Lady Gaga

[Seven77]

8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Those righteous were also all sinners. Lady Gaga as much as everyone else would be called to "sin no more". Which necessitates an absolute, unconditional rejection of her scandalous public persona.

That is stating the obvious.

 She could be taking a very 1st step of that ultimate unconditional rejection of living a scandalous lifestyle. We should be praying for her that that is indeed the case.

[Maggyie]

Sigh. Era you are right - especially in the West we live in a society/church infected with Puritanism. I mean really, is there anyone confused that Lady Gaga is a good Catholic? No we all know that. Kinda obvious.

however, she can't post a (true) statement about the Eucharist without ninnies hastening to say "but she's a heretic and a silly sally," like you need to be a model Christian before you can talk about Jesus. 

[Seven77]

5 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Sigh. Era you are right - especially in the West we live in a society/church infected with Puritanism. I mean really, is there anyone confused that Lady Gaga is a good Catholic? No we all know that. Kinda obvious.

however, she can't post a (true) statement about the Eucharist without ninnies hastening to say "but she's a heretic and a silly sally," like you need to be a model Christian before you can talk about Jesus. 

 it's really said when people jump to criticize someone that needs to be treated as a bruised reed… we're supposed to be winning people over to our side with love, not chasing them away… it's like she is hanging on a ledge with one hand and somebody coming over and stepping on it instead of reaching out and pulling her up… for all we know, she could be quite literally on “the edge of glory.”  

[Benedictus]

The priest in the photo is in a far better place than any of us to speak with her, if necessary. I wish people wouldn't paint her as being worse than us. She's an artist with a successful career and she has her faults. But who doesn't? I'm all for praying for her growth and life as a Catholic. But I'm not going to throw stones because I know I live in a glass house 

p.s she's still amesome 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 it's really said when people jump to criticize someone that needs to be treated as a bruised reed… we're supposed to be winning people over to our side with love, not chasing them away… it's like she is hanging on a ledge with one hand and somebody coming over and stepping on it instead of reaching out and pulling her up… for all we know, she could be quite literally on “the edge of glory.”  

I would wager that public figures like her assist in leading many souls to hell. Certainly she needs to be converted, and conversion is only possible through God in charity, but at the same time she is causing serious damage and there are many who need to be protected from her and people like her.

4 hours ago, Maggyie said:

Sigh. Era you are right - especially in the West we live in a society/church infected with Puritanism. I mean really, is there anyone confused that Lady Gaga is a good Catholic? No we all know that. Kinda obvious.

however, she can't post a (true) statement about the Eucharist without ninnies hastening to say "but she's a heretic and a silly sally," like you need to be a model Christian before you can talk about Jesus. 

There are enough straw men here to start an army to rival the 兵马俑 . 

[Gabriela]

I have to agree with those defending whatever-her-real-name-is. There have been several celebrities who lived publicly sinful lives who ultimately became nuns. And tons of saints were huge sinners but... well, now they're saints. I'm hopeful that her public profession of faith may be the first step on the road to a public conversion of her ways. It at least shows that there is (potentially) something inside her that desires Christ. I mean, yeah, we can presume it's all a bunch of hypocrisy and maybe even just a PR ploy to get attention in a new way. But that'd be terribly cynical, and would assume there's nothing in her that does desire Christ. Which is impossible, because we're made in His image. And anyway, what right do we have to judge her statements one way or the other? The fact that she's a celebrity doesn't give us anymore right to that than we have for a non-celebrity. 

If she doesn't convert her ways, then we'll know she hasn't fully accepted Christ. But if she is on that road, and we cynically criticize and judge her for being a hypocrite, our own hypocrisy may drive her away, or slow her journey—and we'll be held responsible for that. Do we want to take that risk? I don't. So I say welcome her, and applaud every good act, and condemn every bad one, and let her know we want her to come home—for real, both privately and publicly.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Gabriela

[Nihil Obstat]

53 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I'm hopeful that her public profession of faith may be the first step on the road to a public conversion of her ways. It at least shows that there is (potentially) something inside her that desires Christ.

