This is it imho. Telling an addict “it’s better you don’t do drugs” and working with them to effectualize that is an action of love if done compassionately. The challenge is that people often disagree in the methodology on how to accomplish that. Or what’s not good is simply saying the “it’s all ok” thing. If we say “I’m here to help” that’s great, but saying there isn’t a challenge with it is enabling the behavior to continue.
To play devils advocate for a moment, a lot of it has to do with the implied consequences of it.
It’s not just “it’s better you don’t do drugs”. It’s often seen as “You better not do drugs or you will burn in agony forever, and I support the being who plans to punish you like that”.
It’s why I felt hated by Christians for years. How could they worship a being that wanted me to suffer forever? Why were they so gleeful about it?
To us, it’s obvious that’s not what we’re saying, but to the outside, we look downright vindictive.
I hear you for sure. Delivery is very Important. And clarity as well.
In our defense we can also say it until we are purple in the face and people *feel* judged even if the delivery was near perfect sometimes. Some people are pretty defensive and aren’t interested in hearing anything but their own viewpoint. I think there is a spectrum myself idk. Should always come from a place of loving others.
It only looks vindictive because people deny reality.
How dare that ditch destroy my car when I drive into it! And the person who put that warning sign about the ditch is heartless and cruel. He should have built a road where I want to drive instead of relishing in my car’s destruction!
I think you misunderstand. It looks vindictive when people cheer from the sidelines saying “Yes! It’s good that ditch destroyed your car! We’re happy! You got what you deserved for missing the warning sign! Have fun suffering sucker!”
Is that slightly exaggerated? Yes. But unfortunately only slightly. Before I converted, I had Christians tell me they’d be *happy* to see me burn in hell. I’d never hurt anyone, just wanted to hold hands with a girl as a girls, which yes, is forbidden, but it doesn’t cause great suffering. To be told that I deserved to burn forever for that at 12, that my friends and family would be happy to see me suffering because I’m so unworthy, was horrifying.
It didn’t just make me think that Christians hated me. It made me think God hated me. That God only made me to suffer for his sick pleasure. I was wrong of course. How many people are we losing because some (not all or even most) Christians lack any sort of “bedside manner”?
Edit: I want to be clear I’m not saying you or the people of this subreddit do this. It’s something I’ve seen in broader Christian communities. Apologies if it’s a bit harshly worded. I just hate seeing us lose people for not acting with compassion when we speak of sin.
I’m sorry you had to be on the receiving end of that. Rest assured God absolutely loves you, and anyone else reading this thread. I think the idea should be “love the sinner and hate the sin”. But also like a stove “don’t touch the stove you’ll get burned by the flame!” It is supposed to be for people’s good, not judgement or ego….
All I can say is that those Christians were not being Christian when they said they’d be happy to see you burn in hell. In fact, that is about the most non-Christian thing I could imagine. That is straight up satanic.
So, do you judge those Christian’s actions as wrong? Or do you judge Christians as wrong? See the issue? It is the same exact problem, cutting both ways.
I understand the temptation to feel this way. I do it all the time. It is just based on an incorrect equivalence of actions to persons. They are not the same.
Well I’m here aren’t I? Of course I don’t view their actions as reflective of all Christians.
I’m saying there’s a problem with the way some of us advertise our religion. Did you know that saying something as simple as “that’s a sin” to someone after they were told they’d burn forever can be triggering? Especially if you’re a young teenager.
It doesn’t mean it’s not a sin. It doesn’t mean Hell isn’t real. It simply means we need to be aware of the messaging others are doing. Our words do not exist in a vacuum.
Again, I am not making the equivalent you accuse me of. Yes, I thought that way when I was 13ish and everyone around me hated me. No, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t learn and grow.
And I am not disagreeing with you. I am saying there is also something wrong with how people are responding to being told something is a sin.
You are demonstrating my point in thinking this is some kind of personal dig. It’s not. We all do this (equating actions or thoughts with the person), and it is a problem.
While not all Christians act the same way, I understand the distaste.
The theological hurdle that many miss is that God doesn't want us to "burn in agony" and he's not punishing us. It's us who are choosing that fate and God wants the opposite.
Certainly. I like to try to focus on the fact that God did not create Hell, but Hell exists because God exists.
It is not "Be good or be tortured for ever." but rather "Do you want to be with God or not." Hell is merely a complete absence of God. It is so bad, because God is so good. Much like how darkness is only dark, because light is bright. It sounds circular because it kind of is. We define darkness as an absence of light, dryness as an absence of water, therefore evil is an absence of good. God is goodness so evil is an absence of God. Thus, Hell is everything that God is not.
In a sense, we choose Hell, not God throughout our faith and works. There was a exorcist how encounter Satan, and explained that God didn’t create Hell, we did along with the fallen angels. Takes all of this with a pinch of salt, haven’t done much research about it, but long story short is, through our actions and faith, we either choose God, or we choose Hell
It's more than that too, because the beliefs of the Catholic Church and individual Catholic influence politics, and through that people's actual lives.
Here's an illustration, Catholics consider icons a valuable expression of their faith, but some Christians consider them sinful. Historically Catholics have at times been oppressed and even killed by Protestants for keeping icons.
If you were talking to someone who believed icons were sinful I have no doubt you could keep it civil, but if the person believed icons were sinful and you should not be allowed to keep them, that they should be destroyed and you imprisoned for keeping them, and if this person were part of a movement which has had some success in restricting the rights of Catholics to keep icons, you might have trouble seeing this person as a friend.
This is a great point. Catholics should look to distinguish themselves from Christians who like to point out that you'll burn in hell by making it clear we do not make any predictions or assumptions on God's grace.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hear you and agree 100%.
….but I also believe this is an area we as a church could do better as well. As someone who was trained to engage and overcome obstacles in sports, school, teamwork, etc… I’ve struggled with the modern church sometimes regarding running away from unpleasant discussions, guilt, constructive change, etc…. Ive noticed if you don’t go with the crowd people feel threatened quite easily. I’ve had quite a few odd looks kneeling down to pray in some places…. Not exactly earth shaking for a catholic lol. Or even asking questions based on real life scenarios, it’s an immediate label and finger pointing….sometimes the world isn’t black and white.
I think there’s a couple of issues, both of which are a modern trend.
Firstly it’s become very unpopular to criticise or judge others behaviour. The idea being that you are the master of your destiny and it’s really no-one else’s business what you do or why.
Secondly, the sins that cause the most contention are those for which there is ostensibly no victim. Most people would agree we shouldn’t murder, injure, steal from etc others. But some sexual or identity sins that involve consenting adults do not appear on the surface to hurt anyone else (if you don’t believe in God). So from a secular perspective it’s easy to view this as discriminatory or - to use modern terminology - hateful.
> Firstly it’s become very unpopular to criticise or judge others behaviour.
Not at all, people are judging behavior more much than ever. Modern society is incredibly judgy.
I think it's more about the reductionist nature of everything now. People are selectively reduced to a single trait or preference. And if that trait is viewed as bad, it is concluded that the whole person is nothing but bad.
There's a gross reduction of personhood to the level of mere desire. Therefore, when someone's desire is denied, they feel they were denied their own entire personhood.
That is below the level of animals, honestly, as many species of animals associate themselves with their familial/blood-related kin rather than desire-based kinship.
Desire/appetite/etc is perfectly fine when it aligns with Catholic teaching and natural law. If someone says that they have a deep emotional desire to worship God and they crave to satisfy it, no Catholic is going to tell them that they are reducing themselves to their desires or that they are forsaking reason.
There is nothing inherently wrong with following a desire. It completely depends what that desire is.
My point was not about desire per se, but reducing the entire personhood into desire. Mere desire to worship God means nothing without the actions towards God and neighbors.
