Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[abrideofChrist]

More often in the old days, many people entered priesthood or religious life because they felt the universal call to holiness and misinterpreted it as a call to a religious vocation. If you have ever known a priest who has realized he did not have an authentic vocation, it's a terrible thing. And this still happens.

 

I think the sad experience of the Church over thousands of years is that the grace to live a celibate vocation is NOT just there for the asking. And especially in recent times we can see this, painfully. It's not a universal gift at all in my opinion.

 

 

Maggie, this was really good.  I have seen so many enthusiastic people believe they have a vocation to the consecrated life or priesthood because they equated that with personal holiness and sanctification rather than a particular call from God.  Popular piety said that if you wanted to BE more holy, you joined the seminary or convent.  The popular mindset thought holiness was for the select few (priests and religious) and they put them up on a pedestal for personal holiness.  The great mistake was that everyone is called to holiness in whatever state of life they are in.  They didn't realize the religious state or celibate priesthood was a particular grace given to those selected by God to live the life and live as official designated praying people or ministers of the sacraments and that neither made the person more holy. 

 

Now we have the opposite problem.  Instead of a two-tier sanctity paradigm, we have people blurring the distinctions between the vocations in an effort to underline the truth that all people are called to personal holiness.  Some want to do this with the relation of clerics to lay persons, dumbing it down to almost the point of Protestantism...  This is known as anti-clericalism.  Others want to dumb down the vocation to consecrated life to the level of simply "deepening" a universal call of baptism without showing that this "deepening" is actually a call not given to everyone and that it has different forms.

[BarbTherese]

I think what BoC has to state can be spot on.  The problem originated pre V2 where indeed if one wanted a closer and deeper relationship with Jesus one entered religious life or the priesthood.  It was thought that "all that stuff" belonged with these vocations and that lay people were quite ok (just getting 'over the line' of salvation) living a completely secular life and conformed to worldly ways.  Genereally speaking, we did not think of life as a striving for holiness – certainly not in the laity.  Not as a general aspect of Catholic lay consciousness anyway.  Those in the laity just got over the line of salvation and holiness was for quite rare individuals (saints) or those in the priesthood or religious life. To aspire to sancity and sainthood pre V2 would have been in the general mind an act of outlandish almost unpardonable pride.

 

With Vatican II things were changing and as can happen with change, the pendulum just moved too far off centre, and lay people began to think that they had rights over religious life and the priesthood.  That they were 'leaders in the field' with a right to dictate to other vocations, a type of superiority complex took seed -  and so the theological blurring between vocations begun its journey (it began too to seep into the Catholic mind and our Catholic cultural thinking).  Now we are beginning the journey of straightening things out - of coming to a correct understanding of what Vatican II was actually stating.  Pope Benedict said not all that long before he retired that we have not yet fully understood Vatican II.  This is not unusual.  Every Council in The Church has been followed by a period of unrest in The Church as we began discussing and debating what that Council was actually stating.

 

I think what Vatican II was trying to do (for one) was to get lay people to realize that lay secular life was far more than conformity to wordly ways - it was a far higher call and a vocation in its own right.  That all had the DUTY to aspire to holiness and sanctity.

 

To bring it down to the experience level.  After leaving monastic life in my forties realizing I had no vocation, I went through years of wondering why I had been rejected from a deeper and closer relationship to Jesus in religious life.  Taking up my previous journey of private vows after leaving monastic life, my attitude was very much "rejected I am but I will persevere in this (private vows) way of life regardless since I do not reject You". After being given this computer, I began to access the Documents of V2 and my understanding was enlightened.  Further on down the line and I could understand the theological lines between each of the vocations in line with V2, and at the same time, I lost my perspective of "being rejected" and began to understand that the way I was living was a very real vocation in its own right.  Further on, I  lost all sense of unfulfillment and a sort of abandonment and was happy and fulfilled in this way of life while at the same time understanding where my own vocation fitted into the life and worship of The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth.  I began to insight how each of the vocations has its own theological dignity with its own particular witness to bring to The Church and the world.  I lost all sense of being rejected or 'abandoned' and came to the understanding that I was indeed called in a very real manner but not to that vocation which I had had in mind - and in fact lost all sense that it had ever really been in my mind at all. All through that previous journey what was flowering was a realization of my call and vocation the very first place.  It was a call and vocation to holiness and I automatically took it that this had to mean religious life for me.  As my journey continues, I become more and more convinced that the lifestyle I live is affirmed by The Lord as my path in life.  Not so much from the very beginning, because I chose the path (it was never a command) – but that as time has transpired, The Lord has indicated His Faithful Approval and works within the terms of my vocation.