Must have missed that part.

[Gabriela]

23 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Must have missed that part.

Okay, looking back at her tweet (or whatever it was):

"I was so moved today when you said.. "The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but the food that God gives us." - Father Duffell, Blessed Sacrament Church"...

I did overstate it. Still, when I read a statement like this from a woman who engages in public acts of the nature she engages in, it makes me think, "This is someone who is just coming to realize she is deeply wounded, broken, and sinful. Good. That's the first step." And by condemning her when she expresses such a sentiment, we discourage her from expressing it, and that is not going to help her along the path to faith. Rather, we should praise this statement, and condemn the other acts.

Or do you disagree?

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Okay, looking back at her tweet (or whatever it was):

"I was so moved today when you said.. "The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but the food that God gives us." - Father Duffell, Blessed Sacrament Church"...

I did overstate it. Still, when I read a statement like this from a woman who engages in public acts of the nature she engages in, it makes me think, "This is someone who is just coming to realize she is deeply wounded, broken, and sinful. Good. That's the first step." And by condemning her when she expresses such a sentiment, we discourage her from expressing it, and that is not going to help her along the path to faith. Rather, we should praise this statement, and condemn the other acts.

Or do you disagree?

I do not disagree, but I also think that we are doing both her and anyone who pays attention to her a grave disservice if we just gloss over the incredible scandal she represents, just because she said something that gives people the warm fuzzies. As I said before, the scandal that she gives and the errors she supports do serious harm both to her own soul, and to other people. It is the very fact that a statement like this brings her that tiny step closer to the Church that necessitates that we challenge her right now to put her money where her mouth is. Repent and believe in the Gospel, go forth and sin no more.

But if we get all dizzy and swoon because she said something vaguely Catholic (which includes, do not forget, a pretty obviously erroneous subtext), then she herself is not encouraged to repentance, and whoever actually takes her serious (though I cannot imagine which poor souls think this is a good idea) will not actually follow through and act on that infinitesimally tiny impulse. Posing with a priest and tweeting a cute message are not good enough; to actually follow through is to reject our own sins and take up our cross. If we are serious about saving her and others, the way forward starts with repentance. Not pandering.

[Gabriela]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not disagree, but I also think that we are doing both her and anyone who pays attention to her a grave disservice if we just gloss over the incredible scandal she represents, just because she said something that gives people the warm fuzzies. As I said before, the scandal that she gives and the errors she supports do serious harm both to her own soul, and to other people. It is the very fact that a statement like this brings her that tiny step closer to the Church that necessitates that we challenge her right now to put her money where her mouth is. Repent and believe in the Gospel, go forth and sin no more.

But if we get all dizzy and swoon because she said something vaguely Catholic (which includes, do not forget, a pretty obviously erroneous subtext), then she herself is not encouraged to repentance, and whoever actually takes her serious (though I cannot imagine which poor souls think this is a good idea) will not actually follow through and act on that infinitesimally tiny impulse. Posing with a priest and tweeting a cute message are not good enough; to actually follow through is to reject our own sins and take up our cross. If we are serious about saving her and others, the way forward starts with repentance. Not pandering.

I agree with you. I think the place I worry about your approach is where you say: "It is the very fact that a statement like this brings her that tiny step closer to the Church that necessitates that we challenge her right now to put her money where her mouth is."

I would say: "No, not right now. But yes the very next time that she publicly sins, or leads others to sin, or gives scandal."

As I see it, your approach would look like this:

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "I was so touched when Father said the Eucharist is for the broken, not the perfect."

Catholics: "Great! Now how about you stop all that sinful blather, repent, and believe the Gospel?"

