Tuesday, June 30, 2015

WHEN SINNERS (AND AREN'T WE ALL) CAST STONES AT SOME SINS AND SINNERS AND IGNORE THEIR OWN

There is a lot of anger these days especially from some Catholics, but not exclusive to us. Anger, like lust, no matter the orientation, is a deadly sin, a mortal sin.

Those who die in mortal sin unrepentant of the sins they have committed are justly condemned to hell by our all loving God who does not impose salvation on anyone but rather offers it as an unmerited gift. One can take it or leave it or receive it and hand it back depending upon sin and grace.

So here is an explanation of the Sin of Anger, one of the seven deadly or capital sins:


The Seven Capital Sins, #4 Anger

Father Michael gives practical advice on how to overcome the sin of anger in our lives.
by Fr. Michael Sliney, LC | Source: Catholic.net
This week I return to the series on the Capital Sins, focusing on anger this time.

First of all, what is anger?  Bishop Fulton Sheen describes it as following: “Anger and reason are capable of great compatibility, because anger is based upon reason which weighs both the injury done and the satisfaction to be demanded. Here we are not concerned with just anger, but with unjust anger, namely, that which has no rightful cause- anger which is excessive, revengeful and enduring…the anger which seeks to ‘get even’, to repay in kind, bump for bump, punch for punch, eye for eye, lie for lie…” (The Seven Capital Sins, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, pp. 1-3)  

A Winning Strategy for Inner Peace and Authenticity:

1.  Sacraments and Prayer

-   Lots of Eucharist and regular Confession (at least once a month): you cannot conquer these powerful passions without the help of God’s grace.
-   Pray a decade of the rosary every day for a greater capacity of forgiveness.

2.  Assume the ignorance and good will of those who harm us:   We often do not know the circumstances, the good faith or the motives behind someone’s actions, so we need to repeat with Christ:  “Father, forgive them; they do know not what they are doing. ” (Lk 23: 34)

3. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…”  “There are Christians who think they can dispense with this unceasing spiritual effort, because they do not see the urgency of standing before the truth of the Gospel. Lest their way of life be upset, they seek to take words like "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" (Lk 6:27) and render them empty and innocuous. For these people, it is extremely difficult to accept such words and to translate them into consistent patterns of behavior. They are in fact words which, if taken seriously, demand a radical conversion. On the other hand, when we are offended or hurt, we are tempted to succumb to the psychological impulses of self-pity and revenge, ignoring Jesus’ call to love our enemy. Yet the daily experiences of human life show very clearly how much forgiveness and reconciliation are indispensable if there is to be genuine renewal, both personal and social. This applies not only to interpersonal relationships, but also to relationships between communities and nations.” (Pope John Paul II, Message for Lent, 2001) 

4.  We need to take the “plank” out of our own eye before removing the splinter from our brother’s eye:   “The harder we are on ourselves, the easier we will be on others…the man who has never disciplined himself knows not how to be merciful. It is always the selfish who are unkind to others, and those who are hardest on themselves are the kindest to others…” (The Seven Capital Sins, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, p. 9)

5. Forgiveness as a condition for God’s forgiveness to us:    “Now - and this is daunting - this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love, like the Body of Christ, is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see.136 In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father's merciful love; but in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2840)

6. Never act or react to someone when your passions are boiling:   It is prudent to wait until you are “detached” from the situation and you can address the person in a more balanced and considerate manner.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

I suspect there is a lot of anger in Macon over Sunday's "flash mob" of 40-50 teens who disrupted the local Wal-Mart on Zebulon Road. Maybe this has to do with "envy" of the 7 deadly sins, or at least the 10 Commandments.

Father, it seems like Macon is falling apart---whites moving to the suburbs in droves, black crime, poverty. A political and spiritual crisis?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

There is a breakdown going on in society and the poor experience the results first. When family life breaks down and boys and girls, but certainly boys, don't have a strong father figure then we see what happens. We can only imagine what happens to boys who don't have a mother.

