Another Pope Francis Interview, Strap On Your Seat Belts!

[KnightofChrist]

"proselytism" is an attempt to convert someone through inproselytismns or bad motives (as the CDF understands the term at least)

which is why we can understand a conversation that goes:
"are you just trying to convert me here?"

"no, proselyticism is solemn nonsense... I'm having a sincere conversation with you and want to share this about love with you"

it would also make sense in the context of some missionary somewhere feeding a hungry person, if the hungry person said
"are you just trying to convert me by giving me this food?"

and the missionary said
"no, proselytism is solemn nonsense"


they sat down for a sincere dialogue, and that's what they were going to have, no ulterior motives.

I still don't quite understand why 'converting someone' intentionally is now automatically seen as the negative form of proselytism and insincere. Can we convert people but just not on purpose, as in doing it without knowing or intending to? I can see how the use of the word proselytism is now more commonly seen as negative. But the word convert? I don't see how that would word is negative and why the Pope focused only on the negative understanding of proselytism when he was asked about conversion. I hope we can still convert people on purpose with nobility, love, charity and honesty.

It would have been less confusing if the Pope and the hypothetical missionary to have answered..

"I am not talking to / feeding you to get you to convert. I do so for the love of God and neighbor, but I do hope and pray that by the grace of God you are converted." Edited October 2, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You don't seem to really know what you are talking about. One cannot, well a Catholic cannot separate religion from faith. They are the same thing. Nor can Catholics throwout Tradition (aka "hey-dey fantasies"?).

 

No pun intended but era never actually said there was anything wrong with the tradition of the holy catholic church, i think he is just saying what he is saying. No saying there was better days or worse days we have to deal with today, which jesus kind of says when he says "today has enough troubles of it's own," and " keep your hands on the plow,don't look back or the lines will become crooked." I don't think Jesus is saying disregard all history and church tradition we need to learn from these, but to not dwell and say ' well the past was better.' That is a trap, whether it was or it wasn't, we have a task at hand today.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Era Might]

I don't see how that would word is negative and why the Pope focused only on the negative understanding of proselytism when he was asked about conversion. I hope we can still convert people on purpose with nobility, love, charity and honesty.

 

You can in an abstract sense, but you won't find many friends if your purpose is to convert them. Relationships are not about conversion, but about the relationship. It is one of the difficulties of being friends with someone who does not share your faith...you, indeed, have converted, have a different purpose in life, and that relationship is caught somewhere in the middle. You have to decide whether to stay there in the middle, or move on from the relationship, in which case you may still try to convert that person, just not under the lie that it is based on a relationship with them.

 

Public preaching is not about relationships, but proclamation. The missionary who announces Christ has no relationship with the people he announces to. He is not friends with them. But the smart missionary is able to build those friendships, not on the basis of conversion, but on the basis of friendship, of which conversion is the fruit.

 

I find the idea, for example, of trying to convert my mother revolting. She's my mother. I do not relate to her to convert her, though of course I would love for her to come to know Christ. But that is not why I continue my relationship with her. I continue my relationship because she is my mother, whether she converts or not, whether she has any interest in converting or not. I do not go to Thanksgiving dinner to convert her, but because she has cooked Thanksgiving dinner. That is all the Pope is saying to the man who is interviewing him, that they are friends, and that their relationship is not based on ulterior motives, but on the friendship itself.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Another example: a friend is dying, a friend who has no faith (or who is a Protestant, a Muslim, whatever). You have two choices...go to the bedside and say, "I am here to convert you," and drone on and on about converting them. Or, you can hold their hand and be a friend to them, acknowleding that they see the world differently, but trusting that holding their hand is more Christian than making one last intellectual push to convert them.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

converting someone 'intentionally' isn't really the problem, it depends upon how real and sincere you're being, on what your means and motives are.  the word proselytism is currently used (feel free to find another word if you prefer to defend the Greek original) to refer to intentions to convert either through wrong means or through the wrong motives.  the extreme ends of proselytism for means are Mormon doctrines of double-speak where they're allowed to lie if it will gain a convert, and for motives, Conquistadors whose motives for conversion are not rooted in the gospel, but are rooted in a desire for power (I guess you could point out wrong means for Conquistadors too)

 