To me, this is to remind a person of their sins when they're already conscious of them. It's pouring salt in the wound in the very moment that Christ has anointed it. It's not needed at this moment, and is likely to backfire, because even though it's foolish to do so, the unconverted often conflate the faithful with the Faith: If we seem to lack compassion, then to them, the Faith lacks compassion. And who wants anything to do with a Faith like that?

So my approach would be this:

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "I was so touched when Father said the Eucharist is for the broken, not the perfect."

Catholics: "Great! We agree. The Eucharist really is for sinners, not the perfect. Wanna come to our coffee and donuts this Sunday?"

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

See the difference?  

In the moment the person recognizes their own sinfulness, praise them. In the moment they sin, condemn the sin. That's basic classical conditioning, and using it, the person is then less likely to perceive that Christians are criticizing them all the time, regardless of what they do, which just drives people away. Plus it just isn't fair, and isn't deserved, by her or by anyone.

When I was a Jew, I learned that the Talmud teaches that, once a non-Jew converts to Judaism, his/her past life as a non-Jew is never to be mentioned again. That life is perceived as sinful (basically, in the Jewish sense; really it's more like shameful... let's not get into it too much). Anyway, I was a convert, and Jews still mentioned my past life all the time, and I was really indignant about it because I knew they had no right. Doesn't Catholicism teach the same thing? If God can forgive a sin from one moment to the next, who are we to remember that sin davka in the person's moment of weakness, openness, and tenderness? Just let that moment be what it is: The person is already accusing themself, vulnerable and broken, and our response to that should be love and compassion. Now, later on, if/when they sin again, we can condemn that, and the contrast will hopefully remind them of the loving response they got when they acknowledged their sinfulness, so that they will once again acknowledge this new sin in the hope of receiving love and not condemnation again. But if you respond to the weakness, openness, and tenderness with just more criticism and reminders of past sin, that hurts them when they're already feeling deeply hurt, so what motivation do they have to acknowledge future sins? None at all, because from their perspective, the response is always criticism, so all motive to repent is removed, because the sin is easier (and, in this case, a hell of a lot more profitable) than the vulnerable acknowledgment, which they know will only bring condemnation, not the love we all seek.

That was long and rambly, but you take my point, I'm sure. There's a time for condemnation and a time for love and praise. Generally the two do not coincide.

[Maggyie]

What's the erroneous subtext? The Eucharist is not a prize (it.., He... What's correct here? Is a gift) for the perfect (none of us is perfect. It is how God feeds us. Ding ding ding. If you read something into that, it's just cynicism. 

[Gabriela]

1 minute ago, Maggyie said:

What's the erroneous subtext?

I also wondered that. Couldn't figure it out.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not want to believe that you do not see the subtext here...

58 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I agree with you. I think the place I worry about your approach is where you say: "It is the very fact that a statement like this brings her that tiny step closer to the Church that necessitates that we challenge her right now to put her money where her mouth is."

I would say: "No, not right now. But yes the very next time that she publicly sins, or leads others to sin, or gives scandal."

As I see it, your approach would look like this:

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "I was so touched when Father said the Eucharist is for the broken, not the perfect."

Catholics: "Great! Now how about you stop all that sinful blather, repent, and believe the Gospel?"

To me, this is to remind a person of their sins when they're already conscious of them. It's pouring salt in the wound in the very moment that Christ has anointed it. It's not needed at this moment, and is likely to backfire, because even though it's foolish to do so, the unconverted often conflate the faithful with the Faith: If we seem to lack compassion, then to them, the Faith lacks compassion. And who wants anything to do with a Faith like that?

So my approach would be this:

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

Celebrity: "I was so touched when Father said the Eucharist is for the broken, not the perfect."

Catholics: "Great! We agree. The Eucharist really is for sinners, not the perfect. Wanna come to our coffee and donuts this Sunday?"

Celebrity: "Sinful blather."

Catholics: "That's sinful blather. Repent and believe the Gospel."

See the difference?  

