September 14, 2014
Sunday afternoons at my house always include my oldest daughter and I reading the comics from the Sunday paper.
Today's I had to share...
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
September 12, 2014
I know a family in my parish fairly well. Our daughters are friends and went through First Holy Communion and Confirmation together. The mother was a CCD teacher and her daughter was/is very involved in school activities and sports. When the children were in CCD and Mass attendance was required (kids had to sign in to prove that they were at Mass) this family would show up late at the Saturday Vigil Mass still wearing their soccer uniforms, grass stained knee-pads and all.
I had at first thought “Well, at least they showed up.”
But after being invited to their house a few times, learned that they “took the summers off” from Mass because it wasn’t “required” and it really didn’t fit in with their very active life style.
They weren’t showing up for Jesus in the Eucharist. They were showing up to be seen and signed in because the parish required it of children in CCD.
Years earlier, when my youngest daughter was preparing for First Holy Communion there was nearly a riot at the parents meeting over scheduling First Holy Communion. The problem? Sports. There were assorted sports practices and games filling up the Saturday spring schedules and parents wouldn’t think of allowing their child to miss a sports event. Some parents stomped out of the “required” parents meeting because they were going to be late for one of those sports events. There were even raised voices and heated exchanges between the parents and the religious director.
As a new convert to the faith back then I was shocked. I also learned why the parish had to make everything a “requirement”- that’s the only way parents showed up for anything!
I wondered why these parents even bothered to enroll their children in CCD when sports were the priority for them. Things got so bad that the First Holy Communion had to be divided up into different weekends to accommodate the different sports events going on.
I was incredibly saddened by the entire affair.
Today I read a story about parents in the UK who are whining about Mass times not being “family friendly” - so they stopped attending Mass completely.
Quote: A survey of baptised parents with children at Catholic primary schools, conducted for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, found that a majority only attended Mass occasionally because they said the time of Sunday services were not family friendly and clashed with their busy lives, and that in some cases other members of the congregation did not appreciate having noisy children in attendance.
What time would be “family friendly” for Mass attendance? Most parishes offer Saturday evening Vigil Masses along with several Sunday morning and noon Masses. None of these times are “family friendly”? How about daily Mass? Those too “unfriendly” too?
When in the history of the Church have Catholics (before now) ever complained that Mass times were simply not “family friendly” for them so they decided to stop attending Mass?
I imagine when Jesus was arrested, tortured and nailed to a cross the timing wasn’t “family friendly” for him or the Virgin Mary either. Does anyone think of that?
Do people even know what the First Commandment is anymore? How selfish to put your “busy life” before God.
The issue here is people are ignorant of the Faith. They simply do not know or don’t believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
They’ve heard so many homilies on “social justice” for the past forty years no one knows anything else. When priests stop preaching the Faith to the people they stopped TEACHING. How can people pass on the Faith to their children if they don’t know it themselves because the homilies they hear constantly talk about social justice issues?
What about the Eucharist? The Sacraments? How many Catholic parents raising children can ADEQUATELY tell their children what the Sacraments are and why they are so important?
Not the parents in the article.
Quote: Findings from the survey showed for many Mass times appeared to be set to suit an older generation and respondents felt prevented from participating more fully because parish life “was run by, and for, an older generation who were regular Mass goers”. It also found that parents had a “limited faith vocabulary”, and in some cases mistakenly believed that before preparation for a sacrament it was necessary to have enough money for the celebration.And…
Identifying parents’ hunger for on-going formation, the report said that the majority of Catholic parents gained knowledge about their faith from their children but wanted the Church to provide better catechesis – including around what do to during Mass.
People are STARVING to be fed the Faith and instead of being served the banquet our Lord wants us to have, the priests and Bishops are giving the laity crumbs, barely able to sustain them.
Things have got to change. Priests MUST teach the Faith to their flocks because the Faith is being completely lost.
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
September 10, 2014
Patheos is becoming notorious for closing their comment box- especially when they don’t hear the feedback they were hoping for.
