Thursday, April 7, 2016

JUST HOW UGLY DO CATHOLICS HAVE TO BE TO PROMOTE CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHINGS? AND IS THE UGLINESS A TURN-OFF?

Donald Trump has captured the WWF-ification of our culture and Church--ugliness, shouting, name calling, bullying, narcissism. Shall I go on? For those who don't know, WWF stands for Worldwide Wrestling Federation. 

Of course the WWF is make-believe. It is the first "reality television" going back to the advent of television and wrestling being one of the main staples for local stations to show.

Trump is today's Cassius Clay, also known as Mohamed Alli.

I think once Americans discovered that Cassius Clay, aka, Mohamed Alli was putting on an act and that he was actually a sweet, nice guy, then his act was well appreciated for what it was. 

Do clergy or laity in the Church have to imitate Donald Trump, WWF or Cassius Clay? NO, NO, NO!
We don't have to enter into name-calling. We don't have to react to things we disagree with venom. 
In Nevada, prostitution has been legal for decades, centuries.  The Church survives there, no Armageddon. 

Now we have same sex civil marriage the law of the land. No Armageddon for the Church. 

And we will have Pope Francis extending an olive branch to our culture to bring the good news to those who will soon see how vapid the culture in which they live and the corrupt values they promote really is. 

We in the Church don't have to call prostitutes, whores. We don't have to call promiscuous women skanks. We don't have to call gay men and women sodomites, queer or perverts. We don't have to use language that pushes people away from the Church rather than draws them closer. 

And we certainly in the Church don't have to use vulgar explicates in front of the name calling. 

In the Church we can promote civil rights for those in same sex civil unions or heterosexual civil unions not recognized by the Church. We don't have to deny in the public arena goods and services that are sold for profit. 

At the same time, the Church doesn't have to perform civil unions or civil marriages. We don't have to do anything that would compromise our teachings on sexual morality. At the same time, we must never do anything to compromise our teachings on the foundation of all other morality--the virtue of Charity.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mohamed Allie Quigley?
Mohamed Allie Long?
Mohamed Allie Dewberry?

It's Ali......

Bernard Fischer said...

I agree with you about the civil approach, but Pope Francis calls people names all the time. Pickle-pepper faced neo-gnostic pharasaical, old maids and so on. He's like the Don Rickles of Popes. Obviously, if conservatives get mad because he's insulting them, then then can reflect on how others might feel if they were insulted by the conservatives. But to say that Francis is a model of civility is a stretch.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Bernard. I can never remember Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict speaking about those who disagreed with them in an uncharitable or judgemental way. But Francis does. He really should stop that because it encourages Traditional Catholics to distrust him and question his judgement. I KNOW Father before you even start that loyalty to the papacy is a hallmark of Catholics. I know I know. But when you have a pope like Francis who has done and said the things that he has done and said it causes problems. Problems that don't need to happen. Francis can show mercy and kindness to people, Christian and non Christian without causing confusion and scandal. He should be doing that. He should be binding wounds not ripping them open.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The Lord tested the faith of Job in much greater ways that the Lord now testing our authentic Catholic Faith with our Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ. When we allow personality quirks of anyone who is ordained let alone the Pope to determine our active or passive participation or worse yet, complete disengagement from the full communion of the Church, then we are on the wide road to hell.

TJM said...

Fr. McDonald,

These folks are just re-enforcing my long held observation that liberals engage in nasty name calling, etc., that they always accuse their opponents of doing. It's called projection. Very Obama-ish.

Anonymous said...

You said: "In the Church we can promote civil rights for those in same sex civil unions or heterosexual civil unions not recognized by the Church. We don't have to deny in the public arena goods and services that are sold for profit."

Not true. Neither the Church nor the lay Catholic may participate materially in intrinsic evil. Of course, the Church is off the hook, since she sells nothing, but the Catholic lay person in business must live his or her faith, that is, must refrain from selling goods and services when such selling is a close material pariticipation in evil. As for the Church promoting civil rights for same sex civil unions or heterosexual civil unions not recognized by the church, what are you talking about? "Civil rights" has become a catch-all meaningless term encompassing things that would definitely violate Church teaching. - Mary Parks

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think then all of us will have to stop using the internet, cable TV and buying stock that has any investments in the abortion/pornography industry.

Picking and choosing who one will serve in a for profit business is skating on thin ice. For us to ask employees of companies that support the porn industry, such as cable TV or industries that support gay marriage that the Catholic can't work in these settings is rather out there. One can, but one isn't forced by the Church.

