One of the most reliable of Catholic commentators is Msgr Charles Pope. He always has something good to say, and unlike some, he does not court controversy. So, when he writes it is the end for ‘comfort Catholicism’, it is an invitation one should take seriously. He comments:
There is a growing consternation among some Catholics that the Church, at least in her leadership, is living in the past. It seems there is no awareness that we are at war and that Catholics need to be summoned to sobriety, increasing separation from the wider culture, courageous witness and increasing martyrdom.
The Church is not, he says, preparing its people for the moral and spiritual war in which we are engaged, and its leaders prefer soft words and ambiguous formulations to addressing serious issues in what the world would perceive as a controversial way.
We who are supposed to be the light of the world, with Christ shining in us, have preferred to hide our light under a basket and lay low. The ruins of our families and culture are testimony to the triumph of error and the suppression of the truth.
We should be prepared, he thinks, to defy ‘unjust’ laws and if necessary go to jail rather than obey them:
We have to retool and provide every opportunity to get clear about our faith. Sermons and other teachable moments must sound a clear call to personal conversion and to battle for souls and to stop treating lightly the sinful disregard for God’s law in our families and communities.
How, one is tempted to ask, did it come to this? Msgr Pope seems to be suggesting that it was the failures of the 1970s – a fashionable scapegoat, but ultimately unsatisfying as an explanation. The failures of the 1970s were not confined to the Catholic Church, and had the Church been solid in the preceding decades, then it is hard to see how the 1970s could have taken the route it did. What went wrong was due to deep-seated defects and not confined to the Catholic Church. No one, I suspect, would accuse the Irish Church of the 1960s of an excess of liberalism, and as late as the 1980s Ireland was still a conservative Catholic country; the crash when it came was in large measure due to the conduct of those in the Church – and their faults were not undue reverence for the Spirit of vatican II. The fault, as Mary O’Regan noted last year in the Catholic Herald, lay with the Church which had failed to recognise the sex abuse crisis, and a hierarchy which had failed to deal properly with it once the media forced it to do so; this produced a loss of faith in the institution. There is a strong argument to be made that this has been a disaster for Ireland as much as for the Church, and that the country desperately needs the faith.
It is easy and tempting, to fall for what one might call the ‘American culture war’ explanation of the decline in the position of the Church in the Western world; but we should resist it. For one thing, it is far from clear that the American ‘culture war’ narrative has any result save for an increase in partisanship, in which both sides demonise the other to gain political brownie points; whatever his partisans say, Mr Trump’s attempt to use this to gain himself the presidency is going to end in the sort of failure the Republicans last saw with Barry Goldwater; one fears, however, that his supporters will see it all as the results of nefarious forces fighting against them. If that is where they go after November, they will both further inflame a bad situation, and, from the political point of view, fail to arrive at an answer which will get them back into power. Under Mr Corbyn, the Labour Party seems to be moving in the same direction. The paranoid style is the fashion of the moment. Msgr Pope seems to be in danger of joining a long list of public figures who see their own movement as being under threat and who warn of being ready for the coming persecution. It is a style which risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
None of this is to say that the Church should not fearlessly proclaim the Good News, nor to say we should somehow conform to the ways of this world, but it is to suggest that succumbing to the American culture wars narrative would be to conform in an especially unhelpful way, not least for those Christians in the world who are subject to genuine severe persecution. Is this really the moment to be alienating our governments, or is it a time to remind them of the duty they owe to Christians who have been driven from their homes by the forces of evil? Might we put the needs of others above the virtue-signalling of our own desires? We can send any message we want to the governments which represent us, but I suggest this is the one to send now. As for ‘comfort Catholicism’, I’m not sure we need yet another dismissive slogan to aim at our fellow Catholics. We all stand in need of comfort, we all stand under judgment, and we are called to love one another. I know this last command of Our Lord is one which ignites some readers to impatience, but it is His command, not mine, and they might, perhaps, meditate on why the word ‘love’ creates such un-loving emotions? Misuse is no excuse for ignoring the proper use.