The Anchoress (Elizabeth Scalia) has decided to opine about Catholics who are scandalized by Cardinal Dolan’s participation as Grand Marshal for the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day parade which has now become another outlet for “gay pride”. Scalia believes we are wrong and goes on to twist assorted Scripture in an attempt to prove her point. Mostly she failed-hence the reason she closed her comments. When the comments area of her Patheos blog got ugly, Scalia closed the comments down.
Here are a few comments from her blog before the comment box was closed...
I think these people are spot on!
So again, like with Fr. Longenecker's "Church of Nasty" I am going to respond to why I believe Elizabeth Scalia is wrong here on my own blog because her comment area is closed.
For the first time openly gay homosexuals and their supporters will march with gay pride banners in the parade with a Catholic Cardinal as Grand Marshall kicking off the parade. Devout Catholics are scandalized that this Cardinal (like those before him) sees nothing wrong with this.
Other’s have already written about the “cause of scandal” the Cardinal is (and will) inflict on devout Catholics, so I won’t repeat the obvious.
What I am going to do is point out Scalia's errors.
First, she gives Biblical examples of people in sin that were “quietly” corrected by Jesus (neglecting to recall when Jesus made a whip and used it against people, flipping tables and emptying the temple area of those who disrespected his Father's Temple).
Then she has this to say about Dolan…
What about a bishop agreeing to be Grand Marshall in a Saint Patrick’s Day parade wherein homosexual groups — yes, even the sort of lobbyist homosexual groups over which Pope Francis expressed concern — will be included among the participants?That’s pretty bad, right? For some it is causing scandal and confusion and calumny and they are loudly suggesting — in a way Jesus never would — that the bishop should repent, apologize, express contrition (things Jesus didn’t demand of the adulterous woman) and then resign his office. They want him to literally remove himself from the area, before his uncleanliness renders everyone else unclean.
“in a way Jesus never would” - ?? Really?
"Get behind me Satan!" was probably not whispered by Christ to Peter so no one else would hear.
21 From then onwards Jesus began to make it clear to his disciples that he was destined to go to Jerusalem and suffer grievously at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes and to be put to death and to be raised up on the third day.22 Then, taking him aside, Peter started to rebuke him. 'Heaven preserve you, Lord,' he said, 'this must not happen to you.' 23 But he turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle in my path, because you are thinking not as God thinks but as human beings do.'
The Apostles corrected each other- loudly and publicly -remember Saint Paul to Saint Peter-the pope!? Saint Paul didn’t hold back because Jesus didn’t hold back.
We are (in the case of Dolan) talking about when a member of the CLERGY commits scandal.
“Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, but I'm here among you to prevent something far worst for you. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal- who allow scandals to destroy faith- are guilty of spiritual suicide.” -- St. Francis de Sales
Another example she gives is about the Prodigal Son, suggesting that Cardinal Dolan leading a parade under gay pride banners is the same as the Prodigal son’s father running out to greet his REPENTING son who has seen the errors of his ways and returned to his father. This is truly cringe worthy...
Quote: I’m not sure a bishop has a choice but to run out to meet prodigals, regardless of motivating factors. The father wants everyone to come home and be with him. Once they’re at the doorstep, they may be encouraged to come in; once they’re inside, they can be talked with, nurtured, fed, encouraged, formed, and made whole. This cannot happen as long as they are off in the faraway places.The key here, aside from the father running out to the prodigal son, is that he ran out while the son was still a long way off.Later in the story, the older son — obedient and responsible — feels shortchanged and resentful, because the father has been so welcoming of the wastrel while barely noticing the elder son’s daily toil. And what does the father do? He goes out to his elder son, to reassure him that his faithfulness is seen and known. He tells him, “everything I have is yours” even while urging him to make his returning brother welcome.Because only in this way can his family eventually become whole, and holy.
