www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pledge of Allegiance

Anne,

Thank you for posting.

Threads sometimes wander and most of the time that�s OK.

When incorrect information is posted it must be corrected. No one was judging another and you are correct that we are all guilty of individual sin.

We must, however, be very careful. It is wrong to accuse someone else unfairly. It is equally wrong to allow someone living a sinful lifestyle to continue living that lifestyle without calling that individual to repent of his or her sin, change his or her behavior, and follow Christ.

One of the major shortcomings of Christians in the modern era is that they feel that only those who are sinless can justly calling others out of sin. This, of course, is not possible because there is only One who is sinless. The rest of us are sinners.

We need to understand the difference between calling people out of sin and condemning them for their sins. We condemn no one � individuals choose heaven or hell for themselves. When, however, we see someone on the wrong path true Christian love requires that we call him or her to account, urge them to reform their lives, repent of their sins, and follow Christ.

It is hypocritical to condemn another when we sin ourselves and make no effort to repent. It is not hypocritical to call another to change their ways and follow Christ if we ourselves are also repenting of our own personal sin and dedicating our lives to Him. We have a Christian responsibility to call the entire world to repent and follow Christ. We can do this without condemning a single individual.

Admin

Dear All,

This is a most interesting discussion. Sounds like one a while ago that talked about legitimate discrimination. Many of the issues are the same.

I wonder if a slightly different definition of terms might make the issues clearer and easier to discuss. The distinctions are not mine, but come from the study of a course of philosophy more years ago than I care to remember. As I recall the distinctions that I learned:

Moral Behavior:

Moral behavior is that which is in accord with rules that reflect the judgement of God about what is good and evil. It reflects the law of God as revealed by Him. We believe that the Ten Commandments are such as set of laws. Acting in ways that are contrary result in sinful behavior and that creates the need for penance and forgiveness by God and, we believe, His Church.

Ethical Behavior:

Ethical behavior is that which follows the rules derived from the judgement of human reason about what is good or evil. Some claim that ethical behavior grows from the Natural Law which is read from the human heart by human reason. Some others people posit that there is a kind of Imperative in humans that helps them clarify what is right or wrong. Still others say that ethical behavior is that which causes the least evil and the most good as they define it. As I recall, communists state that that which helps the revolution that will create a utopian world to come is good and that which hinders it is evil.

Parties and associations, e.g. the bar association or the communist party, enforce ethical behavior among their members. Sometimes religious groups accept an approach to determining ethical behavior that most closely reflects or explains the moral behavior that they are charged to teach.

Legal Behavior:

Legal behavior is that which is allowed by the law made by human lawmakers. It is created by the agreement of people to observe what the lawmakers create as law. The breaking of the law results in illegal behavior and can result in civil penalties.

Some Thoughts:

Societies determine thelegality or illegality of behavior using different methods and taking principles from different sources.

Some orgainize their laws by accepting the moral teaching of the religions of their members on the basis that God has said that such should be so. There is no difference between civil and religious law. Islamic countries may be an example of this.

Some societies, like ours, try to take the consensus of the citizens who live in the society to make laws.

The law makes behaviors legal or illegal because some citizens have been sufficiently diligent and have convinced those who do not share their religious background that what they know to be good is good in the civil arena also. In some countires behavior may be legal or illegal because some citizens have been sufficiently diligent to convince those who do not share their belief in a philosophy, such as communism, that what they know to be good is good in the civil arena also.

We have beliefs and because of them we behave in ways that we do. We have a duty to try to see that good behavior is the norm. We have the right to believe and to assert that our religion teaches that this is good and that it should be the law.

It seems to me that as citizens in this society, though, we have agreed to accept the determination of our lawmakers as to what is legal and not legal. We do not have to agree and can work to change that. That is the nature of our secular civil society.

Saying that should not open anyone to accusations of moral relativism, in my opinion.

The distinctions have been helpful to me though some don't agree with them. I hope that they are useful in the discussion at hand.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

(Don't have time to edit right now, so please excuse any errors.)

Again, that is a very subjective judgement and can lead a smug person (speaking generally) who probably does believe they are repenting to condemn and interfere with another individual in a reckless way. We can pray and lead the person through example, but it is really for a spiritual Father to presume to proscribe a correction and not even the most well-intentioned layman can do this adequately.