Scoop said:
The irony is that the unbridgable gap between the evil of this world and the holiness of the faith is not caused by a widening of our positions [as evil is always present as a corruption of a good] but because of a narrowing of the expressions of faith and the expressions of the world as somehow compatible. This is the ‘comfort’ of the modern Catholic or Christian of any stripe; that there exists a place where good and evil might meet in a compromised position agreeable to all. It won’t happen, as it has never happened in the past, and it will never happen in the future. Corruption cannot be mediated; only resisted. If corruption of a good is not resisted then persecution of the good is always an inevitable outcome. God brings good from evil by removing the corruption from the good; thereby only the good remains. The monsignor’s clarion call is, in my estimation, a rather sober look at where compromise with evil has led us. We have loved peace more than we have loved truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I’m really not sure about that analysis. I can’t readily identify any Catholic who has preached such a gospel – can you give me some links? Who is it who has said there is this middle place where good and evil can meet? I can’t think of any Catholic in a responsible position who has preached such a thing.
I usually agree with Msgr Pope, but here he seems to me to be on dangerous ground. Does anyone think that annoying our own governments is going to help our fellow Christians in the Middle East and Africa? Too Anglosphere centric a view I fear.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Scoop said:
It depends on what you consider to be worth standing up for and dying for I guess. The Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cubans et al came to their conclusions too late. Where the resistance to evil is weak the strong become more emboldened. Isn’t this the spring of today’s present evils? Seems we have gone along to simply get along. I think the good monsignor makes a good point.
How is is any different than the oft quoted axiom; “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t see good men doing nothing, and it depends what one counts as evil. I wasn’t clear which laws he was wanting us to break. It all seemed as though he wanted us to court martyrdom, and as you know, that is not something we are allowed to do. If we are martyred, so be it, but we are not to seek it out. As our brothers and sisters in areas where real persecution happens could tell us, it seeks us out.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Scoop said:
The longer one waits to confront evil the more probable the outcome. It happens over and over again in this world where the frogs start getting boiled before they realize that this pot of water which they have agreeably entered is not a comforting spa.
You would be hardpressed to give me a long list of the resistors to each of societies foray into evil since the close of WWII. Sure there are a few; and they are considered the nut jobs. A consistent resistance of any substance, without compromise with the evils that now confront us; not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I’m very unclear on who is not confronting what evil? Just what is it,other than an emotional spam, that is being suggested? I am a practical fellow and dislike inflated rhetoric. What is the plan of action?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Scoop said:
Refuse to pay taxes as long as the money is being used to perform abortions. Refuse to allow men to use women’s toilets if your place of business. Do not give up your right to moral conscience: e.g. a doctor refusing to perform abortions or a pharmacist refusing to sell morning after pills. Any of these can get you in jail and I could go on and on and on in like manner. We have collectively, for the sake of peace, refused to confront these issues and the loss of our personal freedoms to act in conscience. So instead, many have actually reformed their conscience to accept that these are goods that they support. So where is the leadership on such things? It doesn’t truly exist in any manifest way. It has been left to the individual . . . just as your resistance is also left to your individual conscience. But that last question is key. Where is the hierarchy on this . . . to give us a plan? It doesn’t exist; but you think Monsignor Pope should tell us this where even the Pope, the majority of bishops and cardinals in the Church will not? I’m practical as well. Some real spiritual leadership would be welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I wonder whether this isn’t something of a recipe for chaos? The pacifists will want to opt out of paying taxes for the military and for defence, those who don’t drive will want out of taxes which go to pay for roads (as they do here in the UK) or for health care for the sick if they are healthy, or for caring for the obese who brought the problem on themselves. It is hard to see where this one would stop.
Here, doctors have the right to refuse to perform abortions, and if a pharmacist doesn’t want to sell contraceptives, there’s always another one who does. No one is stopping doctors or pharmacists, or anyone else, resigning – then they’d not have any tax to pay anyway – just a thought 🙂
Totally agree that it is a disgrace that our hierarchs appear to be AWOL on all of this. Now, if it was a matter of social justice …
LikeLiked by 3 people
Scoop said:
Indeed, we have become a voice for political social justice and a mute on morality.