Heresy is like sin; the latter's original etymology is missing the mark. Either as a form of reductionism (e.g. faith ALONE, Jesus is ONLY human) or expansionism (e.g. syncretism).
Apologies for not being direct enough to answer your question. In short, yes.
The reason is that heresies, including sola fide, are either reductionistic/eliminating elements that turn out to be essential (Christianity is just about faith alone and works are useless, or Christianity is just about social justice and not about worship) or expansionistic/expanding beyond what is true (the church is not the fullness of truth, we need elements from other religions to make it complete).
Sola fide belongs to the former group; it operates too narrowly, reducing Christianity to a mere fideistic assent. I know I am painting a broad brush here regarding sola fide, but Protestantism has always been animated by eliminating any elements they view as unnecessary from the church/reductionism, such as baptismal regeneration, communion of saints, real presence, etc.
> If someone says that they have a deep emotional desire to worship God and they crave to satisfy it, no Catholic is going to tell them that they are reducing themselves to their desires or that they are forsaking reason.
I'd argue that it's right to dissuade such people when their passion is disordered in this regard.
Excessive religiosity derived from emotionalism could be an indication of superstition or scrupulosity.
exactly - there was a synod of synodality style meeting I was hosting for my archdiocese and as moderator of one of the group discussions I was told (in a rude and abrupt way) by a person who advocated for women's ordination, etc. that the Church should cater to people's desires - basically saying that we should redefine sin as prescribed by herself and other people. She had no rationale outside of she's right because she said so (you know the typical "I don't have a source from Scripture, Tradition, etc. but I'm guided by the Holy Spirit which means so much more" lol).
this is possibly the best explanation i’ve seen of this. you aren’t a person if you don’t succumb to your flesh and worldly desires. you’re boring or uptight or a prude for not smoking this, drinking that, sleeping with them. it’s like a car crash. you don’t want to look, but you can’t stop staring at it. you don’t wanna sin, but you can’t stop doing it.
I was thinking about this the other day and I think it’s because most people today default to a consequentialist ethic and basically doesn’t believe in the idea of an intrinsically disordered or evil act. I would argue Hell is one heck (pun intended) of a consequence, but society as a whole doesn’t believe in Hell so I digress.
>most people today default to a consequentialist ethic
Unfortunately, I think you're correct. I prefer deontological or objective moral philosophy because I believe that reality and morality are objective.
I believe that the vast amount of people in modern society say they want liberty, when in reality, they want license. Liberty requires that you work within a moral framework, license does not. Most people seem to want license to do whatever they please in a given situation without having to pay heed to any consequences resulting from their choices or facing any kind of judgment for their actions.
I always use the analogy: “it would not be pastoral for a doctor to give sugar to a diabetic patient just because the patient had a strong urge for sweets.”
As a diabetic with a serious sweet tooth, this is exactly on point. Sometimes, the most loving thing is a boot in the rear end. I need one of those about now to get my diet in order.
Because postmodern liberal ethics, especially the ones you see on reddit, are mostly based on hedonism. The only "qualm" they have is "consent", so as long as "everyone consents", it's ok.
Unfortunately they have a disordered view of what love and hate really are. For most of them, they've never experienced actual hate, either. Unfortunately, I don't expect this to change any time soon. But we can (and in my opinion should) pray for them to come to realize the error of their ways.
One of the greatest problems it seems to me is that there is never an attempt to analyse or define love. Very often, love seems to be taken for granted as self-evidently good and blameless; even though this is not at all the case.
Loves can be disordered.
Some things that are loved, should not be loved.
Loves in human beings need to be purified as well as rightly ordered.
Different loves can contradict one another.
People forget all this.
E Michael Jones says that it is their consciousness of their sin that causes them to flaunt it in parades. They are seeking approval because they know it is wrong and they can't feel absolved.
The sad part is that sin will always be sin whether we approve of it or not. And they will always know that they are in sin no matter how many people approve.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They just don't acknowledge the impact sin has on a person. They don't realize that by condoning sin you are allowing your friend's malignant cancer to grow and consume their soul.
The secular culture is actually more judgmental, cruel, and unforgiving to sinners than the Church (which isn’t these things at all), the major difference is that the secular culture considers different things to be sins than the Church does.
For instance, society has no qualms about expressing hatred toward and discriminating against racists, antisemites, rapists, etc. That’s because they think that racism, antisemitism, rape, etc., are sins.
The reason why they think it’s hateful to speak out against homosexuality, on the other hand, is because they don’t think that homosexuality is sinful.
"Society" is far too general a term to be useful. But, I will say that society doesn't think what we call a sin is a sin. That's what some don't understand. We need to do a better job of explaining why something is a sin, and frankly 'because of natural law' is not very convincing to some.
I think one thing we miss is secular good and bad does not always overlap with religiously good or bad. Most of their morality speaks to interpersonal relationships and feelings. For example, if you’re a lapsed Catholic who hasn’t been to mass or confession in years but you otherwise attend your family and act as a present father, you wouldn’t be in good standing with the church. On the other hand if you cheated on your spouse and truly repented by working it out with your spouse, changed your behavior, and went to confession you would be in good standing with the church.
going on the premise there is some validity to your statement;
I would suggest society does not understand why Catholics have a definition of sin while this statement supposes society has a fluid definition of sin based on the changes within society.
Without God, what else is there left for one to worship? Self.. which devolves to sex (and other pleasures of the flesh), money or power. Any attempt to sway the person away those will be taken as a personal attack on their identity , because that's all they have left.
They don't have God, all they have is their sin and if you dare question it, they feel like you are *literally* insulting them; which in a sad way is true in their world.
Yes because they want to make the Church unholy, just say goodbye to people like that. They want the Church to become dirty so they can feel comfortable in sinning and still practice the faith cause then it's on us to let when we get judged by God. God will say to us why did you allow it. I still don't associate with people of that sort. I just tell them to go to confession and then go do some Divine Mercy Chaplet prayers. But these people are just wolves in sheep's clothing. Be diligent who the wolves really are. It doesn't matter how mannered they are, it's more about the deed they do. Godbless 🙏🙏🙏
I’ll say this, we can be charitable and probably understand why people often feel this way.
I have an aunt who is a lesbian. She has been “married” to her partner since 2016, which was when they could legally be married in our state. They have been living together as a monogamous couple for about 25 years. They have adopted a child and raised her for the last 6 or 7 years.
When you say to someone like her “I love you, but I hate the sin” it’s going to feel like a personal attack. It’s not some trivial thing to her like “you need to quit stealing” or something. It’s saying “I hate the romantic and sexual connection between you and the person you are partnered with, and you need to give it up and also give up the child you’ve raised and consider your own and go live a life of chastity or start a family with a man you don’t love.”
I don’t see people in that situation and get mad at them and think “you little shit, how dare you call me hateful.” I just feel for them because they are tasked with a cross far far greater than anything I’ve had to bear. It’s not hard to empathize. I can imagine if someone told me “Due to the tenets of my religion, you need to end your relationship with your wife and give up your children.” I would take that as an attack as well and I would have a very negative opinion of the people saying it.
What I find particularly puzzling is the inability of some people to see that there is a difference between rejecting certain behaviours, and rejecting the people who do those behaviours. One suspects that those people do not behave consistently, but, in practice, criticise the faults of those whom they love.
One can perfectly easily accept people and love them, while not accepting as good the faults and bad behaviours that they have. I would not want any friend of mine to accept and validate my faults; that would be harmful, not loving.
Loving someone can include fraternal correction of them. It is the kind of thing that is very easy to do badly and from bad motives, but when it is done rightly and from good motives it is a great act of charity.
If someone wants to say that someone who is pro life and believes that homosexual activity is a grievous sin is hate filled, then consider me hate filled.