The Church teaches that children have a fundamental human right to a mother and a father and a stable home life built upon conjugal love and commitment.

When home life is absent, church life is absent and healthy relationships are absent, people, boys or girls, black or white turn to gangs to fulfill their need for family and acceptance.

The Supreme court has acted lawlessly concerning the rights of children, first of all the right to life and now the right to have a mother and father in a marital context.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

It's not just Macon, by any means. The lack of respect for others - arising from an almost pathological absence of empathy and self-discipline - is spreading through our society. Kids rampage at WalMart just to be destructive and they rampage on the streets of San Francisco when the local team wins a championship.

Anger is a natural emotion and, in itself, not sinful. It is the choice we make to allow anger to control our thoughts, words, or action that moves us from pre-moral emotion to moral culpability. With more people unable to practice ordinary self-control, anger spills into violence.

The Lord's words are "Turn the other cheek." This is not a "pacifist" response to violence as some suggest, but a calculated non-violent reaction.

Angry Augustinian said...

Fr. Kavanaugh, that is the best post you have made on this blog…and you are correct. It is a nationwide phenomenon. The problem is where we draw the line. That point is different for different people. Holy Scripture shows many examples of righteous anger…but, we have to be prudent.

George said...


It's important to note that there were saints that struggled with anger, St. Jerome, St Louis de Monfort for instance. I read somewhere that St.Francis de Sales and St.Vincent de Paul did also.

As for St Cyril of Alexandria...
He pillaged and closed the churches of the Novatian heretics (who required those who denied the faith to be rebaptized), participated in the deposing of St. John Chrysostom and confiscated Jewish property, expelling the Jews from Alexandria in retaliation for their attacks on Christians.

and St Hippolytous...
He censured the pope for not coming down hard enough on a certain heresy and called him a tool in the hands of Callistus, a deacon—and ccame close to advocating the opposite heresy himself. When Callistus was elected pope, Hippolytus accused him of being too lenient with penitents, and had himself elected antipope by a group of followers. He felt that the Church must be composed of pure souls uncompromisingly separated from the world: Hippolytus evidently thought that he and his group fitted the description. He remained in schism through the reigns of three popes. He eventually reconciled with the Church and was martyred.

There is always hope for those who struggle with anger and have a bad temper. The saints were human like all of us and had to pray much, and discipline themselves in co-operating with the Holy Spirit, to bring their wayward inclinations under submission.

Anonymous said...

I don't support gay marriage---could not as a Catholic or even a Christian with traditional beliefs---but greater problem in Macon by far (and ditto for inner cities in Georgia and elsewhere) is the breakdown of the family and out-of-wedlock births, much worse than they were during segregation. And those factors probably have a lot to do with stagnation in Macon and growth to the south in Houston County (Warner Robins/Perry)

BIBB COUNTY:
1970 Population----143,418
2014 Population-----153,905

HOUSTON COUNTY:
1970 Population----62,924
2014 Population----149,111

Houston County may overtake Bibb by the next census in 2020. Makes me wonder, is Bibb County large enough to support 3 Catholic churches in the next 20-30 years? I don't mean St. Joseph's of course but the other two parishes in Bibb County. Might it be like the situation in Augusta 45 or so years ago where there simply were not enough Catholics in the downtown area to support Sacred Heart, St. Patricks and Immcaulate Conception?





Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Bibb county has lost 10,000 citizens, mostly white, in the last 10 years, many to Houston County for better public schools. Yes, we are about half of our census compared to early 2000's. When I came here 11 years ago on the rolls (out of date even then) we had 2400 families. Today we have 1200 and that is inflated. There has been no growth in the other two parishes. In fact, apart from the Hispanic community's Mass at St. Peter Claver, the other two parishes could easily be merged into Saint Joseph today, in fact so could the Hispanic Mass, or with three priests at St. Joseph, the other two parishes could be missions of St. Joseph.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Angry Gene - No exception is offered for the admonition "turn the other cheek." There's no fine print that says "This applies to different people differently."

