helps us stay firm about not wanting to be involved in any scheme that funds it, and to question why the likes of Nancy Pelosi aren't excommunicated for supporting the murder of pre-separation infants.
In earlier times many people simply had not heard of the Word of God or of Jesus. Now that is not true, especially if you grew up in this country. These people have heard and rejected God repeatedly though their lives. They selectively tune into TV shows and entertainment that openly mock Christianity and Christians. They use this same humor themselves. So this is not naive group. Some can still be saved, but the "let chips fall as they may" from the previous comments may have chips scattered all over the barren plain if not actually used as projectiles back toward the Church.
I continue to fear that the soft peddle to gain the possible church participation of the 2% (active homosexuals, in this example), risks a watered-down, casual perspective on sin by everyone else, particularly when this is already the trend since Vatican II (contraception, pornography, etc.). So why not use the soft peddle approach when directly preaching to those burdened by the most abominable sins (as Jesus did) and leave the traditional homilies alone?
I know I am not catechized well like most here -- hardly at all really -- but can't accept that I am completely wrong on this.
Excuse me for a minute here Steve (ROFL!!!!) .. okay, I'm back wearing a serious face. While I cannot speak for others in the forum, my "catechesis" began on FR when I first noticed some freepers citing scripture to defend their positions that were in opposition to Catholic Church teaching. It sent me surfing the internet for solid catholic materials. That is how I began my journey and I have never looked back. Go for it, Steve! Catechize yourself - don't leave it up to others. In the process, trust me, you will fall in love with your Catholic faith!! As the chinese adage goes, a journey begins with the first step. Begin here. Feel free to contact me whenever you need a spiritual boost or simply wish to talk. I'm here for you.
Thanks, the real catechesis I have (other than the almost worthless after-school classes in the late sixties) is largely a result of reading things you and Salvation and others posted over the years, which lead me to many other sites and writings. I was mainly referring to lack of formal religious education — not sure what is so funny about that.
Lots of apologetics here too.....click on my name.
Who are you? What is your background?
Just kidding, I would probably even make an exception and attend your parish’s new Mass on next trip to western Oregon as you have said many good things about it.
My background is like NYer’s - I’ve catechized myself with lots of articles, Bible Study, Faith Formation 101 evenings with my priest, etc.
Steve, anybody here under the age of about 65 was terribly catechized...and many people that age or older have completely forgotten the faith because you never heard orthodox teaching in you parish church after about 1968.
Don’t blame yourself. There’s a whole goldmine of richness and splendor out there - because that’s what Catholic teaching is, not just laws, but glorious things about the love of God, eternal life, happiness here, etc. I will try to send you a little reading list of old things I think you might like.
Neither Salvation, nor I, have had any "formal" religious education. We may have received catechesis as part of our catholic school education but, at that time, we were not paying attention. Let me share a true story with you.
Several years ago, the pastor of my parish, approached and asked me to set up a Religious Education Program in the parish. Moi? Me? I had no formal training in catechesis. But he had picked up on something ... a deep and abiding love for Christ ... and sincerely believed that I could do this. (BTW - very small parish with less than 100 families). After reflecting on my confirmation calling to be a "soldier of Christ" and much prayer, I set about developing a program for the children. It began small with only a handful of kids but tripled in size over the next few years.
One year, a relatively new visitor approached to enroll her 13 year old in the program. She explained that her daughter was baptized in the hospital shortly after birth because of a major birth defect. She survived. As she grew older, her mother enrolled her in the RE program of another parish where her daughter made First Communion - before - First Penance. There was no further religious education, until that day.
The situation posed a conundrum. At age 13, the young girl had had only one year of religious education. She had never made her First Penance. How to place her? The solution was quite simple, yet historical: the Baltimore Catechism.
Steve,
I haven’t been asked to set up a program for children like NYer was. (Thank you, God!)
But I have set up a program for adults during Lent to read, reflect, meditate, bring into action in their lives all the Sunday readings during Lent.
I have also taught Bible study classes for:
Acts of the Apostles
Matthew
Mark
John and the letters of John
Exodus
Genisis
Isaiah
Romans
Paul’s prison letters
Women of the Old Testament
Women of the New Testament
Revalation
James
the letters of Peter
And we are now doing Psalms.
Oops, I forgot Luke
Thanks, livius, but remember I'm no polyglot!
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.