Peace,
Brian

"Grant me the Grace to see my own sins and not to judge my brother, for Thou art Holy now and Ever and unto Ages of Ages, Amen"

Dear Brian,

Yes, but here I think the Administrator isn't being subjective, but is referring to the standard of the Gospel.

What can we do but understand it in the light of our own reason, and the teaching of the Church?

And the Administrator does have a role here that is very much akin to that of a Father Confessor in that he must weigh views from the Christian perspective.

I myself tend to back down from my views when faced with angry posters .

But the Administrator's job here is to maintain consistency within the context of the morality as expounded by the Church.

We both have had occasion to disagree with him.

But the fact that our call on what is right or wrong may be unpopular or even criticized doesn't mean we can abandon our responsibility to make those calls - fairly and in light of the teaching of Christ.

If we could be always sure of our grounds in making such calls - all would be well.

And we two would belong to the same Church!

Alex

But somebody here seems to know for a fact that said poster is committing that particular "sin."

Furthermore, I wonder if there is such a thing as a "contraceptive lifestyle" in that contraception would color or guide just about everything that such a sinner does. So it is with the "lifestyle" that you are speaking of here. When (insert poster's name here) takes the dog for a walk, is that person participating in that sinful "lifestyle"? How about when paying bills, or going grocery shopping? In this case there is no "lifestyle"; there are individual acts of sin (perhaps).

Suppose a poster indicates that he/she does not give assent to Humanae Vitae and has been married for 20 years and has only one child. I think you would have to assume that this person (and probably his/her spouse) is living the "contraceptive lifestyle" and you should make it your Christian duty to not allow them to continue living that lifestyle without calling that individual to repent of his or her sin, change his or her behavior, and follow Christ.

Unless we are perfect, spotless, then we ALL live "a sinful lifestyle."

Well put, Lemko. It would be very dangerous for someone who is not in the condition of a Confessor or Spiritual Father to an individual to make that leap of "calling to repentance" It just leads the person doing it as well as the person who is the object of a such a "call" into too many dangers.

Peace,
Brian

Brian,

Quite true. This is why I constantly tell everyone to consult a confessor or spiritual director. Prayer must always be part of every action.

I think that you may be missing my point and I apologize because I have expressed it poorly. If, as Christians, we see someone on the wrong path we can�t just leave them on that path thinking that we don�t have the right to say anything to them because we are sinners ourselves. To do this is a cop out. Falling for the claim that to speak at all is to judge is also a cop out and a misunderstanding of the Gospel.

If we see someone stealing we are to tell him or her that stealing is wrong call this person to refrain from a sinful action and reform his or her life. This applies to both the purse-snatcher and the corporate executive.

If we see someone involving himself or herself in the drug culture and taking drugs we are to approach them and call them out of that lifestyle, getting them proper care so that they can life a drug-free life. Hopefully that individual will not choose to reject the help.

If we see someone who is living an immoral lifestyle, be it one of greed, sex (any heterosexual or homosexual activity outside of marriage), or any type of lifestyle contrary to Christian expectations we are to witness to him or her the teachings of Christ and urge this person to repent and reform.

As you pointed out, how we go about this is extremely important. We cannot very well go around knocking on doors, asking questions and then issuing ultimatums. I have never suggested such a course of action. We cannot, however, remain silent when the opportunity to witness Christ�s Commandments presents itself. In internet communities such as this we can only respond to the positions people post. We cannot judge individuals but we cannot allow individuals to publicly condone sin or promote respect for sinful lifestyles. Not saying anything is tacit approval of sin is something that a Christian just cannot do.

It should also be noted that there is a huge difference in the way one speaks to individuals and the way one speaks in the society at large about issues. In the latter case the Christian must always speak the Christian ideal and must never condone societal acceptance of sinful lifestyles. We must always work with the Church as the Church but we must not shirk our Christian responsibilities to call all people to Christ.

To call a man to account and help him reform is an act of kindness.

Admin

I have seen no accusations against specific individuals. If you have knowledge of accusations made please report them immediately.

I have not studied the effects of such a �contraceptive lifestyle� but I believe that some theologians have explored how the mentality of being not open to the creation of new life affects other facets of life. Some have spoken that that tolerance of abortion leads to a lessening of a respect for life in general and that such a lessening of respect for life leads to child abuse and other forms of disrespect for life but I have not researched this enough to speak other than to say that we should keep as close to the Church as possible.