Can you imagine, "You shall not lie, unless you draw the line differently" or "You shall not steal, unless you draw the line differently."

I can't.

Angry Augustinian said...

I was born and raised in Macon. It used to be a fine place to live and raise a family but, since the 60's it has gone to Hell. I only go back to attend Mass at St. Jo's and maybe go to Barnes and Noble. I would not raise a family there now, and all these people investing in Macon are idiots. It is no coincidence that the black population has grown and the white population is fleeing. Downtown is nothing but bars and restaurants for the yuppies that work downtown, and junk shops. The Macon mall is a gang hangout and in the worst part of town. There are a few white yuppies and Gen X'ers up on College Street, Beall's Hill and Orange living in total denial. Mercer is full of academics with their heads in the sand…or wherever. The Bass Road/Zebulon Road area has been a middle class refuge for a while, but blacks are beginning to encroach the area and there have been some notable incidents of crime and violence. I think anyone who lives in major urban areas in Ga. should leave if possible or move to a suburban area outside the city and only go in during the day (armed) and only when necessary. North Ga. looks better all the time. Call it racist or whatever you like…I call it common sense. I have actually looked at land in Kansas and Oklahoma and parts of Tennessee; I don't think I could stand the Montana winters. I have warned my kids that they may want to consider leaving the South at some point. It's reality, folks.

Anonymous said...

How many attend St. Joseph's on a typical weekend (not say like Easter or Christmas)? Maybe 1,500-1,800? I visited your parish last August while at a meeting at Mercer (430 Mass) and I guessed there may have been 400 there. Certainly have plenty of seating capacity?

I suspect you see a lot of population growth in Monroe County too, though of course that is in the "other" diocese of Archdiocese. Maybe Monroe should be added to the Savannah Diocese, likes Jones and Columbia (outside Augusta) were shifted from the Atlanta Diocese to Savannah around 1980, given they were much closer to two major urban areas than to Atlanta. What if anything does canon law say if a person lives close to the diocesan line but wants to be a member of a parish that is outside his area?

Angry Augustinian said...

You missed my point, Fr. K, I did not mean that different people may draw the line at sin in different places; I meant that the point at which calculated passive anger becomes active resistance may vary for different personalities. There's a difference.

Anonymous said...

Angry A, you sentiments are what I have heard before down there---don't call south or west of Mercer, or south of Vineville. Noticed though there is an outdoor mall on Hwy 23 north of 75, near the Bass Pro Shops.

We have a lot of churches up in northern part of Atlanta in pretty plush areas---Buckhead, East Cobb, North Fulton and Dunwoody. No one can accuse Fr. M of picking the wealthy, rich sides of town, either at Holy Trinity in Augusta or St. Josephs! Or in Albany years ago---that certainly is not an affluent area!

If Bibb has roughly 154,000 people in latest count, would be amazing I suspect if even 4 percent of those (6,000+) would be Catholic, but at least that would be ahead of the ever-losing Episcopalians! But LOL catching up with the Baptists in Macon, and perhaps the Methodists!

Anonymous said...

I think what Angry Augustinian was saying relates to what is said in the Catechism and I think a number of Catholics miss the point: "the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility."

"Righteous versus Unrighteous Anger (2302-3)

Anger is a desire for revenge. Anger is the passion (emotion) by which a man reacts to evil, real or apparent, and seeks vindication of his rights, that is, justice. By itself the passion is neither moral or immoral, but becomes so by reason or its being ordered or disordered - that is, reasonable according to the circumstances. An ordered anger is directed to a legitimate object, and, with an appropriate degree of vehemence. An inordinate anger is directed either to an illegitimate object, or, with an unreasonable vehemence. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, vice may be by defect, as well as excess. So, the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility.

Consider the just anger of the Lord to the presence in the Temple of the money-changers and the action He took (John 2:13-17). Provoked by this offense against His Father, Jesus formed whips and drove them from the Temple. Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil.

