Veritas Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1195331' date='Feb 14 2007, 06:41 PM'] Maybe you SHOULD actually read the entire thread before commenting, since your comments do not respond to the actual discussions that took place. [/quote] + I am responding to the original post. Sorry if that is not enough. I thought I made that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hello Philosobrat, First of all, I don't know whether I am just responding to the original post or everything in particular. By the time I get to the bottom, So many ideas sorta merge together. I must say that it is terrible that fellow men have been treating you badly here on Phatmass, and especially in your parish! Be strong about these things though, because Christ is refining his people. I have to agree with many of the people's opinions on this thread (co-incidentally, the same people you agreed with and all I have to add is that you keep fighting and praying about it. Don't let the guys push you around. The will be uptight but be persistent, and be authentic. I know parishes can not always be perfect and in my experience, the Utopian parish is almost a myth. My reason for saying Almost is because all valid masses are delightful because Christ is truly present, despite the irreverence, the bad music, et cetera. I think that the Roman Rite should return to traditional elements because so many people are falling away because everything is being homogenized and modernized. If we remember the sacred treasures of the past such as chants, actions, etc, it may hopefully bring back reverence to the 2000 year history that we have inherited! Enough of my rambling though. I hope this doesn't cause any friction with you or anyone. Just wanted to say that after reading about what happens in an Eastern Rite Church! I would love to witness such an treasure and spend a little time in another approach to Catholicism because I know I can learn so much. (Also, I would like to go to a Tridentine mass, but I might have to wait a while yet for that, seeing I don't know where to find one ). Over all, I must say Amen to letting all of that truth out, because like mentioned earlier, the Devil works to divide, and only the truth can unite. I guess that is why some monks make frequent 'public' confessions: a moment where all of the monks get together and vocalize what bothers them in their community so hatred and irritation doesn't build up and divide their community. It is a wonderful practice which takes humility that people should try when ready... God Bless † Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 [quote name='philosobrat' post='1195443' date='Feb 14 2007, 09:29 PM'] Socrates, The wording of the person quoting St Paul was what I said seemed misogynistic, not St Paul himself. What is wrong with women being lectors? Men who do not come to church simply because there are too many women there really have no excuse. If they are supposed to be leaders why would they let that stop them? So we are supposed to be more masculine just so the men feel comfortable? Why not a healthy balance? Without female altar servers, EM, or the like I do not see what is wrong with female lectors. [/quote] Women as lectors probably isn't wrong per se, but it was not something women traditionally did at mass. (Note St. Paul on women speaking out at church) Traditionally, the role was performed by a lector/akalyte who served mass and did the non-gospel readings. And this is probably a personal thing, but I find it annoying when some lady is reading the voice of God, Christ, Moses, or St. Paul. lol It just seems part of a push to have women doing more things at mass which have traditionally been male roles related closely with the priesthood. And the issue with the feminization of the liturgy isn't so much a matter of too many women at mass, but of whole atmosphere/orientation of the liturgy (including music, homilies, etc.) And having virtually everybody at the altar but the priest be female doesn't help this issue. But this is getting somewhat off-topic. The main problem is not whether or not men come to mass, but celebrating the liturgy properly, and maintaining proper roles. And there does seem to be a stronger male presence at traditional and eastern-rite masses, than at more "feminized" modern liturgies. I think those who press for more "female roles" in the liturgy misunderstand the nature of the sacred liturgy, and want to see roles at mass in terms of "power struggle" between the sexes, which is very wrong, and leads ultimately to the weakening of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 It's always sad to hear that people feel excluded I'm a girl and I don't really have a problem with women lectors or cantors. But it's always been my impression that the Church's "ideal" is that positions of lector, server etc. be fulfilled by formally installed acolytes, which [b]always[/b] have to be men. Having lay people (male or female) do this is just an "exceptional" but common situation. Is that the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philosophette Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 I would like to thank everyone for their responses to the subject. Although we may not agree about everything (that [i]would[/i] make for a boring round table discussion, wouldn't it?!) I