Posted on 02/23/2007 8:32:11 AM PST by Alex Murphy
They'd have gotten your head straight and your knuckles would need attention.
Sanctimonious, self-righteous prigs, on the other hand, who degrade and humiliate those who have sexual issues are far more problematic. The Church is supposed to be a means by which God communicates grace, not condemnation. Unfortunately, there are far too many examples where the Church has humiliated or demonized gays, single mothers, and other sinners.
I'm a sinner too. My sins may not be sexual in nature, but they're no less serious.
This was just a really sad post. I grew up in the 70's and 80's with the 'Jesus is your friend' religion classes. There was absolutely no substance to our CCD classes. She appears to be a victim of this.
I hope she learns to pick up some good Catholic literature soon. It took me awhile but I finally found those books. It appears like she thinks she's so smart and yet her article screams of lack of information. It's just really sad!
"I started realizing that he is only all loving if you are a Christian heterosexual man or woman who follows every commandment to a tee. "
That is correct. God is angry with you. If you can keep all of the Law, you are righteous. There is a Savior otherwise, but He does require repentance.
There now. That wasn't so hard.
Communicating Grace does not include telling folks that blasphemy, idolatry, profanity, disrespect, murder, theft, adultery, dishonesty, or covetousness are just peachy.
There's a group of folks whose whole mission in life is to get "society" to believe that buggery is just fine. They're wrong, and the Church would be remiss in her duties not to tell them so. The message must be, as with all sins, to repent, to "go and sin no more". The author of this piece seems to both reject and misrepresent this message. She has also rejected and misrepresented the message that abortion is wrong. She has also rejected the message that false worship is wrong. Finally, she does just that, creating for herself a 'god' in her own image and likeness.
None of this is OK ... her apparent embrace of polygenism is apparently heresy ... and failing to note all of this does not communicate Grace.
"I'm a sinner too. My sins may not be sexual in nature, but they're no less serious."
True, as are we all.
But do you demand endorsement of the sin or engage in repentance for it? That is the real issue.
"O, ye of little faith"
The Church as a whole still must condemn homosexual acts, adultery, and other such sins, but at the same time, they must show that there is a better way, not condemn people. If we don't strongly and clearly condemn sin, we too are guilty.
The problem is that the stereotype of "sanctimonious, self-righteous prigs" largely emerged from the homosexual community itself and various tools like Phelps. I've tried to talk to many gay people I know, and, more often than not, at the first hint that God doesn't approve of their actions, the screaming about "hater" and "fundie" starts, as well as suggestions that would get me banned if I repeated them.
It's a stereotype that they cling to with dogged perseverance. Even to the point where a friend of mine wished a former friend of ours (before he started screaming at us about how we were haters) a happy birthday. The reply was: "I don't want you to be nice to me."
Given the screeds of Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell (and the Catholic analogs that we all know are out there), its not entirely surprising. Given the pathetic state of catechesis, I bet you she has never heard a cogent explanation of why homosexuality is wrong but homosexuals should not be hated; why abortion is evil but that she must show compassion to women contemplating abortion as a choice of desperation
The writer of this article has certainly missed the point of Christianity. I'm not convinced its wholly her fault, though. The Church has done a poor job of communicating grace, so what she's seen sure does look a lot like hatred.
With that, I believe you have hit the nail quite squarely on the head.
We should have a set of booklets: "Oh, I see you're having 11th Grade Crisis Type 2! Here's your booklet!"
Iirc, all this girl's questions are answered in Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons?
However, the deeper problem for many adolescents is that they simply don't wish to accept that something they want to do is a sin. Time knocks that out of many, but not all.
Luther kept the books but they were discarded some time after his demise.
. It was St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I in 382 who translated the writings into Latin. The translation was from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Latin, which was and still is the official language of the Catholic Church was used and the Bible was called the (Latin)Vulgate Bible.
The Vulgate was designed to be a definitive and officially promulgated translation of the Bible, improving upon several divergent translations then in use. It was the first, and for many centuries the only bible from c. AD 400–1530.