On the other hand, unjust anger seeks to do evil to another for its own sake, the harm to body or soul that it entails. While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake. To desire some slight injury for an evil motive would be venially sinful. To desire grave injury or death would be gravely sinful. A Christian may never, of course, desire the damnation of the evil doer. Charity requires that we will the good, especially the ultimate good, salvation, for every human being. Unfortunately, the entertainment media often promotes an image of anger and vengeance which is closer to blood lust than to justice."

Many who post on this blog I believe when it comes to evil are suffering from "a sinful insensibility".

Jan

Angry Augustinian said...

Very nice post, Jan. I believe you pegged it.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan (and AA):

Here is the key language in the passage you quote:

“An ordered anger is directed to a legitimate object, and, with an appropriate degree of vehemence. An inordinate anger is directed either to an illegitimate object, or, with an unreasonable vehemence.”

Notice the important qualifiers “appropriate” and “unreasonable” in the anger directed towards a legitimate object. The general concept is one of “proportionality.” These are objective, not subjective, ideas. Thus you don’t get to rationalize your irascibility and undue vehemence just by saying it is appropriate and reasonable.

You quote from a commentary on “What is Just War?” See https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

The quote continues:

“Whether it is justice within society, or the interior justice of holiness, peace is its fruit. Righteous anger, and the means it employs, should not knowingly produce less justice and less peace than existed before evil intervened. Human prudence, however, is fallible. It cannot necessarily predict the ploys of the adversary, both human and demonic. In addition, fallen human nature is inclined to sin, and thus prone to respond with excess to provocation. Thus, even virtue and a well-formed conscience can fail to produce the desired result of justice and peace. Great restraint must be shown, therefore, in the use of violence to achieve justice. In addition to the efforts of those who work assiduously for peace, "the peacemakers", society needs the example of those who renounce violence altogether. Their "witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death" should serve to restrain the use of even justified force. Such conscientious objection is a valuable service to society. As the Catechism makes clear, it must be accompanied by the willingness to serve in other capacities (cf. 2311), however.”

This casts matters in a rather different light, wouldn’t you agree?

John Nolan said...

Fr Kavanaugh:

The best modern 'take' on the ten commandments is Arthur Hugh Clough's 'The Latest Decalogue' which is as valid today as when he penned it in the high Victorian era.

Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?
No graven images may be
Worshipp'd, except the currency:
Swear not at all; for, for thy curse
Thine enemy is none the worse:
At church on Sunday to attend
Will serve to keep the world thy friend:
Honour thy parents; that is, all
From whom advancement may befall:
Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive:
Do not adultery commit;
Advantage rarely comes of it:
Though shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When it's so lucrative to cheat:
Bear not false witness; let the lie
Have time on its own wings to fly:
Thou shalt not covet; but tradition
Approves all forms of competition.

Clough's couplet on 'thou shalt not kill' is often quoted approvingly and out of context by supporters of euthanasia; it's doubly ironic that his irony is taken literally.

Clough was born in Liverpool in 1819 but spent his early childhood (1822-1827) in South Carolina.

Anonymous said...

No, Anon 2, the key language is "the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility. Consider the just anger of the Lord to the presence in the Temple of the money-changers and the action He took (John 2:13-17). Provoked by this offense against His Father, Jesus formed whips and drove them from the Temple. Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil."

So therefore, Anon 2 when you do not show a righteous anger against the sin of homosexuality, abortion, etc, you are committing a sin of insensibility and more you are failing to restore the order of justice disturbed by sin.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

This time I provided the full context immediately because I do not want to get into another long argument with you about reading in context. I will say this much, however: First, the passage you quoted recognizes a continuum with sinful insensibility at one pole and a misdirected or unreasonable and inappropriate anger at the other pole. This is an essentially Aristotelian approach with both poles of the continuum being vices and virtue being the mean of an anger that is both properly directed as well as reasonable and appropriate to the circumstances. Second, there are additional interpretive questions such as the meaning of “evil” and how to demarcate “anger” from “insensibility.” Third, the additional passage I quoted recognizes the importance of those who seek peace and work to restrain the excesses of “righteous” anger, for example, bombing every city in the Islamic Middle East, which was one of AA’s previous recommendations.