 

Why was I not chosen for that vocation to which I aspired is mystery - and nowadays I live in that mystery with Peace and Joy, completeness and sense of very real call to that vocation that I now live out.  I don't see myself as up or down, higher or lower, in any way whatsoever - I experience myself as simply called and living out that call and those Documents out of Rome largely from Vatican II have clearly defined my call for me - it's particular duties and witness.  What continually astounds me is that The Lord should call me at all to live out my Baptism in a deeper and 'overt' manner - and in the very first place. I never intended it to be overt, it is merely the way things have unfolded in the days.

 

I think that if I merely intellectualize or reflect on the subject of vocations, I get one perspective.  With actually living out one's own vocation, that perspective changes.  I view things from a completely different angle.  This applies right across the spectrum of spirituality. It is one thing to reflect on a subject of spirituality, it is another experience entirely to live it out.  It is like reflecting on sunlight and a walk in the country – opposed to actually doing it.  We need to live it to experience it fully.  “Words about” somehow fall far short.

This was the genius (gift) of St Teresa of Avila.  She not only actually lived out what she believed, she had the gift of putting her experiences into simplicity of words and texts.

 

Who indeed am I?

 

Psalm 8: "What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour"

 

 

_____________

Someone else might be able to say it all far better than I.

[OnlySunshine]

double post

Edited August 19, 2013 by MaterMisericordiae

[OnlySunshine]

I watched the whole homily. First of all there are better ways to talk about the indissolubility of marriage without dragging out "anathema sit." This style of homiletics is singularly unconvincing.

 

Second, it's absolutely true that objectively celibacy is a higher vocation. But that's at the objective, theological level. For individuals, the "best" vocation is the one that will lead them to heaven. The priest counsels ALL single people to ask for the grace of perfect chastity and says more or less "ask and you shall receive." I really feel this attitude is harmful.

 

More often in the old days, many people entered priesthood or religious life because they felt the universal call to holiness and misinterpreted it as a call to a religious vocation. If you have ever known a priest who has realized he did not have an authentic vocation, it's a terrible thing. And this still happens.

 

I think the sad experience of the Church over thousands of years is that the grace to live a celibate vocation is NOT just there for the asking. And especially in recent times we can see this, painfully. It's not a universal gift at all in my opinion.

 

More to the point - Celibacy is "higher" but that doesn't mean marriage is "lower." A man who discerns he is called to marriage and not priesthood/religious life is not experiencing failure to "shoot for the stars" nor is he failing to pray for the right graces or being denied important graces. If you don't have a religious vocation, begging for God to give you a religious vocation is not going to work.This homily almost makes me concerned about the formation program in this order. It's strange because most of what he says is correct but you can detect an unhealthy odor somewhere. Something seems wrong.

 

I agree that there is a problem with desiring a vocation that is not God's will.  I read a book once called "Come and See" about religious vocations that my friend gave me and she warned me that there were some problems with the theology in it.  The author stated that if you don't have a religious vocation, but you want one, all you have to do is pray and beg God to give you the grace to receive it.  I'm sorry but this just isn't the way it works.  God doesn't work by our wills this way.  If you have a religious vocation - great - but obviously the need for married life is very much needed!  Why else would it be called the Sacrament of Marriage?

 

Also, our retired priest told me something that I found shocking.  I asked him once when he felt the call to the priesthood (what age) and he responded that he never actually felt called to it.  I thought, "Why would you pursue a vocation that God doesn't have in mind for you?"  You could tell that he was going through the motions towards the end before his retirement.  He wouldn't speak out on controversial topics for fear of people leaving the Church.  He never once brought up teachings on abortion, birth control, hell, etc.  He got to be in a "safe zone" and didn't challenge anyone.  Now, we have a zealous pastor who really works HARD to save souls and I admire him.  He felt the call to the priesthood as a young boy and his brother is also a priest!  I think you can definitely see the difference in someone who possesses the call vs. someone who is just doing it because he thinks it's best.
 