No. Your logic is faulty. Someone who rejects Humanae Vitae should not automatically be accused of living the �contraceptive lifestyle� no more than someone who pushes for the decriminalization of drugs should be accused of being a druggie, someone pushing for homosexual �rights� should not automatically be accused of being a sexually active homosexual. Those who reject Humanae Vitae and enter into a public forum to present their position should be expected to be responded to in an appropriate way. Furthermore, even if one chose to argue that those who reject Humanae Vitae have a contraceptive mentality it is not logical to accuse them of living the contraceptive lifestyle. One can point out the errors of their argument and position without accusing them of specific sin. To claim that one cannot discuss such topics because an accusation is implicit is simply wrong.

Since there is only One Who is Sinless it naturally follows that we all live a lifestyle steeped in sinfulness and sin. Our individual sinfulness does not negate our responsibility to reach out to others according to the command of Christ.

Dear Friends,

Rep. Kucinich seems to have made the same transition as Rep. Gephardt and Sen. Lieberman before him. Touted as pro-life, maybe supporting a few bills to limit abortions, but when national ambition calls, unwilling to buck the lobbying groups that run the national Democratic Party. His web statement seems to be standard Democrat boilerplate. "We don't like abortions, but who are we to lead the country to higher standards?"

Not odd at all, he is hardly known nationally and has said little so far. But I do not expect him to call for a Democratic plank that proposes, for example, ending third trimester abortions.

As for his positions on other issues, I shall be watching and listening. But I will retain some skepticism.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Very nice. And returning to the original topic, one might also discern that those who argue against certain aspects of church-state interactions are not, ipso facto, aiming for the removal God from public discourse, or working incrementally down that slippery slope.

djs

PS Theophilus, I sent a private message. I will respond to your probing post when time permits.

True. But many have stated that this is their objective. Groups like PFAW and the ACLU are just two. I respect that you believe that these groups are not dedicated to the removal of all references to God in public society but I submit that they are indeed succeeding bit by bit to remove God from our society and the moral foundation of our country. Write and get their position papers (the stuff they put on the web is carefully crafted to make it appear that they are somehow champions of our civil rights).

In a related note I had talk show on earlier tonight and was listening to a radio talk show host go on at length on how President Bush was wrong for using the term �evil� to describe Saddam Hussein. She argued that the use of �evil� carried religious connotations and such terms should not be used in public discourse because its use meant that government was violating the separation of church and state by imposing a religious understanding of good vs. evil.

OK, but you did not answer this question in that same paragraph:

When (insert poster's name here) takes the dog for a walk, is that person participating in that sinful "lifestyle"? How about when paying bills, or going grocery shopping?

Maybe. Maybe not. The dog and the walk have nothing to do with it. If a man or women is a corporate executive who is living a lifestyle that is knowingly and purposefully fleecing his or her company in an ongoing way (think Enron here) then he or she is living a sinful lifestyle even while walking the dog (but it�s certainly not the dog�s fault).

The same applies to paying bills and grocery shopping.

Dear Forum:

It seems the fledgling European Union is in a very similar quandary.

A civilization particularly influenced by Christian values (and being the progenitor of much of the New world), EU's non-recognition of its roots could be a death knell to Christian ascendancy in that region in the years to come.

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=34405

AmdG

I see your point and don't disagree with it, but I'd have to put my own refinement on it. And I may say this badly (I've been working too hard this week, and I'm tired)...but here goes....

I feel it is the role of the people in the church community - to help each other stay strong as we try to choose right from wrong on a daily basis. Certain so-called "life choices" are sinful choices. I don't argue that. I just don't find it helpful to point out another's particular sins. (I've still got that doggone "plank" in my own eye.)

The role of the individual member of the community, I feel, is really to help his brothers and sisters in community while realizing that he, himself, needs that community support in return. I have no idea how my sins stack up against anyone else's on the ledger, nor is it constructive (or healthy) for me to try to do that type of calculation. Better that I try to choose not to sin and to try to help others choose not to sin, be it through example or by sending them to a priest for help when they really seem to be foundering. It is also the role of the member of the community to be forgiving - so as to be forgiven.

The confessor/priest is the one who can provide the sacramental forgiveness. He is also there to help with the discernment (I'm using the word in the vernacular, b/c I can't think of a better one for "sorting out") of sin and personal repentance and forgiveness and to really provide guidance and healing to the individual. Like a physician to the spirit. In the true imitation of Christ.

I probably said this badly, but that was really my point! :-)