Indeed if pacifists believe as strongly as they protest then they shouldn’t pay taxes and they will certainly go to jail for their beliefs . . . though pacifists were always given a way to serve their country without violating their conscience.
Laws are already coming that will not only allow euthanasia but may be a required service offered by doctors. It is never ending. The thin end of the wedge has done its work. I think the hour where we could have righted this movement into licentiousness has long passed us. That is why Monsignor Pope and Fr. Z who wrote about this piece as well are quite relevant. Persecution is the certain outcome to those who will continue to cling to the guns and religion. The only other option is to do as Hillary suggested last year and change our religious beliefs. After all, if you can’t support abortion for religious beliefs then the religious belief must be wrong. We have many a Catholic and Christian who have already crossed that evil river and it is too late for them . . . and it may be too late for us to fix that which is dreadfully wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
There are always those who will compromise I suppose – alas,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Alas, is right, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
From my reading, Pope isn’t asking us to strive to be martyrs, as Chalcedon, but rather to be faithful to our orthodoxy by rejecting heterodox that exists within our Church that exists within “beige Catholicism.” Pope asks not look for the martyrdom, but rather prepare our souls for persecution by pious devotion to our faith, examining our conscience, and prepare for a cross if it comes to it. However, I do not read in Pope’s comments a desire to be hung on a cross. I believe this to be a jumping to a supposition based on Pope’s comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I was responding to what I took to be Scoop’s interpretation of what Pope was saying. I do wonder a bit about this habit some have of tossing off opprobrious comments about their fellow Catholics. I am not sure what it is meant to do other than to signal that the person making the comment thinks himself a better Catholic than the person he is describing; since in the very moment of doing that he loses humility, that may be something of an own goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
In fact, I agree with Scoop’s comments about resisting laws that violate God’s law.
Furthermore, Beige Catholicism is merely a compromising of Catholic Morality to fit in the world. However, when we are baptized we are asked to live in the world, but we are no longer of it. In my parish, there is a Catechist whose Facebook is filled with supporting Same-sex marriage, a position not supported by Catholic doctrine. A compromised position of their Catholicism to fit in the world. Perhaps driven by a fear of being rejected by the world.
In the Life of Christ, by the Venerable Fulton Sheen, he makes a comment on Jn. Chapter 8. He articulates that what Christ despises is those who are sinners and fail to realize it. Sheen explains how pivotal her words by calling him Lord, as the one who can save. The question occurs what had happened in the Catholic world where sin is no longer recognized by Catholics and Hell no longer feared?
We shouldn’t point the finger at “American” Culture War. I could certainly argue that the American Catholic Church is in a far better state than the German, however, German Catholics I would asset have given up their Catholic identity and Culture long ago and now their Church is gutted. The American Church, in light of this, should begin to draw the line in the sand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As I said in the piece, the soi-disant ‘culture wars’ seem to me to resemble nothing so much as two loud-mouthed men shouting at each other across a gulf. There’s no sign it has had a good influence on anything; but that may be to judge too much from the two truly awful candidates for the presidency: a loud mouth bigot with no morals, or a proven crook with no morals – what a choice – but then it seems to me this is where culture wars lead, to each side deciding to go with someone who seems to them ‘pure’ in terms of embodying what it is they want; the idea there might be a public good gets dismissed; yet there is one, and I can’t see either candidate is going to serve it once elected. Still, it isn’t my country, and we have our own equivalents – although interestingly, none of them managed to become Prime Minister, the party preferring a sensible middle of the road adult.
Coming on to the issue of ‘being Catholics’, I am not, as will be clear, a fan of such comments; at the very least they evince a want of humility and charity which seems unChristian in its self-referential quality.