Anonymous said...

Anon 2, I am sorry but I didn't read Angry Augustinian's comment about bombing every city in the Islamic Middle East and I would need to read the context of it before I could comment. The comments I have read from him have been in line with the Church's approbation of righteous anger.

However, I would like to ask you what your views are on homosexuality and abortion? You make plenty of negative statements about those who oppose homosexuality but you don't state where you stand. I suspect you may fall into the category of being insensible to such sin but I would like you to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

Let’s do this one step at a time. To begin, then, please give me one or more examples of:

(a) What you consider a negative statement I have made about “those who oppose homosexuality;” and

(b) A statement in which I have denied the teaching of the Church on homosexuality or abortion.

Or are you just relying on AA’s mischaracterizations of my statements?

Part of your difficulty is that you are relatively new to the Blog and are not privy to the context provided by the entire history of comments. I have a record of every single comment I have made. I also think I now know how to access comments that AA or his previous avatars have made on particular topics. So, in the now immortal words of Saint George W, “bring it on.”







Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

Here is one instance among many of AA’s “righteous anger”:

“Anon 2, First of all, I never thought Bush dealt properly with Iraq and the post-911 debacle. The day after Bush found out that the terrorists were Islamic, he should have carpet bombed Mecca and Medina, Baghdad, and every major Islamic city in the Middle East, began a wholesale deportation of Muslims in the US, forbade them from immigrating, and declared them undesirables. That would have been for starters.”

5:10 p.m. on august 14, 2014 on the thread “Is the United States the reason the world is at the brink of a world war and Christians are descimated [sic] in Iraq and other places? Is the United States the culprit?

Anonymous said...

Well, Anony 2, perhaps you have been away for a while or blogging under a different name but to be honest I have only noticed your comments in recent months. But to simplify things for me, just state where you stand on Church teachings on abortion and homosexuality. It is a very simple for you to make.

Jan

Anonymous said...

As regards what Angry Augustinian says about the Middle East, isn’t that what happened in World War II? When Germany and Italy declared war on the allies weren’t Germans and Italians incarcerated? Wasn’t immigration stopped from those countries? Wasn’t there carpet bombing over Germany and Italy, not to mention the atom bomb in Japan which brought the war to an earlier close than would otherwise have been the case. Innocent people suffered with the guilty. How many more Jews would have been killed in gas chambers but for the actions of the allies that stopped the war?

The Islamists have declared war on the west and the US in particular. So I think the US has been foolhardy to continue to allow immigration from the middle east. Parts of Britain and France are already paying the price for their immigration policies where Sharia law has been introduced and you can’t enter certain areas - and it’s going to get worse. How many more US citizens will be murdered before US citizens stand up and says “enough is enough”?

And it is now within your very own borders. Have you seen photos of the Islamic New York parade: floats showing women in cages, a woman with her head in a noose and supposedly toy rifles, etc, etc? If that is anything to go by then I think US citizens have a lot to worry about. To celebrate the US Court changing the law on gay marriage they threw four homosexuals to their death from high buildings. If you think that is not going to happen in the US now you are very much mistaken. In wars innocent people get killed - as 9/11 proved. And many Americans have forgotten that lesson all too quickly but I bet those families who had loved ones murdered will never forget.