think that we all have had many experiences of the Church and with different men and women in the Church. Although my experiences have not been very positive, I do hope to find somewhere where that I feel at home. Perhaps this is one reason St Benedict Joseph Labre wandered so much! : I would like to also thank everyone for their kind words, ideas, explanations, and passion. If anything, we can agree that there are many people on PhatMass who really do care about the Church and Her influence in society and on Her children. I have found this whole discussion to be rather healing, although a little tense at times! I guess that must be a sign of growth, huh? I did not want this discussion to turn into a liturgical debate, but rather a sharing of experiences. I think that we are tending to get a little off topic now, so if the moderators would like to, they may close it. I do not want anyone to get too upset over my experiences! I am going to be taking a break from PhatMass for a while now (actually, for Lent... I am going to be cutting down my computer usage on a whole, which is not going to be easy! So I will not be responding to any more of the posts... Don't miss me too much! ) Best wishes and prayers for a holy and fruitful Lent of Grace, Conversion, Reconciliation and Growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) [quote name='philosobrat' post='1195620' date='Feb 14 2007, 11:55 PM'] I did not want this discussion to turn into a liturgical debate, but rather a sharing of experiences. [/quote] + I'm glad this was a time of "growth" for you... but if it wasn't meant to be a debate, but a time of "sharing experiences" why is it in debate table? This may not be what you meant, but what people "feel" ie their "experiences" of the liturgy and the reality of life for that matter, doesn't affect truth. It's our job to intellectually investigate truth so that our feelings are rightly ordered, not to try to create a "truth" or "reality" that are in line with our feelings. I think it is important to realize that other people are not responsible for our "experience" or our "feelings". Our feelings are in response to our thoughts and our thoughts alone. Sometimes they are just, and sometimes they are not. Therefore, if our feelings are not appropriate, it belays cognitive and information inaccuracies. We, each one of us, have a responsibility to form ourselves through the Catechism with the Grace of the Holy Spirit. That is why this conversation, MUST be more than "feelings" and "experiences". Blessings during Lent. Edited February 16, 2007 by Veritas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journeyman Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Food for thought [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=64686"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=64686[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) Here is some more good reading for you, Philosobrat. [quote name='The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X']The Church Teaching and the Church Taught 38 Q. Is there any distinction between the members of the Church? A. There is a very notable distinction between the members of the Church; for there are some who rule and some who obey; some who teach and some who are taught. 39 Q. What do you call that part of the Church which teaches? A. That part of the Church which teaches is called the Teaching Church. 40 Q. What do you call that part of the Church which is taught? A. That part of the Church which is taught is called the Learning Church, or the Church Taught. 41 Q. Who has set up this distinction in the Church? A. Jesus Christ Himself has established this distinction in the Church. 42 Q. Are the Church Teaching and the Church Taught, then, two churches? A. The Church Teaching and the Church Taught are two distinct parts of one and the same Church, just as in the human body the head is distinct from the other members, and yet forms but one body with them. 43 Q. Of whom is the Teaching Church composed? A. The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council. 44 Q. And the Church Taught, of whom is it composed? A. The Church Taught is composed of all the faithful. 45 Q. Who, then, are they who possess the teaching power in the Church? A. The teaching power in the Church is possessed by the Pope and the Bishops, and, dependent on them, by the other sacred ministers. 46 Q. Are we obliged to hear the Teaching Church? A. Yes, without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church; for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of His Church, in the persons of the Apostles: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me." 47 Q. Besides her teaching power has the Church any other power? A. Yes, besides her teaching power the Church has in particular the power of administering sacred things, of making laws and of exacting the observance of them. 48 Q. Does the power possessed by the members of the Hierarchy come from the people? A. The power possessed by the Hierarchy does not come from the people, and it would be heresy to say it did: it comes solely from God. 49 Q. To whom does the exercise of this power belong? A. The exercise of this power belongs solely to the Hierarchy, that is, to the Pope and to the Bishops subordinate to him.