If by it one means (as I guess must be the case) those such as the catechist you mention, such people are not ‘beige’ they are bad Catholics and set an awful example; that the parish priest or diocesan bishop have not intervened is a cause for concern – assuming that they have been alerted. Perhaps someone should tell them he is making comments about sin being bad – that would get their attention 🙂
I don’t think the catechist is compromising, he is surrendering, and that’s not the same thing. Compromising would be what I do when I pay my taxes and know some of it goes to fund abortion on the NHS. I could choose to withhold my tax and go to jail, but I choose not to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
In my estimation, I would call those who ‘surrender’ to be those whose faith is ‘cold’ and those that ‘compromise’ with the world as ‘lukewarm’ whilst we are all called to be ‘hot’ and full of zeal for the teachings of the faith. Seems to me that “Comfortable Catholicism” is nothing more than the lukewarmness of folks as expressed in Revelation. The tendency for folks to fall into this lazy Catholicsm has been with us from the beginning it seems. We know it is the most unsavory of positions to God and Msgr. Pope is only urging us toward a faith that is zealous and ‘hot’ . . . seems the Lord wants that as well.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My problem with all of this is that the moment we judge the condition of other Catholics, we lose humility. I am quite unable to judge the state of soul of another, and that seems to me a job best left to God. Has this name calling among Catholics been productive of any good at all?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
You seem to do what Jessica always did; i.e. take a general obseration about a condition that exists and personalize it to an individual. Msgr. Pope didn’t do that, I haven’t done that and few people do that out in the civil world of normal discourse. But that souldn’t make us feel that valid teaching that accuses on the individual conscience should be avoided. On the contrary . . . the points need to be made so that we can examine our consciences.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I merely ask for examples. If someone is referring to ‘beige Catholics’ or ‘comfortable Catholics’ these comments apply not to some generalised entity, but to individual Catholics. It seems to me that you and Msgr Pope are generalising about individual Catholics – or do these vague name callings only apply in some general sense and not to any one person?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
And then every such categorization like lukewarm Catholics is now taboo? How much of scripture, early father’s writings, the writings of the popes and saints are willing to redact to protect this ‘false humility/’? Those people exist and in fact it is an almost irresistable draw to every Christian. The warning is for us all; including the teachers, writers and pastors. Otherwise, what form of politically correct discourse made to Catholics are you proposing? One that is devoid of truth? I can, and do, teach the faith though I may struggle with some of its teachings. I may even struggle with the truth of a things that I will defend. That is not hypocrisy but a commitment to suppress ones own subjective doubts to the definitive teachings of Christ and His Church. I fail to see the humility in keeping helpful criteria out of the hands of those who might need to hear it. May as well throw out all of our religious and spiritual teachings and let board of PC police scrub the hard parts and make sure that nobody who has the least stain of sin on their soul teach the faith. You will be hard pressed to find perfected saints to teach the faith and I surely don’t know how parents are to teach their Childresn moral and spiritual lessons in the imperfect states. Silence is the answer that I am hearing you suggest. Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding you but it sure seems that following your advice change in minds and hearts will never come about.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you are authorised by the Church to make such pronouncements and judgments, that is one thing; if you are acting on your own judgment then it is Christian humility, not being pc which ought to restrain your tongue. I am no Church Father, nor do I think I ought to avail myself of the privilege they enjoyed as bishops, as authorised teachers and as prophets. Obviously, some people feel they can; I am not one such.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Yes, I actually think that Christ wanted all of us to spread the good news and teach the Truths that we have learned. Saints didn’t start out being saints . . . and they taught the truths of the faith. Msgr. is authorized by the Church to teach and VII not only authorized but encouraged the rest of us to do the same. It has nothing at all to do with humility which is personal mark of the character to attribute any good they we have to God and any evil that we do or any defect to ourselves. But teaching the faith to the best of our ability is our calling. Should an RCIA teacher (a layman without any formal teaching) do their best to follow the catechism and teach others what is expected of a Catholic? Or should he simply say that it is all up to your own discernment? We really don’t care if you teach the gospel in season or out of season. If it is unpopular you can still be a good Catholic by just keeping your mouth shut and agreeing with those who hold positions that run afoul with the teachings of the Church . . . i.e. don’t make Catholicism hard on you, find a comfort level with the world where you won’t be criticized or chastised.