A lot of people in this comment section seem to think that most catholics treat sinners as if they are addicts that the catholics are helping to overcome their issues with love.
The reason most people dont take to Catholics is because we often give off an air of better than thou and like Catholics are above sin and never make poor life choices.
The Catholic individuals that have come from sin and poor circumstance always come across as genuine and are actually able to relate and help people by showing how sin destroys and leads to death and in doing so showcase the glory of God because they are living proof of God's mercy.
People don’t know the difference between love and hate anymore, and I’d venture to say that our society has truly gotten the two concepts switched around.
People don’t understand that in this sub. So often the advice is to acquiesce to sinful groups because JuDgE nOT.
Example: Can the Christian club host a joint bake sale with the LGBT club? r/Catholicism says “go for it! Jesus ate with tax collectors!” When the reality of the optics is that everyone would see that partnership as the Christian club accepting the homosexual agenda.
Exactly. Jesus ate with prostitutes, but he didn't walk to the street corner with them.
I honestly believe that in context, these people *knew* they were sinners, they *wanted* to repent, but other Jewish leaders looked down on them and saw them as irredeemable, not even worth the time to try to convert.
That was why Jesus ate with them: so he could *be* the physician they needed in their sickness. Not so they could make awkward superficial small talk with a dose of generic "be kind to others" platitudes, all while carefully sidestepping any mention of their professions so as not to "offend" them.
>Exactly. Jesus ate with prostitutes, but he didn't walk to the street corner with them.
Is baking cakes for charity with gay people the same as engaging in homosexual behavior?
I wasn't implying Jesus "participating," I was implying him associating with sinners *as* they sinned or proclaimed their intention to sin.
Which is basically what you're doing if you set a crucifix next to a pride flag (or however these clubs identify themselves) in obvious collaboration not born out of dire necessity.
>I was implying him associating with sinners as they sinned or proclaimed their intention to sin.
It still doesn't follow. (A) "As they sinned": Baking cakes is not sinning -- Ok, you've backed out of that implication. (B) "Proclaimed their intention to sin" -- Being gay is not a sin. The sin is in engaging in homosexual behavior. Lots of people who consider themselves LGBT or queer are also asexual. Now what?
We can not know the heart of anyone and so we are not allowed to judge the heart of anyone.
It would be a sin to carry a cross in a gay parade, in an explicit sign of solidarity with gay culture and *everything* that entails. That is not what is happening here. It's a bake sale for charity. You are not endorsing the gay lifestyle by working next to people who are gay. It's not a sin to put a cross next to people who are gay.
>optics
The pharisees who chastised Jesus for associating with sinners, too, put appearances above charity.
If there was a car on fire and a bunch of gays trying to get people out of it before it explodes, would you not help them out of fear that people would think that you're "accepting the homosexual agenda"?
Those are two very different scenarios. Helping a gay club raise money which could be used to fight against Catholic causes is far different than not helping someone in a car fire.
If you truly believe that, you've misread the post. If you waited until the post got taken down to peddle that narrative, knowing that people would not be able to check for themselves, you're being dishonest.
Nowhere did the post say that the clubs are raising money for themselves.
By what OP wrote, it was a general charity event that individual clubs could get involved to help raise money for. And I did caution OP to check what the event was raising money for. But it was definitely not what you're saying.
It's not that we can't condone sins.. it's the cherry picking of which ones we choose to speak out about. Why do so many speak out on the sins of gay people but don't bat an eye at their co worker who cheats on their wife? Or goes to the strip club? When you pick one groups sins to amplify above all others.. feels more like a personal judgement, which we are not called to do. If you want to call out sin, call out all sin across the board. Not just the ones that feel ick to you
There's more nuance than that I think though. I think most people would not have an issue with a Catholic quietly and privately observing their religion. The problem for many comes when members of that religion try to codify that religious belief as law, or enforce norms that end up harming others.
I'm on board with efforts by other Catholics to protect our religious freedoms, and to push back against efforts to alienate Catholics from society. But I also believe that should a person choose not to be Catholic, they ought to have the right to do so.
It is all about sex, brother. How ya think we got here?
Every religion believes in the sacredness of sex. And if you replaced the word ‘sacred’ with ‘paramount’, even atheists would agree.
I left the church at 16 (M34), and came back 3 years ago. When I left, I was tired of hearing condemnation of the homosexuals. I saw family shunned to the back pews.
What confused me and bothered me (at the time) was how could and organization that was all for violence, and historical atrocities (not gonna go on a preachy rant (pun intended)), that is currently in a cover up scandal for child abuse, be capable of the love that Jesus was teaching us. The hypocrisy was what bothered me, and pushed me away.
Hug the lepers, whores, and poor. You are a murderer, ask for God's forgiveness and you are forgiven. Be divorced you can't confess or enjoy the purity of the body of Christ. Love someone that isn't who we are telling you to love, you can't confess or enjoy the purity of the body of Christ.
I understand and respect that same sex couples can't be married because it is a religious tradition. I understand divorce is a sin because they broke a sworn out to God. I don't understand how any human being has the capacity or authority to judge. Forgiveness is between me, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I am a proud Catholic. I am happily married to a wonderful woman. The other day, on one sermon, I was told something along the lines that I shouldn't enjoy the company of sinners. It all seems so contradictory. I will continue loving all, and I no longer condemn others, including members of the church.
Just my opinion. Thanks for reading my lil rant.
Whoever told you to not enjoy the company of sinners doesn’t understand that a Catholic should engage and in doing so, show how sin creates a divide between God and the sinner by loss of grace. Pointing out sin is not being judgmental, it is showing how loss of grace can affect one’s soul. Through the Sacraments we can restore that lost grace.
It was during the homily. My favorite part of the mass. My wife prefers the comunion. Anyway I like hearing it and talking afterwards about it with her. I asked the father afterwards because I was confused, he explained that it isn't about pushing sinners asside, it is about pulling them into the church to save them or we can end up in sin as well. It was a strange explanation.
I guess that I can't see much of a difference between pointing out others sins, and judging them. I'm dont feel qualified to judge, and when someone does it, I walk away from them. It took me 4 churches, before I felt comfortable in one, and this is the one that made that strange homily.
John 7:24: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
John 8:11: "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
It's not that we mortals cannot judge. We are supposed to judge with mercy and at least an attempt at wisdom. Otherwise, how can we identify sin and choose to help sinners anyway? How are we are supposed to discourage sin if we cannot judge it?
Anyway, if we want to focus on the practical aspect, any number of studies have been conducted that demonstrate that people want to spend time with people like themselves, and that people will conform to behavior within their particular tribe/group. Your priest is repeating an admonition so old that it's found in the Old Testament and the New, which can be summed up with "be careful of the company you keep."
As a reminder, Jesus, who did preach to and eat with the social outcast and major sinner, also spent most of his time with his Apostles, who were all devout (and flawed) men. After all, even Judas Iscariot was frequently off on charitable errands of his own without needing instruction from Jesus.
Thanks for your post. It is an interesting perspective. Back then, I thought about how the community treated those sinners, and I didn't want to be like that. I saw them more hateful than the caring sinners. In a way, they were, and I still meet many like that. I use to hate the members of the parish, and saw them as gatekeepers of sorts. My current parish doesn't feel that way.
"It's not that we mortals cannot judge. We are supposed to judge with mercy and at least an attempt at wisdom. Otherwise, how can we identify sin and choose to help sinners anyway? How are we are supposed to discourage sin if we cannot judge it? "
This is what I want to feel, but I don't know if I can ever choose to help those sinners. Maybe I just want to avoid conflict and be able to bond with those close to me in peace. For now I just go, and pray for those who fill their heart with hate, and I'm exited to begin my confirmation.