[/quote] Obviously women can never receive Orders so they can never be Church Teaching. [quote name='Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible 1 Corinthians Ch. 14; Vs. 34']34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.[/quote] [quote name='Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II']Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[/quote] Edited February 16, 2007 by StThomasMore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 This is from [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=55745&hl="]a thread I posted a while back in the Transmundane Lane[/url] on a related topic ... not official teachings or anything but interesting musings about the role of women in the church. [quote]The gist of the argument is that due to Original Sin, men are plagued with a reluctance to respect the equality of women; and, women are plagued with a tendency to expect their men to satisfy all their needs. As a result, men tend to oppress women and women tend to take it--just as described in Genesis. Christ opposes these tendencies by teaching men that love requires self-sacrificial love even to the point of death and by teaching women that only Christ is able to satisfy the deepest longings of their heart. If Christ had been a woman, her death on the Cross would have sent men the message that self-sacrificial love is a "woman's thing." It would not have altered the tendency to regard women as a resource to be managed and controlled. (Watch John Wayne's McClintock for an illustration of this prejudice.) And if Christ had been a women, women would never have known that men could love them without subordinating them and that God is the one who meets their desires for all-consuming love. For these reasons, the Gender Mission of Christ requires Christ to be a man. I then extrapolate this argument to give support to the Roman Catholic Church's decision not to ordain women priests in its Latin rite. But since I've been warned by Lisa not to be lengthy, I can only invite those who cannot access the Godspy article or the Logos article to contemplate the mystery of an institution that sees the refusal to ordain women as a way to support sexual equality. If this seems oxymoronic, then it is because we are making various assumptions that make it so, e.g., the assumption that unless an institution refuses to distinguish between male and female gender roles, it is committed to sexual inequality. If we prescind from these assumptions, the possibility that the refusal to ordain women is prophetic becomes pressing. It may well be the case that in a few decades, the only institution that distinguishes between the work of men and women will be the Roman Catholic Church.[/quote] [quote]It's important to realize that the bridegroom/bride analogy as it pertains to Christ and the Church also pertains to Christ and the people of God. As such, the analogy teaches that every human being is to relate to Christ as to the bridegroom. Moreover, since Christ as the bridegroom signifies sacrificial love on the Cross and the Church as bride signifies responsive love, it is the feminine paradigm that images how every human being is to correctly relate to Christ, i.e., feminine responsiveness is the properly human response to God. Our responsiveness to Christ transforms us, especially through the Eucharist, into His image. Thus, women as well as men are called to image Christ. Given this, it remains puzzling that the Catholic Church, in all her rites, has decided to restrict priestly ordination to heterosexual men. By so doing, the Church invites us to mediatate on heterosexuality: why is heterosexuality so important? Why did God create the human race as divided into males and females? John Paul II in his Catechism on Genesis teaches that human beings image God best in moments of heterosexual, spousal union; because then we best image the Trinity. Could it thus be that part of the reason why the Church restricts priestly ordination to heterosexual men is to call attention to heterosexuality and the radical incompleteness of masculinity without femininity as well as the incompleteness of femininity without masculinity? Such radical incompleteness identifies the indispensability of both sexes as well as the need for each sex to relate to the other through equally reciprocated acts of self-giving love. Could it be that by restricting priestly ordination to heterosexual men, while also identifying ordained priests to be images of Christ, the Church is seeking to teach men that their masculinity achieves its highest fulfillment in a self-sacrificial love unafraid to embrace the Cross for the good of others? Could it be that men especially need this message?