That may be haughty to you . . . but to me it is in doing the hard things like acting and speaking with fortitude, temperance, prudence etc. which is the mandate. When we are practicing such virtues then we are not destroying humility . . . in fact you may find yourself humiliated by those around you. And so be it . . . it is our lot as Christians to endure such sufferings patiently.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Of course we should all do our best to live the faith, and where it is our task to teach it, to do that. My problem comes when you start the childish thing of calling other people names. Simple question: when have you known that to make others think you were right, or for it to improve a situation? It isn’t about not witnessing to or teaching the truth, it is about trying to remember that other people may think they are doing that, and it is about not provoking bitterness and division.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Actually, I can probably give you about a 1/2 dozen examples in my own life where I was berated for holding a wrong view and promptly felt remorse and a desire to change. Padre Pio’s life is filled with such people as well . . . as was Bishop Sheen’s.
But further to that, who exactly, did the good Monsignor castigate. It seems to me that he leveled the accusation on pretty much all of us who have sat idly by while this society crumbled without making a peep. That is rather general in my view . . . reminescent of the biblical story of the hot, the lukewarm and the cold. I just think you have leveled criticism where none was due.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think there is a difference between individual advice and being labelled by others, and it was to the last I was referring, of course. If Msgr Pope was castigating us all, fair enough, but that is not how the polemics levelled by traditionalists against liberals, and vice versa usually go, and it is to that sort of thing I am referring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I know . . . and yet you have inserted this view into Msgr’s. post where it never existed in the first place.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You don’t see it, I do, as others have. We do not always read things the same way. I think you find yourself instinctively in line with it, I don’t, that perspective makes a difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
And that is completely fair to say. Just as a writer has a writer’s bias so does a reader. I suppose this is simply one of those instances.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Very much so. I simply think if he had meant us all there was a very simple way of saying so – and that was to say it. But then I’m a simple soul 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Me too, and I saw it in what I think is the simplest of readings. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Except your more recent comment implied that ‘comfortable catholic’ was subset of ‘us all’. A puzzle there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Pro-abortion Catholics, SSM Catholics, Women Priest Catholics, Communist Catholics, etc. Are they not using the Catholic in a way that would scandalized the Church before our present era?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, as Cathlics who used to think it right to burn heretics would scandalise us and probably scandalised Jesus. If you know of any time in the history of the Church when all Catholics were good Catholics, you know more than the history books do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
You keep using that phrase whilst you know well that I have never said that the Church was ever without controversy, sin, corruption and every other malice that satan entices men to embrace. So I don’t suppose I understand your point in even bringing it up. I has nothing to do with the teaching of the faith, or the defending of the faith among our clergy and by a laity that has been properly instructed by their clergy.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My point is a simple one. If we label a group of our fellow Catholics as ‘comfortable Catholics’ we sound as though we know whether or not they are good Catholics, and suppose ourselves fit to be the arbiter thereof. That seems spiritually dangerous and apt to lead us into the temptation of forgetting our own sins – or sounding as though we have.
If we do not trust the Church hierarchy to do the job it is meant to do, then we don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
What group? I’m speaking, as was Msgr. in my estimation, of Christianity or Catholicism itself; all of it . . . and most of us. Nobody is setting themselves up as arbiters as you stated. We are merely observing the obvious. We need to get back to the basics; believe ALL that the Church teaches and then make our life decisions and choices according to ALL that the Church teaches. It is what Christ taught . . . and the Church ever since the death of Christ. Deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow me. This is not comfortable, never was and never will be. But it is difficult and few do it . . . and perhaps far fewer today than were willing to do it in the past . . . and that includes the Church hierarchy of which Msgr. belongs.
My point is simple as well. I think you have maligned an innocent priest for doing his job and writing what people don’t want to hear: that they are not willing to give up father or mother, sister or brother for love of Him. That is uncomfortable Christianity which it has always been. I wonder how comfortable the folks who were fed to the lions were. Today we would simply label them as fools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I remain confused. One time you say ‘comfortable Catholics’ are all of us, another you seem to be saying they are a particular subset; or am I misreading?
