Catholics are coming home

Deacon's Bench ^ | September 6, 2009 | DEACON GREG KANDRA

[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.

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."

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.

[Rutles4Ever]

Reading further, we get, “29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary...”

She was troubled at the saying, not the angel. Come on, Mr. Rogers, this is basic reading comprehension we're talking about. Next?

As for Zechariah, he asks for proof - a sign - and he gets it. “18 And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.”

Mary doesn't need proof. She's full of grace.

Mary doesn’t ask for a sign.

Read Isaiah. She IS the sign.

[Rutles4Ever]

How do “faith and morals” in this statement refer to the personal dimension of the individual? Faith and morals have always fallen under the office of the pope, not the individual in that office. Just like the office of President carries specific powers, regardless of the character of the person in the Oval Office.

Once again, I’ll ask it - and I’m sure you won’t answer it -why did Jesus pick Peter to guide his flock, if the requirement is personal perfection?

[Rutles4Ever]

Exactly. It is a first hand account by G-d Himself. As a matter of fact, the Torah was written 974 generations before the world was created.

Prove it.

Of course it is. But it is still literally and historically true.

No one said it isn't. The world was created. God created it. When He created is unknown to us.

There is no such thing as a "scientific explanation of Creation," since Creation is a matter of theology and history, not "science."

History is science, by the way. And there's no scientific explanation of the miracles you cited in the New Testament. You can explain them away as easily as someone can say the universe was created by Bill Gates.

Just because G-d said something happened doesn't mean it did. Right. Got it

Because God said it? Or because the author of Genesis (probably Moses) said it? Your belief is achingly Islamic.

Do you know how silly and meaningless it is for you to say that the universe "looks" such-and-such an age? When Adam was created, by our standards, he looked like an adult, yet he had never been a child since he was created with an adult body. That being the case how can science possibly pronounce on the age of the universe?

Why did God create time, if that's the case? (tick tock...tick tock...)

Adam wasn't created by our standards. He was created from the dust of the earth. So the analogy does not apply.

Yes, just like the creation of the universe from nothing has described in Genesis.

The creation occurred before time, so what does that have to do with the age of the earth?

Gynecology also isn't a scientific subject, so I guess J*sus couldn't have possibly been born of a virgin, could he?

A virgin birth is supernatural by definition. Scientifically inexplicable. There is nothing "supernatural" implied by the age of the earth, since time is nothing more than a measure of the movement of heavenly bodies,i.e., scientific.

The fact that you think G-d is all about something you call "salvation" is your problem. The Torah is not about salvation. It is the blueprint, the DNA, the genetic code of everything. It's what you Notzerim call the "Logos." More proof that chr*stianity is inherently flawed by nature.

Bitter much?

Gotcha. "Science" can tear the Holy Torah to shreds but daren't open its mouth about your precious "superior" chr*stian "miracles." Your religion is better. G-d never did anything supernatural until two thousand years ago. Up until then nobody knew anything. Got it. Um--why don't you people just throw the "old testament" out since its literal truth is so dangerous to your religion?

So does the sun move from east to west, as it is stated in the Old Testament? Just sayin'.

Since I've already said numerous times that Creation is supernatural, the rest of your rant in the above paragraph is rather bizarre.

You also haven't quizzed me on manna, Aaron's staff, the handing down of the Ten Commandments, parting of the Red Sea, etc., all of which were supernatural interventions of God, so I don't understand how you can paint me as someone who doesn't believe anything supernatural took place in the O.T. The subject is Creation and the age of the earth, not every other event that took place in the O.T.

You know, it isn't just Genesis you people don't believe in. There's the whole thing about the Book of Daniel being a pseudepigraph from the Maccabeean period disguised as a prophecy of the future from the past. You want to take a break and defend that little gem?

There isn't enough LSD in the world to match wits with your kind of logic. Pass.

[stfassisi]

You continue to ignore that I'm talking about the ignorant muslim,hindu etc.. who has never heard of Christ and loves unconditionally,thus due to the law of love they are abiding in Christ and CAN be saved because they are not specifically rejecting Him because either their mullahs won't allow them to know about Christ or they die in some remote part of the world before being presented the Gospel

God loves us. It is unconditional, but to be with Him we must accept His rule. And that rule is: Jesus is the only way to be with Him.

Perhaps you can show how an infant child can be saved by accepting this "rule" since the child is unable make such a decision?

The same goes for those who love unconditionally and have never heard of Christ -they are like little children in the eyes of God

I hope you're not going to tell me that infant children are in hell ?

[Mr Rogers]

“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

Basic reading comprehension, to use your words - why does the angel tell her not to be afraid unless she is?

Are you saying she was afraid of hearing, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”?

The Greek word for afraid is identical to the word used of Zechariah.

Beyond that - the difference between them is that Zechariah asked for a sign, and Mary did not. “Well done!” to Mary - who was an admirable young girl and woman.

But Queen of Heaven, Spouse of God? Anytime someone focused attention on Mary as His mother, Jesus redirected it to God. The Catholic Church should follow His example.

[Iscool]

How is not erring in matters of faith or morals equivalent or identical to enjoying personal perfection? They seem very different to me, as different as the clear water and the rusty and cracked conduit which brings it to me.

So when one pope sells the position to someone else, God will honor that person, whether a Christian or not and make him a conduit, eh???

That philosophy doesn't float with the scriptures...But I guess it looks good on paper to a Catholic...

And BTW, God promised perfect teaching...He did not guarantee perfect following...Paul rebuked your 'first pope' because he veered off the path of this perfect knowledge...

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I'm intrigued with the suggestion that IHS would be cruel to his mother in order to lay a predicate to argue against future theological errors. That's kind of a mariological statement.

In fact, Jesus elevated believers to the state of mother and brother; to Jesus, the biological connection is WEAKER than the spiritual one! This would necessarily demote Mary's "mother of God" position to be no more important than any believer.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Jimmy Swaggart certainly taught that it was sinful to go to prostitutes and commit adultery. The fact that he was later caught frequenting prostitutes and committing adultery DOES NOT make what he taught any less valid.

Good example. Also, the way Swaggart was dealt with by his church is Biblical; we are to hold each other accountable, regardless of position (see Acts). Unfortunately, that's not possible with the Pope!

[Zionist Conspirator]

This theological debate is going to have to be postponed for now due to one of life’s little tragedies (though it certainly doesn’t seem “little” right now). I will post the details on the chat board. Thank you.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

You continue to ignore that I'm talking about the ignorant muslim,hindu etc..

I ignore that because - as I have pointed out - the Scripture you quote to support your position was WRITTEN FOR BELIEVERS! It was sent to fellow Christians, and tells how they are to relate to each other in their churches. It does NOT apply to non-believers.

And friend, you are seriously misled if you think Muslims are ignorant of Jesus. They know what He did, what He taught. They reject His claims as the Son of God, and consider Him just a great prophet.

So you are using writings meant for believers to convey grace to non-believers, and you attribute ignorance to those who are not ignorant. All in an attempt to cover a heresy: Muslims will worship with you in Heaven.

Again, I ask you - how do you reconcile Jesus' claim that HE is the way, the truth, and the life and that NO ONE comes to the Father but through Him?

Jesus claimed it, not me. His words, not mine. All judgment rests with Him.

The same goes for those who love unconditionally and have never heard of Christ -they are like little children in the eyes of God

You know this - how? Scripture please. And note that this does NOT apply to Muslims. They know of Jesus. How does Catechism 841 reconcile with your claim here?

I hope you're not going to tell me that infant children are in hell ?

John 3:16-18. Read the Word of Christ, rather than the Catechism. It is very explicit, very direct, and without error.

[wagglebee]

I hope everything is okay.

G-d Bless.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I hope everything is okay.

It's not, but thank you.

G-d Bless.

Thank you again.

Here is the explanatory post.

[stfassisi]

And friend, you are seriously misled if you think Muslims are ignorant of Jesus.

You're seriously mislead by thinking every single muslim has heard of Jesus.I would agree that most have,but it's ridiculous for you to say every muslim women and child has heard of Christ

STF-The same goes for those who love unconditionally and have never heard of Christ -they are like little children in the eyes of God

PSS-You know this - how? Scripture please. And note that this does NOT apply to Muslims.

"Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God. 1 John 4:7

Note-Scripture says EVERY ONE who Loveth is born of God-It does not exclude!

Believe what you want-I see no point in going round and round on this

[Mad Dawg]

And BTW, God promised perfect teaching...He did not guarantee perfect following.

Isn't that pretty much what I'm saying?

Catherine of Siena wasn't shy about rebuking the same Pope to whom she expressed love and loyalty.

This isn't rocket science. You've articulated (vaguely) our contention: God promised perfect teaching, not perfect following. He has even kept that promise when the way the successor of Peter got into that position was less than savory.

But again, I asked:

How is not erring in matters of faith or morals equivalent or identical to enjoying personal perfection? They seem very different to me, as different as the clear water and the rusty and cracked conduit which brings it to me.

May I have an answer?

[Mad Dawg]

First, the comment is a distraction. Mr. Rogers and I were talking about what Mariology is. I was alleging that his understanding of what our Lord said at Cana indicated a kind of mariology. To introduce the Synoptic "those who hear the word of God and do it" episode seems a little off topic.

I read your assertion. I don't see the support. I do see a possible contradiction (and note the gathering of opponents, while the person I was talking to seems to have backed off, probably because he has a real job.)

How can one sentence be that believers are elevated to the state of Mother and brother on one clause while the biological connection be WEAKER than the spiritual in the net clause.

I'm assuming that in the game of Biblical gotcha so popular among some no one has taken the trouble to find out what Catholics teach about this passage, which is usually presented as though we'd never heard it or thought about it.

I am noting that the implication, also, is that Mary — who had heard the Word of God conveyed to her by an angel, who had responded "Ιδου η δουλη κυριου· γενοιτο μοι κατα το ρημα σου," who then received the Word into her body — nevertheless somehow fell short compared to others with respect to hearing and doing the word of God.

I have noted before that some evidently despise or fail to understand motherhood. It is well known that the sound of her child's cry will stimulate milk let-down in many mothers. Yet you would argue that Mary did not hear or respond to the Word of God, whom she had born.

I am not persuaded.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Context, my friend, context! To whom did Peter write that letter? Was it to Christians, or non-Christians?

Furthermore, rectify that passage in the interpretation you wish the the statement by Jesus of being the ONLY way to the Father. The two - your interpretation that just loving will save you, and Jesus’ claim that He is the only way - are incompatible.

Thus the passage by Peter must be interpreted to be consistent with the Words of Christ! Jesus said He is the only way; anything else that hints at another way is wrong, de facto wrong. It must be looked at in a light that is in alignment with Jesus’ words.

1 Peter makes sense if you look at it in the light of a writing to Christians, for Christians, by Christians. It is 100% in agreement with Christ. If you try to extend it to non-Christians, it falls apart and leads to conflict with Christ’s Words.

[Mad Dawg]

Stfassisi's hypothesis is a muslim who loves unconditionally.

I suggest that no one can love unconditionally unless GOD has given him grace to do so. And whatever the profession of the person to whom such a gift might be given, the gift comes from the Father through Jesus in the Spirit.So there is no talk about someone coming to God through some way other than Jesus. It is always IHS who saves; there is no other savior.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

How can one sentence be that believers are elevated to the state of Mother and brother on one clause while the biological connection be WEAKER than the spiritual in the net clause.

Jesus puts the emphasis on the spiritual family of God, noting that physical family is no more important than spiritual family. It is done so at several times in the Gospels.

We are a family in Christ together; our physical relationship is secondary to our spiritual relationship with God and other believers. How else would His words of "these are my family" ring true?

Note that Christ did not say "these are also My family". He said "THESE are My family"; there is an implied exclusion in His statement! It is not an addition of familial members to His family, but a redefinition of what a family should be considered.

[stfassisi]

I suggest that no one can love unconditionally unless GOD has given him grace to do so. And whatever the profession of the person to whom such a gift might be given, the gift comes from the Father through Jesus in the Spirit.So there is no talk about someone coming to God through some way other than Jesus. It is always IHS who saves; there is no other savior.

Thanks ,Dear Brother. That is the point I was trying to make that you explained very well.

God sends His Spirit to anyone He desires,not who WE think does not deserve the Holy Spirit. All TRUE love is from God.Period!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That is my understanding as well! There is one way to salvation, Jesus. Those are His clear, explicit, unambiguous Words.

Yet, it seems to run counter to Catechism 841, which specifically states there is salvation for those who acknowledge the Creator. Not Jesus, the Creator.