While reading through my regular feed of Catholic blogs the other day, I was disturbed by the number of times that the term "Cafeteria Catholic" was used. I'm not sure why it bothered me so much just then; I have, of course, seen the term in use for some time. But once I got to thinking about it, I decided that I really didn't like the term much.
When Catholics who are trying to follow the teachings of the Church (orthodox Catholics) refer to someone as a "Cafeteria Catholic", the goal almost always seems born from a desire to call them a name, no different than calling someone stupid on the playground. It is a way of attempting to separate oneself from another that they see as foolish, dirty, dangerous or otherwise undesirable for company. In virtually every case, the one seen as unorthodox is not there to defend themselves from the term, so we can safely rule out that it is being used to awaken them to their state. I recognize that not everyone uses the term in a derogatory way, and if you are such a one, then my apologies to you. I ask your pardon, as I am still quite entrenched in the other group, and have done my share of name-calling.
If one feels that they must continue using the term, then I propose a new term. Well, more of taking back a term and re-purposing it. If someone insists on calling another a "Cafeteria Catholic", then I must insist on my own title:
I will be called a "Buffet Catholic".
Please don't misunderstand me. I know that the term "Buffet Catholic" is seen as synonymous with "Cafeteria Catholic". I mean here to re-assign it; to take back the term and give it new life. Let me explain why I feel it necessary to take this particular new title. (Before I continue, I will state that I know the following is mixing metaphors a bit.)
When one is in a cafeteria, food is often served a la carte. One selects from the multitude of items and takes them to the clerk, who tells one how much they owe. Much of the food is same day-to-day, prepared elsewhere, separately and pre-packaged. Each item has a price, regardless of how small it is. One must be careful not to select too much, because one has only so much money available to pay for their meal. The model is that one only pays for what one wants.
In a buffet, it works quite differently. While there is still a multitude of items available, one gets to take as much as one wants. The selection is a good blend of new dishes and old favorites, all of them fresh, all prepared in one kitchen by master chefs. One need not worry about how much each item is going to cost, because the price is paid once, up front, before any of the food is available. The model is that one pays for everything, but then all is open.
I want to be a buffet Catholic. I want to pay the doorkeeper to gain access to the feast. His price is high: acceptance of authority. But is it really that high a price? On the occasions where I have been in a cafeteria, I've often spent as much for a meal there as I would for a meal at a buffet hall. It is actually quite nice having one price to pay and not having to keep track of whether I've overstretched myself while attempting to build my own meal.
I want to be a buffet Catholic. I want to take as much as possible from the teachings of the Church and from many different sources, the saints, the mystics, the popes, confessors and Tradition, without having to worry about whether I can afford them or where they came from. I want to be able to take from any number of fields of service. I want to accept something from each of the seven courses. I want to drink deeply from the many fountains of spirituality and not be restricted to one.
I can hear the objection, "But you are only taking what you want!" Indeed. I can sample from every category, but I will focus on a few favorites. This is not really much different from what we do in our walk of faith. We can sample from the many areas of prayer and service, but we tend to focus on only a few in our daily life. One is called to a life of study, another to feeding the hungry, another to clothing the naked, etc. We don't ignore the other dishes we don't like; we keep in mind that others at the buffet will take them and enjoy them. The important thing to remember is that one is still paying for all the other dishes just as much as for the ones enjoyed. Furthermore, in a buffet, one is encouraged to take little portions of the other dishes, to expand one's horizons and have a well-balanced meal. This is less acceptable when one is watching every little thing they accept onto their tray, fearful that this addition may be one cost too many.
The last reason that I like using this term is because it shows a basic truth that underlines everything and we are often so quick to forget (myself included). The truth that we are not so different from one another. A buffet is very similar to a cafeteria, though they are not the same. I've explained above that I think the mindset of one is good and the other needs improvement, but the major point is that they would look nearly the same to one who was not aware of the difference. I chose the name of "Buffet Catholic" because it identifies with those who are called "Cafeteria Catholic," stating that we are not the same, but we have much in common.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Didache
The other night, we had some of our friends over and I was discussing the history of the Church. He is very interested in apologetics and learning how to defend and explain his faith (which is, by the way, a wonderful goal for all people of faith, not to mention all Catholics). Many times in our discussion, he would mention that the non-denominational Christians he had been speaking with would deny that Church traditions went back as far as they claim to go. Things such as the Trinitarian baptism, relics, saints, etc. As we talked, it occurred to me that Catholics have a resource which is seldom called upon to defend the truth of the Catholic Church: the Didache.