The problem with saying one is stating the ‘obvious’ is that if if were widely accepted as being that, there would be no need to state it, surely? Deny yourselves, pick up the Cross are not all that the Church teaches or that Christ taught. He also taught that we should share what we have with the poor, he also taught that we should obey Caesar on things that are his; he also taught that we should love our enemies and go the extra mile with them; he also taught it was fine to fellowship with sinners. It may be there are those among us who can do all of these things and more, even those who can live up to St Paul’s great hymn on love in 1 Cor 13. When we do all that, we get back to basics.
I see not maligning of Msgr Pope, simply a questioning of him. If we are free to question the Pope, Msgr Pope is equally fair game. Again, you seem to be saying that comfortable Catholics are not all of us. Which is it – are they all of us or a subset?
LikeLike
Scoop said:
Obvious to who? It is obvious to those who are struggling to keep the faith. It is not obvious to those who are not.The point is not the success of the wayfarer it is the attmept to do all that the Church expects of us. We all fail to some degree but due to poor understanding there are probably more folk today than we have had for a long time that are unaware of what the Church teaches and still more who think that it can change its mind on anything that it wants . . . one need only put enough pressure on the Church and it will change. Therefore, anything goes because you can always say that you will simply change what releigion teaches; like Hillary declared last year in support of abortion.
You need not elucidate all the teachings of Christ to make this fallacious argument. Denying oneself (eyes on God rather self) taking up one’s cross (be ready to suffer for your beliefs and principles) and follow Christ even into martyrdom if necessary is the apt description of the life of a Christian. Not a comfortable religion; one of strife and toil. So I’m not sure what point you are making about there being other teachings.
Do think that when I say that this nation is corrupt that I think that every individual within the US is corrupt? Surely you know that the overall health of a nation or a Church is not descriptive of every cell in the organism.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Are you not again saying, in effect. over there are those bad Catholics to whom what is obvious to me is unclear? You seem to imply there is a group of Catholics who are not struggling to keep the faith – so again, there is in your taxonomy a sheep and goats thing going on. How are you or I in a position to judge how far others are struggling to do all the Church teaches? Is this not on the road to being that person who thanks God he is not like that sinner over there, or who cannot see that the mite offered by the widow is worth more in God’s eyes than the tithes of the richest? These seem to me to be spiritually perilous waters.
Where is the sign that politicians putting pressure on the Church has made it change its teaching? This seems a straw man to me unless you have some real examples.
Having one’s eyes on God and denying oneself takes many forms, as does suffering for one’s beliefs, and again, you may feel able to say others are not doing this as you would, but I cannot follow you in such judgements. Again, not knowing these comfortable Catholics (who are clearly a subset of us all) I cannot comment on their spiritual state.
Of course I do not think that you are saying everyone is corrupt. But nor do I think you are right when you say comfortable catholics applies to us all. I think you, and Msgr Pope are drawing distinctions and coming close to saying you are so not like those sinners over there that you are able to pass judgment on them. Perhaps you don’t see that is how this is coming across – but that is how it is sounding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
No you’re right C. Everyone is a model Catholic and should be treated as such no matter what they say or do. Who am I to judge . . . even though nobody (please do tell us the persons in particular who have been judged by the Msgr. Pope article) was judged. The state of the Church was assessed and the onus was placed on all of our backs quite equally to take our faith out of its comfort zone. That was it. Nothing more, nothing less. We must be willing to live an uncompromised faith. The point is simplicity itself.
And why are you trying to put those who write such things or defend such ideas as somehow ‘above’ others. It sounds like an argument for the triumph of evil . . . strive not, endure nothing. I have tried my best to understand what it is that troubles you about this article of Msgr. Pope but must confess that I am as confused now as I was when you wrote your orginal piece. I guess I can leave it there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
In calling some Catholics ‘comfortable’ he is passing a judgment on some of his fellow Catholics; that you seem not to see it surprises me. He may be right, of course, but to say he means us all is not right; he very clearly does not mean that.
