Saturday, March 28, 2015
Monday, January 26, 2015
"This is a Rebellious People..."
Sunday, October 26, 2014
TFTD: Don't Judge People You Judgmental @#$%&*#!!!
Reading the comments in response to Facebook articles, I came across one raging individual who was launching a tirade against the Church in response to an address given by Pope Francis on the topic of marriage. I found it rather sad, in a pitiful way. She was raging about how God didn’t care about same sex relationships and the Church had no right to judge people choosing to take part in such acts. Besides, the Bible had more to say about different topics besides that! (So which is it? God doesn’t care? Or that He just has higher priorities?)
I find that curious. This person has basically put herself in a no-win situation.
- If God exists (which seems to be a given since the woman said He didn’t care and caring depends on existing), and has made known how He wants us to live, then it stands to reason that someone so concerned about what He thinks would follow His teaching, after discerning what He taught.
- If God exists, and has not made known how He wants us to live, then how in the hell do you know He doesn’t care?
So, for this woman to prove her point, she has to assume that God has made known how He wants us to live, and has indicated He doesn’t care about sexual preferences. No such statement from God exists, though we do have many condemnations of same sex behavior in both the Old and New Testament. Jesus Himself defined marriage as being between a woman and a man:
He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matt 19:4–6).
So, this woman has to deny the authority of Scripture when it comes to the verses she dislikes.
But I suspect the woman was probably given a false idea of Jesus as a Santa Claus who just loves people in a warm fuzzy way and never asks them to change their ways because sin is only what other people do. Also, I suspect that she equates “judge” with “say something is wrong.” But the judging Jesus is speaking of is the final judgment. God has the sole authority to determine how each person has sought to learn what is right and then carry it out to the best of his or her knowledge and ability
The second point of interest is that the teaching of Jesus, in the Bible, tells us that He intends to build a Church which He gives His authority and to reject the Church is to reject Him. If this is true, then the Church certainly does have the authority to determine what acts are compatible with being a Christian and which ones are not. That brings us back to the no-win situation above. If God makes His will known, then she needs to either accept the words of Christ as they appear in the Bible or provide an authoritative source as to why it is wrong. If He doesn’t, how in the hell does she know?
Again, the Santa Claus image of Jesus makes her think that God couldn’t say that what she does is wrong.
Really, this kind of mindset is a form of pride. It says "other people are sinners but *I* am not!” But Jesus came to save us because we are sinners and we are called to repent. If we refuse to repent, we refuse His sacrifice on the Cross. So the person who denies their sinfulness and refuses to ask whether they do wrong won’t be able to repent.
So the Church isn’t being judgmental. She’s more like the person with the sign saying, “Danger! Bridge Out Ahead!” Ignore the warning, and it won’t go well with you. Not because the Church is “mean.” But because God is loving and just. Justice requires that people who choose to do what they know is wrong answer for it.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Reflection on Factions "More Catholic Than the Pope."
Sunday, November 10, 2013
TFTD: Missing the Point
A fellow parishioner once complained that our Pastor never spoke about homosexuality or abortion. I was tempted to reply, "Why? Are you a homosexual abortionist?" (Thankfully God gave me the gift of prudence not to do so).
The comment wouldn't have been flippant though. It points out a problem with Catholics. That problem is focusing more on judging others than on asking ourselves where we stand with God.
Remember the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18: 9-14.)
All of us are sinners, but sometimes we miss the point in judging ourselves against the sins of others instead of against who God calls us to be.
To be sure, practicing homosexuals and abortionists do need to be warned about their sins. But so do we. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (#14) reminds us:
All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.
If the abortionist or the practicing homosexual repents, but we remain self righteous, they will be saved and we will not.
Let's keep that in mind when the Pope, Bishop or pastor seems to hit close to home instead of talking about "them."
Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
TFTD: Missing the Point
A fellow parishioner once complained that our Pastor never spoke about homosexuality or abortion. I was tempted to reply, "Why? Are you a homosexual abortionist?" (Thankfully God gave me the gift of prudence not to do so).