For those who have not heard of it before, the Didache (also known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) is an ancient text which claims to be the summation of what the Apostles taught. It is estimated to have been written between 50 and 110 AD. It is mentioned by many of the Church Fathers before the Bible was compiled and just narrowly missed inclusion. It was lost for many centuries and was only rediscovered in 1875.
This is an enormous help for the Church, because it is a documented piece of evidence that shows a very Catholic view of the early Christian world. I also disrupts the theory that Catholics simply made up core pieces of the faith.
To give an analogy, imagine for a moment that you go to a barbecue. You've been to many places that serve BBQ, but this place has something different. The chefs have a very specific way that they do theirs and they only smile and politely refuse if anyone suggests changing it. When pressed, they tell you that their recipie is unchanged from the very first one, handed down by the greatest BBQ master of them all.
Of course, most people would scoff at such a claim. "That can't be true. You're getting a bit conceited about your own tradition. There's no way that you have the original BBQ recipie."
Then, one day, a historian runs across an ancient document (say, 1000 years old) which mentions barbecue and lists a recipie. When compared with the one being used by that one group of chefs, it is found to be a match. All of the key ingredients are there, done in the same order, in the same amounts. Other barbecue recipies may be similar, but no others have the same integrity.
If such a situation were to happen, the claims of that group of chefs would be greatly bolstered. Their statement doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore.
This is similar to what one finds when reading through the Didache. It supports Catholic tradition and practices. It is nearly free from the claims of corruption, because it was considered lost for a great deal of history. Christians who dislike the Catholic Church are stuck too, because it predates the Nicene creed and the accepted doctrines of the Trinity. It may even be older than some of the New Testament. It is widely known and accepted by the early fathers of the Church, which throws out claims that it is a heretical work. In short, the existence of this document lends credibility to the Church's statement that its teaching remains unchanged (indeed, unchangeable) from the very earliest days of Christianity.
On a broader level, it gives another area of consideration. If one can see and acknowledge that the Didache lends credibility to the Church's claim that she has the original teachings of the Apostles, why should she not be trusted when making other claims?
For those who have not heard of it before, the Didache (also known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) is an ancient text which claims to be the summation of what the Apostles taught. It is estimated to have been written between 50 and 110 AD. It is mentioned by many of the Church Fathers before the Bible was compiled and just narrowly missed inclusion. It was lost for many centuries and was only rediscovered in 1875.
This is an enormous help for the Church, because it is a documented piece of evidence that shows a very Catholic view of the early Christian world. I also disrupts the theory that Catholics simply made up core pieces of the faith.
To give an analogy, imagine for a moment that you go to a barbecue. You've been to many places that serve BBQ, but this place has something different. The chefs have a very specific way that they do theirs and they only smile and politely refuse if anyone suggests changing it. When pressed, they tell you that their recipie is unchanged from the very first one, handed down by the greatest BBQ master of them all.
Of course, most people would scoff at such a claim. "That can't be true. You're getting a bit conceited about your own tradition. There's no way that you have the original BBQ recipie."
Then, one day, a historian runs across an ancient document (say, 1000 years old) which mentions barbecue and lists a recipie. When compared with the one being used by that one group of chefs, it is found to be a match. All of the key ingredients are there, done in the same order, in the same amounts. Other barbecue recipies may be similar, but no others have the same integrity.
If such a situation were to happen, the claims of that group of chefs would be greatly bolstered. Their statement doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore.
This is similar to what one finds when reading through the Didache. It supports Catholic tradition and practices. It is nearly free from the claims of corruption, because it was considered lost for a great deal of history. Christians who dislike the Catholic Church are stuck too, because it predates the Nicene creed and the accepted doctrines of the Trinity. It may even be older than some of the New Testament. It is widely known and accepted by the early fathers of the Church, which throws out claims that it is a heretical work. In short, the existence of this document lends credibility to the Church's statement that its teaching remains unchanged (indeed, unchangeable) from the very earliest days of Christianity.