And Rome, Pope Francis and the Vatican also have a great deal to worry about with the Islamists threat to invade Rome. I certainly believe that will happen ... it is just a question of time.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Sorry, I was wrong. It was not every city in the Islamic Middle East, just every major city. I guess that makes it okay then.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

No, sorry, it does not work like that. You do not get to dictate the rules and I will not play your little game. You said “You make plenty of negative statements about those who oppose homosexuality but you don't state where you stand.” You therefore linked the desire to know where I stand to the asserted factual predicate regarding my alleged negative comments. So, first you must demonstrate the accuracy of the asserted factual predicate. I have posted under Anonymous 2 for about three years now. But as you have only joined the Blog recently you need only search the period since you joined to find the “plenty of negative statements” you claim I have made.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

You clearly have very little understanding of war or the rules regarding just war. Perhaps you should read the entire text of the source from which you quoted. There is a principle called proportionality. The murder of 3000 plus people in the World Trade Center by a handful of Islamic terrorists, barbaric and atrocious though it was, does not justify the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent Muslims through carpet bombing of the Middle East.

And if you are looking for foolhardy, look no further than the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States when the Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003.






Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, I have been posting here for at least two years, perhaps not as regularly as you. The post you referred me to was 31 August 2014 and was written by Gene and not Angry Augustine. So can you point me to something that Angry Augustine has written?

It speaks volumes that you are not able to state what your beliefs are as regards homosexuality. Any Catholic worth their salt would state straight out that they uphold Catholic Church teaching in respect of homosexuality and abortion and so until such time as you state otherwise I can only assume that you do not.

As regards incarceration of Germans and Italians, that happened immediately war was declared and immigration was stopped as well to safeguard citizens as much as possible. With the attrocities being committed nearly every day in the name of Islam I know that it won't be long before you are proved wrong on every count. I notice you didn't even bother to comment on the New York Islamist parade - couldn't huh! You have had the Boston Marathon bombing and there have already been beheadings in your country and it won't be long before there are more and then you will be the first to squeal.

Jan

Anonymous said...

Anon 2, I found a few of your statements which I quote below:

“This said, and allowing that perhaps I am just being obtuse here, but I do not understand why apparently you cannot understand, or you discount, the difference between (a) being told you MUST be celibate your whole life, not because you have voluntarily taken a vow to be so but because you are made in a certain way (are indeed “disordered), on the one hand, and (b) (as it turns out) having to be celibate because of contingencies such as not finding a spouse (the closest analog perhaps) or being divorced or widowed or due to the development of various physical impediments (not so close because non-celibacy was in fact once practiced), on the other.

Notice, please, that I am not challenging the Church’s teaching here, but just suggesting that a bit of empathy for the situation of homosexuals may be in order.” January 31, 2015 at 11:27 PM

So, would you please now tell us where Jesus Himself talks about homosexuality? Or would you prefer to continue to pursue the tactic of distraction? February 1, 2015 at 8:48 PM "

I can fully understand why people reading these statements would consider you to be not supportive of Church teaching - despite what you say to the contrary. For one thing this idea of Christ didn't say it is a Protestant concept. The Church says it on behalf of Christ so, as a Catholic, then you must accept the Church's teaching.

I suspect, as perhaps others do too, that there may be a personal reason why you are not able to state outright that you uphold Church teaching on homosexuality.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

I am sorry, I meant to include the point in my comment but then forgot to do it – Gene and AA are the same person. But you would have already known this if you had been paying attention even on this thread (see. e.g. Father Kavanaugh’s post at 10:12 a.m. on July 1 addressing “Angry Gene”).

You would of course be quite wrong in your assumption that I do not uphold the Church’s teachings on abortion and homosexuality. I am just a little more thoughtful about them and about how best to uphold them than many people are. And again this is no different from Pope Francis’s approach (although I do realize that, being a “good Catholic,” you don’t like the Pope either).

My views on homosexuality, for example, are well captured by the first statement you quoted (thank you for finding it). Thus “I am not challenging the Church’s teaching here, but just suggesting that a bit of empathy for the situation of homosexuals may be in order.” This is perfectly consistent with CCC 2358 (most people with deep seated homosexual tendencies suffer trial and “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”). Check it out.

