Amazing grace! From my experience, God captures our hearts, and then leads us gently to the truth of the faith. I remember after my encounter with divine mercy in 1988, Mother Mary gently led me to accept, one by one, the teachings of the faith that I absolutely despised. We have to remember that when one is steeped in sin, there is a thick wall of defense against the truth. Only love can break it down. Those who demand that Pope Francis proclaim dogma in every conversation just don't understand the conversion process. He loves people, and they love him. Someone I love was in Rome recently, and the Romans, who usually only show up in St. Peter's square when a Pope dies and when a new one is elected, are showing up in droves these days to hear every word he has to say. He's a magnet leading souls to God.
Dogma is God's truth revealed from Christ through his Church. I was converted by this truth. One the flip side, how many gays are being converted by him saying to them "who am I to judge"? Not many who are living in grave sin will be converted when he does not say as Jesus did, "go and sin no more"? Here in lies the question. I am not confident that making people comfortable with their sin will cause large conversion to truth.
And I am quite convinced that more people are loved into the truth than condemned into it. I can go door to door and tell everyone what big sinners they are, but they won't be convicted until they come to this realization in their own hearts. Remember the prodigal son????? I don't see our Holy Father making people comfortable in their sin. He is loving them, unconditionally.
I was just reading about unconditional love and this article seemed to make sense to me... Is God's love unconditional? Or are there any conditions that must be met to become a recipient of His love? Paul prayed that the believers in Ephesus would be able to comprehend the length, width, depth, and height of God's love. He desired that they know the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, so that they would be filled with the fullness of God (Eph. 3:16-19). The wide expanse of God's love has been the theme of the gospel throughout the ages, for to know His love is to know Him. Therefore, any consideration of His love is highly important and must be based upon His revelation of Himself rather than upon the imagination of men. Love According to Secular Humanism Ever since the rise of secular humanism in this country, and especially since the establishment of humanistic psychology, the popular, "relevant" term to describe God's love has been unconditional. The thrust of this word in humanistic psychology has been both to give and to expect unconditional love from one another with no strings attached. While unconditional love and acceptance supposedly promote change and growth, they make no requirements. But God, who is love, requires change and enables his children to grow in righteousness. In humanistic psychology, parents and society are always the culprits. Since they believe that every person is born with intrinsic worth and innate goodness, psychologists contend that one main reason people experience emotional and behavioral problems is because they have not received unconditional love from their parents. Following that thesis, Christians have come to believe that the best kind of love is unconditional love. It is the highest love secular humanists know. It is touted as a love that makes no demands for performance, good behavior, or the like. It has also been associated with a kind of permissiveness, since it makes no demands and has no conditions, even though the promoters of the unconditional love jargon would say that unconditional love does not have to dispense with discipline. God's Love Revealed through Scripture Because the concept of unconditional love permeates society and because it is often thought of as the highest form of human love, it is natural for a Christian to mistakenly use this term to describe God. After all, His love is far greater than any human love imaginable. God's love for humanity is so great that "He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Oh, the magnitude of the cost! We cannot even fathom His love even though our very breath depends upon it! His love indeed reaches to the heights and depths. But again, is God's love truly unconditional? God's love is available to human beings by grace alone. There is nothing that men can do to earn that love. There is no good work that is either demanded or even possible. But does that make God's love unconditional? "That whosoever will" is most certainly not a work, but it is a condition. Otherwise we would end up with universalism (all people saved) rather than salvation by grace received through faith. God chooses upon whom He will place His love and the benefits of His love. Did Jesus ever imply that God's love is unconditional? He said to His disciples: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him" (John 14:21). One might argue that the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11ff) proves unconditional love (as Charles Stanley teaches). It indeed illustrates the vastness of God's love, forgiveness, and longsuffering. However, the son repented! If he had a prosperous evil life he may never have repented. And while the father would have waited and hoped, he would not have extended his love. After all, he did not go out searching for him to support his folly. Up to a point, this seems to indicate unconditional love, and yet, God is not waiting in ignorance, not knowing what those for whom His Son died might be doing. It is difficult enough to understand God's love without adding the term unconditional love which is loaded with secular, humanistic, psychological connotations. The story of the prodigal son teaches grace, forgiveness and mercy -- but unconditional love? No! While God loves with a greater love than humans can comprehend, His holiness and justice also must be taken into consideration. Therefore, the term unconditional love is inadequate for defining God. It does not account for God's reaction to pompous men who devise plans against Him and His anointed. The psalmist goes so far as to say: "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure" (Psalm 2:4-5). And what about Lot's wife as she turned to look at the smoldering cities? Or what about Jesus' words to the cities that refused to repent? Does this sound like unconditional love?: "Woe to thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell ... it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee" (Matthew 11:21-24). Conclusion But perhaps one could say that God's love for the Christian is unconditional since the Christian partakes of His love and grace through faith. Wouldn't it be better to say that the conditions have been met? Jesus met the first condition, to wash away the sin that God hates. The believer meets the second condition, but only by God's grace through faith. Or perhaps it would be better to say that God's love extended to a person is conditioned by His plan to give eternal life to those whom He has enabled to believe on His Son. The conditions of God's love are resident within Himself. As our opening Bible verse says: He hath MADE us accepted! There is a strong temptation to use vocabulary that is popular in society in order to make Christianity sound relevant. Christians have something far better than what the world offers, but in expressing that good news, they confuse people by using words that are already loaded with humanistic connotations and systems of thought. It would be better not to use the expression unconditional love when describing God's love. There are plenty of other good words (1 John 4:9, 10, 16): In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ... And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. The incomprehensible magnitude of God's love surpasses any concept of love devised by humanistic psychologists. The doctrine of unconditional love is a myth that glorifies man rather than God.
This is what's wrong with the mindset today with the social justice folks (not saying Kathy that you are one). But for some reason, they take a very narrow view that all orthodox Catholics do is judge or condemn people and like the Pharisees beat their chests all day long how great they are. I don't know an orthodox person who is like that. They above all people frequent the sacrament of confession, because they know of their sinfulness and in humility seek sacramental confession. I know of no orthodox person who dwells only on sin as liberal Catholics would like to think. This is the liberal way to attack orthodox Catholics and get them to shut up. As long as you go along to get along and not mention sin you fit into this social justice world of "peace" warriors. This is why I loved JPII so much. He brought the Church Mercy Sunday. He spoke of a New Springtime for the Church. He carried his cross in deep deep prayer and great compassion and love for the poor. Yet, he did not hesitate to teach the fullness of the faith and like Jesus did, "the hard sayings". Also, you have Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who was as orthodox as any saint has been, who gave her life to social justice work, yet when she met at the morning prayer breakfast with President Clinton and his wife, she admonished them on abortion for several minutes. She was an example of both orthodoxy and social justice, but she did not hesitate making people uncomfortable in their sin. We need both, orthodoxy and social justice, it is not and either or thing.
Are you loving someone unconditionally if your not actively working on their salvation?I dont think so.Its the only thing that actually matters. By actively working, I mean showing at least some interest[in their eternal destination]
First of all, everyone who assumes what our Holy Father says is reported to them accurately is mistaken. For instance, I know someone who was at one of his daily masses recently and he spoke about the devil, "who is real - not a fairy tale, made up to scare you. He is real." This was not reported. The prince of this world owns the airwaves. Second, I speak from long experience (twenty plus years) of walking with people who are steeped in sin and oblivious to the sad state of their souls, and the extreme danger they are in of eternal damnation. And these are people with less than 6 months to live!!! I have seen the poor effect well-meaning people have in pointing out their sins, with or without love. And I have seen what heaven is able to accomplish in them using humble instruments who patiently walk with them, loving them in their state of spiritual leprosy and storming heaven for their salvation. We have a big God!!! Third, the father of the prodigal son did not chastise his son; he hoped and prayed and then rejoiced when he came home. The prodigal son wasn't converted by someone beating him about the head and shoulders with the truth. His circumstances and the workings of God in his heart brought him to that place of repentance. The wages of sin is death; people steeped in sin are the most miserable of creatures and I would guess that most, deep down, hate themselves. Fourth, Mother Teresa did not allow her sisters to proselytize those in their houses of the dying. They were only allowed to "witness" with their hearts, hands and the light of God shining from their eyes. And they had conversions upon conversions, Hindus and Muslims who were overwhelmed by the loving care and unconditional acceptance they received and said, "I want what you have." As you noted, she also confronted world leaders without fear. Mother Teresa and our dear Pope Francis shared a gift for comforting the afflicted. Like Mother Teresa, I have no doubt that our Holy Father will be just as courageous, if not more so, in afflicting the comfortable. (Though you will probably never hear it from the press.)
I think part of the reason why Mother Teresa could be so fearless in confronting world leaders is because she walked the walk instead of just talking the talk, and the whole world knew it. I think it is the same with Pope Francis. He walks the walk, and I agree with you Kathy that he will prove just as courageous when it comes to rebuking those who need it when that moment comes. And when it does, many will listen because of his powerful witness in action.
Kathy, I really think you are onto to something here. We must all be witnesses in a similar way that Mother Teresa was a witness. We must exude our faith through our lives, our actions, our speech. We must be good listeners. I think listening may be more important than talking.
It appears that some of what Francis said in the interview was not reported accurately by Scalfari http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview "UPDATE: A Vatican spokesperson confirmed this afternoon that the interview with Pope Francis by Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari ran the risk of “either missing some key details or conflating various moments or events recounted during the oral interview.” With reference to Francis’ acceptance of the papacy, Fr. Thomas Rosica, who assists the Vatican with English-language media, issued a statement by e-mail that read: “Cardinals who witnessed the events have categorically stated that the newly elected pope never left the Sistine chapel for a period of reflection before finally accepting the papacy other than his entering the ‘room of tears’ for vesting.” “There was never any indication of hesitation, a need for serious reflection on the election that had taken place, or rethinking what had befallen him!” Rosica wrote. Rosica also writes that Scalfari “did not tape his interview with Pope Francis, nor did he take notes, so the text was an after-the-fact reconstruction.”
I look forward to discovering which bits are accurate and which are not and then going back to read those sites that vigorously defended the unsaid and un-Catholic parts! This should be interesting.