Edited August 19, 2013 by MaterMisericordiae

[BarbTherese]

Individualism is still alive and well in The Church.  The Grace of fraternity is offered, but we (generally speaking) do not reach out for that Grace.  We still think in terms of I and me and not in terms of us.  If one in The Church is crowned with honour, then all are and the Body of Christ is built up (and the contrary also applies) - we can assent to that Teaching intellectually, but we don't really experience it right down to our souls and boots, it is not integrated into our being.  We believe one thing, and live out (experience) something different and often quite contrary.

It is all about "me" and "I" and not centred on "us" and The Church, Jesus and His Mystical Body on earth.  The common good as primary focus.

 

A person could be called to religious life and/or priesthood simply for the salvation of their own souls (would make a mess of things in the laity) - which at once mysteriously is for the salvation of all.  They why of it all is mystery.

Edited August 19, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

It is not that Vatican II changed any Teaching of The Church, for it didn't.  What it did do was note our general Catholic consciousness or culture (in some aspects) and where we were right off centre - and set about bringing that into line with what The Church had always taught.  We were very excited as V2 got underway and what was coming out of it - it was all so new.  Later down the line, most of us realized that it was not new at all, rather it was new to our Catholic consciousness, our culture and way of thinking.  We were, in a sense, being targeted for being quite wrong on a number of aspects..........and an entirely happy event.

 

Take The Mass for example.  Very often quite devout Catholic people would pray The Rosary during Mass - something was taking place on the altar that did not really involve us in all it's aspects.  We only became very involved at the Consecration and at Holy Communion.  Partly, this was because hardly anyone had a missal with English translations of the Latin in a column alongside the Mass Prayers themselves (I still have my Latin/English missal).  Hence people did not know what was being prayed during Mass.  Even the Readings and Gospel were in Latin - often too, more often than not, Father's sermon or homily was not related to the Readings nor Gospel. Hence without a daily missal, one had no idea what was being read nor proclaimed in The Gospel.

 

In primary school we learnt traditional Latin hymns for example, but we were never taught what those hymns meant in English.  It was sufficient to be able to sing the Latin.  Emphasis was on pronunciation and getting the tune perfect.

There were probably many other problems evident to The Church which Vatican 2 set about trying to address and "make straight".  It was indeed a Pastoral Council of The Church.

[BarbTherese]

 I had a rest this afternoon and fell asleep.  As I was waking up, I had this half dream half meditation, I don't know which really (not quite conscious).  The Blessed Eucharist was the centre of a diamond into the heart and centre of which (into Jesus and His Church)all the faithful baptized were drawn and United as One in The Blessed Eucharist yet retaining their unique identity.  On the outside and from differing angles, the intense light of the Heart of The Diamond (Jesus in The Blessed Eucharist) shone through all the baptised and sparkled outwards in an amazing variation of colour out into the world.  The different beautiful sparkles and amazing variation of colours struck me (once I came to full consciousness and reflected on 'the dream') as the different vocations and those who live them out in quite unique and personal ways.

 

I am not posting this as a theological declaration, merely as a personal observation/illustration/metaphor.

Edited August 19, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[God's Beloved]

God's Beloved, I think that all vocations are important but it's also a doctrine of the Church about consecrated life... I don't think this means we should or could be condescending towards those in the world. There are also Saints who've lived in the world but also gave up everything for Christ, like St Catherine of Siena, who had a private vow and was a Third Order Dominican. It's not so much about religious life vs living in the world, it's how the consecrated people give up everything, but that doesn't mean they're somehow "superior" as people, it means the state is higher but people in other vocations are called to holiness too. I'm not at all talking abuot personal characteristics. Each vocation follows its own charism and *each one is needed*, so we're not saying that some are not needed, or not important, only what 'state' is "higher': higher seems to refer to simply being more like Heaven: like how religious don't marry, and enter into the reality more fully of which marriage is a sign.

 

Regarding your comments on preVII, I'm a little confused about what you mean, I mostly read preVII books and they've helped me so much :)

 

God bless!

 

Dear MarysLittleFlower,

 

Baptism is an Initiation into the Church community. It means one is called to journey 'along with' the pilgrim Church . You've read Pre Vat II books  and been shaped by a medieval mindset / spirituality. This is what I've noted on other threads about  your discernment.

 

As someone who is very close to converts , I think such a focus on Pre-Vat II literature will be harmful rather than helpful in your integration in the Catholic community. Before you take any life decisions , I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church in detail , to know where the Church is on its journey  in today's world.