The same for the medical profession where abortions are done in public hospitals. A Catholic does have to refrain from the procedure, but they can still work in the hospital.

I don't think serving a gay couple in a for profit business is on the same level as abortion. though.

Jusadbellum said...

Technically speaking Armageddon didn't happen even to Nazi Germany as it exterminated all the Jews. It wouldn't happen if the US government was taken over by a far-right coup rounded up every Liberal democrat and shot them. The sun would rise, the birds would chirp, and the loss of 50 million fellow citizens notwithstanding, the "end" would not come. But would that measure - the world didn't end - be sufficient to make us blasé about such an atrocious thing?

See here's the deal with the sexual revolution: it has harmed all of us and corrupted the West. Hundreds of millions of abortions and wounded families. Tens of millions of divorces shattering families. Millions of abandoned children lost to drug addiction or nihilism. We see the church's loss of attendance and sacramental practice but what of all the quiet despair: the pornography rampant throughout even "good" homes and marriages?

How can you say with a straight face that open, unashamed public immorality that is positively cheered on by government, big business, academia, the pop culture, etc. is a ho-hum, gee the sky hasn't fallen, all is well, outcome? For those innumerable souls ARMAGEDDON HAS COME! For the millions slaughtered in abortion, their judgment day has come. For the suicides and the helpless millions caught in structures of sin, judgment is in the wings.

But the sun rises so all is well? Have we lost our horror of sin and what it does to the human condition? Have we lost our fear of hell and what awaits the lax of conscience?

The LGBTQ could (and probably will) unleash hell on the visible above ground Catholic Church - raze every cathedral to the ground, round up and shoot every loyal pastor and layman...and the sun would still rise. The world would not end. There will always be the physical planet and land mass of North America. There will always be some sort of civilization and political entity here. So does that mean we're a-OK and shouldn't be alarmed?

The body politic has been dispirited and divided. The trumpet is uncertain and the people quail for fear of what's coming. You can't see the appalling abomination in the holy place - the very core of marriage and the eucharist being desecrated (literally, de-sacralized) and not consider that a tsunami of evil is headed our way. There will be a bloody persecution of orthodox Catholics in our lifetimes. Untold millions of more innocent people will suffer because our shepherds pooh poohed every chance they had to rally the troops to the defense of Christendom.

But the sun will still rise tomorrow so all's well.

Anonymous said...

Selling cakes or flowers is not close, material cooperation. Were that the case, Catholics would be prohibited from selling such to ANY couple entering a union not approved by the Church.

If this does constitute close, material cooperation, then a Catholic working the desk at a hotel will have to check the marriage licenses of all couples checking in.

The current hype surrounding cakes and flowers is just that, hype. People feel the need to do "something," so they latch on to the bakers' and florists' complaints about doing business with couples whose behavior they do not approve.

Mark Thomas said...

We can employ traditional Catholic terms without having to resort to name-calling and the spewing of venom at sinners. I am a sinner. I would not have a problem with anybody who referred to my sins by name. The use of precise and clear traditional Catholic language is an act of charity. Such language allows us to know where we stand before God. Again, such language does not require one to resort to insults and name-calling to make one's point.

Unfortunately, more and more Churchmen, in their monumental determination to "dialogue" with the world, have attempted to brand traditional Catholic language as "unacceptable". Catholics who speak about sin in traditional terms have been made to feel dirty by Churchmen who haven't hesitated to insult said Catholics.

The Church has been turned upside down. Sinners have been made to feel clean. Conversely, Catholics who adhere to Holy Tradition and employ Traditional Catholic terminology have been made to feel dirty. The perfect example of that is found in the movement among certain Churchmen to force Catholics to "value" homosexuality.

Father McDonald, I don't link you to such Churchmen. I simply point out that you said that "[W]e don't have to call gay men and women sodomites..." Father, why should we refrain from employing the legitimate term "sodomites"? That term is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sadly, the Church's failed "dialogue" with sinners and the world has reached the point where we are made to feel dirty by referring to "X" by "X".

Father McDonald, I understand and agree with you about the employment of hateful language that only serves to keep sinners away from the Church. But it is very possible to employ very clear language in charitable fashion. The Church had done so for century upon century. Holy Mother Church used to convert entire nations to the Truth.

Many Churchmen today employ ambiguous terms in their failed "dialogue" with sinners and the world. Our Churchmen have resorted to politically correct "dialogue" with a world that despises the Holy Catholic Church.