William Tyndale, considered the father of the Reformation, was instrumental in making the “English Bible” King James, about 1526. It was at this point in history that many books were left out or changed from the original St. Jerome version. The original King James Bible was revised in 1604; there was a 1975 version and a 1994 version. I recommend a reading of each for chapter and verse dissimilarity.
You're missing our point. Her Catholic catechist was giving her an answer to her (perfectly legitimate) question which was materially heretical, according to the Catholic church.
It's a specific and glaring instance of how bad (incompetent, clueless) her catechesis was. That's not her fault, and not her sin.
There is a proper time, manner, and means by which sin must be condemned. The proper time and means is in catechesis, not when someone is struggling. The proper manner is proportional - not letting homosexuality or abortion slide as anything other but sin, but at the same time, not losing sight of the fact that these sins are simply less easily hidden than others just as serious.
the stereotype of "sanctimonious, self-righteous prigs" largely emerged from the homosexual community itself and various tools like Phelps.
Oh, that's not true. An unfortunate tendency within the theologically conservatism has always been a touch of legalistic Pharisaicalism. "I thank thee that I am not like other sinners."
Which position is nonsense.
Actually, that's pretty much my point.
##Some people have asked why don't you just switch to a religion that you agree with? Although that seems like the perfect solution, I know that no matter what religion I switch to there will always be aspects of it that I don't agree with."###
Too many State University Liberals have gotten to her. Really has nothing to do with religion or specific religion. Just wants to do what she wants.
I would pose the Spiritual Works of Mercy and Corporal Works of Mercy to her. She might get an idea what Christianity and Catholicism rally means.
This piece is sad. I'm around her age, and I've seen many in high school go in the same direction. Many Catholics are only "cafeteria" Catholics today.
"I have always been taught that God welcomes and loves all people. Priests and Sunday school teachers present you with an all-loving God — he is your friend, your creator and most importantly your guide in life."
This is one problem. Many priests and teachers today only talk about God as a loving friend. The problem is, the don't address that God loves the sinner but not the sin. They don't discuss the things that are right and wrong and why these things are right and wrong.
"As I became a teenager though, my Sunday school teachers started adding a disclaimer next to "all-loving." I started realizing that he is only all loving if you are a Christian heterosexual man or woman who follows every commandment to a tee."
God loves everyone equally, regardless of their sins. However, God doesn't love the sins they commit, and he offers repentance in the sacrament of Reconciliation.
"Too bad if you're gay, God doesn't love you any more. If you're a woman and have had an abortion you might as well give up because God is going to smite you. And if you believe in other religions, forget it."
God loves you regardless of these things, but he doesn't love these things. God doesn't approve of the homosexual lifestyle or abortion. We are asked not to be cruel or mean to these people but encourage them to repnent and change their lives. We are taught the ultimate path to salvation is through God, but people of other relgions or of no understanding of God surely have a chance to spend eternity with God in Heaven.
"While I respect those who believe in the Christian faith, the biggest question I have been struggling with is how I can believe in a God that loves me conditionally.:
You, along with other liberals want God to support everything, regardless of its morality and whine when he doesn't.
"I'm sure I am not the only Catholic on campus that began questioning her faith after coming to college."
I'm sure you aren't either. There are many out there like you.
"So where do we go from here? I am left in what seems to be a small but growing group of Catholics who are now realizing that their all-loving God is really a sham."
Maybe you are realizing that God doesn't accept everything, especially if it is immoral. Maybe you are realizing that earning salvation isn't a walk in the park. It isn't accepting the goals of the liberal agenda. God loves you but not your sins.
"The only real answer that I have come up with is to add more disclaimers to my abridged version of Catholicism."
Yep, "cafeteria" Catholic. Pick and choose what to believe.
She ought to join a liberal Christian Church that says God loves one regardless of what they do. However, it seems she is starting her own version of Christianity based on the liberal philosophy herself.
Wrong. Literally, the text says "one woman man" - it does not have anything to do with how many wives...it talks about commitment to the wife of the presbuteros.
The usual translation is correct. The most likely intent is to exclude men who have remarried, either after having been widowed or having set aside pagan wives.
That adulterers make bad bishops goes without saying.
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.