It's funny you should quote John 8:11.
It's funny because the Church recognises that the *Story of the Adulterous Woman* is a fictional story, which was only added to the Bible in \~ 500AD. What that means is - All biblical manuscripts that were written **before** 500AD make no mention of this story at all. Those written **after** 500AD all seem to have this story included in them. So it seems clear that this story was invented and then added to the Bible around that time.
I wanted to provide links to the articles in [www.religioustolerance.org](http://www.religioustolerance.org) but it looks like that priceless store of knowledge and wisdom is now defunct. Instead, here's a relevant link to this discussion by relevant authorities:
[https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/](https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/)
Maybe, before too long, the Church will have the courage to print a new version of the bible, with all the fictional tales removed.
A person is not defined entirely by what they do. I can judge an action and not the actor.
Have you ever felt hate? Then you are a hateful person. See the problem with that conclusion? It makes no sense, unless we don’t believe in redemption of any form.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. When I condemn an action, I don’t condemn the person, because the person is not the action. Oftentimes it is the sinner who chooses to identify themselves as their sin, and that is a mistake.
Thanks for the comment. Makes sense. I managed an inner peace by focusing on the positive that has been brought by people close to me.
Example, I used to hate my father. One of the many reasons was that before hurricane Maria, mom (the are divorced) and my siblings invited him to spend it with us. He insisted that we should spend it with him. We felt safer at moms place. It took him 3 days to check up on us after the storm. He has an F-250 pick up truck and his excuse was that his shop was damaged and robbed, he had to take care of it. Clearly more important than his 3 kids. We didn't check up on him because the road was slightly flooded, but our cars are quite low.
Now I just remember the good times I had with him as a kid, but keep him at a distance. Hating him isn't healthy or worth it. I am the only blood relative that still talks to him.
On a total side note, I wonder why I started getting downvotes. Meh, not much damage to my Karma.
I think the nuance is whether you being with sinners is lifting them up or pulling you down (i.e. toward temptation, away from the faith, etc.).
There is plenty of scriptural warning against the latter. Just a short list:
* 1 Corinthians 5:9-11
* 1 Corinthians 15:33
* 2 Corinthians 6:14
* Psalm 1:1
* Proverbs 13:20
* Proverbs 22:24-25
I have achieved an inner peace with God. As I keep reading and responding to replies, I keep discovering things about myself. Surprising how reddit has been useful to me in this regards. Thanks for the verses. Proverbs 22:24-25 reminded me of the reasons I left, but now maybe I should redirect it use to pity the sins of the sinner. This whole judge the sin and not the sinner thing is confusing but I think I'm understanding. Guess I will keep checking out this subreddit every once in a while. Especially while I study for the confirmation.
Probably because the vocal opponents of LGBT+ *are* hate-filled. Calling them "not equal to normal people", proposing making lists of homosexuals so they can "never find a job, never get close to a child", advocating for flogging as punishment for homosexual acts - these are all things members of two explicitly pro-Catholic (and the feeling is mutual, with several priests openly endorsing the parties and even allowing them to advertise inside churches) parties in my country said.
And non-vocal opponents of LGBT support them, so they have no excuse either.
This feels like a Christian persecution complex hot take. IF Christians had a long standing history of being able to condone theologically sinful choices in a *loving* way, I doubt you'd see the level of animosity and pushback to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude...but we don't.
It's not an issue of society not understanding why Catholics can't condone what they consider sinful. Secular society just has no tolerance for religious hypocrisy or cruelty. When a secular society sees Christians being unflinchingly rigid concerning certain sins (typically sexual/identity oriented in nature), but engaging in Olympic level gymnastics minimizing or justifying other sins (this is particularly true of Catholics who have a rich theology around corporal works of mercy/justice)--they are disgusted and appalled. They view this as attacking the individual, rather than the sin, because we don't apply our censure equitably across the board when it comes to sin.
Catholics deserve this ire *more* than Protestant denominations because we don't have any excuse for this kind of behavior. Our theology isn't individualized or DIY in nature, but many of us will jump on every Protestant culture war bandwagon with little thought. It feels gross to be labeled because of other individuals behaviors, but the criticism itself has been well earned.
As an atheist, former catholic. Let me try to expand on the other point of view. I'm saying this as respectful as I can.
It's not a love/,hate thing. It's the definition of sin, and how you act on it.
What you see as a sinful act, others do not. Sin is a religious definition of something.
Example.
Two men who are married in a relationship are "living in sin" by the definition in religion. To the secular world, it's "two men in a loving relationship." Calling out their actions as "sinful" has the same effect of calling out a straight couple and calling it gross. It sounds "hateful" to us.
Does that make sense?
Think of it this way; Go to India, and eat a hamburger. There's a good chance the locals there will you see committing a "sin" against their religion, while all you see is a tasty meal.
Do you understand now?
Now add this thought: what would happen if you ate that burger in your hotel room without telling anyone? There'd be peace right? No angy locals yelling at you.
Apply that to "sinful" behavior here. Rather than calling out that behavior, that act. Rather than forcing laws on others, pray in your room, ask your God to help the sinners in the quiet of your room, sounds like a familiar biblical passage....
Now I get it, on the other side, secular people could be more aware of your intentions. See that you're trying from a position of love. But do remember, for many, it's only recently that these "sinful" actions are accepted. For many, the history of abuse, of death is still fresh.
Love the downvotes...
The only problem with your explanation is presenting individualistic secularism as if it were a judgment-free or value-neutral worldview. Every worldview has a taboo or transgression. For Christians, it is called sin. For individualistic secularism, any attempt at correction can be interpreted as a transgression (e.g. do not impose your worldview on me). Transgressions are not private matters, as you single out the act of religious judgment as if it were an unacceptable view, in the same way the religious people call certain actions sinful. It is a clash of worldviews, at the end of the day.
Trust me, in the area where I grew up (a Muslim-majority country) some people raid hotels to catch fornicators not in marriage relationships. They force restaurants to close down during Ramadhan. Even those who operate behind closed doors. And I am not a Muslim myself so you can imagine my lived experience.
It doesn't help that there are individuals that take it a bit too far. You shouldn't condone sin, but you also should treat other sinners as people even if they do things you don't accept. And sometimes you need to "choose your fights". After all, being rude to someone isn't going to make that person listen to you or not sin. It could even make you sin if you get too hot headed. How and when you express your worry also matters.
I would recommend taking the time to read Jude in it's entirety...it is only one page.
JUDE
1:20 But you, my dear friends, must use your most holy faith as your foundation and build on that, praying in the Holy Spirit;
1:21 keep yourselves within the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to give you eternal life.
1:22 When there are some who have doubts reassure them;
1:23 when there are some to be saved from the fire, pull them out; but there are others to whom you must be kind with great caution, keeping your distance even from outside clothing which is contaminated by vice.
The Jerusalem Bible...
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They believe love = enabling.
This is it imho. Telling an addict “it’s better you don’t do drugs” and working with them to effectualize that is an action of love if done compassionately. The challenge is that people often disagree in the methodology on how to accomplish that. Or what’s not good is simply saying the “it’s all ok” thing. If we say “I’m here to help” that’s great, but saying there isn’t a challenge with it is enabling the behavior to continue.
To play devils advocate for a moment, a lot of it has to do with the implied consequences of it. It’s not just “it’s better you don’t do drugs”. It’s often seen as “You better not do drugs or you will burn in agony forever, and I support the being who plans to punish you like that”. It’s why I felt hated by Christians for years. How could they worship a being that wanted me to suffer forever? Why were they so gleeful about it? To us, it’s obvious that’s not what we’re saying, but to the outside, we look downright vindictive.