On a broader level, it gives another area of consideration. If one can see and acknowledge that the Didache lends credibility to the Church's claim that she has the original teachings of the Apostles, why should she not be trusted when making other claims?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Six Words
Had two different blogs mention the Six Word Memoirs project today, so I had to have a go at it:
"Have mercy on me, a sinner"
I can think of lots more. Perhaps some for the comments, or some other time.
"Have mercy on me, a sinner"
I can think of lots more. Perhaps some for the comments, or some other time.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What is Truth
I've been having a thought lately, spurred on mostly by C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. In the very first letter, and in many of the subsequent ones, Screwtape tells Wormwood that it never occurs to humans (at least, present-day humans) to ask if something is true. They (we) ask whether it fits with the style of thought that we are used to, what progressed up to the idea in question and how it fits with our current lifestyle. In fact, you seldom hear anyone nowadays ask if the fresh piece of gossip is true, or if the most recent scientific findings are true, or if the latest historical publication is true. The main reason we don't question these things is because society requires a high degree of trust in order to operate. We must trust one another if we are to live together. At some point, we begin to take it for granted that people are telling the truth. At this point, lies quietly slip in and become difficult to kill.
The idea struck a chord with me and so I decided to try an experiment. Whenever prodded with a situation that called for my thoughts on this topic or that, the first question I would ask (if sensible) would be: "Is it true?" Please note that this question proves very ineffective for questions relating to taste, or personal opinions. It is meant for matters that turn on a moral question, or those that require one to search outside of one's self for the answer.
In a discussion with a friend, the comment was made that a mutual Catholic friend of ours was contemplating sending his son for first communion classes. This had raised something of a scandal with the "old church ladies" (a.k.a. a lot of gossip), because our mutual friend had not formally had a first communion himself. My friend said that if he encountered this behavior in his congregation, he would immediately leave and find a different one. It bothered me a bit that he was willing to change congregations so quickly, especially because he is a member of a non-denominational church. Leaving that congregation would essentially mean leaving a micro-denomination and moving to another one. It was even more troublesome that he thought that someone could and should abandon the Catholic Church in a similar manner.
This led to the big question: Is the Church true? Or, put another way, Are the Teachings of the Church true?
Thinking it over, there are only a handful of answers to this. 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) I don't know; 4) What is truth? Interestingly, it also sets up quite the stage for the questions that follow.
1. Yes, the teachings of the Church are true. - This leaves two options: to follow them or not. The first seems almost obvious; once one recognizes that the teachings of the Church are true, it seems only logical that one should follow them. However, there are still those that will choose, for whatever reason, not to follow them. Those in the latter group are the most pitiable of all people. They have seen and recognized the light, but have chosen the darkness.
2. No, the teachings of the Church are not true - This immediately begs the question, if the Church does not teach truth, why do so many people keep taking her teachings as their own? Or why when studies are done on human behavior, they conclude that humans should act in the same manner that the Church prescribes? The Church is not opposed to rational thought. In fact, informed Catholics will tell you that oftentimes that rational thought applied to the facts lead back to the Church, not away from it.
3. I don't know if the teachings of the Church are true - An honest answer, but more of a stage of development. One realizes that it is only a step on the path to one conclusion or the other. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the professor that you do not know the answer the first time you are asked. However, if you are asked again at a later date, and continue to give this answer, you will fail your class. If the current answer is that you do not know, then the real question is whether you are you willing to find out? If one answers that they are willing to learn and test the teachings of the Church for themselves, wonderful. Such studies will soon place them into one of the preceding categories. If one refuses even to learn what the teachings of the Church are, that means they have preconcluded option 2 and will resist any attempts to sway them from that position.
4. What is truth? - Put another way, this is stating that there is no absolute truth. It is a denial that there is a right and wrong. No individual that is honest with themselves can accept this position for long. It is an easily contestable point, which C.S. Lewis and other philosophers and theologians have answered already; I will not repeat those points here, but I refer one that would take this stance back to option 3.
These are only my beginning thoughts on the subject. If I have missed something, or am off the mark, then I am open for correction.