Let’s be perfectly clear…gay rights supporters marching under gay pride banners in the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade are NOT- I repeat- are NOT prodigal sons HUMBLY returning to the father.
They are in fact more like the sexually immoral mob pounding on Lot’s door demanding homosexual sex with the angels visiting Lot in Genesis 19!
What was God’s response to that? The complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah!
Scalia also paints Dolan at the now notorious dinner with Barack Obama as if he [Dolan] were Jesus eating with the Pharisees.
Quote: Understanding the circumstances surrounding any event plays hell with our easy judgments, doesn’t it?Why would a bishop — say, for instance New York’s Cardinal Archbishop Timothy Dolan — participate in a political dinner that hosts real tax-collectors and known liars and sinners (as opposed to the less-obvious ones) and rather few actual holy men and women? Well for one thing, the dinner keeps the church present in a public square that would like to usher it out. One cannot speak to souls who bar you from the plaza. For another, it raises a huge amount of money for an organization that does a lot of good for people facing poverty and ruin. A bishop might risk causing “scandal and confusion” for the sake of those complicating, gray-inducing factors.Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were at table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”So Jesus ate and socialized, probably very pleasantly, with awful people. If we do not want to see a bishop seated next to a sinner unless that bishop is loudly consigning the sinner to hell, well then, we don’t want to see a bishop sitting next to anyone. And we do not want to see a bishop who models Christ Jesus.
But we were never supposed to want to be like the pharisees, nor expect it of our shepherds.
Again, Elizabeth Scalia is wrong.
First her example is off. Obama did not invite Dolan to a public dinner – Dolan invited the pro-abortion, forced HHS mandate on Catholics president to dinner.
Secondly, she COMPLETELY misses the point that the “sick” are those in sin seeking healing from the Physician. If Jesus is the physician to heal them (and he is), he MUST tell them their sin (remember the woman at the well?) so they can confess and be healed!
Did Dolan tell Obama over dinner that Obama was "sick" and needed to be healed?
Will Dolan go to those holding gay pride banners and tell them they are "sick" and need to be healed? If you believe that will happen I have a bridge to sell you.
When Jesus ate with the Pharisees he corrected them at the dinner in front of everyone – did Dolan do that?
Luke 7 - 36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus[j] to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.” Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii,[k] and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus[l] said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.”
Dolan did NOT do as Jesus Christ did. Dolan joined in the celebration, eating and drinking with sinners without ever mentioning their sin or pointing out their errors. He didn’t ask them if they wanted to be healed by Christ our physician. He
didn’t even present himself as WORRIED for the souls at that dinner, rather he belly laughed with them, poised for photos and scandalized devout Catholics with the timing (remember what was going on at the time of this dinner 2012 election and the HHS abortion/birth control mandate being forced on Catholics) of his public cuddling with Barack Obama.
I am reminded more of Jesus’ teaching on the Seven Woes…
Matthew 23 - "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi."
When the Faithful are scandalized REPEATEDLY by Catholic clergy there is a serious problem that must be addressed. Either the Catholic faithful are TOO pious or the clergy are truly scandalous.
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!In light of the Church's teaching on scandal I do not believe the Catholic laity who are concerned with Dolan's scandalous behavior are "too pious", I believe they are spot on.
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
September 7, 2014
Recently Fr. Longenecker closed the comment box on his Patheos blog so people are no longer given the opportunity to reply to anything he says- at least not publicly. Personally I hate that, so I have stopped going to his Patheos website- until today when I saw by way of another Catholic outlet his opinion on what he terms “Church of Nasty”.
That reads "Nasty Catholics" vs. "Nice Catholics" to my mind because the "Nice Catholics" belong to the "Church of Nice" where they treat everyone so 'nicely'. On the other hand, he's got the "Nasty Catholics" belonging to the "Church of Nasty". These Catholics are described like rabid dogs on his Patheo's blog 'Standing on my head'.