The comment wouldn't have been flippant though. It points out a problem with Catholics. That problem is focusing more on judging others than on asking ourselves where we stand with God.
Remember the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18: 9-14.)
All of us are sinners, but sometimes we miss the point in judging ourselves against the sins of others instead of against who God calls us to be.
To be sure, practicing homosexuals and abortionists do need to be warned about their sins. But so do we. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (#14) reminds us:
All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.
If the abortionist or the practicing homosexual repents, but we remain self righteous, they will be saved and we will not.
Let's keep that in mind when the Pope, Bishop or pastor seems to hit close to home instead of talking about "them."
Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
On Pharisees and Reaching Out to Sinners
“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. *Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:28-31).
I think what troubles me the most about the new conservative dissent against the Pope is how much it is based on the fact that he is reaching out to the public sinners with compassion, rather than judgment.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Church should be liberal (and, for that matter, neither is the Pope). But as I see how many Catholics columnists -- even those I ordinarily approve of -- taking an attitude of disappointment, annoyance, even anger -- against the Pope, I find myself struck with a sense of deja vu. It's a sense that here in the 21st century we're seeing the same attitude that the New Testament described in the First century -- that there are a group of religious people, seeing the (real) sin of people being reached out to, but can see no further than their sin.
Now Jesus knew the prostitutes and tax collectors were sinners. He also knew the Scribes and Pharisees did not commit the sins they did. But that wasn't the important part. The important part was Jesus loved both the Pharisee and the tax collector and wanted to save them both.
To do so, He took different approaches based on what each needed to hear. To the prostitutes and tax collectors, his approach began with the love of God... letting them know God loved them and wanted them to turn back and seek the Lord.
To the scribes and Pharisees however, he needed to shake them out of their idea that because they didn't sin as the prostitutes and tax collectors did, they didn't need to repent.
In Mark 2:16-17, we have this interesting exchange:
Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus heard this and said to them [that], “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”
They were scandalized because Jesus did not deal with them as they thought he should. Instead, He engaged them where they were. He chose to dine at the house of Zacchaeus. He told the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:11).
Now we know these lessons. But do we take them to heart? I wonder.
I mainly wonder how we might react if Jesus said to us, "The liberals and the homosexuals are entering the kingdom of God before you."
That would probably be as shocking to us as “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you" was to the Pharisees.
I think of these things as Catholics are scandalized by Pope Francis. In the time since he became Pope, he has spoken gently to those estranged from the Church and admonished us who might be too complacent about our relationship with God.
But speaking to those estranged gently is not to sanction their sins. Jesus ate with sinners. But He didn't say it was OK to remain in their sins. Prostitutes and tax collectors may have been entering the kingdom before the pharisees, but that doesn't mean they remained prostitutes and dishonest tax men.
Likewise, Pope Francis calls sinners with compassion. But he doesn't say they can remain sinners.
Pope Francis seeks to emulate Jesus Christ. When we respond, let us be careful not to emulate the Pharisees.
On Pharisees and Reaching Out to Sinners
“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. *Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:28-31).
I think what troubles me the most about the new conservative dissent against the Pope is how much it is based on the fact that he is reaching out to the public sinners with compassion, rather than judgment.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Church should be liberal (and, for that matter, neither is the Pope). But as I see how many Catholics columnists -- even those I ordinarily approve of -- taking an attitude of disappointment, annoyance, even anger -- against the Pope, I find myself struck with a sense of deja vu. It's a sense that here in the 21st century we're seeing the same attitude that the New Testament described in the First century -- that there are a group of religious people, seeing the (real) sin of people being reached out to, but can see no further than their sin.
Now Jesus knew the prostitutes and tax collectors were sinners. He also knew the Scribes and Pharisees did not commit the sins they did. But that wasn't the important part. The important part was Jesus loved both the Pharisee and the tax collector and wanted to save them both.
To do so, He took different approaches based on what each needed to hear. To the prostitutes and tax collectors, his approach began with the love of God... letting them know God loved them and wanted them to turn back and seek the Lord.