 

Jesus Himself became one of us through the Incarnation and He was much much ahead of His times [ prophetic] . He still IS . All the baptized are called to be prophetic and ahead of the times , thus becoming role-models for the rest of the world.I personally think Pre-Vat II  or medieval sentimentality in the writings of saints and mystics [ which does contain a core of truth ] needs to be taken with the head on the shoulders.

 

My interpretation of the Vat II council is that it was a kind of 'Re-sourcement'   .........getting the Church in touch with its beginnings  in the Early Church  and thus deeply rooted , to give it an impetus to move forward in today's world. That's one of the reasons the rite of consecration of virgins which is the first form of consecrated life in history was revived by Vat II.

 

 

Praying for you,

 

GB

[BarbTherese]

 

I agree that there is a problem with desiring a vocation that is not God's will.

 

 

The above type wording can be part of the problem, while having a kernel or core of truth.  But discerners especially can get it wrong.  Discerners and those new and/or inexperienced in a mature way on the spiritual journey I think.  Generally speaking.

 

 If I have a vocation, then The Lord provides the initial attraction.  He will also provide the necessary qualities and motivation - and one is therefore accepted into a religious community (for example of one vocation only).  As the journey within religious life is ongoing, The Lord provides the fortitude, strength of soul, and all other virtues required to persevere in that particular vocation to great holiness.

 

In the above manner, it could be said that a particular vocation is God's Will or indicated by The Lord's Divine Providing (Providence); however, it is never a Divine Command, simply an invitation.  If one for whatever reason, conscious or not of that invitation, decides to take up another vocational path, then The Lord will supply all the necessary Graces to live out that vocation.  The Lord is Forever Faithful, it is never He who fails us, rather it is we who fail Him and His Grace(s) in some way.

 

For example, if I fail in the most miserable of manners and am in the state of mortal sin, complete pardon is present in a Good Confession, The Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

 Supposing for example I know for sure that I have a religious vocation and this is affirmed in a number of ways I mentioned previously.  But I decide to take another path and marry - for example.  The Lord offers His Complete Pardon in the Sacrament of Reconciliation - so complete is His Mercy in this Sacrament that once I make a Good Confession, I am returned to that state of Grace as if the "turning down of invitation" had never occurred in the first place.  Not that following an alternative vocational path to that which I think is most likely indicated/invited is mortally sinful.  Vocation in life is not orientated by Divine Command.  Though it is no small matter to turn down an invitation from The Lord, and even if conscious of it, it still could not constitute mortal sin and destiny of eternal damnation - at least not without other very serious factors applying.  Nor do I personally believe that if one misses one's vocational invitation in life for whatever reason that the road ahead on an alternative vocation will be therefore necesarily lacking in any way.  The Lord is Forever Faithful, it is we that do the lacking.  If I find I am not fulfilled in my current vocation and suspect that I was invited in an alternative direction, the fault for this lack of fulfilment is not on the part of The Lord.  Somehow that lack of fulfilment is my problem somewhere in my current vocation -  and it needs to be addressed as my problem in my current vocation.  The problem needs to be owned as my own.  The Lord does not withhold His Graces out of some sort of spite, nor disappointment, nor punishment - perish such thoughts!

 

I hope I have said it all ok, conveying my meaning.

[Lilllabettt]

 
 
Well, the good thing about being humans is that we can agree to disagree on things. I don't see comparisons as shedding light on truth but on attempts to feel superior to others due to some fear or psychological inadequacy. Jesus made it quite clear that we are not to 'lord it over others'.
 
[...]
If you can find me a quote where Jesus says that celibacy is better than being married, then I would like to read it because what I quoted says that celibacy is better than getting a divorce and committing adultery by remarrying.

 

I do believe that those called apart to be consecrated to God have a 'special' calling, but when anyone starts claiming superiority over another for whatever reason, it somehow suggests to me that the person has alienated themselves from the true spirit of Christ.

 

The objective superiority of consecrated life is a dogma of the Catholic Church. Like the Immaculate Conception. It's Protestants that insist on people showing the Scripture "where Jesus says it."

 

I agree there are different ways of presenting the dogma ... sometimes it seems like people poking others on purpose.