Because there was no option to leave a comment there, I decided to write a much longer one here on my own personal thoughts of Father Longenecker's "Church of Nasty" view. Since Father gave no links to whom he was specifically thinking of when he wrote his blog post, I can only assume based on what I myself have seen around the web- and nothing I have seen comes close to Father's depiction. Sure, there are lots of disappointed, hurt, angry, confused, fired up Catholics out there filling the blogosphere with their thoughts and opinions but there isn't a single blogger out there that I know of which I would slap that "Nasty Catholic" label on- not one.
So not surprisingly, I see things a bit differently than Father and I mean this with no disrespect. Just my opinion, on his opinion.
[Longenecker quote] If not the Church of Nice do we need to be the Church of Nasty?In the Catholic blogosphere and Catholic Church generally I increasingly whiff a very bad smell.It’s what I call the Church of Nasty.Trying to avoid the insipid, spineless and lily livered “Church of Nice” too many Catholic are falling into the other trap of becoming the Church of Nasty.It may be someone sending intentionally misleading headlines to a news aggregator to smear another Catholic, or it might be some guy who’s set up a super nasty website full of horrible attacks on others. It might be a radical traditionalist hell bent on attacking all the modernists and compromisers or it might be a radical progressive intent on attacking all his horrible right wing enemies. It might be some Catholic who has his knives out for Muslims, Jews and Protestants. It might be someone attacking homosexuals, sinners, modernists or feminists. It could be a progressive launching endless attacks on traditionalists, conservatives and Republicans.Sometimes it gets so bad that it feels like, “If you don’t hate the people I hate the same way I hate them, then I hate you too!”Wherever it is coming from and wherever it is going they’re intent on being the Church of Nasty, and let me tell you it can get real ugly.I’d link to some of the poisonous websites out there, but I do not want to send them traffic or soil the unblemished minds and hearts of my dear readers…. [end quote]
Again, since Father gives no links to who or what he is referring, we are left to assume all sorts of horrid things about Catholics who are sick and tired of modernist Catholics in the Church who corrupt the teachings and bark “Who are you to judge” at you if you DARE to oppose gay rights.
Now I can see in Father's quote that he places "radical traditionalists" beside "progressives" and Catholics attacking non-Catholics beside a guy's "super nasty website". But lets get to the heart of this. The "Church of Nice" are those who won't speak up against anything, while the "Church of Nasty" (as he refers to them) are those who won't be silent.
That is what it boils down to. This (my post specifically) isn't about progressives vs. traditionalists. It's about those who speak up and those who keep silent about ERROR among the Faithful.
"To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind."
--Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae
What Father neglects to mention is that those opposed to the Church of Nice didn’t start this "battle" (if you will), but they do intend to finish it because keeping silent is not an option.
They are NOT the “Church of Nasty”, they are THE CHURCH.
The AUTHENTIC Church- the people who believe ALL the Church teaches. They don’t want to change the Church, they LOVE HER JUST AS SHE IS. They despise the deceit of those who seek to ruin Her, to change Her, to mar Her magnificence with their heresies and deceit. They won’t stop opposing heresy, sin or deceit. And they won't be bullied into shutting up and playing "nice" when what they love is so brutally attacked. And they won't stand by in silence while souls are being lost to heresies and scandal.
These Authentic Catholics simply won’t tolerate people twisting the word “charity” to fulfill their own purpose either. These Catholics have had enough of the Church of Nice.
Father Longenecker says…
[quote] Therefore, there must be a way between the insipid Church of Nice and the snarling Church of Nasty.To stop and think it through, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt there are two different virtues vying for predominance: the virtue of charity and the virtue of truth.The Church of Nice too often sacrifice truth on the altar of charity and the Church of Nasty too often sacrifice charity on the altar of Truth.There must be a way to be both truth and charitable–both Nasty and Nice. [end quote]
You don’t understand “charity” any better than the Church of Nice does Father.
It is NOT charitable to ignore sin or the sinner. It is not charitable to standby biting your tongue so you don’t hurt someone’s feelings when their salvation is in jeopardy.