To the scribes and Pharisees however, he needed to shake them out of their idea that because they didn't sin as the prostitutes and tax collectors did, they didn't need to repent.
In Mark 2:16-17, we have this interesting exchange:
Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus heard this and said to them [that], “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”
They were scandalized because Jesus did not deal with them as they thought he should. Instead, He engaged them where they were. He chose to dine at the house of Zacchaeus. He told the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:11).
Now we know these lessons. But do we take them to heart? I wonder.
I mainly wonder how we might react if Jesus said to us, "The liberals and the homosexuals are entering the kingdom of God before you."
That would probably be as shocking to us as “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you" was to the Pharisees.
I think of these things as Catholics are scandalized by Pope Francis. In the time since he became Pope, he has spoken gently to those estranged from the Church and admonished us who might be too complacent about our relationship with God.
But speaking to those estranged gently is not to sanction their sins. Jesus ate with sinners. But He didn't say it was OK to remain in their sins. Prostitutes and tax collectors may have been entering the kingdom before the pharisees, but that doesn't mean they remained prostitutes and dishonest tax men.
Likewise, Pope Francis calls sinners with compassion. But he doesn't say they can remain sinners.
Pope Francis seeks to emulate Jesus Christ. When we respond, let us be careful not to emulate the Pharisees.
Monday, October 7, 2013
The Pope Six Months Later
Shortly after his election as Pope, I wrote an article on how the Pope would be judged on people's personal preferences of what the Pope should be.
About six months later, I believe my point has been proven. We have a Pope who is unconventional according to the behavior of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. However, when Pope Francis speaks, I see a Pope who is challenging us Catholics not to be complacent instead of condemning our opponents.
Unfortunately, certain conservative Catholics -- and not just "rad trads" -- are taking offense with his unconventional style.
To this, I find myself thinking this:
It's one thing to desire the Pope to speak on certain subjects. That's natural. But to consider him a disappointment (or worse) because he doesn't match our preferences? That's being judgmental and making ourselves the arbiter of what is authenticly Catholic.
Think about it. If we act churlishly when the Church challenges us, how can we serve as a witness to the Church when she challenges the world?
The Pope Six Months Later
Shortly after his election as Pope, I wrote an article on how the Pope would be judged on people's personal preferences of what the Pope should be.
About six months later, I believe my point has been proven. We have a Pope who is unconventional according to the behavior of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. However, when Pope Francis speaks, I see a Pope who is challenging us Catholics not to be complacent instead of condemning our opponents.
Unfortunately, certain conservative Catholics -- and not just "rad trads" -- are taking offense with his unconventional style.
To this, I find myself thinking this:
It's one thing to desire the Pope to speak on certain subjects. That's natural. But to consider him a disappointment (or worse) because he doesn't match our preferences? That's being judgmental and making ourselves the arbiter of what is authenticly Catholic.
Think about it. If we act churlishly when the Church challenges us, how can we serve as a witness to the Church when she challenges the world?
Saturday, June 1, 2013
TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church
A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying. Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument. Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.
What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics." This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth. Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.
The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church. This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception. On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error. Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.
Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.
The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking). It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably. It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]." The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
- Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?
Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion. Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person). This line is clear.
But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not. How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?" How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"
These are not easy questions to answer. Christians are forbidden to lie, we know. An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?" But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know? This is where the dispute exists.
This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side. But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.
Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position. Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.
This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again). But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."
TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church
A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying. Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument. Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.
What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics." This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth. Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.
The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church. This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception. On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error. Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.
Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.
The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking). It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably. It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]." The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
- Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?
Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion. Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person). This line is clear.
But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not. How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?" How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"
These are not easy questions to answer. Christians are forbidden to lie, we know. An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?" But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know? This is where the dispute exists.
This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side. But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.
Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position. Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.
This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again). But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Keep Perspective
There is one good reason to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that reason is that the Catholic Church is the Church which was established by Jesus Christ and acts with the authority which Christ has bestowed on her to bring people to Him. Love of her artwork, her architecture and the beauty of her rituals are not reasons to be a member of the Catholic Church.