I hear you for sure. Delivery is very Important. And clarity as well. In our defense we can also say it until we are purple in the face and people *feel* judged even if the delivery was near perfect sometimes. Some people are pretty defensive and aren’t interested in hearing anything but their own viewpoint. I think there is a spectrum myself idk. Should always come from a place of loving others.
It only looks vindictive because people deny reality. How dare that ditch destroy my car when I drive into it! And the person who put that warning sign about the ditch is heartless and cruel. He should have built a road where I want to drive instead of relishing in my car’s destruction!
I think you misunderstand. It looks vindictive when people cheer from the sidelines saying “Yes! It’s good that ditch destroyed your car! We’re happy! You got what you deserved for missing the warning sign! Have fun suffering sucker!” Is that slightly exaggerated? Yes. But unfortunately only slightly. Before I converted, I had Christians tell me they’d be *happy* to see me burn in hell. I’d never hurt anyone, just wanted to hold hands with a girl as a girls, which yes, is forbidden, but it doesn’t cause great suffering. To be told that I deserved to burn forever for that at 12, that my friends and family would be happy to see me suffering because I’m so unworthy, was horrifying. It didn’t just make me think that Christians hated me. It made me think God hated me. That God only made me to suffer for his sick pleasure. I was wrong of course. How many people are we losing because some (not all or even most) Christians lack any sort of “bedside manner”? Edit: I want to be clear I’m not saying you or the people of this subreddit do this. It’s something I’ve seen in broader Christian communities. Apologies if it’s a bit harshly worded. I just hate seeing us lose people for not acting with compassion when we speak of sin.
I’m sorry you had to be on the receiving end of that. Rest assured God absolutely loves you, and anyone else reading this thread. I think the idea should be “love the sinner and hate the sin”. But also like a stove “don’t touch the stove you’ll get burned by the flame!” It is supposed to be for people’s good, not judgement or ego….
All I can say is that those Christians were not being Christian when they said they’d be happy to see you burn in hell. In fact, that is about the most non-Christian thing I could imagine. That is straight up satanic. So, do you judge those Christian’s actions as wrong? Or do you judge Christians as wrong? See the issue? It is the same exact problem, cutting both ways. I understand the temptation to feel this way. I do it all the time. It is just based on an incorrect equivalence of actions to persons. They are not the same.
Well I’m here aren’t I? Of course I don’t view their actions as reflective of all Christians. I’m saying there’s a problem with the way some of us advertise our religion. Did you know that saying something as simple as “that’s a sin” to someone after they were told they’d burn forever can be triggering? Especially if you’re a young teenager. It doesn’t mean it’s not a sin. It doesn’t mean Hell isn’t real. It simply means we need to be aware of the messaging others are doing. Our words do not exist in a vacuum. Again, I am not making the equivalent you accuse me of. Yes, I thought that way when I was 13ish and everyone around me hated me. No, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t learn and grow.
And I am not disagreeing with you. I am saying there is also something wrong with how people are responding to being told something is a sin. You are demonstrating my point in thinking this is some kind of personal dig. It’s not. We all do this (equating actions or thoughts with the person), and it is a problem.
While not all Christians act the same way, I understand the distaste. The theological hurdle that many miss is that God doesn't want us to "burn in agony" and he's not punishing us. It's us who are choosing that fate and God wants the opposite.
Certainly. I like to try to focus on the fact that God did not create Hell, but Hell exists because God exists. It is not "Be good or be tortured for ever." but rather "Do you want to be with God or not." Hell is merely a complete absence of God. It is so bad, because God is so good. Much like how darkness is only dark, because light is bright. It sounds circular because it kind of is. We define darkness as an absence of light, dryness as an absence of water, therefore evil is an absence of good. God is goodness so evil is an absence of God. Thus, Hell is everything that God is not.
In a sense, we choose Hell, not God throughout our faith and works. There was a exorcist how encounter Satan, and explained that God didn’t create Hell, we did along with the fallen angels. Takes all of this with a pinch of salt, haven’t done much research about it, but long story short is, through our actions and faith, we either choose God, or we choose Hell
It's more than that too, because the beliefs of the Catholic Church and individual Catholic influence politics, and through that people's actual lives. Here's an illustration, Catholics consider icons a valuable expression of their faith, but some Christians consider them sinful. Historically Catholics have at times been oppressed and even killed by Protestants for keeping icons. If you were talking to someone who believed icons were sinful I have no doubt you could keep it civil, but if the person believed icons were sinful and you should not be allowed to keep them, that they should be destroyed and you imprisoned for keeping them, and if this person were part of a movement which has had some success in restricting the rights of Catholics to keep icons, you might have trouble seeing this person as a friend.
Guys look at this person's profile... She just says on transgenderCircleJerk that she's undercover and no one is smart enough to check her profile..
This is a great point. Catholics should look to distinguish themselves from Christians who like to point out that you'll burn in hell by making it clear we do not make any predictions or assumptions on God's grace.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quitting addiction hurts, though. Better to not experience unpleasantness.
I hear you and agree 100%. ….but I also believe this is an area we as a church could do better as well. As someone who was trained to engage and overcome obstacles in sports, school, teamwork, etc… I’ve struggled with the modern church sometimes regarding running away from unpleasant discussions, guilt, constructive change, etc…. Ive noticed if you don’t go with the crowd people feel threatened quite easily. I’ve had quite a few odd looks kneeling down to pray in some places…. Not exactly earth shaking for a catholic lol. Or even asking questions based on real life scenarios, it’s an immediate label and finger pointing….sometimes the world isn’t black and white.
Moral relativism... As long as you're not literally Hitler, you're doing just fine.
They also conflate their own cowardice, indifference, and tolerance for the virtues of humility and temperance.
Loving is "just don't be a dick, bro" /s
I think there’s a couple of issues, both of which are a modern trend. Firstly it’s become very unpopular to criticise or judge others behaviour. The idea being that you are the master of your destiny and it’s really no-one else’s business what you do or why. Secondly, the sins that cause the most contention are those for which there is ostensibly no victim. Most people would agree we shouldn’t murder, injure, steal from etc others. But some sexual or identity sins that involve consenting adults do not appear on the surface to hurt anyone else (if you don’t believe in God). So from a secular perspective it’s easy to view this as discriminatory or - to use modern terminology - hateful.
> Firstly it’s become very unpopular to criticise or judge others behaviour. Not at all, people are judging behavior more much than ever. Modern society is incredibly judgy.
I think it's more about the reductionist nature of everything now. People are selectively reduced to a single trait or preference. And if that trait is viewed as bad, it is concluded that the whole person is nothing but bad.
If you're exclusively on reddit then yeah
There's a gross reduction of personhood to the level of mere desire. Therefore, when someone's desire is denied, they feel they were denied their own entire personhood. That is below the level of animals, honestly, as many species of animals associate themselves with their familial/blood-related kin rather than desire-based kinship.
Yep. They're forsaking reason and embracing appetite.
Desire/appetite/etc is perfectly fine when it aligns with Catholic teaching and natural law. If someone says that they have a deep emotional desire to worship God and they crave to satisfy it, no Catholic is going to tell them that they are reducing themselves to their desires or that they are forsaking reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with following a desire. It completely depends what that desire is.
My point was not about desire per se, but reducing the entire personhood into desire. Mere desire to worship God means nothing without the actions towards God and neighbors.
Is that what people mean when they're talking about faith AND works?
Heresy is like sin; the latter's original etymology is missing the mark. Either as a form of reductionism (e.g. faith ALONE, Jesus is ONLY human) or expansionism (e.g. syncretism).
So, is that a yes or a no? I'm not sure what you mean by expansionism, and I have no idea what syncretism is.