"trying" to convert, relying on human power rather than on God, is the problem.  do or do not, there is no try ;)  have real unshakable faith that you do not feel the need to try to justify all the time (this is Pope Francis's main point about St. Paul in contrast to a proselytizer whose faith is less firm), express real true love and charity, and there is no need to "try"

 

and there's also the question of whether to get your foot in the cranberry sauce.  there are times and places when you should hope that you are sharing Christ with people simply be being sincere... explicitly attempting to steer every conversation into an attempt at conversion would be counterproductive solemn nonsense, and will make no one want to eat Thanksgiving Dinner with you.  people who get like that are demonstrating a rather weak faith that they feel the need to justify all the time by human argument, which Pope Francis in the homily on this same subject contrasted with St. Paul's example of strong faith that made him fearless to simply engage with the world in a way that brought people into an encounter with Christ.

 

in the end, there's a hugely valid point to be made here, and as I've said before, I don't think the way it came across in the interview was good... the way it came across in the Pope's homily I've referenced is fantastic though, he calls on us to emulate St. Paul in evangelizing people and explains how that is different from proselytizing, which relies on human power instead of God's power.  I don't want to put the Pope's interview on trial, merely to point out that the broad conclusions many are trying to draw from it are in no way consistent with what he's really trying to say, for what he's really trying to say I will point you one more time to this excellent account of a homily he gave in May on the very subject:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-el-papa-pope-24654/

[CatherineM]

I think he might want us to convert people by our actions. Show the world who we are, walk the walk so to speak, and people will follow.

[Apotheoun]

converting someone 'intentionally' isn't really the problem, it depends upon how real and sincere you're being, on what your means and motives are.  the word proselytism is currently used (feel free to find another word if you prefer to defend the Greek original) to refer to intentions to convert either through wrong means or through the wrong motives.  the extreme ends of proselytism for means are Mormon doctrines of double-speak where they're allowed to lie if it will gain a convert, and for motives, Conquistadors whose motives for conversion are not rooted in the gospel, but are rooted in a desire for power (I guess you could point out wrong means for Conquistadors too)

 

"trying" to convert, relying on human power rather than on God, is the problem.  do or do not, there is no try ;)  have real unshakable faith that you do not feel the need to try to justify all the time (this is Pope Francis's main point about St. Paul in contrast to a proselytizer whose faith is less firm), express real true love and charity, and there is no need to "try"

 

and there's also the question of whether to get your foot in the cranberry sauce.  there are times and places when you should hope that you are sharing Christ with people simply be being sincere... explicitly attempting to steer every conversation into an attempt at conversion would be counterproductive solemn nonsense, and will make no one want to eat Thanksgiving Dinner with you.  people who get like that are demonstrating a rather weak faith that they feel the need to justify all the time by human argument, which Pope Francis in the homily on this same subject contrasted with St. Paul's example of strong faith that made him fearless to simply engage with the world in a way that brought people into an encounter with Christ.

 

in the end, there's a hugely valid point to be made here, and as I've said before, I don't think the way it came across in the interview was good... the way it came across in the Pope's homily I've referenced is fantastic though, he calls on us to emulate St. Paul in evangelizing people and explains how that is different from proselytizing, which relies on human power instead of God's power.  I don't want to put the Pope's interview on trial, merely to point out that the broad conclusions many are trying to draw from it are in no way consistent with what he's really trying to say, for what he's really trying to say I will point you one more time to this excellent account of a homily he gave in May on the very subject:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-el-papa-pope-24654/

This distinction is absolute nonsense (or better "solemn nonsense") because no one can tell if another person is sincere or not. Only God can see the secrets of the heart.

[Apotheoun]

I think he might want us to convert people by our actions. Show the world who we are, walk the walk so to speak, and people will follow.

I don't think Pope Francis is for converting anyone.

[Apotheoun]

Pope Francis suggested in that homily that we should bring Christ to people with a firm faith in him, rather than, on human terms, 'trying to convert' them... as the former relies on God and the latter relies on man.

More solemn nonsense. I can (and should) have the intention to convert another person to faith in Christ, for that intention is a good thing, and in fact that intention is something motivated by the gift of faith I have received. That said, can I cause the conversion of another person? No. I can be a help to the conversion of a man, but only God can bring cause conversion (metanoia) of the heart. I have never - in all my studies or years of life - heard anyone talk about non-intention evangelization. The whole concept is quite frankly idiotic.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apteka]

This distinction is absolute nonsense (or better "solemn nonsense") because no one can tell if another person is sincere or not. Only God can see the secrets of the heart.