It is true that these things can and do elevate the mind to God and should not be scorned. But if one should put so much focus on the beauty that they forget the purpose of the Church, then the attachment to these things can actually be harmful.
Now we need to remember the maxim abusus non tollit usum (Abuse does not take away [right] use). The fact that some put excessive focus on these things does not mean they are worthless and should be discarded. Rather it means that when the aesthetics of the Church are downplayed, a person should ask why this is.
Watching the past two and a half weeks since Pope Francis was elected, there have been a certain section of the Catholic blogosphere who has been scandalized by his actions. It might seem asinine that some people are worried about the fact that the Pope isn't wearing the red shoes and some other traditional robes, but they are. Some have even accused him of doing things in Argentina (like washing the feet of certain outcasts) out of pride(!).
I think these are quite clearly warning signs that some people are missing the point of what the Church is existing for.
The Church is the sacrament Christ has made to bring His salvation to the world – and His Real Presence to the world in the Eucharist. Pope Francis sees some of the trappings of the office as perhaps obscuring the message of salvation and so he forgoes these trappings to make the message more clear.
Now some people may disagree with how he handles these things. Fair enough. There were times when I cringed at how some of Pope Francis' predecessors did or stated things. We don't have to like all the ways a Pope uses to express himself in teaching the faith. But if a person does not like some of the means the Pope might use to teach the faith, that person still has to have a loving acceptance of the authority of the Pope and assume he is acting out of good will instead of judging rashly.
I do not write this to judge any individual. Rather in the last few hours before the Easter Vigil, I ask readers to keep perspective and not to forget what the Church is for when the Pope acts in an unexpected way.
Keep Perspective
There is one good reason to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that reason is that the Catholic Church is the Church which was established by Jesus Christ and acts with the authority which Christ has bestowed on her to bring people to Him. Love of her artwork, her architecture and the beauty of her rituals are not reasons to be a member of the Catholic Church.
It is true that these things can and do elevate the mind to God and should not be scorned. But if one should put so much focus on the beauty that they forget the purpose of the Church, then the attachment to these things can actually be harmful.
Now we need to remember the maxim abusus non tollit usum (Abuse does not take away [right] use). The fact that some put excessive focus on these things does not mean they are worthless and should be discarded. Rather it means that when the aesthetics of the Church are downplayed, a person should ask why this is.
Watching the past two and a half weeks since Pope Francis was elected, there have been a certain section of the Catholic blogosphere who has been scandalized by his actions. It might seem asinine that some people are worried about the fact that the Pope isn't wearing the red shoes and some other traditional robes, but they are. Some have even accused him of doing things in Argentina (like washing the feet of certain outcasts) out of pride(!).
I think these are quite clearly warning signs that some people are missing the point of what the Church is existing for.
The Church is the sacrament Christ has made to bring His salvation to the world – and His Real Presence to the world in the Eucharist. Pope Francis sees some of the trappings of the office as perhaps obscuring the message of salvation and so he forgoes these trappings to make the message more clear.
Now some people may disagree with how he handles these things. Fair enough. There were times when I cringed at how some of Pope Francis' predecessors did or stated things. We don't have to like all the ways a Pope uses to express himself in teaching the faith. But if a person does not like some of the means the Pope might use to teach the faith, that person still has to have a loving acceptance of the authority of the Pope and assume he is acting out of good will instead of judging rashly.
I do not write this to judge any individual. Rather in the last few hours before the Easter Vigil, I ask readers to keep perspective and not to forget what the Church is for when the Pope acts in an unexpected way.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Monday, August 15, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference
One of the more irritating things I come across in the Catholic blogosphere is the amount of confusion there is over Doctrine vs. Preference. We see many people throw around the accusation of heresy about things which are not in fact heretical. There is no obstinate post-baptismal denial about some truth the Catholic faith. There is no defiance against Church teaching. Rather the person who throws around the accusation is elevating his or her preferences to the level of doctrine, saying in effect, "I'm right in my practice of the faith. You do something I disagree with. Therefore you're heretical (or blasphemous or any other invective)."