I am not putting them above other Catholics, they are by calling some of their fellow Catholics names. As I say, they may be right, but they are presuming they are not themselves comfortable; that seems dangerous presumption to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I don’t know about you but most of the Catholics I know are comfortable. In fact most Catholics I know are uncomfortable speaking abou thier faith at all. I am too comfortable although I wrestle with many things. But we all seek a comfort level. The point is to live as a saint and to keep pushing beyond our own capabilities and expectations, relying on the help from God . . . or not . . . if it is not His Will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I really am not able to say what spiritual state others are in. Too close to thanking God I am not comfortable like that sinner over there. Some will always feel uncomfortable talking about their faith, and some made so by some of those who ignore their discomfort. It is all too close to thinking we have window on the souls of others for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Windows on souls is a function of God not man. I have a window on actions, words and the fruit of someone’s actions and words. Nothing more and nothing less. I assess, worry and act according to those things that I am capable of understanding and opposing or understanding and supporting. As to the salvation of each individual: God takes care of His realm and I need not bother to do so . . . except perhaps to pray for those whom I think are in danger of losing their souls and also for some whom I think are in not danger . . . for I don’t have a window into their soul. Never said I did and wouldn’t want one even if I could have one.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Bosco, too, judges by what he sees. We tell him he is wrong. I think that applies to anyone who sees the surface and from it thinks he can discern whether someone is a good Catholic or not. We are all sinners, we all needed redeeming.
LikeLike
Scoop said:
If he were only judging actions rather than where their souls will reside after this life nothing would be wrong in that. When people deny or defy the teachings of the Catholic Church are certainly open to condemnation by the Church and those whom they scandalize.We likewise must seek forgiveness and make a good purpose of ammendment for our failures. Objective evil should be confronted. That which is hidden should also be condemned but that does not presuppose that the objective evil should be given a pass because other sinners have sins that nobody knows about. Evil is evil and it should be condemned by all of us whether our own or done by others especially if it has to do with the credibility of the Bride of Christ. Don’t you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Of course. But unless you and Msgr Pope think all ‘comfortable catholics’ are in some way ‘evil’, I don’t see the relevance of the comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
It is not an outright evil to live a faith that is not radically changed but it is a disappointment and it is dangerous to the faith because we allow it to degrade for our children and our children’s children etc. I fully agree with Msgr. Pope that we are called to take the hard road and confront anything in our lives, that lessens the expectations of the faith. I remember fighting with the folks at Verizon because I would not work on Sunday . . . it was a principle. I was told that no other Catholic in the entire country had claimed that Cahtolics could not work on Sunday . . . though the allowed Jews their Saturdays and the Muslims thieir Mondays. So somebody has gotten rather lax in our teachings. Their lawyer wanted me to provide proof which I provided by a letter of Pope St. Paul II for my defense. I won my day of worship after jumping through many hoops. Simple things if done by us all would make our employers and our political leaders to give the faith a bit more respect and tamp down any ideas that confront our beliefs. We need only be reminded by good pastors such as Pope that we are called to obedience and not to capitulation or even mediation. Why are we so lax in matters of faith? Maybe because we aren’t reminded about our obligations. How many show up at Holy Days of Obligation in your parish. Our Church is nearly empty on these days. Do they not understand the word obligation or not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
In England and Wales the bishops have moved holy days of obligation to the nearest Sunday, which tells its own story.