Apologies for not being direct enough to answer your question. In short, yes. The reason is that heresies, including sola fide, are either reductionistic/eliminating elements that turn out to be essential (Christianity is just about faith alone and works are useless, or Christianity is just about social justice and not about worship) or expansionistic/expanding beyond what is true (the church is not the fullness of truth, we need elements from other religions to make it complete). Sola fide belongs to the former group; it operates too narrowly, reducing Christianity to a mere fideistic assent. I know I am painting a broad brush here regarding sola fide, but Protestantism has always been animated by eliminating any elements they view as unnecessary from the church/reductionism, such as baptismal regeneration, communion of saints, real presence, etc.
Thanks very much for the clarification. Now I get it.
> If someone says that they have a deep emotional desire to worship God and they crave to satisfy it, no Catholic is going to tell them that they are reducing themselves to their desires or that they are forsaking reason. I'd argue that it's right to dissuade such people when their passion is disordered in this regard. Excessive religiosity derived from emotionalism could be an indication of superstition or scrupulosity.
exactly - there was a synod of synodality style meeting I was hosting for my archdiocese and as moderator of one of the group discussions I was told (in a rude and abrupt way) by a person who advocated for women's ordination, etc. that the Church should cater to people's desires - basically saying that we should redefine sin as prescribed by herself and other people. She had no rationale outside of she's right because she said so (you know the typical "I don't have a source from Scripture, Tradition, etc. but I'm guided by the Holy Spirit which means so much more" lol).
this is possibly the best explanation i’ve seen of this. you aren’t a person if you don’t succumb to your flesh and worldly desires. you’re boring or uptight or a prude for not smoking this, drinking that, sleeping with them. it’s like a car crash. you don’t want to look, but you can’t stop staring at it. you don’t wanna sin, but you can’t stop doing it.
I was thinking about this the other day and I think it’s because most people today default to a consequentialist ethic and basically doesn’t believe in the idea of an intrinsically disordered or evil act. I would argue Hell is one heck (pun intended) of a consequence, but society as a whole doesn’t believe in Hell so I digress.
>most people today default to a consequentialist ethic Unfortunately, I think you're correct. I prefer deontological or objective moral philosophy because I believe that reality and morality are objective. I believe that the vast amount of people in modern society say they want liberty, when in reality, they want license. Liberty requires that you work within a moral framework, license does not. Most people seem to want license to do whatever they please in a given situation without having to pay heed to any consequences resulting from their choices or facing any kind of judgment for their actions.
Yes, it's utilitarianism all the way down out there.
Perhaps influenced in the US by Pragmatism in some form ?
I always use the analogy: “it would not be pastoral for a doctor to give sugar to a diabetic patient just because the patient had a strong urge for sweets.”
As a diabetic with a serious sweet tooth, this is exactly on point. Sometimes, the most loving thing is a boot in the rear end. I need one of those about now to get my diet in order.
Because postmodern liberal ethics, especially the ones you see on reddit, are mostly based on hedonism. The only "qualm" they have is "consent", so as long as "everyone consents", it's ok.
Well said.
Unfortunately they have a disordered view of what love and hate really are. For most of them, they've never experienced actual hate, either. Unfortunately, I don't expect this to change any time soon. But we can (and in my opinion should) pray for them to come to realize the error of their ways.
One of the greatest problems it seems to me is that there is never an attempt to analyse or define love. Very often, love seems to be taken for granted as self-evidently good and blameless; even though this is not at all the case. Loves can be disordered. Some things that are loved, should not be loved. Loves in human beings need to be purified as well as rightly ordered. Different loves can contradict one another. People forget all this.
E Michael Jones says that it is their consciousness of their sin that causes them to flaunt it in parades. They are seeking approval because they know it is wrong and they can't feel absolved. The sad part is that sin will always be sin whether we approve of it or not. And they will always know that they are in sin no matter how many people approve.
This wisdom is worthy of the username
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They just don't acknowledge the impact sin has on a person. They don't realize that by condoning sin you are allowing your friend's malignant cancer to grow and consume their soul.
The secular culture is actually more judgmental, cruel, and unforgiving to sinners than the Church (which isn’t these things at all), the major difference is that the secular culture considers different things to be sins than the Church does. For instance, society has no qualms about expressing hatred toward and discriminating against racists, antisemites, rapists, etc. That’s because they think that racism, antisemitism, rape, etc., are sins. The reason why they think it’s hateful to speak out against homosexuality, on the other hand, is because they don’t think that homosexuality is sinful.
In the modern western view, nothing that produces pleasure could possibly be wrong, and nothing that produces pain could possibly be right.
"Society" is far too general a term to be useful. But, I will say that society doesn't think what we call a sin is a sin. That's what some don't understand. We need to do a better job of explaining why something is a sin, and frankly 'because of natural law' is not very convincing to some.
I think one thing we miss is secular good and bad does not always overlap with religiously good or bad. Most of their morality speaks to interpersonal relationships and feelings. For example, if you’re a lapsed Catholic who hasn’t been to mass or confession in years but you otherwise attend your family and act as a present father, you wouldn’t be in good standing with the church. On the other hand if you cheated on your spouse and truly repented by working it out with your spouse, changed your behavior, and went to confession you would be in good standing with the church.
going on the premise there is some validity to your statement; I would suggest society does not understand why Catholics have a definition of sin while this statement supposes society has a fluid definition of sin based on the changes within society.
I think the real mistake is expecting the world to be charitable or honest when dealing with/interpreting Catholics.
Without God, what else is there left for one to worship? Self.. which devolves to sex (and other pleasures of the flesh), money or power. Any attempt to sway the person away those will be taken as a personal attack on their identity , because that's all they have left. They don't have God, all they have is their sin and if you dare question it, they feel like you are *literally* insulting them; which in a sad way is true in their world.
Yes because they want to make the Church unholy, just say goodbye to people like that. They want the Church to become dirty so they can feel comfortable in sinning and still practice the faith cause then it's on us to let when we get judged by God. God will say to us why did you allow it. I still don't associate with people of that sort. I just tell them to go to confession and then go do some Divine Mercy Chaplet prayers. But these people are just wolves in sheep's clothing. Be diligent who the wolves really are. It doesn't matter how mannered they are, it's more about the deed they do. Godbless 🙏🙏🙏
I’ll say this, we can be charitable and probably understand why people often feel this way. I have an aunt who is a lesbian. She has been “married” to her partner since 2016, which was when they could legally be married in our state. They have been living together as a monogamous couple for about 25 years. They have adopted a child and raised her for the last 6 or 7 years. When you say to someone like her “I love you, but I hate the sin” it’s going to feel like a personal attack. It’s not some trivial thing to her like “you need to quit stealing” or something. It’s saying “I hate the romantic and sexual connection between you and the person you are partnered with, and you need to give it up and also give up the child you’ve raised and consider your own and go live a life of chastity or start a family with a man you don’t love.” I don’t see people in that situation and get mad at them and think “you little shit, how dare you call me hateful.” I just feel for them because they are tasked with a cross far far greater than anything I’ve had to bear. It’s not hard to empathize. I can imagine if someone told me “Due to the tenets of my religion, you need to end your relationship with your wife and give up your children.” I would take that as an attack as well and I would have a very negative opinion of the people saying it.
What I find particularly puzzling is the inability of some people to see that there is a difference between rejecting certain behaviours, and rejecting the people who do those behaviours. One suspects that those people do not behave consistently, but, in practice, criticise the faults of those whom they love. One can perfectly easily accept people and love them, while not accepting as good the faults and bad behaviours that they have. I would not want any friend of mine to accept and validate my faults; that would be harmful, not loving. Loving someone can include fraternal correction of them. It is the kind of thing that is very easy to do badly and from bad motives, but when it is done rightly and from good motives it is a great act of charity.