The "dialogue" in question has failed to attract sinners to the Church and conversion. Beyond that, the lack of clear, traditional Catholic language throughout the Church has confused Catholics. They are uncertain as to what the Church teaches.

Not that long ago, we had many Christ-loving, kind, charitable Churchmen who spoke in clear, traditional fashion that, nevertheless, was devoid of name-calling. They converted many sinners to the Church. Is it somehow impossible today for Churchmen to follow suit? Must we continue the politically-correct "dialogue" with sinners and the world that has failed the Church miserably?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Pope Benedict XVI offered the following assessment of the state Catholicism: "...in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel...". That is the clear reality before us.

The collapse of the (Roman) liturgy is the main reason as to why the (Latin) Church has collapsed throughout the world. Only when the liturgy is stabilized can we hope to obtain the stabilization of the Church. That most certainly applies to Catholic family life.

The only way Rome can even begin to stabilize the (Roman) liturgy and, for example, Catholic family life, is to turn to Holy Tradition. The restoration of Holy Tradition throughout the Church is Rome's best hope to renew the Church and, again, Catholic family life.

Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia will "succeed" in the holy sense only if the document offer us a heavy dose of Holy Tradition. The Exhortation will fail should His Holiness pursue Rome's old and tired Vatican II Era policy of attempting to mix novelty with Holy Tradition.

It is that simple.

Pope Francis will fail miserably in his attempt to renew Catholic family life if, as certain high-ranking Churchmen have hinted, he offers us a heavy dose of "revolutionary" novelties.

Regardless, I accept that Pope Francis acted in good faith in having issued Amoris Laetitia. I just hope and pray that His Holiness will promote Holy Tradition, rather than novelties, via his Exhortation.

I am aware that certain conservative/Traditional Catholic bloggers reported today that they have just read the Exhortation and, well...it's not good. I hope that their analysis of the document is wrong.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Um, Alli is a weight loss drug, not a boxer.... (sigh)...

George said...

I see no reason why the courts can't allow a reasonable accommodation in certain specific instances so that an individual is not forced to do something which violates their conscience when it come to their religious or moral convictions. Would it be OK for a Mom and Pop bakery to sell a cake sans any message or decoration which would be objectionable from the standpoint of their religious convictions? Is it enough ( and would it be so to the court) that there exists a reasonably proximate alternative vendor available to the purchaser? If there were not, then I could see where the vendor might be compelled in that case to satisfy the customer, at least with a generically messaged cake.
It is the person baking and decorating the cake however, who is operating from the position of religious conviction. Freedom of religion conviction trumps someones "right" to purchase a cake or anything else. One can envision a scenario where a person is asked to bake a cake for a strip club party or for an establishment which sells sexual paraphernalia of which the establishment in question is characterized as "adults only". The bakery owner or self-employed individual could choose to sell but should have the right to refuse if they are asked to decorate the cake or bake good(s) with something that violates their religious beliefs.
One of the aspects to be considered here is the closeness, the self -identification of the small independent business owner operator to his or her means of livelihood. It is different than if a person is employed by a large corporation such as WalMart or Home Depot,where it is understood that you are just one employee among many with not much say as to corporate policy. Should the owner of a small plane who makes living by towing an advertising banner be forced to display "I support polygamy" or I support same-sex marriage" when these run counter to the person's personal beliefs? To me, the person should be able to refuse this kind of request, in no small part because there exists the attendant and naturally perceived connection between the plane and the owner. A Catholic who self-owned his or her own pharmacy would be in a different position as far as dispensing abortifacients versus one who worked for a national chain, although in the latter case I would like to see so accommodation made, if at all possible.
Is it that we can only exercise our religious and moral principles within the walls of a church or ecclesial building or within the confines of our homes?

Charles G said...

Dear Father,

Homosexual activity is sinful and immoral. That is the teaching of the Church. In no way should the Church be upholding civil rights to homosexual pseudo-marriage. How could any pastor of the Church who believes what the Church teaches act in any way to condone sexual immorality? It suggests that the 70's really have returned, and that many in FrancisChurch really don't believe the moral teachings of the Church. They may give them the weakest of lip service, but always with a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more" suggesting that they do not really believe all that stuff anyway and that people might as well carry on carrying on with their sins. Tragic!

Anonymous said...

CharlesG - "FrancisChurch" is cute, but it is the Catholic Church. Last time I checked Francis is still Pope.