The idea struck a chord with me and so I decided to try an experiment. Whenever prodded with a situation that called for my thoughts on this topic or that, the first question I would ask (if sensible) would be: "Is it true?" Please note that this question proves very ineffective for questions relating to taste, or personal opinions. It is meant for matters that turn on a moral question, or those that require one to search outside of one's self for the answer.
In a discussion with a friend, the comment was made that a mutual Catholic friend of ours was contemplating sending his son for first communion classes. This had raised something of a scandal with the "old church ladies" (a.k.a. a lot of gossip), because our mutual friend had not formally had a first communion himself. My friend said that if he encountered this behavior in his congregation, he would immediately leave and find a different one. It bothered me a bit that he was willing to change congregations so quickly, especially because he is a member of a non-denominational church. Leaving that congregation would essentially mean leaving a micro-denomination and moving to another one. It was even more troublesome that he thought that someone could and should abandon the Catholic Church in a similar manner.
This led to the big question: Is the Church true? Or, put another way, Are the Teachings of the Church true?
Thinking it over, there are only a handful of answers to this. 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) I don't know; 4) What is truth? Interestingly, it also sets up quite the stage for the questions that follow.
1. Yes, the teachings of the Church are true. - This leaves two options: to follow them or not. The first seems almost obvious; once one recognizes that the teachings of the Church are true, it seems only logical that one should follow them. However, there are still those that will choose, for whatever reason, not to follow them. Those in the latter group are the most pitiable of all people. They have seen and recognized the light, but have chosen the darkness.
2. No, the teachings of the Church are not true - This immediately begs the question, if the Church does not teach truth, why do so many people keep taking her teachings as their own? Or why when studies are done on human behavior, they conclude that humans should act in the same manner that the Church prescribes? The Church is not opposed to rational thought. In fact, informed Catholics will tell you that oftentimes that rational thought applied to the facts lead back to the Church, not away from it.
3. I don't know if the teachings of the Church are true - An honest answer, but more of a stage of development. One realizes that it is only a step on the path to one conclusion or the other. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the professor that you do not know the answer the first time you are asked. However, if you are asked again at a later date, and continue to give this answer, you will fail your class. If the current answer is that you do not know, then the real question is whether you are you willing to find out? If one answers that they are willing to learn and test the teachings of the Church for themselves, wonderful. Such studies will soon place them into one of the preceding categories. If one refuses even to learn what the teachings of the Church are, that means they have preconcluded option 2 and will resist any attempts to sway them from that position.
4. What is truth? - Put another way, this is stating that there is no absolute truth. It is a denial that there is a right and wrong. No individual that is honest with themselves can accept this position for long. It is an easily contestable point, which C.S. Lewis and other philosophers and theologians have answered already; I will not repeat those points here, but I refer one that would take this stance back to option 3.
These are only my beginning thoughts on the subject. If I have missed something, or am off the mark, then I am open for correction.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Caving In
I just ran across this while reading some new blogs.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
It makes me sad that we have come to an age where people don't seem to recognize the importance of anything anymore. Catholic universities are willing to set aside ancient teachings to join the popular crowd, or hide the name of Christ so-as not to accidentally offend someone who does not believe in Him.
America has its founding in the idea that all men are created equal. That does not mean that all ideas are created equal, nor all lifestyles moral. We are free to practice any religion we choose; we are not guaranteed a life free from religion, nor a right to never be offended. If you want to know how rare our actual rights are, take a walk through history, or areas of the world not dominated by Western thought. If you think you are being oppressed by religions in this country, take a look at what happened to Catholics in England after Henry VIII, or to Christians attempting to practice their faith in Egypt or Saudi Arabia today.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
It makes me sad that we have come to an age where people don't seem to recognize the importance of anything anymore. Catholic universities are willing to set aside ancient teachings to join the popular crowd, or hide the name of Christ so-as not to accidentally offend someone who does not believe in Him.
America has its founding in the idea that all men are created equal. That does not mean that all ideas are created equal, nor all lifestyles moral. We are free to practice any religion we choose; we are not guaranteed a life free from religion, nor a right to never be offended. If you want to know how rare our actual rights are, take a walk through history, or areas of the world not dominated by Western thought. If you think you are being oppressed by religions in this country, take a look at what happened to Catholics in England after Henry VIII, or to Christians attempting to practice their faith in Egypt or Saudi Arabia today.