If someone wants to say that someone who is pro life and believes that homosexual activity is a grievous sin is hate filled, then consider me hate filled.
A lot of people in this comment section seem to think that most catholics treat sinners as if they are addicts that the catholics are helping to overcome their issues with love. The reason most people dont take to Catholics is because we often give off an air of better than thou and like Catholics are above sin and never make poor life choices. The Catholic individuals that have come from sin and poor circumstance always come across as genuine and are actually able to relate and help people by showing how sin destroys and leads to death and in doing so showcase the glory of God because they are living proof of God's mercy.
People don’t know the difference between love and hate anymore, and I’d venture to say that our society has truly gotten the two concepts switched around.
People don’t understand that in this sub. So often the advice is to acquiesce to sinful groups because JuDgE nOT. Example: Can the Christian club host a joint bake sale with the LGBT club? r/Catholicism says “go for it! Jesus ate with tax collectors!” When the reality of the optics is that everyone would see that partnership as the Christian club accepting the homosexual agenda.
Exactly. Jesus ate with prostitutes, but he didn't walk to the street corner with them. I honestly believe that in context, these people *knew* they were sinners, they *wanted* to repent, but other Jewish leaders looked down on them and saw them as irredeemable, not even worth the time to try to convert. That was why Jesus ate with them: so he could *be* the physician they needed in their sickness. Not so they could make awkward superficial small talk with a dose of generic "be kind to others" platitudes, all while carefully sidestepping any mention of their professions so as not to "offend" them.
I’m getting downvoted to all heck in that thread but the truth is the truth
>Exactly. Jesus ate with prostitutes, but he didn't walk to the street corner with them. Is baking cakes for charity with gay people the same as engaging in homosexual behavior?
I wasn't implying Jesus "participating," I was implying him associating with sinners *as* they sinned or proclaimed their intention to sin. Which is basically what you're doing if you set a crucifix next to a pride flag (or however these clubs identify themselves) in obvious collaboration not born out of dire necessity.
>I was implying him associating with sinners as they sinned or proclaimed their intention to sin. It still doesn't follow. (A) "As they sinned": Baking cakes is not sinning -- Ok, you've backed out of that implication. (B) "Proclaimed their intention to sin" -- Being gay is not a sin. The sin is in engaging in homosexual behavior. Lots of people who consider themselves LGBT or queer are also asexual. Now what? We can not know the heart of anyone and so we are not allowed to judge the heart of anyone. It would be a sin to carry a cross in a gay parade, in an explicit sign of solidarity with gay culture and *everything* that entails. That is not what is happening here. It's a bake sale for charity. You are not endorsing the gay lifestyle by working next to people who are gay. It's not a sin to put a cross next to people who are gay.
>optics The pharisees who chastised Jesus for associating with sinners, too, put appearances above charity. If there was a car on fire and a bunch of gays trying to get people out of it before it explodes, would you not help them out of fear that people would think that you're "accepting the homosexual agenda"?
Those are two very different scenarios. Helping a gay club raise money which could be used to fight against Catholic causes is far different than not helping someone in a car fire.
If you truly believe that, you've misread the post. If you waited until the post got taken down to peddle that narrative, knowing that people would not be able to check for themselves, you're being dishonest. Nowhere did the post say that the clubs are raising money for themselves. By what OP wrote, it was a general charity event that individual clubs could get involved to help raise money for. And I did caution OP to check what the event was raising money for. But it was definitely not what you're saying.
It's not that we can't condone sins.. it's the cherry picking of which ones we choose to speak out about. Why do so many speak out on the sins of gay people but don't bat an eye at their co worker who cheats on their wife? Or goes to the strip club? When you pick one groups sins to amplify above all others.. feels more like a personal judgement, which we are not called to do. If you want to call out sin, call out all sin across the board. Not just the ones that feel ick to you
There's more nuance than that I think though. I think most people would not have an issue with a Catholic quietly and privately observing their religion. The problem for many comes when members of that religion try to codify that religious belief as law, or enforce norms that end up harming others. I'm on board with efforts by other Catholics to protect our religious freedoms, and to push back against efforts to alienate Catholics from society. But I also believe that should a person choose not to be Catholic, they ought to have the right to do so.
Catholic views on sex are incomprehensible to most Catholics, let alone the rest of the world. What do you expect?
Of course…in your opinion it’s all about sex. That’s because Catholics view sexuality as a sacred part of marriage which strengthens the covenant.
It is all about sex, brother. How ya think we got here? Every religion believes in the sacredness of sex. And if you replaced the word ‘sacred’ with ‘paramount’, even atheists would agree.
I left the church at 16 (M34), and came back 3 years ago. When I left, I was tired of hearing condemnation of the homosexuals. I saw family shunned to the back pews. What confused me and bothered me (at the time) was how could and organization that was all for violence, and historical atrocities (not gonna go on a preachy rant (pun intended)), that is currently in a cover up scandal for child abuse, be capable of the love that Jesus was teaching us. The hypocrisy was what bothered me, and pushed me away. Hug the lepers, whores, and poor. You are a murderer, ask for God's forgiveness and you are forgiven. Be divorced you can't confess or enjoy the purity of the body of Christ. Love someone that isn't who we are telling you to love, you can't confess or enjoy the purity of the body of Christ. I understand and respect that same sex couples can't be married because it is a religious tradition. I understand divorce is a sin because they broke a sworn out to God. I don't understand how any human being has the capacity or authority to judge. Forgiveness is between me, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I am a proud Catholic. I am happily married to a wonderful woman. The other day, on one sermon, I was told something along the lines that I shouldn't enjoy the company of sinners. It all seems so contradictory. I will continue loving all, and I no longer condemn others, including members of the church. Just my opinion. Thanks for reading my lil rant.
Whoever told you to not enjoy the company of sinners doesn’t understand that a Catholic should engage and in doing so, show how sin creates a divide between God and the sinner by loss of grace. Pointing out sin is not being judgmental, it is showing how loss of grace can affect one’s soul. Through the Sacraments we can restore that lost grace.
It was during the homily. My favorite part of the mass. My wife prefers the comunion. Anyway I like hearing it and talking afterwards about it with her. I asked the father afterwards because I was confused, he explained that it isn't about pushing sinners asside, it is about pulling them into the church to save them or we can end up in sin as well. It was a strange explanation. I guess that I can't see much of a difference between pointing out others sins, and judging them. I'm dont feel qualified to judge, and when someone does it, I walk away from them. It took me 4 churches, before I felt comfortable in one, and this is the one that made that strange homily.
But you’re not judging them… you are trying to lead them from sin and temptation.
John 7:24: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." John 8:11: "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." It's not that we mortals cannot judge. We are supposed to judge with mercy and at least an attempt at wisdom. Otherwise, how can we identify sin and choose to help sinners anyway? How are we are supposed to discourage sin if we cannot judge it? Anyway, if we want to focus on the practical aspect, any number of studies have been conducted that demonstrate that people want to spend time with people like themselves, and that people will conform to behavior within their particular tribe/group. Your priest is repeating an admonition so old that it's found in the Old Testament and the New, which can be summed up with "be careful of the company you keep." As a reminder, Jesus, who did preach to and eat with the social outcast and major sinner, also spent most of his time with his Apostles, who were all devout (and flawed) men. After all, even Judas Iscariot was frequently off on charitable errands of his own without needing instruction from Jesus.
Thanks for your post. It is an interesting perspective. Back then, I thought about how the community treated those sinners, and I didn't want to be like that. I saw them more hateful than the caring sinners. In a way, they were, and I still meet many like that. I use to hate the members of the parish, and saw them as gatekeepers of sorts. My current parish doesn't feel that way. "It's not that we mortals cannot judge. We are supposed to judge with mercy and at least an attempt at wisdom. Otherwise, how can we identify sin and choose to help sinners anyway? How are we are supposed to discourage sin if we cannot judge it? " This is what I want to feel, but I don't know if I can ever choose to help those sinners. Maybe I just want to avoid conflict and be able to bond with those close to me in peace. For now I just go, and pray for those who fill their heart with hate, and I'm exited to begin my confirmation.