 

 

Also, our retired priest told me something that I found shocking.  I asked him once when he felt the call to the priesthood (what age) and he responded that he never actually felt called to it.  I thought, "Why would you pursue a vocation that God doesn't have in mind for you?"  You could tell that he was going through the motions towards the end before his retirement.  He wouldn't speak out on controversial topics for fear of people leaving the Church.  He never once brought up teachings on abortion, birth control, hell, etc.  He got to be in a "safe zone" and didn't challenge anyone.  Now, we have a zealous pastor who really works HARD to save souls and I admire him. 

 

 

Ohhh have some pity. A lot of priests do not experience a "call." They just have a deep down internal conviction, from the earliest that they can remember, that they will be a priest some day . They walk confidently in that direction, never giving any thought alternatives. Now, I would refer to that as a "calling." But many people think of a "call" as a sudden intervention, a moment where people "realize" what they are supposed to do. Lots of vocations don't happen that way. Maybe that is what your pastor meant when he said he never felt called.  Also, getting old is hard! There are so many mental and physical challenges arrayed against older people. Everything hurts! Even doing what appears to be "going through the motions" can require a heroic effort. Not wanting to challenge anyone -- that is a fault many people have. And in most cases it is a fault. Although I have noticed Pope Francis does not talk about abortion or birth control either. He has a different strategy for winning people over. Milk before meat, etc.

[Seven77]

Why is celibacy better than marriage? Because celibacy involves willfully giving up the great vocation of marriage! Get it??

 

I just realized this thanks to a comment i read somewhere.

[AccountDeleted]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread anymore because it actually makes me feel sick to my stomach, but I just wanted to clarify that I do not disagree with the Church's teaching - as she is the final authority. I did think that dogma related to articles of the faith and doctrine was more about things like this - but I am not a theologian nor am I interested in doctrinal debates so you have to forgive me for looking to Jesus for guidance rather than to what I thought were simply Church guidelines. Once upon a time there was a place called Limbo - this is gone now. So sometimes we poor ordinary Catholics get confused about things like what is dogma and what is doctrine and what is a guideline.

 

But I still don't see how any good can come of proclaiming the superiority of one state of life over another. Someone brought up the angels as an example - how they wouldn't be upset if Michael declared he was superior to the other angels. Really? Does anyone believe that St Michael is going to stand in front of all the other angels and remind them how he just happens to be objectively better than they are? So I suppose St Therese is standing up to her parents and saying, yeah you may be saints too, but I am objectively better than you because I am a Doctor of the Church are you aren't.

 

So why do humans feel a need to do this? Because we are fallen and full of pride. And that is why Jesus told the Apostles not to 'lord it over others'. And guess what? Even Catholics can love scripture - so the Protestant comment was really uncalled for.

 

I can see that to some people the whole concept of superiority is very important; we already have several threads in VS about how one state of life is so much better than another - but so far I haven't seen anything come out of all these threads but division and a lack of charity - so I wonder how that can be of God. Nothing is going to make me feel good about the way these 'objective truths' have been proclaimed nor do I see any point it proclaiming them here in VS and in the way they have been. I'm probably in the minority though. Pax Christi.

 

 

[Seven77]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread anymore because it actually makes me feel sick to my stomach, but I just wanted to clarify that I do not disagree with the Church's teaching - as she is the final authority. I did think that dogma related to articles of the faith and doctrine was more about things like this - but I am not a theologian nor am I interested in doctrinal debates so you have to forgive me for looking to Jesus for guidance rather than to what I thought were simply Church guidelines. Once upon a time there was a place called Limbo - this is gone now. So sometimes we poor ordinary Catholics get confused about things like what is dogma and what is doctrine and what is a guideline.

 

But I still don't see how any good can come of proclaiming the superiority of one state of life over another. Someone brought up the angels as an example - how they wouldn't be upset if Michael declared he was superior to the other angels. Really? Does anyone believe that St Michael is going to stand in front of all the other angels and remind them how he just happens to be objectively better than they are? So I suppose St Therese is standing up to her parents and saying, yeah you may be saints too, but I am objectively better than you because I am a Doctor of the Church are you aren't.

 

So why do humans feel a need to do this? Because we are fallen and full of pride. And that is why Jesus told the Apostles not to 'lord it over others'. And guess what? Even Catholics can love scripture - so the Protestant comment was really uncalled for.