I congratulate you on standing up for your beliefs and agree it would be better if more did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
We’ve done the same here as well. But for the few that remain, nobody shows up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Here we get those we always get.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
As much as things change, they do seem oddly to stay much the same. Sad really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I really do wonder though whether things have changed that much? When it was socially desirable to belong to a church and to be seen as going to one, lots of people went. Now it isn’t, those people don’t go. Perhaps the number who really care changes little?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
To that extent I think you are probably spot on. The only caveat to what you stated is that when it is fashionable to be Church going Christian the children and all of society benefit from the acceptableness of Christian doctrine. Now, it doesn’t make one acceptable nor does it make them completely unacceptable . . . though that might loom large in the future of Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Very true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
You don’t believe in cheerleading and motivational speeches then. I thought it was done in a nice and gentlemanly way whilst not losing sight of the seriousness of our negligence and how important our obedience to the tenets of our faith are and how tenuous they are if we are to preserve them for our posterity. A good reminder and I personally applaud him for the article. He has had other articles that I found wanting but of all articles to pin his ears back on, this one seemed to be one that deserved universal approval. But obviously we disagree.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Thank you for this reply, your words are a bit more clear for myself. I have struggled with alerting either the Parish Priest or the bishop myself. For the Priest may know and would put me in peculiar position. Also, the Bishop is, of course, protected by an inner circle, so hey never get the message.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
He may not, but most bishops can be contacted all the same. One is under an obligation to inform them; others may have done so; they may ignore you, but the obligation remains.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Thanks for the advisement.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
“We who are supposed to be the light of the world, with Christ shining in us, have preferred to hide our light under a basket and lay low”
This is supposed to mean cathols are the lights of the world. I spent 7 weeks listening to Immaculate Heart Radio 93 KHJ AM. Ive heard testimonies of changed lives and what have you. I think that’s great. They profess a want and love for Jesus. They repeat some passages of scripture and say that its what they do. Sounds great, and for the most part, it is. Then Bosco comes along and calls them idolaters and other terrible names. Where does this Bosco clown get off calling gods people idolaters? Us cathols profess faith in Christ and do all sorts of good works. You know what? Unsaved is unsaved. I got born again and I was in the choir of my church. The reverend was a family friend and I knew him and his family all my life. Dinners and BBQs, birthdays. After meeting Jesus, I took him into his office and asked him if he knew Jesus personally. He said he didn’t. Then I said to him…how can you talk about him when you don’t know him? I left it at that and I don’t think I ever attended another service there. Why would I? I don’t need anybody to tell me about Jesus. I know him and he shows himself to me. Same with the catholic church. None of the costumed holymen are born again. How can they lead anyone to Christ, and why would they want to? They want to keep you chained to their religion. Keep you giving them your money and your flesh and the flesh of your children. The priest stands up and mentions Jesus and all the rest. That’s fine. Who could be against that or even speak out against that? Only a bad person. Heres the hook in the bait. After all the Jesus talk, its time to worship a Queen of Heaven. This Queen will guide you to Christ. This Queen will do all you need for salvation. Take these beads and do repetitions to the Queen, for she will hear you for your much speaking. Pay no attention to the bible that says God hates a Queen of heaven as the sin of witchcraft. Die expecting this Queen to save you at the hr of your death and I can give you a guarantee you will wake up in hell. The 95% good food the CC passes down is mixed with 5% poison. Are protestant churches different? Kinda. They don’t ingrain in the heads of the young that salvation is thru a costume holyman of only their religion. The CC stamps out asking Jesus to show himself to you. The prot churchs kill by telling the devotees that they are OK. But they don’t tell them not to get born again. Bottom line is…each man has to ask Jesus for himself to show him to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Where to begin with the problems with this?
In the end you equate your own personal experience as being more important than anything any other person has ever experienced. This is not uncommon in our narcissistic society. The problems with it are many. If Jesus had meant for each of us to be ‘born again’ in the way you understand the term, then there would have been no need for a Bible and no need for a Church, and what is more, all ‘born agains’ would believe exactly the same thing: none of these things is true. This suggests that there is something wrong with your interpretation.
On the Queen of Heaven, it is very hard reasoning with you when you are so literalist. It is a shame you don’t read poetry or understand it or figurative language. No Catholic expects to be ‘saved’ by Mary, and this has often been said to you here. We ask Mary to ‘pray for us, now and at the hour of our death’, we don’t ask her to ‘save us’.
We have, in Scripture, the example of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26:40). Are you saying he was not ‘saved’? Remember what Phillip said to him. He did not say what you say. Are you telling us that what the Bible says here is wrong and that what you say is right? They don’t match, do they, what you say and what the Bible says. Were I you, that would worry me; but then I am not you, I am simply trying to help you see that you are making an idol of your own self and the manner in which you have encountered Jesus. The Bible gives us many examples of how people come to Jesus, it does not say there is only your way; that is something you say. So there is a choice, you or the richness of Scripture. I shall go with Scripture.
LikeLike
Pingback: The ‘saved’ | All Along the Watchtower