Thus people who like Marty Hagen hymns, people who receive the Eucharist in the hand, people who don't have problems with the Ordinary form of the Mass tend to be labeled as anything from heretical to being deceived about the "true" faith.
If one prefers the Gregorian Chant, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue or the Latin Mass of the 1962 missal, fine. These are elements of Catholicism and so long as they are done from a perspective of what helps them enter a peace of mind to focus on God, that is good.
However, once it becomes an attitude of "I am superior to you!" or "anyone who disagrees is not an authentic Catholic" it is no longer good, but rather it becomes an attitude of pride.
Remember, we're not talking about people who dissent from Catholic moral teaching here. We're not talking about the Cafeteria Catholic who claims that they are allowed to disobey the Church when she teaches about what we must and must not do. We are talking about people who fly into a rage because the music director plays Shine Jesus Shine at Mass.
It might not be more than annoyance, but some people go so far as to accuse the magisterium of "heresy." Such a view is dangerous indeed. Once we make ourselves the judge of what the Church can and cannot teach, we separate ourselves from the Church when our views part ways from the Catholic teaching.
So let's remember something here…
We aren't the Pope.
So just because we dislike a thing aesthetically does not make such a thing "wrong." We have no authority to bind what the Church looses, nor the authority to loose what the Church binds. If a person feels more comfortable to receive the Eucharist in the hand, and the bishop has permitted it in his diocese, you have no right to look down on that person. Likewise, if we prefer something which the magisterial authority of the Church decides may no longer be done, the proper attitude is obedience, not defiance.
Otherwise we become guilty of true dissent… having a beam in our eye while focusing on the splinter in the eye of another.
Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference
One of the more irritating things I come across in the Catholic blogosphere is the amount of confusion there is over Doctrine vs. Preference. We see many people throw around the accusation of heresy about things which are not in fact heretical. There is no obstinate post-baptismal denial about some truth the Catholic faith. There is no defiance against Church teaching. Rather the person who throws around the accusation is elevating his or her preferences to the level of doctrine, saying in effect, "I'm right in my practice of the faith. You do something I disagree with. Therefore you're heretical (or blasphemous or any other invective)."
Thus people who like Marty Hagen hymns, people who receive the Eucharist in the hand, people who don't have problems with the Ordinary form of the Mass tend to be labeled as anything from heretical to being deceived about the "true" faith.
If one prefers the Gregorian Chant, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue or the Latin Mass of the 1962 missal, fine. These are elements of Catholicism and so long as they are done from a perspective of what helps them enter a peace of mind to focus on God, that is good.
However, once it becomes an attitude of "I am superior to you!" or "anyone who disagrees is not an authentic Catholic" it is no longer good, but rather it becomes an attitude of pride.
Remember, we're not talking about people who dissent from Catholic moral teaching here. We're not talking about the Cafeteria Catholic who claims that they are allowed to disobey the Church when she teaches about what we must and must not do. We are talking about people who fly into a rage because the music director plays Shine Jesus Shine at Mass.
It might not be more than annoyance, but some people go so far as to accuse the magisterium of "heresy." Such a view is dangerous indeed. Once we make ourselves the judge of what the Church can and cannot teach, we separate ourselves from the Church when our views part ways from the Catholic teaching.
So let's remember something here…
We aren't the Pope.
So just because we dislike a thing aesthetically does not make such a thing "wrong." We have no authority to bind what the Church looses, nor the authority to loose what the Church binds. If a person feels more comfortable to receive the Eucharist in the hand, and the bishop has permitted it in his diocese, you have no right to look down on that person. Likewise, if we prefer something which the magisterial authority of the Church decides may no longer be done, the proper attitude is obedience, not defiance.
Otherwise we become guilty of true dissent… having a beam in our eye while focusing on the splinter in the eye of another.