If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:15
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Why Notre Dame is Important
There has been a lot of angry sentiments lately over the invitation of President Obama to speak at Notre Dame's commencement and receive an honorary doctorate. Pro-life individuals are upset because President Obama stands in direct and unapologetic opposition to Church teaching. Pro-choice people are upset because they can't understand what the big deal is and think that it is just to attack the president. If I may, I would like to offer a thought to those who feel that President Obama should be allowed to speak at commencement.
Imagine, if you will, that a local chapter of PETA is having their yearly banquet. It will be a time to recognize the work that has been accomplished recently and get excited about what is on the horizon. The banquet will have a keynote speaker and dedicate about one-third of their time to that speaker. The speaker is chosen purely at the discrestion of the chair of the banquet committee.
As the banquet nears, the keynote speaker is announced. It is a famous businessman, who is very popular and influential in the local area. His charismatic ways will get everyone excited and ready to do their best for next year. However, it is also well-known that he owns several food plants in the state, keeping animals in small pens and butchering them.
Naturally, several members of the PETA chapter, as well as some in the wider world of PETA, are upset about the choice of keynote speaker. They send notices to the committe chair that they don't like the selection because his views conflict with their own. The committee chair is unapologetic. He is very proud to have such a distinguished individual at their banquet and refuses to find someone else. Besides, this will be the perfect chance to show people that PETA is willing to have a dialog with people of differing viewpoints. He does not mention that no one else will be allowed to speak while the businessman is present.
Undeterred, the upset members put together a petition to show the committe chair that a lot of other people are angry about the selection too. Members of the national board voice their opinion too, but stop short of throwing out an otherwise very useful PETA organizer. Other people get angry at the first group because they think that it is an attempt to smear the popular businessman, who is even now saying that he wants more ethical treatment of animals. He hasn't done anything to change his operation, of course.
Now, back to the point. If this dispute seems ridiculous, that is only because of the double-standard with which we have learned to ignore. It is okay for people to demand that their view is respected. It is laudable to state your opinion clearly and often, even to the extent that someone is embarrassed or loses their job. That is, unless, your view is somehow connected to your faith. Then, you are marginalized and demonized for being "close-minded."
A few thoughts on acceptable behavior:
Imagine, if you will, that a local chapter of PETA is having their yearly banquet. It will be a time to recognize the work that has been accomplished recently and get excited about what is on the horizon. The banquet will have a keynote speaker and dedicate about one-third of their time to that speaker. The speaker is chosen purely at the discrestion of the chair of the banquet committee.
As the banquet nears, the keynote speaker is announced. It is a famous businessman, who is very popular and influential in the local area. His charismatic ways will get everyone excited and ready to do their best for next year. However, it is also well-known that he owns several food plants in the state, keeping animals in small pens and butchering them.
Naturally, several members of the PETA chapter, as well as some in the wider world of PETA, are upset about the choice of keynote speaker. They send notices to the committe chair that they don't like the selection because his views conflict with their own. The committee chair is unapologetic. He is very proud to have such a distinguished individual at their banquet and refuses to find someone else. Besides, this will be the perfect chance to show people that PETA is willing to have a dialog with people of differing viewpoints. He does not mention that no one else will be allowed to speak while the businessman is present.
Undeterred, the upset members put together a petition to show the committe chair that a lot of other people are angry about the selection too. Members of the national board voice their opinion too, but stop short of throwing out an otherwise very useful PETA organizer. Other people get angry at the first group because they think that it is an attempt to smear the popular businessman, who is even now saying that he wants more ethical treatment of animals. He hasn't done anything to change his operation, of course.
Now, back to the point. If this dispute seems ridiculous, that is only because of the double-standard with which we have learned to ignore. It is okay for people to demand that their view is respected. It is laudable to state your opinion clearly and often, even to the extent that someone is embarrassed or loses their job. That is, unless, your view is somehow connected to your faith. Then, you are marginalized and demonized for being "close-minded."
A few thoughts on acceptable behavior:
- It is perfectly acceptable for an individual, or group, to express their dissatisfaction on any subject, provided they remain respectful.