Regarding the second statement, once again you quote out of context, which seems to be a common practice of yours and doubtless a nasty habit you picked up from junk media (most of the media nowadays are junk media which, presumably, is why so many people no longer know how to read, or indeed how to think). I was responding to Gene’s point (i.e. AA’s point) in which he said: “You know, we read a lot into the NT and into Jesus' teachings and words. We also read a lot of modern, Enlightenment rationalism/egalitarianism into Scripture…you know, I missed that part in Scripture where Jesus embraced homosexuality, condoned aberrant sexual behavior and orientation, and encouraged his followers to embrace and be open to the homosexual lifestyle. I just couldn't find that anywhere no matter where I looked.” So, Gene/AA was arguing that Jesus didn’t embrace homosexuality anywhere, and I responded by saying that He did not condemn it either. Neither of us was addressing Church teaching based on other sources. Get it?

So, is that the best you’ve got to support you assertion that I make “plenty of negative statements about those who oppose homosexuality”? Pretty thin pickings if you ask me. But that is hardly surprising. You really can’t find any, can you?

You can speculate all you like about “personal reasons” I may have for being more thoughtful about how best to uphold the Church’s teachings on various matters. For my part, I speculate about “personal reasons” people may have for being so stridently militant (or, in the words of Pope Francis for “obsessing”) about sex.

In case you had not noticed, we are not at war with Islam but with some very extreme radicals, although I have no doubt that the misguided policies and sentiments of people such as yourself and Gene/AA will continually make us many more enemies in the Islamic world, as indeed they already have.

As for the parade, sorry, but I have not had a chance to research it yet – and, boy, do I understand the need to research and confirm (in fact, usually disconfirm) your assertions!




George said...

Anonymous 2:

"why apparently you cannot understand, or you discount, the difference between (a) being told you MUST be celibate your whole life, not because you have voluntarily taken a vow to be so but because you are made in a certain way (are indeed “disordered), on the one hand, and (b) (as it turns out) having to be celibate because of contingencies such as not finding a spouse (the closest analog perhaps) or being divorced or widowed or due to the development of various physical impediments (not so close because non-celibacy was in fact once practiced), on the other. "

>In both cases, (a) and (b), Church teaching exhorts us that we MUST be celibate. Not easy to be sure. more difficult for some than others- whether never married, widowed or divorced. Christ through His Holy Church would not tell us to do something which would be impossible for us to do. I don't see why homosexuals need empathy any more than any other Catholic who is single.

"So, would you please now tell us where Jesus Himself talks about homosexuality? Or would you prefer to continue to pursue the tactic of distraction?"

> In the Jewish culture, of Jesus' time, His bringing up homosexuality would be the equivalent today of speaking to a group of Muslims on the issue of eating pork. Jesus was not above saying things that horrified some of His listeners, so He would have had no qualms about speaking to the issue of homosexuality if it was necessary. The reason He didn't is because it wasn't an issue.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

“I don't see why homosexuals need empathy any more than any other Catholic who is single.”

This is an ironic statement.

Anonymous said...

Anony 2, you have a nasty habit of attacking the person rather than their argument. The test is what the ordinary person would think of what you have written. As an ordinary person I think that your statements quoted above indicate a support for homosexuality and a sympathy with homosexual ideology rather than an unequivocal upholding of the Church's teachings. With sin you have to be careful that you distinguish between the person and the sin - that you don't appear to be approving of the sin - and your comments are so whisy-washy that you do not clearly distinguish that and so I have formed the view that I have, as have others about you.

I know what Fr Kavanaugh said but have Gene or Angry Augustinian said they are one and the same person? For example, I happen to think that a number of "anonymous" comments may well be you because they are written in the same vein. Of course that might not be the case at all and unless you admit to that I cannot prove it. The same with Gene and Angry Augustinian. Until I read from Gene that he is Angry Augustinian I just accept they are two different bloggers who share similar views.

Your statement about Jesus stands on its own and was not taken out of context. It is a Protestant view. It is for the Church to interpret Christ's teachings and not you.

And I agree with George that I do not see why homosexuals require empathy any more than any other Catholic who is single. Those in the single state are called by the Church to be chaste and celibate for the whole of their lives or until they marry.