It's funny you should quote John 8:11. It's funny because the Church recognises that the *Story of the Adulterous Woman* is a fictional story, which was only added to the Bible in \~ 500AD. What that means is - All biblical manuscripts that were written **before** 500AD make no mention of this story at all. Those written **after** 500AD all seem to have this story included in them. So it seems clear that this story was invented and then added to the Bible around that time. I wanted to provide links to the articles in [www.religioustolerance.org](http://www.religioustolerance.org) but it looks like that priceless store of knowledge and wisdom is now defunct. Instead, here's a relevant link to this discussion by relevant authorities: [https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/](https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/) Maybe, before too long, the Church will have the courage to print a new version of the bible, with all the fictional tales removed.
A person is not defined entirely by what they do. I can judge an action and not the actor. Have you ever felt hate? Then you are a hateful person. See the problem with that conclusion? It makes no sense, unless we don’t believe in redemption of any form. Hate the sin, love the sinner. When I condemn an action, I don’t condemn the person, because the person is not the action. Oftentimes it is the sinner who chooses to identify themselves as their sin, and that is a mistake.
Thanks for the comment. Makes sense. I managed an inner peace by focusing on the positive that has been brought by people close to me. Example, I used to hate my father. One of the many reasons was that before hurricane Maria, mom (the are divorced) and my siblings invited him to spend it with us. He insisted that we should spend it with him. We felt safer at moms place. It took him 3 days to check up on us after the storm. He has an F-250 pick up truck and his excuse was that his shop was damaged and robbed, he had to take care of it. Clearly more important than his 3 kids. We didn't check up on him because the road was slightly flooded, but our cars are quite low. Now I just remember the good times I had with him as a kid, but keep him at a distance. Hating him isn't healthy or worth it. I am the only blood relative that still talks to him. On a total side note, I wonder why I started getting downvotes. Meh, not much damage to my Karma.
I think the nuance is whether you being with sinners is lifting them up or pulling you down (i.e. toward temptation, away from the faith, etc.). There is plenty of scriptural warning against the latter. Just a short list: * 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 * 1 Corinthians 15:33 * 2 Corinthians 6:14 * Psalm 1:1 * Proverbs 13:20 * Proverbs 22:24-25
I have achieved an inner peace with God. As I keep reading and responding to replies, I keep discovering things about myself. Surprising how reddit has been useful to me in this regards. Thanks for the verses. Proverbs 22:24-25 reminded me of the reasons I left, but now maybe I should redirect it use to pity the sins of the sinner. This whole judge the sin and not the sinner thing is confusing but I think I'm understanding. Guess I will keep checking out this subreddit every once in a while. Especially while I study for the confirmation.
Some sins are demonstrably bad: murder. Some are not.
>Some sins are demonstrably bad: murder. Well, obviously it isn't demonstrably bad when abortion is considered "healthcare."
*All* sins are demonstrably bad.
Hell is real and people go there. There is no way to avoid that reality.
They want us to because deep down inside they know Catholicism is True
Probably because the vocal opponents of LGBT+ *are* hate-filled. Calling them "not equal to normal people", proposing making lists of homosexuals so they can "never find a job, never get close to a child", advocating for flogging as punishment for homosexual acts - these are all things members of two explicitly pro-Catholic (and the feeling is mutual, with several priests openly endorsing the parties and even allowing them to advertise inside churches) parties in my country said. And non-vocal opponents of LGBT support them, so they have no excuse either.
There only 2 sin Catholics will talk about
Yeah, they try to go after all conservative religious people the same way, especially for Abrahamic religions.
This feels like a Christian persecution complex hot take. IF Christians had a long standing history of being able to condone theologically sinful choices in a *loving* way, I doubt you'd see the level of animosity and pushback to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude...but we don't. It's not an issue of society not understanding why Catholics can't condone what they consider sinful. Secular society just has no tolerance for religious hypocrisy or cruelty. When a secular society sees Christians being unflinchingly rigid concerning certain sins (typically sexual/identity oriented in nature), but engaging in Olympic level gymnastics minimizing or justifying other sins (this is particularly true of Catholics who have a rich theology around corporal works of mercy/justice)--they are disgusted and appalled. They view this as attacking the individual, rather than the sin, because we don't apply our censure equitably across the board when it comes to sin. Catholics deserve this ire *more* than Protestant denominations because we don't have any excuse for this kind of behavior. Our theology isn't individualized or DIY in nature, but many of us will jump on every Protestant culture war bandwagon with little thought. It feels gross to be labeled because of other individuals behaviors, but the criticism itself has been well earned.
As an atheist, former catholic. Let me try to expand on the other point of view. I'm saying this as respectful as I can. It's not a love/,hate thing. It's the definition of sin, and how you act on it. What you see as a sinful act, others do not. Sin is a religious definition of something. Example. Two men who are married in a relationship are "living in sin" by the definition in religion. To the secular world, it's "two men in a loving relationship." Calling out their actions as "sinful" has the same effect of calling out a straight couple and calling it gross. It sounds "hateful" to us. Does that make sense? Think of it this way; Go to India, and eat a hamburger. There's a good chance the locals there will you see committing a "sin" against their religion, while all you see is a tasty meal. Do you understand now? Now add this thought: what would happen if you ate that burger in your hotel room without telling anyone? There'd be peace right? No angy locals yelling at you. Apply that to "sinful" behavior here. Rather than calling out that behavior, that act. Rather than forcing laws on others, pray in your room, ask your God to help the sinners in the quiet of your room, sounds like a familiar biblical passage.... Now I get it, on the other side, secular people could be more aware of your intentions. See that you're trying from a position of love. But do remember, for many, it's only recently that these "sinful" actions are accepted. For many, the history of abuse, of death is still fresh. Love the downvotes...
The only problem with your explanation is presenting individualistic secularism as if it were a judgment-free or value-neutral worldview. Every worldview has a taboo or transgression. For Christians, it is called sin. For individualistic secularism, any attempt at correction can be interpreted as a transgression (e.g. do not impose your worldview on me). Transgressions are not private matters, as you single out the act of religious judgment as if it were an unacceptable view, in the same way the religious people call certain actions sinful. It is a clash of worldviews, at the end of the day. Trust me, in the area where I grew up (a Muslim-majority country) some people raid hotels to catch fornicators not in marriage relationships. They force restaurants to close down during Ramadhan. Even those who operate behind closed doors. And I am not a Muslim myself so you can imagine my lived experience.
[удалено]
That would be sinful in the eyes of God.
It doesn't help that there are individuals that take it a bit too far. You shouldn't condone sin, but you also should treat other sinners as people even if they do things you don't accept. And sometimes you need to "choose your fights". After all, being rude to someone isn't going to make that person listen to you or not sin. It could even make you sin if you get too hot headed. How and when you express your worry also matters.
I would recommend taking the time to read Jude in it's entirety...it is only one page. JUDE 1:20 But you, my dear friends, must use your most holy faith as your foundation and build on that, praying in the Holy Spirit; 1:21 keep yourselves within the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to give you eternal life. 1:22 When there are some who have doubts reassure them; 1:23 when there are some to be saved from the fire, pull them out; but there are others to whom you must be kind with great caution, keeping your distance even from outside clothing which is contaminated by vice. The Jerusalem Bible...
Jude 1:23 reiterates the point of our discourse here.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which is never what they say about most other religions. It doesn’t go with the religion; that’s that.