It is not charitable to DO NOTHING when you see people working to destroy what you hold dear. It is not charitable to ALLOW modernism to spread in the Church and do nothing.
Charity is love. Love is wanting the sinner to repent so he/she can have eternal salvation. THAT is what charity is. When progressives WORK to destroy the Faith and the "Church of Nice" remain silent so as not to cause offense that is not charity.
The Church of Nice crowd by their silence actually embraces liberalism and modernism not only in the world, but in the Church. These people are the lukewarm who will be vomited out of God’s mouth for refusing to do anything.
Revelation 3 - 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. 16But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
The progressive Catholics WORK to bring about legalized abominations: abortion, gay ‘marriage’, artificial birth control, embryonic research etc, while the Church of Nice crowd smile at them and wave at them marching with their gay pride banners.
The Church of Nice crowd wouldn’t dare tell someone their sin might lead them to hell because it might offend them, so instead they smile and keep silent as they watch souls going to Hell.
This is NOT charity, it is hatred, selfishness and cowardice.
Authentic Catholics WORK to stop modernism and heresy. Authentic Catholics aren't afraid to risk themselves for the sake of another- even if it comes with a cost.
If Uncle Bobo and his partner invite you to their 'wedding' it is NOT charity to accept and bring them a gift.
The most charitable thing you can do is sit down with them (or write to them if they won't meet with you) and tell them WHY you can't support them and why their relationship is a sin.
That is truly loving them and wanting the best for them.
Buying them a gift and attending their "wedding" because they are "nice guys" and you don't want to "offend" them is NOT an act of charity.
You have an opportunity to HELP someone avoid MORTAL sin...you WILL be held accountable for how you respond to that opportunity.
Charity is loving others enough to RISK being hated, rejected and mocked because you hold another person's salvation MORE VALUABLE than your self pride or ego. You are willing to be mocked, humiliated and hated if it helps even ONE soul turn from sin and return to God.
The Church of Nice crowd will never risk themselves for another. They are too selfish and comfortable to do what Jesus commanded. Picking up our crosses and following Jesus is NOT easy, and often it is NOT comfortable. It was not supposed to be.
When Catholics stand by and say NOTHING when Cardinals lead parades with gay banners declaring the right to gay ‘marriage’ that is NOT charity.
When Catholics stand by and do NOTHING when priests march for women priests it is NOT charity.
When Catholics stand by allowing ‘Catholic’ politicians to support abortion, birth control, gay ‘marriage’ and adoption it is NOT charity.
When Catholics stand by and do NOTHING when Catholic clergy cause scandal it is NOT charity.
Catechism #826 Charity is the soul of the holiness to which all are called: it "governs, shapes, and perfects all the means of sanctification." 297If the Church was a body composed of different members, it couldn't lack the noblest of all; it must have a Heart, and a Heart BURNING WITH LOVE. And I realized that this love alone was the true motive force which enabled the other members of the Church to act; if it ceased to function, the Apostles would forget to preach the gospel, the Martyrs would refuse to shed their blood. LOVE, IN FACT, IS THE VOCATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHERS; IT'S A UNIVERSE OF ITS OWN, COMPRISING ALL TIME AND SPACE - IT'S ETERNAL! 298
Hmmm...now WHO does that sound like?? Oh yeah, the Church of Nice!
It is not the “Church of Nice” who reminds Catholics they need to attend weekly Mass. When Catholics no longer believe the Eucharist is what the Church says it is, it is not the Church of Nice who correct them. Oh no, that might hurt their feelings.
It is not the “Church of Nice” crowd who encourages Catholics to go to Confession when they learn a brother or sister has fallen to mortal sin. Oh no, that might upset them and “who are we to judge” them anyway? If they don’t believe in sin or the need to confess because they think God is sooo nice that He won’t allow THEM to go to Hell- the Church of Nice crowd won’t correct that thinking. Oh no, Hell is for the Hitler’s of the world, not Catholics who love each other.