Jan

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

I have now read the following report on the parade:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/15/the-shocking-display-seen-at-nycs-muslim-day-parade/

The report is critical of the parade and comments on the female mannequin wearing the hijab in the noose: “The mannequin seen dangling from a noose on this float was wrapped in the flag of Egypt. It’s unclear exactly what it was meant to represent.”

My response to this is: read the remainder of the report and use your imagination.

So, as you like playing games so much, what do_you_think the mannequin is meant to represent?

Anonymous said...

Anon. 2, I am not interested in what the mannequin in a noose is meant to depict. What I am shocked about is that a so-called peace loving group is allowed to have such floats in a parade in New York. No peace-loving group would depict such things and I see again you remain impassive in the face of such depiction of violence by this group. Obviously there are those who have entered the US who are far from peace-loving.

The following video features burning of the US and Israeli flags at a protest in London. Watch closely where they have their banner: Followers of Mohammed will conquer America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMsU9Ex-kJY

The following is a long video but I believe people should look at what is happening in Britain as it is a forerunner to what will happen in the US if allowed to. It also features a video taken by a young woman who returned to Luton in the UK to see if what she had heard was true. She found her worst nightmare had come true with Muslim protest groups chanting that the British police should go to hell etc. Really, Britain has brought this on themselves because the country became so politically correct that these types of protest were allowed to go on. For fear or being accused of racism police turned a blind eye to Islamist pedophile groups who raped young children. The scandal is still unfolding. So much for a peace loving, pure religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-QX8LuKHA

Jan



George said...


You can take the statement as ironic if you want. ALL faithful Catholics struggle to one degree or another(some more than others) with trying to keep from sinning-with faithfully observing all the precepts of the Faith. Why does one group deserve empathy more than all other Catholics? God's grace is available to all.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

If you cannot understand the difference between someone who is permitted to have hope of getting married and someone who is permitted to have no such hope, I cannot help you. I was not denying the existence of God’s grace. We don’t ignore people’s trials and just consign them to God’s grace. We are there to help as well, as unworthy instruments of that grace. And to do_that_requires empathy for the situation of the sinner.



Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

In one sense it is of course erroneous to call Islam a religion of peace, just as it is erroneous to call any religion a religion of peace, because its practitioners may always engage in violence and other objectionable practices and indeed justify that conduct by the skewed interpretation of their holy texts.

The policies of European countries are a whole separate subject. I don’t disagree that some of the immigration policies pursued by those countries have been unwise.

Anonymous 2 said...

I need to rephrase the first sentence of my earlier response the George:

“If you cannot understand the difference between someone who is permitted to have hope of getting married and someone who is not permitted to have such hope, I cannot help you.”

George said...

Anonymous 2
There are other reasons that one cannot marry besides being homosexual. I've known and met people of advanced age who were never married. They never asked anyone for empathy or sympathy. Come to think of it, no homosexual person I have run across and talked to has ever asked for those. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. Some are born deaf and blind, others are born into poverty and dysfunctional families.
If you can help and have helped someone deal with he reality that life is tough then
you are doing something good an commendable. When the opportunity arose I have tried to do that myself.

Marriage is not the hallmark of being a Christian anyway.

George said...

I should qualify my response of 10:51 AM where I remarked: "Come to think of it, no homosexual person I have run across and talked to has ever asked for those." Not being homosexual and therefore never having been involved in that lifestyle, my knowledge base is severely limited. I could be rightly accused of extrapolating more than I should from what little I know. Just because I have personally never heard that sentiment or need expressed to me does not mean that it does not exist. My objective is to always be civil and charitable to everyone I encounter. Engaging in social pleasantries though, in most cases does not get one beyond a superficial knowledge of another person.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

Thank you for your honesty. It is what I would expect; your integrity is evident in your posts. All I can say is that my experience is different in that I have known many gays and lesbians – students, colleagues, friends, and relatives, not to mention priests – over the years. Indeed, even my college roommate was gay. And one can deserve empathy or compassion without having to ask for it.