- It is perfectly acceptable to state that someone should not be given a platform to speak at an organization that has differences with that individual.
- It is acceptable to declare that you are distancing yourself from an organization that is unable to determine whether it is more important to be popular or steadfast.
- It is acceptable to boycott the event to demonstrate your displeasure.
- It is NOT acceptable to stage demonstrations at the event itself. The person might stand against you in everything, but they are still due respect.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Get With the Times
I've been hearing a lot of commentary lately from the media and public forums about the standings of the Church. Newsweek ran a few articles in the past month proclaiming the fall of Christianity, others profess loudly that the Church is outdated, or that it needs to adjust to our modern age.
Frankly, I'm tired of it. It would seem that many people do not understand the basis of religion. The purpose of a religion is to hold people to a standard and to remind them that there are things that do not bend to their likes or dislikes of the moment.
From the way that I hear arguments on the subject today, people believe that they are the first generation in history to recognize the teachings of the Church as difficult to live out in our lives. They somehow have gotten it into their heads that the purpose of religion is to make them feel good, or to entertain them and reassure them that they are good people. Let's be perfectly clear: Christianity has always been a difficult path to walk. This was true in the first century, the middle ages, the renaissance and we should expect nothing different today. There are very, very few who do exceptionally well in it; we call them saints.
Many arguments, if you push them further, lead to the statement that they don't like the Church telling them that they can't do, or forces them to do some action or another. Again, let's be perfectly clear and honest on the subject. The Church does not, and cannot, force you or restrict you from doing something. When was the last time a member of the clergy broke into your house and threatened you for committing a mortal sin? Any sin? What rights of yours were stripped away? Were you imprisoned?
At this point, I'm guessing people will say that they're told they're going to hell, or that they couldn't receive a sacrament until they'd been to confession and repented of their sin. Yes, you might have been told that you're going to hell if you don't repent. Please understand, it brings the Church no joy to tell you this. A true Christian wants you to get to heaven as much as they want to get themselves there. We are not graded on a curve, or against one another, but against the measure of right and wrong. By reminding you of your sin, the Christian hopes that you will repent of it and be saved.
Our generation needs to remember that something does not cease to be a sin simply because the majority of people cease to believe it is one. Our Church is not a democracy; the trends of the day should not sway teachings that are to be the very declaration of truth. We should also recall that the Church does not have the authority to reverse the moral law. God does not take a vote when He declares His law and, once declared, it is not open for debate.
Frankly, I'm tired of it. It would seem that many people do not understand the basis of religion. The purpose of a religion is to hold people to a standard and to remind them that there are things that do not bend to their likes or dislikes of the moment.
From the way that I hear arguments on the subject today, people believe that they are the first generation in history to recognize the teachings of the Church as difficult to live out in our lives. They somehow have gotten it into their heads that the purpose of religion is to make them feel good, or to entertain them and reassure them that they are good people. Let's be perfectly clear: Christianity has always been a difficult path to walk. This was true in the first century, the middle ages, the renaissance and we should expect nothing different today. There are very, very few who do exceptionally well in it; we call them saints.
Many arguments, if you push them further, lead to the statement that they don't like the Church telling them that they can't do, or forces them to do some action or another. Again, let's be perfectly clear and honest on the subject. The Church does not, and cannot, force you or restrict you from doing something. When was the last time a member of the clergy broke into your house and threatened you for committing a mortal sin? Any sin? What rights of yours were stripped away? Were you imprisoned?
At this point, I'm guessing people will say that they're told they're going to hell, or that they couldn't receive a sacrament until they'd been to confession and repented of their sin. Yes, you might have been told that you're going to hell if you don't repent. Please understand, it brings the Church no joy to tell you this. A true Christian wants you to get to heaven as much as they want to get themselves there. We are not graded on a curve, or against one another, but against the measure of right and wrong. By reminding you of your sin, the Christian hopes that you will repent of it and be saved.
Our generation needs to remember that something does not cease to be a sin simply because the majority of people cease to believe it is one. Our Church is not a democracy; the trends of the day should not sway teachings that are to be the very declaration of truth. We should also recall that the Church does not have the authority to reverse the moral law. God does not take a vote when He declares His law and, once declared, it is not open for debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)