[/quote] With regard to the overall role of women in the church ... I hear a lot of talk about how the Catholic Church is anti-woman, and I've had people express surprise that I chose to convert despite the church's stance on women and the priesthood. Honestly, though, I've found in the Catholic Church a liberating view of femininity that is unlike anything being promulgated elsewhere. So often, you see women striving for dignity by trying to be like men, trying to do the things men do, and succeed in the ways men succeed, and garner the recognition men get in their various roles. Often, this means denying the nature of who we are. For example, we want to have sex "without consequences" (as if such a thing exists) so we deny the gift of lifegiving within us that is at the core of who we are. In the teachings of the Church, though, I found a call not to find dignity in someone else's role, but to find it in my own -- to explore what it means to be a woman, and to live that out in every aspect of my life. That doesn't meant that I have to give up my education, or that I won't be able to practice law, but it does mean that I will bring to the practice of law (and other areas of my life as well) the things that make me uniquely woman. I see the Church placing a high value on true femininity, treasuring the gift of Woman that God gave to his Church. Valuing womanhood doesn't mean encouraging women to do the same things men do. It means encouraging women to fulfill their true calling: to be pictures of receptivity to God's grace, to nurture and to give life, to welcome and to care for others in our communities, to be open to true expressions of love. Treasuring these things in women should be no threat to the masculine in the church, but should instead these two halves should complement one another. This doesn't get played out well in every parish, and maybe not even in many parishes, granted, but that doesn't mean that femininity in its purest form is not cherished and encouraged to blossom within the Church. Sorry if this is off the flow of the thread ... I didn't have time to read the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philosophette Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 I think that you are all starting to really miss my point. I NEVER SAID I WANTED WOMEN PRIESTS... all I was asking is what women CAN DO in the church because I often feel like the men act like we are only supposed to keep quiet and sit in our pews with our chapel veils on. This is not a "feminazi" thing, as someone was so rude to backhandedly call me. This is merely a woman, in the Church, trying to figure out what she can do to build the Church up without feeling like her only role is that of having children or being a nun. Some of you say even being a lector or cantor is wrong for women. I think that is very extreme. And I think that some of the greatest teachers of what Catholicism really is have been women: Catherine of Siena, Mother Teresa... So let us try to bring this discussion back from everyone repeating OVER AND OVER again why women cannot be priest (because, honestly, I have heard it a MILLION times and I do not really care as I know it will never happen, and women being priests would just be weird....) and direct it towards what women CAN DO IN THE CHURCH. Could we PLEASE do that? That is what I really really want to get to. [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1196760' date='Feb 16 2007, 12:20 AM'] This is from [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=55745&hl="]a thread I posted a while back in the Transmundane Lane[/url] on a related topic ... not official teachings or anything but interesting musings about the role of women in the church. With regard to the overall role of women in the church ... I hear a lot of talk about how the Catholic Church is anti-woman, and I've had people express surprise that I chose to convert despite the church's stance on women and the priesthood. Honestly, though, I've found in the Catholic Church a liberating view of femininity that is unlike anything being promulgated elsewhere. So often, you see women striving for dignity by trying to be like men, trying to do the things men do, and succeed in the ways men succeed, and garner the recognition men get in their various roles. Often, this means denying the nature of who we are. For example, we want to have sex "without consequences" (as if such a thing exists) so we deny the gift of lifegiving within us that is at the core of who we are. In the teachings of the Church, though, I found a call not to find dignity in someone else's role, but to find it in my own -- to explore what it means to be a woman, and to live that out in every aspect of my life. That doesn't meant that I have to give up my education, or that I won't be able to practice law, but it does mean that I will bring to the practice of law (and other areas of my life as well) the things that make me uniquely woman. I see the Church placing a high value on true femininity, treasuring the gift of Woman that God gave to his Church. Valuing womanhood doesn't mean encouraging women to do the same things men do. It means encouraging women to fulfill their true calling: to be pictures of receptivity to God's grace, to nurture and to give life, to welcome and to care for others in our communities, to be open to true expressions of love. Treasuring these things in women should be no threat to the masculine in the church, but should instead these two halves should complement one another. This doesn't get played out well in every parish, and maybe not even in many parishes, granted, but that doesn't mean that femininity in its purest form is not cherished and encouraged to blossom within the Church. Sorry if this is off the flow of the thread ... I didn't have time to read the whole thing. [/quote] A little off topic, but very beautiful writings... thank you! Thomas More.... I am not talking about women being ordained priests. Your