 

I don't think our partners in this discussion are really grasping to make a distinction between proselytism and evangelization. Era seems to think proselytism is going up to a person and saying, "I'm here to convert you, my reasons are x, y, z" which is nonsensical. Aloysius offers another vague response, what is considered a negative means? I think the conciliar church would consider dismantling the Qur'ans integrity through scholarly argument an example or proselytism. The point I take is that we are not to convert one another, rather we are to understand each other. The goals are dialogue and peaceful unity. If in the end a person wants to convert to Catholicism, ok, but it's not necessary. A person can stay within their own religious tradition, or even atheist worldview, and develop themselves by seeking what they personally think is good. As long as they follow their conscience sincerely, there is a chance for salvation. This explains the Vatican II reworking of the infamous dogma, outside of the church there is no salvation. The Conciliar Council states that if a person internally finds the Catholic Church to be the truth rejects it, they have no chance of salvation. In other words, it follows the principle of obedience to one's conscience. Your conscience may lead you to Catholicism, or it may lead you to other religions, the point is that you follow your conscience. Is this traditional Catholicism? I don't think so.  

[Apotheoun]

I simply refuse to turn the Greek term "proselytism" into a dirty word.

[Era Might]

Era seems to think proselytism is going up to a person and saying, "I'm here to convert you, my reasons are x, y, z" which is nonsensical.

 

Why is that nonsensical? You prefer to trick people?

[Apotheoun]

I don't think our partners in this discussion are really grasping to make a distinction between proselytism and evangelization. Era seems to think proselytism is going up to a person and saying, "I'm here to convert you, my reasons are x, y, z" which is nonsensical. Aloysius offers another vague response, what is considered a negative means? I think the conciliar church would consider dismantling the Qur'ans integrity through scholarly argument an example or proselytism. The point I take is that we are not to convert one another, rather we are to understand each other. The goals are dialogue and peaceful unity. If in the end a person wants to convert to Catholicism, ok, but it's not necessary. A person can stay within their own religious tradition, or even atheist worldview, and develop themselves by seeking what they personally think is good. As long as they follow their conscience sincerely, there is a chance for salvation. This explains the Vatican II reworking of the infamous dogma, outside of the church there is no salvation. The Conciliar Council states that if a person internally finds the Catholic Church to be the truth rejects it, they have no chance of salvation. In other words, it follows the principle of obedience to one's conscience. Your conscience may lead you to Catholicism, or it may lead you to other religions, the point is that you follow your conscience. Is this traditional Catholicism? I don't think so.  

Some people also apparently believe that it is possible to know another man's internal dispositions, i.e., to know that he has good or bad intentions or that he is sincere or insincere, but those things can only be known without any chance of error by God, who alone can see into a man's heart. Human beings can only see the outward actions of a man, but they cannot know for certain anything about a man's internal disposition. That is why the Church has always taught that when we make a judgment about the morality or immorality of an action we are not judging the heart of the person acting, but only the objective good or evil of the act. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Pope Benedict, in the speech I linked earlier, pointed out that a person can have dulled his moral sense so completely that he could be quite sincere while doing something evil. Sadly, the wisdom of Pope Benedict seems to have been replaced with the "feel good" approach of Pope Francis, and it has all happened in less than a year. The decay in the Church must be really quite deep for that kind of a collapse to have happened so quickly.

[Apteka]

Why is that nonsensical? You prefer to trick people?

 

I think the Church ought to have the intention to convert others, but to approach someone with, "Hello, I'm here to convert you" is simply naïve. You present the message clearly, defend it, dismantle any ideas in the person's head that act as obstacles, and you make them understand the seriousness of the decision. I know the Conciliar Church paints it as if people get into heaven by default, and faith is not necessary, but I would strongly consider what tradition has to say. Christ apparently wept over cities that reject him, which makes no sense in the conciliar view. Why weep, oh Christ, if you will accept those who follow their conscience sincerely, even if they reject you? What we read today is nothing more than the modernist heretical ideas that sprouted a century or two ago.