What unity do Authentic Catholics (those who believe ALL the Church teaches) have with the “Church of Nice” crowd who support (by their silence and smiles) unrepented sin and modernism in the Church?
The Church of Nice crowd don’t understand charity because they have interpreted the word to be an inactive term. Charity is something we DO. It is action, not in-action. The Church of Nice crowd are in-active pew warmers.
Catholic Catechism #1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
Do Authentic Catholics get angry when they see Cardinal’s leading parades with gay pride banners? You bet.
Do Authentic Catholics get angry when they see Catholic priests attending gay pride parades causing scandal to the faithful? You bet.
Do Authentic Catholics get angry when they see Catholic Bishops more concerned with political issues like immigration reform than teaching the Faith? You bet.
Do Authentic Catholics get angry when they see "Catholic" politicians supporting artificial birth control, abortion and gay marriage while their priests and Bishops turn a blind eye? You bet!
Do Authentic Catholics get angry when they see authentic parishes being closed down in favor of liberal dying parishes? You bet.
You can call these Catholics “Church of Nasty” if you want to Father Longenecker, but I will call them AUTHENTIC CATHOLICS and God will never vomit them out of His mouth for being lukewarm Church of Nice pew warmers.
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
****Since Father Longenecker’s comment box is closed feel free to use my comment box to share your thoughts on Father’s article or my own. I’d like to hear from both the “Church of Nice” and the “Church of Nasty”(or as I like to call you, Authentic Catholics) crowds.
Patheos link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/09/church-of-nice-or-church-of-nasty.html
Father Longenecker and I have been going back and forth in emails over this post I wrote. In his first email he indicates I was "biased", "unfair" and had gotten worked up into a "lather un-necessarily".
Why did he feel this way? Because I didn't quote this particular part of his blog post (I reminded Father I linked to his blog so that people could read it in its entirety).
Quote: Some Catholics talk disparagingly of the “Church of Nice”They are referring to the modernist church where indifferentism, complacency and tolerance replace the truly Christian virtues. They object not to niceness, but to a church that is nothing but nice.I’m with them. I can’t stand watered down religion. Modernist Christianity has eviscerated the gospel, removed the supernatural, “de mythologized” the message and turned Catholicism into nothing more than a do gooder religion for the country club set.As one commentator has observed, “This ain’t a religion. It’s a set of table manners.”I have written on this blog constantly of the danger to real Catholicism of removing the miraculous and robbing the church of the one power she has: the supernatural power of the sacraments, the fullness of the magisterium, the power of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of truth in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.When Some Catholics sneer at the “Church of Nice” I’m sympathetic.Let’s not tame the lion or water down the wine. Let’s hold to a full blooded, rip snortin’, Rooster Cogburn Catholicism.
I'd also like to add that Father gave me the link to the "Church of Nasty" website that influenced his blog post. Personally, I don't even think it is Catholic- and I told him so- seems more anti-Catholic but I will let you all decide.
I will share the offending link with my readers so you can decide for yourselves.
Be warned it is hateful and trashes the Holy Catholic Church.
Here is the link Father Longenecker gave me in email: HERE
Note this hate filled blog has no comments and I can see no followers so I don't think its having much of an impression on anyone.
Father and I were respectful of each other even though we saw this situation very differently. We had (in my opinion) a good conversation about all of this and I am happy he decided to write to me to share his thoughts on what I wrote.
OK, that's it. Just wanted to update this story.
September 6, 2014
Music: "Jesus My Lord, My God, My All"- produced by David Phillips
Album: The Prayer of the Church: The Rosary
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
September 4, 2014
Often Fabian is avoided in public and the seat beside him on the public bus remains empty.
All that changes when Fabian puts on a teddy bear costume.
It's amazing to see the walls people erect come down when someone dresses up in a big teddy bear costume. With smiles and open arms they greet Fabian with hug after hug.
Too bad we don't always show such care and affection when the costume comes off.
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner