Posted on 09/06/2009 3:50:15 PM PDT by NYer
And in a big way. A lot of you have seen the great ads produced by a group called Catholics Come Home. The ads, evidently, are working. And spreading.
From the Los Angeles Times:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento is home to nearly 1 million Catholics. On a typical Sunday, less than 137,000 can be found in church.Curious to see what all the fuss is about? Check out the videos below. And you can find more at the Catholics Come Home link.
Now, using a strategy straight from the secular playbook, its leaders hope to lure back those who have drifted.
The diocese and nearly a dozen others across the country are preparing to air several thousand prime-time TV commercials in English and Spanish, inviting inactive Catholics to return to their religious roots.
In addition to Sacramento, dioceses in Chicago, Omaha, Providence, R.I., and four other cities will launch the “Catholics Come Home” advertising blitz during Advent, the period before Christmas.
Four more dioceses will follow during Lent next spring. Los Angeles is not among the initial group but could be part of a nationwide campaign slated for December 2010.
"I'm hoping that a significant number of people will give us another look," Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto said of the campaign. "Many Catholics have a sense of believing but not always a sense of belonging."
The potential audience is huge.
Only about one-quarter of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass every week, and a majority go to religious services a few times a year or less, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, which conducts social science research about the Catholic church.
Researchers there also found that two-thirds of Catholics believe they can be good members of their faith without attending Mass regularly.
Inactive Catholics cite a number of reasons for their absence. Many do not believe that missing Mass is a sin, the center reported. Others say they are too busy with family or work, or, as other analysts point out, are more interested in material happiness than spiritual fulfillment.
"There is a strange pattern of people who aren't practicing but still have beliefs and pick up parts of the faith," said Mark Gray, a research associate with the center. "They may give up meat on Fridays during Lent or attend Ash Wednesday services."
Evolution is not inconsistent with Gods way, a Catholic teaching.Genesis primarily teaches us about our relationship with God its not a history reference text.
I reject the ‘Fundamentalist’ viewpoint of treating it as such. __
Science as a method is not in opposition to Gods teachings
and I also believe that philosophy and logic were given to us to help us understand Gods truth. Science similarly was given to us by God and helps us understand our surroundings.
Further I have never fallen for alot of the Creationist Hokem
where by any and all lesser competing ideas concerning the age of the earth are thrown against the wall and given high relevance because they conform more sincerely to a ‘Fundamentalist’ view on the bible.
***My, my, my. You “prove” that you aren’t a hypocrite by poking fun at the miracle of the sun in the Book of Joshua? That’s a winner. [sarcasm]***
Poking fun? You call me a hypocrite and when I point out that Joshua had the sun stand still and that that day was longer than 24 hours, you come up with this? The point is that the days were longer as we go back in time. Instead of posting sneers, how about actually considering the contents of the post?
***I sure hope you don’t believe in the “miracle of the sun” at Fatima. That would just be more hypocrisy!***
Boy, you are on your game today. Not only am I a hypocrite, I am just lining up hypocrisy by the barrowful.
No, it is not about sola scriptura at all. Neither one of us believes in sola scriptura. It is about total Biblical inerrancy. I find it difficult to believe you don't really understand this. Perhaps you're simply fudging the issue?
Why quote scripture to "prove" anything if scripture doesn't mean what it says? If Genesis is merely a parable, maybe the gospels and epistles are nothing but parables as well. Capiche?
You didn't explain why a Divinely inspired book can't be totally inerrant because it isn't a "history or science textbook." Please do.
Thank you for your honesty in answering the question. Once again, to become Catholic, one must drop Genesis at the church door.
I hope you don't believe other "unscientific" nonsense like transubstantiation, the virgin birth, or the resurrection of the dead?
Pardon me, but how was I to know this? You have plainly rejected the words of the Bible in Genesis, so I assumed you were ridiculing the idea that the sun and moon actually stood still. How was I to know you arbitrarily decided to concede that G-d told the truth in the latter case but not the former?
If you believe in so many supernatural phenomena, then what is it about the first eleven chapters of Genesis that so frighten or offend you?
“You people deserve the J*sus Seminar and that guy who pierced a consecrated host with a nail.”
Keep up this line of argument, it really helps make your point. I’m sure many will seriously consider what you have to say even more after they read such gems.
Freegards
“You people deserve the J*sus Seminar and that guy who pierced a consecrated host with a nail.”
Keep up this line of argument, it really helps make your point. I’m sure many will seriously consider what you have to say even more after they read such gems.
It's 100% true. That fellow (I don't remember his name) was quite aware that Catholics reject the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation. He was merely illustrating the hypocrisy of not similarly de-literalizing the "words of consecration." Why accept one and not the other?
***Poking fun? You call me a hypocrite and when I point out that Joshua had the sun stand still and that that day was longer than 24 hours
Pardon me, but how was I to know this?***
Because you and I have spoken before. Because I outlined the process of the earth speeding up its rotation over time.
***You have plainly rejected the words of the Bible in Genesis,***
I do not reject the theology of Genesis and it should have been plain in our past dealings.
***How was I to know you arbitrarily decided to concede that G-d told the truth in the latter case but not the former?***
I have never said that God does not tell the truth. I merely stated that the days were longer all those years ago. How long? Can you speculate or say with any surety?
*** If you believe in so many supernatural phenomena, then what is it about the first eleven chapters of Genesis that so frighten or offend you?***
It is the misinterpretation of various sections of the Bible that is dangerous, not the actual content. Misinterpreting Genesis is no less dangerous than misinterpreting Paul.
Sir , I find your behavior in this forum a quest for your
own self-importance through a devils advocacy stance...at best. Its real easy to play the game of devils advocate.
If you really consider yourself talented and smart I suggest
getting your antsy arse into a post-graduate degree program in something that really interests you. All of us people here
shouldnt be your silly project.
All I can say is............PRAISE GOD!!!
Our Blessed Lord is building up His church for the big battle ahead.
"Theology of Genesis" translates as "the spiritual lesson those fairy tales are actually teaching."
I wonder what the fairy tales about J*sus' being born of a virgin and rising from the dead are actually teaching? You surely don't claim that some miracles are more unlikely than others, do you?
Yep, I'm sure G-d has a special place prepared in that "hell" of yours for those awful people who believe He actually created the Heavens and Earth in six days. After all, they scandalized all those scientists and intellectuals whose souls are so much more precious to G-d than those of simple people!
We don’t believe up to your standards so what happened was deserved, eh? That’s pretty sick.
Freegards
Hey, I'm a simple redneck. You're the one who abandoned the simple, literal interpretation of the text in order to be an intellectual.
Pot, meet kettle.
No. You weren't (and aren't) rationally, logically, internally consistent. I'm sure the man was surprised that people who are so scientific on Genesis suddenly morph into "simple believers" when it comes to the sixth chapter of John. I don't understand it, either.
***I do not reject the theology of Genesis and it should have been plain in our past dealings.
“Theology of Genesis” translates as “the spiritual lesson those fairy tales are actually teaching.” ***
Translates to whom? Not to me.
I’ll give you the example of the figure skater who when she tucks her arms in spins at a much faster rate.
The primordial earth was much larger than it currently is. When it did come together (let’s assume that the orbit was stable and consistent), then it may have taken a billion years to revolve once (the first day). As it started to contract (remember the figure skater), the speed of rotation increased. The second day may have been 500 million years. The third 250 million years and so on. No violation of Genesis. Have you a reply regarding the length of each day?
***Yep, I’m sure G-d has a special place prepared in that “hell” of yours for those awful people who believe He actually created the Heavens and Earth in six days. ***
Define the length of each of those first six days.
Right, I’m sure he was shocked there was any outrage at all, considering what Catholics believe or not about Genesis. And I’m sure he would have never have done it at all if only Catholics believed a certain way about the old Testament.
You said Catholics deserved having this guy do this. Even if you disagree with Catholics, you really think we deserved him doing that? That is just sick.
Freegards
har, har
now go away.
There is way too many people of little intellectual heft and immaturity on these forums. People who are too pleased with the sounding and reading of their own voice that they comment on 10-40 things a day. I try from time to time.
BUt I am always impressed with the temporality of these comments such that they are not much worth the composition and editing time I put into them. What was written last week is no longer easily available for anyones edification or through a google search. But it looks like I’ll be abstaining for awhile now. Its a repeating abstaining pattern for me. Good Luck Sir!
So what? Really?
Let's review.
Markbsnr said evolution is scientific fact and presented as evidence the plant experiment. You replied:
So you're saying that the fact that people got plants to evolve in a lab is scientific proof that everything in the universe evolved without any Divine "interference?"Believing in evolution does not mean everything in the universe evolved without any Divine "interference?"
Your question assumed a false dichotomy and I pointed it out. That's what.
Since you are such a fan of "science," I hope you reject transubstantiation, resurrection of the dead, the virgin birth and other such unscientific fairy tales.
Why? There's no inherent contradiction between science and any of those things, evolution included.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.