 

I can see that to some people the whole concept of superiority is very important; we already have several threads in VS about how one state of life is so much better than another - but so far I haven't seen anything come out of all these threads but division and a lack of charity - so I wonder how that can be of God. Nothing is going to make me feel good about the way these 'objective truths' have been proclaimed nor do I see any point it proclaiming them here in VS and in the way they have been. I'm probably in the minority though. Pax Christi.

 

 

I agree with everything you've stated. Was just trying to rationalize what the others were saying. Inferiority vs. Superiority discussions on matters of faith make me queasy also. It's exactly this kind of mentality that hurts efforts of reunion with Orthodox Churches. The Will of God is better than celibacy and marriage and trivial debates.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Seven77

[BarbTherese]

I'm reading the Document on The Blessed Eucharist "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" ON THE EUCHARIST
IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHURCH - I've finished reading the section on ecumenism ...........and I guess just now that evanglisation is very important to me.  It is important, I think, that we understand what The Church teaches in the context of the whole Church.  Rather often, putting things into the context of the Universal Church helps - things start to make sense as to why The Church teaches what She does. It will also equip us to be able to explain in a logical and understandable fashion to others.

 

I think it is important that we do understand each of the vocations and their nature and role as each of the vocations do 'speak' to each other.  It is in understanding other vocations that I can get my own straight and in context of the whole Church.  I certainly do not feel any inferiority nor superiority being outside of the consecrated state while realizing that my own state in life is inferior in a theological objective sense to consecrated life per se.  However, the very fact that I have lived this way of life for so long and despite many failures and difficulties along the way have always returned to it without the slightest hestitation indicates to me that The Lord is with me in this journey - and what could be more superior theologically than the Presence of The Lord in a very real way?  This does indicate for me that it was never God's Will in the first place that I should enter religious life - including for the fact that despite praying for a religious vocation, it just never happened.  God's Will is not some airy fairy lightening bolt of a visitation of some kind.  God's Will is spelt out also in the circumstances of our lives.  I had given up on religious life with considerable difficulty and disappointment, a feeling of being let down, for a few reasons - including that I felt that if I did have an episode of Bipolar the community would not know how to handle it and would be disrupted because of it and after the episode, I would be asked to leave anyway.  It was not my only reason, but one of them.

 

While the various vocations have a scale of superiority on THE OBJECTIVE THEOLOGICAL LEVEL - what is going to make each vocation superior or inferior is the way that they are lived out.  In other words, the objective AND the subjective.  Indeed a person in marriage could be far more holy than the Pope himself.  While the Office and role of The Papacy is superior. 

 

We are not a democracy and cannot think of The Church in terms of a democracy which is wordly thinking.  We are a monarchy under Christ and hence we have all those factors that do apply in a monarchy including hierarchy.

 

If I should feel inferior because of my particular vocation being objectively inferior to another, then I am making the very same mistake as those who feel superior because their vocation is superior to others.

[OnlySunshine]

Ohhh have some pity. A lot of priests do not experience a "call." They just have a deep down internal conviction, from the earliest that they can remember, that they will be a priest some day . They walk confidently in that direction, never giving any thought alternatives. Now, I would refer to that as a "calling." But many people think of a "call" as a sudden intervention, a moment where people "realize" what they are supposed to do. Lots of vocations don't happen that way. Maybe that is what your pastor meant when he said he never felt called.  Also, getting old is hard! There are so many mental and physical challenges arrayed against older people. Everything hurts! Even doing what appears to be "going through the motions" can require a heroic effort. Not wanting to challenge anyone -- that is a fault many people have. And in most cases it is a fault. Although I have noticed Pope Francis does not talk about abortion or birth control either. He has a different strategy for winning people over. Milk before meat, etc.

 

Honestly, Lilllabettt, I didn't mean it in a negative way.  I just meant that I saw a difference in the way one handled things vs. the other.  My mom's family has known our retired pastor for years and he is a family friend.  I have nothing but respect for him but I was glad when his replacement came through because our Church had very few ministries and was severely lacking in growth.  That is not to say that he did not contribute anything.  He was very integral during the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on.  He is also head of Catholic Charities in our area and continues to be a part of it during his retirement.  I would never say that he was the worst priest because that is completely untrue and slanderous.  I just thought it was interesting to see a difference between someone set in his ways vs. someone who challenges people.

Edited August 19, 2013 by MaterMisericordiae