post has nothing to do with what I am trying to get at. Plus it has been repeated OVER and OVER again. Tell me, though, what is the place of women in the Church? What are we called to do and be outside of marriage? I would be very interested to hear people's thoughts on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 [quote]I am not a mother, I am not a wife, I am not a nun. I do not have those roles in the Church at this time... I am a single woman and I go to church, I participate in the liturgy and I feel very ALONE. I feel like there are few places for me in the Church outside of Mothering someone or cleaning the Church or cooking... THERE has to be more. [/quote] That is the line that struck me the most. It saddens me when someone feels alone in our Church and our liturgy. I understand where you're coming from. And no one should feel that way. As far as the role of women in our Church, its important to remember two things. A. The Church's teaching apply to all around the world. There's over a billion of us in hundreds of different cultures. Sometimes we forget that fact and just view the teachings as they pertain to us in a progressive free society. But not all cultures are progressive and not all are free. So the Church has to teach the Truth to everyone no matter what their societal system may be. 2. One critical thing about Church teachings that many people forget from time to time is there is an underlying rule to all teachings. Every teaching of the Church comes from a sense of unconditional love and are created to help us to better love unconditionally. There are quite a few folks who understand the letter of the law but have not accepted the intent behind it. If the understanding of Church teachings does not bring one to love more fully and freely, that person just isn't getting it. Now how do these two things pertain to the role of women in the Church? The Church teaches based on Scripture, Tradition and the general truths of our world. More specifically, where can men and women best demonstrate and enact unconditional love? The Church teaches with the understanding that (generally) women are more predispositioned to be nurturers and caregivers. A big part of that obviously is the role of women to care for children. The qualities that (generally) make women good at nurturing and caregiving are then applied to their role in the Church. The Church is essentially saying "What (generally) are the strengths and how can we make use of them within our system?" Now the obvious statement is "Well not all women are good at nurturing or caregiving" Good point, but I would refer that person to point A that I made. (I would also point out the grand amount of parenthetical "generally"s) So the Church takes the strengths of each gender and applies it to its system. It does not make the distinction anywhere that women are less than men. We are all equal but with different roles. So let's take your example of Mother Teresa! (Which is a great example btw) What did Mother Teresa actually do that was so remarkable? She took care of people who were dying and gave them a little comfort and dignity as they were dying. Honestly, what is the big deal about that? No offense but there are thousands of people that do that every day and no one is pushing for them to be sainted. So what was the big deal about Mother Teresa? Simple, she understood better than most on the planet that when you do something as simple as giving dignity to the poor and dying, but do it in the light of total and unconditional love, you can change the world!! She demonstrated that in that light, you can do some of the most basic and simple things and be considered a role model for the world. And that is exactly why she will probably be sainted one day. There is nothing wrong in saying "These are my strengths for loving unconditionally but there are other things I can do as well" But there are many folks that are basically saying "These are my strengths for loving unconditionally but I can do things that are more important" and they just don't get it. There is nothing more important than acting out of unconditional love. And that is what Holy Mother Church is teaching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 That was awesome hot stuff. Simply, awesome. Ty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 hot stuff (off topic) i find it interesting that you 'numbered' your points A and 2 and TF and hot stuff - both awesome posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 [quote name='philosobrat' post='1196895' date='Feb 16 2007, 10:00 AM']I think that you are all starting to really miss my point. I NEVER SAID I WANTED WOMEN PRIESTS... all I was asking is what women CAN DO in the church because I often feel like the men act like we are only supposed to keep quiet and sit in our pews with our chapel veils on. This is not a "feminazi" thing, as someone was so rude to backhandedly call me. This is merely a woman, in the Church, trying to figure out what she can do to build the Church up without feeling like her only role is that of having children or being a nun. Some of you say even being a lector or cantor is wrong for women. I think that is very extreme. And I think that some of the greatest teachers of what Catholicism really is have been women: Catherine of Siena, Mother Teresa... So