In the moment the person recognizes their own sinfulness, praise them. In the moment they sin, condemn the sin. That's basic classical conditioning, and using it, the person is then less likely to perceive that Christians are criticizing them all the time, regardless of what they do, which just drives people away. Plus it just isn't fair, and isn't deserved, by her or by anyone.

When I was a Jew, I learned that the Talmud teaches that, once a non-Jew converts to Judaism, his/her past life as a non-Jew is never to be mentioned again. That life is perceived as sinful (basically, in the Jewish sense; really it's more like shameful... let's not get into it too much). Anyway, I was a convert, and Jews still mentioned my past life all the time, and I was really indignant about it because I knew they had no right. Doesn't Catholicism teach the same thing? If God can forgive a sin from one moment to the next, who are we to remember that sin davka in the person's moment of weakness, openness, and tenderness? Just let that moment be what it is: The person is already accusing themself, vulnerable and broken, and our response to that should be love and compassion. Now, later on, if/when they sin again, we can condemn that, and the contrast will hopefully remind them of the loving response they got when they acknowledged their sinfulness, so that they will once again acknowledge this new sin in the hope of receiving love and not condemnation again. But if you respond to the weakness, openness, and tenderness with just more criticism and reminders of past sin, that hurts them when they're already feeling deeply hurt, so what motivation do they have to acknowledge future sins? None at all, because from their perspective, the response is always criticism, so all motive to repent is removed, because the sin is easier (and, in this case, a hell of a lot more profitable) than the vulnerable acknowledgment, which they know will only bring condemnation, not the love we all seek.

That was long and rambly, but you take my point, I'm sure. There's a time for condemnation and a time for love and praise. Generally the two do not coincide.

I understand what you are saying, but the issue is this:

"In the moment the person recognizes their own sinfulness, praise them."

This has simply not happened in this case.  Not by a long shot. And that is why we cannot pander to her. If and when such a case obtains I will agree with your approach, but my point is that we are not there yet, and if indeed there is something that people that you and I can "do", it is in the interests of reaching that point where people do have the clarity to recognize their own sinfulness.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not want to believe that you do not see the subtext here...

I understand what you are saying, but the issue is this:

"In the moment the person recognizes their own sinfulness, praise them."

This has simply not happened in this case.  Not by a long shot. And that is why we cannot pander to her. If and when such a case obtains I will agree with your approach, but my point is that we are not there yet, and if indeed there is something that people that you and I can "do", it is in the interests of reaching that point where people do have the clarity to recognize their own sinfulness.

I really don't see the subtext.

If what you're saying is that, because she didn't come right out and say, "I'm such a horrible sinner. I'm so glad that I can still receive the Eucharist even as a sinner, so long as I've confessed all my mortal sins and am truly repentant. God is so merciful and I'm going to cease all my sinning and start going to Mass every Sunday and confession once a month and get married and...", that what she really meant was, "I'm so glad the Eucharist is for sinners, because that means I can just go on sinning and giving scandal and still receive communion without actually repenting," then I think that's really cynical. Cuz to me, when someone of her reputation says a thing like she did in public, it suggests something important is going on in her heart.

Sometimes the simple, literal meaning of what people say is all the meaning there is to their statement. But sometimes what people say hides a lot more, and I think this is one of those cases. Maybe I'm foolishly optimistic, but I'd rather be that than cynical.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is not about cynicism. The cynical man is a Jansenist, and the naive one is Pelagian.

[16] Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. [17] But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. [18] And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: [19] But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. [20] For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

Of course something important is happening in her heart. God calls everyone to repentance. 

 

[16] And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? [17] Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [18] He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. [19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [20] The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?

[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. [22] And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. [23] Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. [24] And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [25] And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

[26] And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. [27] Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? [28] And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [29] And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name' s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. [30] And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.

We are not so simple as to think that "a rich man" is just some fat cat businessman with a lot of money, are we? This rich man who spoke to Jesus felt a call in his heart as well. Our Lord did not go easy on him, frankly. In my opinion this is one of the most difficult passages of the Gospel.