let us try to bring this discussion back from everyone repeating OVER AND OVER again why women cannot be priest (because, honestly, I have heard it a MILLION times and I do not really care as I know it will never happen, and women being priests would just be weird....) and direct it towards what women CAN DO IN THE CHURCH. Could we PLEASE do that? That is what I really really want to get to. A little off topic, but very beautiful writings... thank you! Thomas More.... I am not talking about women being ordained priests. Your post has nothing to do with what I am trying to get at. Plus it has been repeated OVER and OVER again. Tell me, though, what is the place of women in the Church? What are we called to do and be outside of marriage? I would be very interested to hear people's thoughts on that.[/quote] The altar rail signifies the line that women are never to cross excpet at their wedding (if they have one). Women cannot distribute Communion becuase priests alone can distribute Communion; they cannot read the Epistle or Gospel becuase those are to be read by the subdeacon and deacon (who are men becuase one is a sacramental only for men and the other is a sacrament only for men); they cannot place sacred vessels on the altar before Mass becuase no layman may touch the sacred vessels; they cannot collect donations since that job is culturally reserved for male laymen. Women can, however, kneel in thier pew and follow along in the Missal during Mass. The can also sing in the choir, but cannot be a part of the schola. Outside of marragie women can be nuns. They can also be single persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 [quote name='hot stuff' post='1196922' date='Feb 16 2007, 12:37 PM']That is the line that struck me the most. It saddens me when someone feels alone in our Church and our liturgy. I understand where you're coming from. And no one should feel that way. As far as the role of women in our Church, its important to remember two things. A. The Church's teaching apply to all around the world. There's over a billion of us in hundreds of different cultures. Sometimes we forget that fact and just view the teachings as they pertain to us in a progressive free society. But not all cultures are progressive and not all are free. So the Church has to teach the Truth to everyone no matter what their societal system may be. 2. One critical thing about Church teachings that many people forget from time to time is there is an underlying rule to all teachings. Every teaching of the Church comes from a sense of unconditional love and are created to help us to better love unconditionally. There are quite a few folks who understand the letter of the law but have not accepted the intent behind it. If the understanding of Church teachings does not bring one to love more fully and freely, that person just isn't getting it. Now how do these two things pertain to the role of women in the Church? The Church teaches based on Scripture, Tradition and the general truths of our world. More specifically, where can men and women best demonstrate and enact unconditional love? The Church teaches with the understanding that (generally) women are more predispositioned to be nurturers and caregivers. A big part of that obviously is the role of women to care for children. The qualities that (generally) make women good at nurturing and caregiving are then applied to their role in the Church. The Church is essentially saying "What (generally) are the strengths and how can we make use of them within our system?" Now the obvious statement is "Well not all women are good at nurturing or caregiving" Good point, but I would refer that person to point A that I made. (I would also point out the grand amount of parenthetical "generally"s) So the Church takes the strengths of each gender and applies it to its system. It does not make the distinction anywhere that women are less than men. We are all equal but with different roles. So let's take your example of Mother Teresa! (Which is a great example btw) What did Mother Teresa actually do that was so remarkable? She took care of people who were dying and gave them a little comfort and dignity as they were dying. Honestly, what is the big deal about that? No offense but there are thousands of people that do that every day and no one is pushing for them to be sainted. So what was the big deal about Mother Teresa? Simple, she understood better than most on the planet that when you do something as simple as giving dignity to the poor and dying, but do it in the light of total and unconditional love, you can change the world!! She demonstrated that in that light, you can do some of the most basic and simple things and be considered a role model for the world. And that is exactly why she will probably be sainted one day. There is nothing wrong in saying "These are my strengths for loving unconditionally but there are other things I can do as well" But there are many folks that are basically saying "These are my strengths for loving unconditionally but I can do things that are more important" and they just don't get it. There is nothing more important than acting out of unconditional love. And that is what Holy Mother Church is teaching[/quote] When you decide to be serious you are awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts