Evangelization is Meant to Persuade, not Provoke
Aug 21, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
There is a video going around the internet—it seems to arrive in my email box every other day from another Catholic offering it as evidence of Americans’ antipathy toward the church. In the video, which was taken in early August, some gay-rights activists protesting outside a Chicago Chick-fil-A are joined in their circular march by Father Gerald O’Reilly, who proceeds to pray the rosary out loud, contra their shouting, until the activists begin to crowd around him, shouting, “We don’t want your bigoted prayers!” “Get him out of here!” and the always tiresome “Shame! Shame! Shame!”
It is not clear to me whether the priest is smiling in amusement or nervousness as the police lead him away from the confrontation, but once he is in a quieter place, he identifies himself for the cameraman, who asks if he has ever been treated that way. O’Reilly says no and adds, “I might ask about being tolerant; where’s their tolerance?”
There is no denying that the notion of “tolerance” has become somewhat fluid in the United States over the last decade, or that double standards apply to its application. Just last week, the Boston Globe scolded Vice-President Joe Biden for offering politically expedient racially tinged remarks that—had they been uttered by a Republican veep—would have provided high drama, headlines, and speculation about his ability to hold his office, for weeks on end. “[When] conservative speakers get overly exuberant and cross a rhetorical line, they are presumed racist or culturally insensitive, rather than refreshingly free-spirited,” wrote the editors. “One standard should apply.”
As I write this, Missouri Republican Todd Akin is preparing to withdraw from his senate race against the sitting Democrat Claire McCaskill, after having made an ill-advised assertion about pregnancies resulting from “legitimate rape.” Recalling how Hollywood has recently finessed the statutory-rape proclivities of film director Roman Polanski, (“it wasn’t rape rape” said Whoopi Goldberg”) one watches the shifting sands of “tolerance” whirl once again, as they cover and suffocate the fellow for a boneheaded and inarticulate distinction that we may, with good reason, assume would be found less-objectionable were it uttered by lips first purified with a Democratic Party cinder.
Nevertheless, though one may find a thousand instances of genuine “intolerant” hypocrisy and dozens of double-standards in the headlines of a day, though the very word “tolerance” be overused and misapplied unto meaninglessness, it is difficult to feel sympathy for Father O’Reilly; his actions toward the gay activists were intentionally provocative, which rendered his mumbles about “tolerance” insupportable.
It’s one thing to stand away from a protest, praying, and have the protesters come after you; there, you might legitimately ask, “Where’s the tolerance”? It’s quite another—and a patently disingenuous thing—to invade a protest circle with your vocal prayers and then wonder that you are unwelcome there. Whatever his motives might have been, the Gospels suggest that Jesus would not have endorsed the priest’s methods. Jesus lived among the people he wished to evangelize. He met with them as people, and he ate with them, or he served them. He attracted converts with his love and his stability. Jesus did not burst in where he was not welcome and start praying at people (or for them) in a way that could be regarded as both separatist and condescending by the very people he wished to engage. He pointedly urged sympathy for the publican, not the Pharisee.
As this video hits my email again, and again, I can’t help but wonder if the offended senders would be writing, “so much for ‘tolerance’” in their subject lines if their own peaceful gatherings, at church or at a kid’s soccer game, were intruded upon by a gay person or an atheist with a clear intent to showboat and provoke. I don’t think they’d appreciate it.
Leah Libresco, a smart young blogger who recently made headlines when she announced that she was leaving atheism behind to become a Catholic, recently chatted with a member of the St. Paul Street Evangelization project, and therein found Evangelization as Jesus might have recognized it:
The goal is to respond to the mandate of Jesus, and to take the Gospel to all nations—meaning, starting with our local area, to take our Catholic faith to the streets, but to do so in a non-confrontational way, where we just allow the Holy Spirit to bring the people to us that He wants us to speak to. That way, the people we talk to actually want to talk to us. It works great.
We find a high pedestrian traffic area, where lots of people walk by. We set up, we start praying the rosary, and we’ll just sit there, and pray at first. Generally, people will start coming right away, at least within a half-hour. But if it’s slow, and people are coming close enough and looking, we’ll offer them a rosary. If they stop, and start talking to us, that’s great.
What we’re doing is speaking to people about the faith, we’re meeting them where they’re at. People are asking questions, people are asking for prayers. We’re bringing people back into the faith who have fallen away, we’re having good conversations with Protestants about misconceptions that they have about the faith. At the very minimum, we can usually convince a Protestant who used to think that Catholics were not Christian that we actually are Christian.
I think of Jesus sitting by a well, or a healing pool, and striking up conversations with the people who crossed his path. It’s a street evangelization I can get behind.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Priest and Protest Video
Boston Globe on Double Standards
Akin and "legitimate" rape
"It wasn't rape, rape"
Libresco Conversion
The St. Paul Catholic Street Evangelization
SPSE Interview Part I
SPSE Interview Part II
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.21.2012 | 8:46am
Rusty says:
I guarantee if someone decided to invade our Life Chain they would not be treated like this priest was. He was saying the rosary. For all the protestors knew he could have been one of the many dissenting priests who might agree with their position. Nothing he was doing indicated his position on gay "marriage" aside from his clericals - maybe. It's their reactions to this priest, not his perhaps ill-advised methods, that should be the subject of your post.
8.21.2012 | 9:16am
SteveP says:
Elizabeth Scalia: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would suggest God becoming Man is fairly confrontational.
8.21.2012 | 9:52am
John Flynn says:
Here's the thing....it doesn't matter if Fr. Reilly provoked them with his presence or not. They are in a public place, protesting publicly and so he goes there to do the same thing. Not a dang thing wrong with that. Then after he is violently verbally attacked he does nothing in retaliation but pray the rosary.
Remember this, he did not go to their Church, their kids soccer game or whatever. He went to a public Chick Fil-a to support the restaurant.
When you say "his actions toward the gay activists were intentionally provocative," you are judging his intentions and not his actions. This is clearly against the teachings of the Catholic Church where we are obligated to judge actions, words and deed but not to judge intentions.
Furthermore, when you say "which rendered his mumbles about “tolerance” you are wrong. Even if he went to the Chick Fil-A with the intentions to provoke the protestors he still has every right to complain about their intolerance. His actions do not make their actions any more right or any more wrong. In fact, he could have screamed "You're going to burn in hell you homos!" and their actions still woukld have been wrong. His would have too, but this does not mean their are right....
Remember this, he did not go to their Church, their kids soccer game or whatever. He went to a public Chick Fil-a to support the restaurant.
When you say "his actions toward the gay activists were intentionally provocative," you are judging his intentions and not his actions. This is clearly against the teachings of the Catholic Church where we are obligated to judge actions, words and deed but not to judge intentions.
Furthermore, when you say "which rendered his mumbles about “tolerance” you are wrong. Even if he went to the Chick Fil-A with the intentions to provoke the protestors he still has every right to complain about their intolerance. His actions do not make their actions any more right or any more wrong. In fact, he could have screamed "You're going to burn in hell you homos!" and their actions still woukld have been wrong. His would have too, but this does not mean their are right....
8.21.2012 | 10:18am
The Moz says:
Ya nothing controversial here. If you want to evangelize don't invade people's space. It's theirs and leave them. Stand beside or outside within reach but not inside. Like the band in Russia, they should have just played their protest song outside the cathedral. Provoking people only makes them feel more empowered. But I also commend this priest's bravery and his willingness to put it all on the line so to speak.
PS We all know that if a group of priests had been praying for keeping the traditional definition of marriage and a lone LGBTQ activist had wandered in among them shouting shame, he'd be lionized, honored for his bravery and just generally depicted in the most positive light. The general, even the lefty public, is getting tired of the obvious double standards.
PS We all know that if a group of priests had been praying for keeping the traditional definition of marriage and a lone LGBTQ activist had wandered in among them shouting shame, he'd be lionized, honored for his bravery and just generally depicted in the most positive light. The general, even the lefty public, is getting tired of the obvious double standards.
8.21.2012 | 10:18am
bill bannon says:
Amen. I used to simply zerox nicely spaced quotes from Aquinas, Augustine, atheist Jean Paul Sartre (when he was right and deep), John of the Cross et al and hand them out at rush hour in Manhattan for people to read on the train. I moved my extended hand toward no one. I let them seize it. Many took them. In the context, not many returned to dialogue. Only one argumentative returnee. When I handed out Augustine's explications of Christ being hidden in the proportions of the ark (which was really slender not fat like in children's books) and Christ being hidden throughout Genesis, an old black Baptist preacher returned and said, "This is the best thing I've seen passed out on the street.". We smiled at each other and laughed.
8.21.2012 | 10:29am
harry says:
God bless Father Gerald O’Reilly whether he was "intentionally provocative" or not. Jesus certainly appeared to be "intentionally provocative" when He entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice and knocking over the tables of the money changers. Doing what will appear to others to be intentionally provocative is sometimes still the right thing to do – even if it isn't what WE would have done.
At a time when timidity and equivocation is all to frequent on the part of many Bishops in terms of dealing realistically with contemporary cultural and government-mandated assaults on orthodox Christian teaching regarding human sexuality, and in dealing realistically with cultural and governmental assaults on innocent human life; at a time when some bishops publicly criticize and rebuke their priests for being politically incorrect when faithfulness to orthodoxy and Canon Law demanded that those priests act or speak in a politically incorrect manner, Fr. O'Reilly strikes me as displaying a boldness that is desperately needed in the priesthood today. Presently there is just no way to honestly and realistically deal with the assaults on orthodox Christian belief regarding human sexuality and with the current assaults on innocent human life without at times appearing to some to be “intentionally provocative.”
In fact, sometimes the very best example to set is to “run towards the roar,” which sends the necessary message to the timid. It requires no boldness to speak and act against racism now. It did in the South in 1850 and for quite some time after that. Sometimes clergy are content with boldly addressing issues which really require no boldness at all to address, and are “prudent” (negligent) in addressing those that do. The present assaults on Christianity and on innocent human life cry out for a bold response, a trait which Fr. O'Reilly appears to possess. Good for him.
At a time when timidity and equivocation is all to frequent on the part of many Bishops in terms of dealing realistically with contemporary cultural and government-mandated assaults on orthodox Christian teaching regarding human sexuality, and in dealing realistically with cultural and governmental assaults on innocent human life; at a time when some bishops publicly criticize and rebuke their priests for being politically incorrect when faithfulness to orthodoxy and Canon Law demanded that those priests act or speak in a politically incorrect manner, Fr. O'Reilly strikes me as displaying a boldness that is desperately needed in the priesthood today. Presently there is just no way to honestly and realistically deal with the assaults on orthodox Christian belief regarding human sexuality and with the current assaults on innocent human life without at times appearing to some to be “intentionally provocative.”
In fact, sometimes the very best example to set is to “run towards the roar,” which sends the necessary message to the timid. It requires no boldness to speak and act against racism now. It did in the South in 1850 and for quite some time after that. Sometimes clergy are content with boldly addressing issues which really require no boldness at all to address, and are “prudent” (negligent) in addressing those that do. The present assaults on Christianity and on innocent human life cry out for a bold response, a trait which Fr. O'Reilly appears to possess. Good for him.
8.21.2012 | 10:54am
Melanie says:
This columns suffers, as does so much commentary today, from a lack of historical perspective. Evangelization takes many forms, and throughout history, one of the forms it has taken is confrontation and challenge. St. Boniface waded into the midst of pagan tribes and challenged their god and mocked its powerlessness.
Besides, Elizabeth, I'm betting that Fr. O'Reilly is probably available to contact. I see him listed as spiritual advisor to the Legion of Mary in the Chicago Archdiocese. http://www.archchicago.org/lay_ecclesial_mov.shtm There's a phone # attached to his name. You could probably have called him and asked him directly what his motivations were, you know?
Besides, Elizabeth, I'm betting that Fr. O'Reilly is probably available to contact. I see him listed as spiritual advisor to the Legion of Mary in the Chicago Archdiocese. http://www.archchicago.org/lay_ecclesial_mov.shtm There's a phone # attached to his name. You could probably have called him and asked him directly what his motivations were, you know?
8.21.2012 | 11:30am
anon says:
I find it hard to accept that the priest's actions were wrong and the "gay" protesters were provoked or imposed upon. What an upside down world we live in. Even if that priest never showed up the protesters would still be intolerant. His presence only revealed what was already established.
If you must assign blame then simply look to the group that demands we all accept what is clearly unacceptable.
If you must assign blame then simply look to the group that demands we all accept what is clearly unacceptable.
8.21.2012 | 11:44am
jason taylor says:
"God bless Father Gerald O’Reilly whether he was "intentionally provocative" or not. Jesus certainly appeared to be "intentionally provocative" when He entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice and knocking over the tables of the money changers. Doing what will appear to others to be intentionally provocative is sometimes still the right thing to do – even if it isn't what WE would have done."
Saying "Jesus did it" carries the hidden assumption that you are Jesus. Jesus has the authority to do such things. Whether or not you do is not evidenced by that. The Shore Patrol can haul drunken sailors back to the ship because that is it's job. That does not mean it's the job of a typical deckhand.
Now chastising the unrighteous may frankly be your calling. But until you know that for sure it might be best to be careful of that. To often it is more used as a means of flattering the chastisers sense of his own righteousness then of bringing the unrighteous to repentance. While courtesy is not the same as love, it's a start and presumption should be for it, not against it.
Saying "Jesus did it" carries the hidden assumption that you are Jesus. Jesus has the authority to do such things. Whether or not you do is not evidenced by that. The Shore Patrol can haul drunken sailors back to the ship because that is it's job. That does not mean it's the job of a typical deckhand.
Now chastising the unrighteous may frankly be your calling. But until you know that for sure it might be best to be careful of that. To often it is more used as a means of flattering the chastisers sense of his own righteousness then of bringing the unrighteous to repentance. While courtesy is not the same as love, it's a start and presumption should be for it, not against it.
8.21.2012 | 11:59am
David Nickol says:
When there are demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, as there were in this case, the police quite reasonably keep them separate. This is not an abridgment of anyone's right to free speech. I think Elizabeth Scalia is quite correct. And there is something that makes me a little bit uncomfortable about a priest trying to provoke people by saying the rosary.
**********
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
**********
I am no expert on prayer or the rosary, but it seems to me it is not commendable to annoy other people by praying (no matter how unreasonable of them it is to object).
Having said that, I would have to say that the protesters acted abominably. The lesson is that, in this day and age, before you act or speak, imagine how it's going to play on Youtube.
**********
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
**********
I am no expert on prayer or the rosary, but it seems to me it is not commendable to annoy other people by praying (no matter how unreasonable of them it is to object).
Having said that, I would have to say that the protesters acted abominably. The lesson is that, in this day and age, before you act or speak, imagine how it's going to play on Youtube.
8.21.2012 | 12:04pm
anon says:
"Saying "Jesus did it" carries the hidden assumption that you are Jesus. Jesus has the authority to do such things. Whether or not you do is not evidenced by that. The Shore Patrol can haul drunken sailors back to the ship because that is it's job. That does not mean it's the job of a typical deckhand.
Now chastising the unrighteous may frankly be your calling. But until you know that for sure it might be best to be careful of that. To often it is more used as a means of flattering the chastisers sense of his own righteousness then of bringing the unrighteous to repentance. While courtesy is not the same as love, it's a start and presumption should be for it, not against it."
Is the author not saying the same thing? Claiming Jesus would not do this is the same as claiming he would. Both are claiming to be correct.
As for courtesy that is hardly the standard to use here. What you view as a lack of courtesy others view a helpful move in the nonstop abuse of public morals.
Now chastising the unrighteous may frankly be your calling. But until you know that for sure it might be best to be careful of that. To often it is more used as a means of flattering the chastisers sense of his own righteousness then of bringing the unrighteous to repentance. While courtesy is not the same as love, it's a start and presumption should be for it, not against it."
Is the author not saying the same thing? Claiming Jesus would not do this is the same as claiming he would. Both are claiming to be correct.
As for courtesy that is hardly the standard to use here. What you view as a lack of courtesy others view a helpful move in the nonstop abuse of public morals.
8.21.2012 | 12:05pm
bill bannon says:
Melanie,
His motivations are not the point. We have no example of Christ invading. In the temple incident, the money changers were actually invading the space in the temple reserved for the gentiles to pray and Christ mentions their invasion, " My house is a house of prayer for ALL men." Christ removed invaders in the temple incident. Now square Fr. O'Reilley's invasion with 2 Tim. 2:23- 26:
Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels.
24
A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant,
25
correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth,
26
* and that they may return to their senses out of the devil’s snare,w where they are entrapped by him, for his will.
Somehow we avoid this passage in favor of Christ being tough with the pharisees. But the pharisees studied the entire Bible and ergo, Christ held them to a very high standard. He was gentle yet strict with sexual sinners like the Samaritan woman and the woman caught in adultery. But we want to have Christ's toughness as to the pharisees but with sexual sinners like gays who read little of the
Bible....and that is not what Christ did. John the Baptist screamed at the pharisees when they came to him. He did not look for them to scream at. And we don't have John screaming at sexual sinners but again, like Christ, at religious pharisees who should know better. Now God Himself in the Old Testament killed those in Sodom. That is different and inapplicable to Christ who killed no one even though Elijah killed 450 Baal priests. There is a change of dispensations. Imitate Christ yes. But He did not invade Samaritan prayer services and talk over them.
His motivations are not the point. We have no example of Christ invading. In the temple incident, the money changers were actually invading the space in the temple reserved for the gentiles to pray and Christ mentions their invasion, " My house is a house of prayer for ALL men." Christ removed invaders in the temple incident. Now square Fr. O'Reilley's invasion with 2 Tim. 2:23- 26:
Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels.
24
A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant,
25
correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth,
26
* and that they may return to their senses out of the devil’s snare,w where they are entrapped by him, for his will.
Somehow we avoid this passage in favor of Christ being tough with the pharisees. But the pharisees studied the entire Bible and ergo, Christ held them to a very high standard. He was gentle yet strict with sexual sinners like the Samaritan woman and the woman caught in adultery. But we want to have Christ's toughness as to the pharisees but with sexual sinners like gays who read little of the
Bible....and that is not what Christ did. John the Baptist screamed at the pharisees when they came to him. He did not look for them to scream at. And we don't have John screaming at sexual sinners but again, like Christ, at religious pharisees who should know better. Now God Himself in the Old Testament killed those in Sodom. That is different and inapplicable to Christ who killed no one even though Elijah killed 450 Baal priests. There is a change of dispensations. Imitate Christ yes. But He did not invade Samaritan prayer services and talk over them.
8.21.2012 | 12:11pm
Jay Anderson says:
Okay, if we can't say "Jesus did it", then how about "Elijah did it"? That Elijah, he just shouldn't have been so goshdarn "provocative" in his encounter with the priests of Baal.
Sometimes, evangelizing also involves a bit of being a prophet - being willing to boldly proclaim the unpopular truth. But we're being told that a priest praying the Rosary as a form of counter-protest to an agenda anti-thetical to the Church makes him "unsympathetic" and justifiably opens him up to the sort of hatred and incivility to which he was treated? Seriously?
Sometimes, evangelizing also involves a bit of being a prophet - being willing to boldly proclaim the unpopular truth. But we're being told that a priest praying the Rosary as a form of counter-protest to an agenda anti-thetical to the Church makes him "unsympathetic" and justifiably opens him up to the sort of hatred and incivility to which he was treated? Seriously?
8.21.2012 | 12:36pm
harry says:
Hello, jason taylor,
"... verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do ..."
-- John 14:12
And why is that?
"... I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ..."
-- Gal 2:20
It is because those "greater works" are really being done by Christ Who lives in us.
If one reaches that point spiritually where it is Christ Who is acting through them, then there are going to be times when Christ does that in ways that will seem "intentionally provocative" to others.
I didn't say that Christ driving the money changers from the Temple gives Christians a blank check to engage in "intentionally provocative" behavior. It does mean that there may be times (in fact, there most certainly will be times) when we will act in ways that the world will condemn and criticize. Christ promised us that would happen.
It struck many, no doubt, as intentionally provocative for Peter and John to continue to preach in the name of Jesus when the authorities forbade that. It also seemed intentionally provocative for Peter and John to justify doing that by explaining that "We must obey God rather than men," which meant that the Chair of Moses had been replaced with the Chair of Peter -- something quite insulting and more than just "provocative" to those seated in the Chair of Moses; it directly challenged their authority.
We shouldn't go around being "intentionally provocative." Neither can we go around intentionally avoiding ever upsetting other people, since Christ promised us that if we followed Him the world would hate us and persecute us. If everyone loves us and all we say and do has the approval, if not the applause of the world, then when we were following Christ He must have turned somewhere and we kept going straight.
Gentleness and meekness are the rule, but it is a huge mistake to think that Christ living in us will never engage in what will appear to others as “intentionally provocative” behavior.
"... verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do ..."
-- John 14:12
And why is that?
"... I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ..."
-- Gal 2:20
It is because those "greater works" are really being done by Christ Who lives in us.
If one reaches that point spiritually where it is Christ Who is acting through them, then there are going to be times when Christ does that in ways that will seem "intentionally provocative" to others.
I didn't say that Christ driving the money changers from the Temple gives Christians a blank check to engage in "intentionally provocative" behavior. It does mean that there may be times (in fact, there most certainly will be times) when we will act in ways that the world will condemn and criticize. Christ promised us that would happen.
It struck many, no doubt, as intentionally provocative for Peter and John to continue to preach in the name of Jesus when the authorities forbade that. It also seemed intentionally provocative for Peter and John to justify doing that by explaining that "We must obey God rather than men," which meant that the Chair of Moses had been replaced with the Chair of Peter -- something quite insulting and more than just "provocative" to those seated in the Chair of Moses; it directly challenged their authority.
We shouldn't go around being "intentionally provocative." Neither can we go around intentionally avoiding ever upsetting other people, since Christ promised us that if we followed Him the world would hate us and persecute us. If everyone loves us and all we say and do has the approval, if not the applause of the world, then when we were following Christ He must have turned somewhere and we kept going straight.
Gentleness and meekness are the rule, but it is a huge mistake to think that Christ living in us will never engage in what will appear to others as “intentionally provocative” behavior.
8.21.2012 | 12:44pm
Nathan says:
How easy it is to reduce Jesus to a non-confrontational figure... unless you read the Gospels. Claiming "greater than the temple is here" (Matt 12:6) was certainly provocative to any first century Jew. When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) was so provocative his listeners didn't scream "Shame, Shame" opting instead to stone him. Of course, the examples multiply as we delve deeper, but perhaps we simply can keep in mind a simple idea - a non-provocative figure doesn't get nailed to a Cross. I'd suggest Jesus is the MOST Provocative figure in history - after all we're either with him or against him (cf Matt 12:30).
8.21.2012 | 12:50pm
Crude says:
"As this video hits my email again, and again, I can’t help but wonder if the offended senders would be writing, “so much for ‘tolerance’” in their subject lines if their own peaceful gatherings, at church or at a kid’s soccer game, were intruded upon by a gay person or an atheist with a clear intent to showboat and provoke. I don’t think they’d appreciate it."
The peaceful gathering in question was an anti-Chik-fil-a protest. And the father's "provocative" move was to pray. Not to shout anti-gay slogans, nor anything else. All he did was pray.
Now, I'll grant you: a Catholic priest praying the rosary, then and there, could easily be interpreted as confrontation. So could, frankly, two people of the same sex kissing anywhere in public - at least once upon a time. Part of the very reason gay activists did that was to A) provoke, B) proselytize by provoking (by provoking people to hate so easily, they made their opponents look bad, and C) ultimately, make it so engaging in such acts in public were defended, rather than rejected - and that criticism of such was considered improper.
The point is, the priest did the right thing. He should be supported and commended, and the "so much for tolerance" response is 100% correct. The fact that this simple act was enough to ensure hatred and mockery from him isn't some kind of reason for him to have avoided doing so - it was all the more reason for him to do it.
I understand Scalia's move here to a point, but only to a point. I used to agree with it - "don't provoke". But now I am convinced it's wrong. We MUST provoke, particularly when the most genteel, inoffensive aspects of our faith - in the good Father's case, merely existing, merely being a Catholic in public (My GOD, how obnoxious of him) - is capable of stirring up such a response.
God bless the street evangelization project. And God bless Father O'Reilly.
The peaceful gathering in question was an anti-Chik-fil-a protest. And the father's "provocative" move was to pray. Not to shout anti-gay slogans, nor anything else. All he did was pray.
Now, I'll grant you: a Catholic priest praying the rosary, then and there, could easily be interpreted as confrontation. So could, frankly, two people of the same sex kissing anywhere in public - at least once upon a time. Part of the very reason gay activists did that was to A) provoke, B) proselytize by provoking (by provoking people to hate so easily, they made their opponents look bad, and C) ultimately, make it so engaging in such acts in public were defended, rather than rejected - and that criticism of such was considered improper.
The point is, the priest did the right thing. He should be supported and commended, and the "so much for tolerance" response is 100% correct. The fact that this simple act was enough to ensure hatred and mockery from him isn't some kind of reason for him to have avoided doing so - it was all the more reason for him to do it.
I understand Scalia's move here to a point, but only to a point. I used to agree with it - "don't provoke". But now I am convinced it's wrong. We MUST provoke, particularly when the most genteel, inoffensive aspects of our faith - in the good Father's case, merely existing, merely being a Catholic in public (My GOD, how obnoxious of him) - is capable of stirring up such a response.
God bless the street evangelization project. And God bless Father O'Reilly.
8.21.2012 | 12:52pm
Aaron says:
As a Church we need to become more tolerant of the well-intentioned efforts of those that share our faith. Fr. O'Reilly's provocative approach probably isn't something that I'd undertake or encourage, but why he did what he did was between him and God.
To his credit, he was bold, he was brave, and he walked right into the face of deception and sin armed with nothing but his rosary. Certainly to many (most?) Catholics he came off as crazy, he didn't "handle" things correctly, his "approach" was all wrong. Our Church isn't made up entirely of people with the charisma, social graces, and balance to navigate through society in the "correct" way, and thankfully God doesn't ask it of us. Many of our greatest saints did some pretty bizarre and off the wall things. Some were very polished, refined, and well-spoken.
The man was doing his best in standing up for the truth. It's not my way, it's probably not your way, but it's quite possibly the way he discerned that God asked him to stand up for Truth. I am willing to tolerate that.
To his credit, he was bold, he was brave, and he walked right into the face of deception and sin armed with nothing but his rosary. Certainly to many (most?) Catholics he came off as crazy, he didn't "handle" things correctly, his "approach" was all wrong. Our Church isn't made up entirely of people with the charisma, social graces, and balance to navigate through society in the "correct" way, and thankfully God doesn't ask it of us. Many of our greatest saints did some pretty bizarre and off the wall things. Some were very polished, refined, and well-spoken.
The man was doing his best in standing up for the truth. It's not my way, it's probably not your way, but it's quite possibly the way he discerned that God asked him to stand up for Truth. I am willing to tolerate that.
8.21.2012 | 1:55pm
Howard says:
Thank you, David Nickol, for quoting that passage, which does not argue from the dubious premise that we should try to imitate the details of Jesus' actions, but from the certain premise that we should obey His commands.
When we pray to God, we should pray to God. When we speak to men, we should speak to men. I have never been comfortable with people reducing God to a mere rhetorical device. Protestant preachers tend to extend their preaching into "prayers" that are clearly directed more to the listening congregation than to God, Who may or may not choose to listen to such a thing. In the Catholic Church, the most common offense occurs when political preferences are made into prayers; I think we would be better off to use the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which covers all the bases.
When we pray to God, we should pray to God. When we speak to men, we should speak to men. I have never been comfortable with people reducing God to a mere rhetorical device. Protestant preachers tend to extend their preaching into "prayers" that are clearly directed more to the listening congregation than to God, Who may or may not choose to listen to such a thing. In the Catholic Church, the most common offense occurs when political preferences are made into prayers; I think we would be better off to use the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which covers all the bases.
8.21.2012 | 2:12pm
Jon Wire says:
/* Jesus did not burst in where he was not welcome and start praying at people (or for them) in a way that could be regarded as both separatist and condescending by the very people he wished to engage. */
Yeah. Hard to imagine Jesus just bursting in somewhere, overturning a bunch of tables, and telling people off ...
... oh wait.
Yeah. Hard to imagine Jesus just bursting in somewhere, overturning a bunch of tables, and telling people off ...
... oh wait.
8.21.2012 | 2:45pm
David Nickol says:
I think it is a little strange to use the Cleansing of the Temple as some kind of justification for confrontation or violence, especially since there is no universally agreed explanation of what Jesus was attempting to accomplish. The moneychangers were an integral part of the temple system, as were the vendors who sold animals for sacrifice. Joseph and Mary surely made use of this system when they offered two turtledoves for sacrifice at the temple. One of the purposes of the temple was animal sacrifice. People came from far and wide to make use of the temple. It was impractical for people to bring animals to sacrifice along with them on their travels. Since they came from many different places, and since they had to buy animals, they needed moneychangers so they could exchange the currency they brought with them. It is mere conjecture that Jesus was castigating the moneychangers for being dishonest. He seems to have been castigating them for being moneychangers. Consequently, one view is that he was actually attacking the entire purpose of the temple, a strange position for a first-century Jew to take.
8.21.2012 | 3:14pm
Crude says:
Just to comment on this more, I think I may know one facet - not the whole story, but a single facet - of the complaints against Father O'Reilly.
What he did took guts. And I think some of us - and I include myself in that list, certainly - would very much prefer if that sort of public, middle-of-a-hostile-crowd action wasn't considered laudable. Because if it was, we may find ourselves feeling pressure to engage in similar acts, and when we chicken out, we don't want to think lesser of ourselves for it.
Again, I offer myself as an example. Being known among my friends as a Catholic is one thing. But when I'm in a group of people and someone mocks the church and everyone laughs, I've stayed quiet in the past. I've justified why too: I told myself that if I spoke up, if I was offended, if I said it wasn't funny, then I was portraying my faith as something that was so fragile that I couldn't take a joke. If I passive, very nonchalantly made my faith known - and never then and there, in that context - while keeping quiet when such jokes were made, I was better representing my faith. Showing how mature I was. Showing how I didn't let things get to me.
It was a complete and utter load. The fact was I didn't want to make myself a target in public. It was cowardice. I still have bouts of it when it comes up. But other times, I speak up - even when it's awkward. Even when I'm going to likely pit most people, or everyone in that group, against me.
I also say: gay rights advocates were bold and unrelenting about this. They made it clear when they were offended, even over minor slights. The result has been a world that watches itself around them, is mindful of respect for them, in large part. If more people did what this priest did - if more people were willing to show that simply being catholic in public, simply praying among the "wrong" people, was enough to stir hate and attacks, we'd show what we're really up against. If we condemned the hatefulness, we'd have more of a leg to stand on when we talked about anti-religious bigotry. And if we made it clear that we were going to show up and allow ourselves to be targeted in public - even if it was a "public" where opponents were gathered - then anti-Christian bigotry may well become far less public than it is now.
We have to get over this desire to make our confrontations entirely safe and polite. We have to stop regarding someone else's reaction to our presence, beliefs and mere existence as being the criterion for whether or not we do something. It's something I'm working on, it's something I think others should work on, and I thank Father O'Reilly for inspiring me on this point.
What he did took guts. And I think some of us - and I include myself in that list, certainly - would very much prefer if that sort of public, middle-of-a-hostile-crowd action wasn't considered laudable. Because if it was, we may find ourselves feeling pressure to engage in similar acts, and when we chicken out, we don't want to think lesser of ourselves for it.
Again, I offer myself as an example. Being known among my friends as a Catholic is one thing. But when I'm in a group of people and someone mocks the church and everyone laughs, I've stayed quiet in the past. I've justified why too: I told myself that if I spoke up, if I was offended, if I said it wasn't funny, then I was portraying my faith as something that was so fragile that I couldn't take a joke. If I passive, very nonchalantly made my faith known - and never then and there, in that context - while keeping quiet when such jokes were made, I was better representing my faith. Showing how mature I was. Showing how I didn't let things get to me.
It was a complete and utter load. The fact was I didn't want to make myself a target in public. It was cowardice. I still have bouts of it when it comes up. But other times, I speak up - even when it's awkward. Even when I'm going to likely pit most people, or everyone in that group, against me.
I also say: gay rights advocates were bold and unrelenting about this. They made it clear when they were offended, even over minor slights. The result has been a world that watches itself around them, is mindful of respect for them, in large part. If more people did what this priest did - if more people were willing to show that simply being catholic in public, simply praying among the "wrong" people, was enough to stir hate and attacks, we'd show what we're really up against. If we condemned the hatefulness, we'd have more of a leg to stand on when we talked about anti-religious bigotry. And if we made it clear that we were going to show up and allow ourselves to be targeted in public - even if it was a "public" where opponents were gathered - then anti-Christian bigotry may well become far less public than it is now.
We have to get over this desire to make our confrontations entirely safe and polite. We have to stop regarding someone else's reaction to our presence, beliefs and mere existence as being the criterion for whether or not we do something. It's something I'm working on, it's something I think others should work on, and I thank Father O'Reilly for inspiring me on this point.
8.21.2012 | 3:23pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Jesus wasn't intentionally provocative? Why ever did they nail Him to that cross, then?
8.21.2012 | 3:34pm
Mary says:
There is no way to avoid provocation, because even being sinless does not prevent people from taking scandal.
8.21.2012 | 3:49pm
Mike Melendez says:
Just a short note. I was pleased when I read that the leaders of the "kiss-in" actually did a "kiss-out" staying in a generally public space rather than taking over part of a Chick-Fil-A. Though that might have been prompted by Chick-Fil-A's graciousness in stating they would be happy to serve the protesters.
8.21.2012 | 4:27pm
Artaban7 says:
I'm afraid that much of what's been said on this board about not being provocative is simply unbiblical. One needs go no further than the Gospel of Matthew alone to find Jesus being far more provocative than the priest in the video, and even urging his disciples to do so too:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean." Matthew 23:27
There were few greater insults than calling Pharisees ritually unclean or as dead as tombs.
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Matthew 23:33
Jesus has equated his listeners here with the serpent from the Garden of Eden, and the idols of the pagan gods. That's pretty insulting.
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." Matthew 10:14
Showing the soles of one's feet in the Semitic world is essentially equivalent to flipping someone the bird.
The fact is, most or many people are better persuaded by gentleness and love, but there are people better converted through harsh words of truth. To put those off-limits for Christians robs the potential convert of that which is best for their salvation. It is wisdom to know what method works best or is called for by God, and that merely highlights how deeply evangelization requires prayer of discernment, and prayer for our audiences.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean." Matthew 23:27
There were few greater insults than calling Pharisees ritually unclean or as dead as tombs.
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Matthew 23:33
Jesus has equated his listeners here with the serpent from the Garden of Eden, and the idols of the pagan gods. That's pretty insulting.
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." Matthew 10:14
Showing the soles of one's feet in the Semitic world is essentially equivalent to flipping someone the bird.
The fact is, most or many people are better persuaded by gentleness and love, but there are people better converted through harsh words of truth. To put those off-limits for Christians robs the potential convert of that which is best for their salvation. It is wisdom to know what method works best or is called for by God, and that merely highlights how deeply evangelization requires prayer of discernment, and prayer for our audiences.
8.21.2012 | 5:17pm
bill bannon says:
Artaban,
Could you show us Christ denouncing sexual sinners face to face with the same type of wording He used on the pharisees? I only see the woman at the well ( Christ strict and gentle) and the woman caught in adultery ( Christ strict but gentle as per 2 Tim.2:24).
"From those to whom much is given, much will be required" seems to have the been why Christ, face to face, is only severe without gentleness to religious leaders.
Could you show us Christ denouncing sexual sinners face to face with the same type of wording He used on the pharisees? I only see the woman at the well ( Christ strict and gentle) and the woman caught in adultery ( Christ strict but gentle as per 2 Tim.2:24).
"From those to whom much is given, much will be required" seems to have the been why Christ, face to face, is only severe without gentleness to religious leaders.
8.21.2012 | 5:37pm
Adam Baum says:
"Whatever his motives might have been, the Gospels suggest that Jesus would not have endorsed the priest’s methods. Jesus lived among the people he wished to evangelize. He met with them as people, and he ate with them, or he served them. He attracted converts with his love and his stability. Jesus did not burst in where he was not welcome and start praying at people (or for them) in a way that could be regarded as both separatist and condescending by the very people he wished to engage. "
Elizabeth Scalia's Jesus was effete, ineffectual and fictional.
I hope she sees fit to consider the possibility that she may be guilty of some sins herself in her treatment of the brave priest.
Elizabeth Scalia's Jesus was effete, ineffectual and fictional.
I hope she sees fit to consider the possibility that she may be guilty of some sins herself in her treatment of the brave priest.
8.21.2012 | 6:30pm
Craig Roberts says:
"Jesus did not burst in where he was not welcome and start praying at people (or for them) in a way that could be regarded as both separatist and condescending by the very people he wished to engage."
Yeah right...he just made a whip of cords and drove them all out (John 2:15)!!!
Yeah right...he just made a whip of cords and drove them all out (John 2:15)!!!
8.21.2012 | 6:53pm
David Nickol says:
Artaban7,
The question is whether you take Jesus as a model of behavior, or whether you follow the instructions he gave to his Apostles and disciples. If the latter, they are full of instructions to turn the other cheek, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and so on. St. Paul speaks in the same vein. Jesus, in the Gospels, speaks and acts with great authority. No one else has that authority. He doesn't instruct his followers to follow in his footsteps by cleansing the temple again, or by denouncing the scribes and pharisees.
The question is whether you take Jesus as a model of behavior, or whether you follow the instructions he gave to his Apostles and disciples. If the latter, they are full of instructions to turn the other cheek, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and so on. St. Paul speaks in the same vein. Jesus, in the Gospels, speaks and acts with great authority. No one else has that authority. He doesn't instruct his followers to follow in his footsteps by cleansing the temple again, or by denouncing the scribes and pharisees.
8.21.2012 | 7:37pm
Dennis D says:
Wasn't Jesus being provocative in John 6 when he went to the synagogue at Capernaum during Passover and pronounced that he is the Bread of Life? It sure ticked off a whole bunch of his followers when he told them to "chew" his flesh.
Was John the Baptist non-confrontational? How about Elijah or Ezekiel? Prophetic witness is something that some are called to and it usually makes a lot of people angry. Some are called to a more gentle, persuasive preaching of the Word. Both have their place and both can be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Fr. O'Reilly's mere presence in the group of gay protestors served to make them look bad to those who were watching the video. That can serve as witness for those who think that the protestors had a rational point of view. Obviously, they're insane with hatred. Let's hope that some folks saw the video and are re-thinking their tolerance for "gay marriage."
Was John the Baptist non-confrontational? How about Elijah or Ezekiel? Prophetic witness is something that some are called to and it usually makes a lot of people angry. Some are called to a more gentle, persuasive preaching of the Word. Both have their place and both can be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Fr. O'Reilly's mere presence in the group of gay protestors served to make them look bad to those who were watching the video. That can serve as witness for those who think that the protestors had a rational point of view. Obviously, they're insane with hatred. Let's hope that some folks saw the video and are re-thinking their tolerance for "gay marriage."
8.21.2012 | 8:20pm
Carmen says:
The first thing I thought when I read this was Christ driving out the money chargers, which someone else mentioned. Also, the image of Christ knocking Saul blind and off his horse comes to mind. There are moments when confrontation is necessary, and if we are to truly follow Christ, then we are to discern which moments call for confrontation (tough love) and which call for patience (gentle love). What this priest did was demonstrate to all on both sides of the argument the true colors of those protesting on behalf of gay marriage (who, by the way, are extremely confrontational).
8.21.2012 | 8:26pm
Doug says:
Effective evangelization has been in progress for over 100 years of our modern era, in simple response to two statements of Jesus:
Mt 24:14, Douay "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations: and then shall the consummation come."
Doesn't say who would do the preaching, but this command is available to anyone:
Mt 28:19,20, ibid. "Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
We Jehovah's Witnesses find it odd that, when we obey the command and visit church members, they don't see a command. Instead, they take it as an arguing point about their trinity, a word never used by Jesus or any writer. He did preach the good news of his Father's kingdom, as do we; even told us to pray for it it to come, and for His will to be done here as it already is in Heaven.
Mt 24:14, Douay "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations: and then shall the consummation come."
Doesn't say who would do the preaching, but this command is available to anyone:
Mt 28:19,20, ibid. "Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
We Jehovah's Witnesses find it odd that, when we obey the command and visit church members, they don't see a command. Instead, they take it as an arguing point about their trinity, a word never used by Jesus or any writer. He did preach the good news of his Father's kingdom, as do we; even told us to pray for it it to come, and for His will to be done here as it already is in Heaven.
8.21.2012 | 8:29pm
Carmen says:
Oh, and one last quote - courtesy of Christ Himself - comes to mind: "If you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth!" Confrontational, oh, I think so.
I think an entire dissertation can be written about just how confrontational Christ was, just as a dissertation of equal length can be written about how loving and gentle He was.
I think an entire dissertation can be written about just how confrontational Christ was, just as a dissertation of equal length can be written about how loving and gentle He was.
8.22.2012 | 1:09am
Lucia Maria says:
When pro-lifers go to abortion clinics to pray the Rosary, they are not there at that point to evangelise, they are there to fight the forces of darkness. The Rosary is a weapon, and Father O’Reilly was using it as such. Good on him!
8.22.2012 | 8:36am
Rachel says:
I don't think we can judge whether this priest meant to provoke. To start from that standpoint is to make a rash judgment. True, he probably wanted to be a visible presence. While prayer is useful even if a person stands off to the side, there is also something to be said for being a visible witness. I think it is dangerous-- as Simcha Fisher wrote about in a recent post-- to start making pronouncements about "What Would Jesus Do." Jesus was NOT always meek and silent. He turned over the moneychangers' tables, for example. As to the priest's smile: some people smile or laugh when they are nervous. I know I do. His smile may also have been a gesture to demonstrate his lack of hostility toward those who were ranting against him. There was no lack of gentleness and love on his part. And in fact, I linked that video to my facebook site and several friends who are often outspoken against the church were deeply touched by it and made positive comments about priests.
8.22.2012 | 8:51am
Dean from Ohio says:
Artaban7 - Thanks for your wise words.
Jesus became flesh and lived among us, as John 1:14 says, and we saw his glory, glory as from the only Begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Only he hit the right balance between grace and truth every time. As we seek him and his wisdom, however, His Spirit will show us how to do the same, with increasing success.
Jesus became flesh and lived among us, as John 1:14 says, and we saw his glory, glory as from the only Begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Only he hit the right balance between grace and truth every time. As we seek him and his wisdom, however, His Spirit will show us how to do the same, with increasing success.
8.22.2012 | 8:53am
DEacon Ed Peitler says:
At least this priest has the guts to get out into the public square to profess his faith. What about the 99.99% of Catholics who never evangelize? I think that this article attempts to finesse this priest's approach and should instead extol his efforts. Criticism should be reserved for those who sit by while others step out and then feel that they can criticize the latter. Give me a break!
This priest should be named a bishop because he comes with the requisite preparedness to defend the faith.
This priest should be named a bishop because he comes with the requisite preparedness to defend the faith.
8.22.2012 | 9:13am
Gail Finke says:
Elizabeth is right. This was intentionally provocative. And her point is not that it is wrong to be intentionally provocative, but that it is ridiculous to be intentionally provocative and then get all bent out of shape when people are actually provoked. I don't know if Fr. O'Reilly did so or not, but I do know that people are posting this video right and left as something to be outraged about. It is fine to be outraged by the protester's behavior -- but it is not fine to see it as unprovoked.
We have to be clear. Our culture isn't big on clarity. There is a difference between someone standing near radical protesters and being attacked by them, and walking in the middle of their protest and being attacked by them. Both are legitimate ways to protest, both are legitimate ways to draw attention to a cause or a group or a tactic. But they are NOT THE SAME.
I have been to prayer vigils at abortion clinics. If a pro-abortion protester had stood next to us with a sign, that would be entirely different from him or her joining our line and shouting "get your rosaries off our ovaries" or something instead of "amen." And while I don't think any group that I've been part of would have reacted to the latter the way those protesters reacted to Fr. O'Reilly, I am quite sure that there would have been some reaction.
We have to be clear. Our culture isn't big on clarity. There is a difference between someone standing near radical protesters and being attacked by them, and walking in the middle of their protest and being attacked by them. Both are legitimate ways to protest, both are legitimate ways to draw attention to a cause or a group or a tactic. But they are NOT THE SAME.
I have been to prayer vigils at abortion clinics. If a pro-abortion protester had stood next to us with a sign, that would be entirely different from him or her joining our line and shouting "get your rosaries off our ovaries" or something instead of "amen." And while I don't think any group that I've been part of would have reacted to the latter the way those protesters reacted to Fr. O'Reilly, I am quite sure that there would have been some reaction.
8.22.2012 | 10:16am
Crude says:
For the record, I agree with what I think may be an underlying message from Scalia. "Never do something just to provoke." The problem is, I think she chose a terrible example to make her point.
Provocation can persuade. Not all provocation is acceptable. What this priest did, however, was extremely important, and the right kind of provocation.
Provocation can persuade. Not all provocation is acceptable. What this priest did, however, was extremely important, and the right kind of provocation.
8.22.2012 | 10:20am
Chris says:
When I first watched the video I noticed the pure hatred in the lady that was in front of Father. Watching her demonstration of hate towards Father began to cultivate like feelings in me for the lady. 1John3:15 says- Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. I am in no way judging Father but we certainly ought not be a stumbling block to others. Romans 14:13 Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I fail to see how Father's approach in this matter would bring the lost to Christ.
8.22.2012 | 11:23am
Ann says:
I am not sure Father O"Reilly was there to evangelize. I think he was there to offer a counter protest or counter witness to the homosexual activists. The violent reaction of the homosexual activists says it all to me: He entered the spiritual battle with the Rosary as his weapon and the Enemy reacted. The closer we get to the truth the more violent the reaction from the enemy.
This article leaves me wondering if Ms. Scalia is excusing the activists actions. Is intolerance and violent verbal attacks o.k. under certain circumstances? Let's call this what it is: evidence of the intolerance and hypocrisy of homosexual activists.
This article leaves me wondering if Ms. Scalia is excusing the activists actions. Is intolerance and violent verbal attacks o.k. under certain circumstances? Let's call this what it is: evidence of the intolerance and hypocrisy of homosexual activists.
8.22.2012 | 11:25am
Ray Ingles says:
"having made an ill-advised assertion about pregnancies resulting from “legitimate rape.”"
A side note... it wasn't just 'ill-advised', it was *anti*-informed: https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/did-todd-akin-get-his-misinformation-on-rape-and-pregnancy-from-physicians-for-life/
A side note... it wasn't just 'ill-advised', it was *anti*-informed: https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/did-todd-akin-get-his-misinformation-on-rape-and-pregnancy-from-physicians-for-life/
8.22.2012 | 11:28am
Kirk says:
When I watched the video, what witnessed, was a public exorcism. It was as if the demons inside these poor souls were being tormented by the praying of the Rosary. It showed me the Holy power of the prayer and encourages me to use it more.
8.22.2012 | 2:11pm
Artaban7 says:
"The question is whether you take Jesus as a model of behavior, or whether you follow the instructions he gave to his Apostles and disciples."
David, this is a false dichotomy. Every Christian should understand that we are called to "take Jesus as a model of behavior" AND to "follow the instructions he gave to his Apostles and disciples". One cannot be truly Christian without doing both, and the New Testament letters and Gospels make that clear.
"If the latter, they are full of instructions to turn the other cheek, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and so on."
Sometimes the way one loves one's enemies is precisely by rebuking them, preaching the reality of sin and Hell (Christ did that more than any other person in the entire Bible), and calling on them for repentance.
"No one else has that authority. He doesn't instruct his followers to follow in his footsteps by cleansing the temple again, or by denouncing the scribes and pharisees."
Incorrect, David. In several passages, Jesus confers his authority on his apostles and disciples. Authority to preach, to heal, to forgive sins, to drive out demons, to correct and morally instruct. Look in the sections after the Resurrection for some of those instances. I've already cited Christ's command to provocatively rebuke (shake the dust from your feet in protest against them) those who refuse to accept the Gospel [Matthew 10:14].
"Could you show us Christ denouncing sexual sinners face to face with the same type of wording He used on the pharisees?" Bill Bannon
Could you show me, Bill, Fr. O'Reilly denouncing the Chik-fil-A protesters with the same wording Christ used on the pharisees? You seem to be implying that O'Reilly's prayer to Mary was as inflammatory as Christ's words to the Pharisees. That is clearly not the case.
Gospel experience shows us Christ would, however, said something those protesters would consider far, far more "bigoted" than O'Reilly's actions:
1. "Go and commit this sin no more."
2. "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)
David, this is a false dichotomy. Every Christian should understand that we are called to "take Jesus as a model of behavior" AND to "follow the instructions he gave to his Apostles and disciples". One cannot be truly Christian without doing both, and the New Testament letters and Gospels make that clear.
"If the latter, they are full of instructions to turn the other cheek, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and so on."
Sometimes the way one loves one's enemies is precisely by rebuking them, preaching the reality of sin and Hell (Christ did that more than any other person in the entire Bible), and calling on them for repentance.
"No one else has that authority. He doesn't instruct his followers to follow in his footsteps by cleansing the temple again, or by denouncing the scribes and pharisees."
Incorrect, David. In several passages, Jesus confers his authority on his apostles and disciples. Authority to preach, to heal, to forgive sins, to drive out demons, to correct and morally instruct. Look in the sections after the Resurrection for some of those instances. I've already cited Christ's command to provocatively rebuke (shake the dust from your feet in protest against them) those who refuse to accept the Gospel [Matthew 10:14].
"Could you show us Christ denouncing sexual sinners face to face with the same type of wording He used on the pharisees?" Bill Bannon
Could you show me, Bill, Fr. O'Reilly denouncing the Chik-fil-A protesters with the same wording Christ used on the pharisees? You seem to be implying that O'Reilly's prayer to Mary was as inflammatory as Christ's words to the Pharisees. That is clearly not the case.
Gospel experience shows us Christ would, however, said something those protesters would consider far, far more "bigoted" than O'Reilly's actions:
1. "Go and commit this sin no more."
2. "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)
8.22.2012 | 3:59pm
bill bannon says:
Artaban,
It's not the priest I'm worried about by now. His fault was invading...coercion as to another's space. He didn't rebuke. The thread has now a subtext of rebuking sexual sinners without any mention of the gentleness 2 Tim.2:24 (and thus the Holy Spirit) requires or the gentleness used by Christ with both the woman caught in adultery or the Samaritan woman. Rebuking must be done by prophets and Bishops and preachers and parents to children but when done by laymen to strangers, it is called fraternal correction and has required steps given at new advent under fraternal correction:
1. the delinquency to be corrected or prevented is a grievous one;
2. there is no good reason to believe that the sinner will adequately provide for himself;
3. there is a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded;
4. there is no one else just as well fitted for this work of Christian charity and likely to undertake it;
5. there is no special trouble or disadvantage accruing to the reformer as a result of his zeal.
Do you see number 3? When it's absent, we are rebuking the other sinfully because we don't care if he gets better....we're rebuking for our ego. Prophets and clergy and parents to children do not have number 3 or number 5 perhaps because they have an office which intrinsically contains rebuking within it.
It's not the priest I'm worried about by now. His fault was invading...coercion as to another's space. He didn't rebuke. The thread has now a subtext of rebuking sexual sinners without any mention of the gentleness 2 Tim.2:24 (and thus the Holy Spirit) requires or the gentleness used by Christ with both the woman caught in adultery or the Samaritan woman. Rebuking must be done by prophets and Bishops and preachers and parents to children but when done by laymen to strangers, it is called fraternal correction and has required steps given at new advent under fraternal correction:
1. the delinquency to be corrected or prevented is a grievous one;
2. there is no good reason to believe that the sinner will adequately provide for himself;
3. there is a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded;
4. there is no one else just as well fitted for this work of Christian charity and likely to undertake it;
5. there is no special trouble or disadvantage accruing to the reformer as a result of his zeal.
Do you see number 3? When it's absent, we are rebuking the other sinfully because we don't care if he gets better....we're rebuking for our ego. Prophets and clergy and parents to children do not have number 3 or number 5 perhaps because they have an office which intrinsically contains rebuking within it.
8.22.2012 | 6:22pm
CatholicMinnesotan says:
Who says this has anything to do with evangelization? (I have not yet seen this video, but) I see a call to arms. I forget the actual biblical quote from Paul, but at one point, he mentions that no one will follow an unsure bugle, and a weak trumpet leads a one man army. Fr. O'Reilly uttered a clarion call that many will be too afraid to follow, but some will join, and it will be good.
8.22.2012 | 10:51pm
Peggy Hagen says:
I have no sympathy whatever for Fr. O'Reilly. I do absolutely commend him for his courage in going there and praying the Rosary - being the light in that very-quickly-obvious darkness. It's unfortunate that the popular takeaway has become "so much for tolerance!" - an eye-for-an-eye cheap shot.
8.22.2012 | 11:21pm
edmond says:
"I think of Jesus sitting by a well, or a healing pool, and striking up conversations with the people who crossed his path. It’s a street evangelization I can get behind. "
Ms. Scalia, why do you conveniently omit the side of Jesus driving out the moneymakers in the temple with whips fashioned with cords and overturning tables? That is also Jesus in an intolerant mood.
Evangelization is also preaching by example. What was the non-verbal message in the den of thieves?
Ms. Scalia, why do you conveniently omit the side of Jesus driving out the moneymakers in the temple with whips fashioned with cords and overturning tables? That is also Jesus in an intolerant mood.
Evangelization is also preaching by example. What was the non-verbal message in the den of thieves?
8.23.2012 | 11:35am
bill bannon says:
Edmond,
This is a never touched subject but the expulsion from the temple was unique as to Christ being violent and it was consistent with a theme in the Bible discussed by no one: [God kills intimately in the OT for sacrilege] (even in the Onan case...Onan was risking the end of the house of Judah from which Christ would come hence the new translation used a manuscript that says "whenever he went in to Tamar").
Here's the tradition of death to humans by God for sacrilege:
Dathan and Abiram and their families swallowed by the earth for revolt against Moses...Achan killed for stealing the precious metals reserved to God...Uzzah slain by God for touching the ark... the sons of Eli for abusing the priesthood....the 42 children killed by bears at Eliseus' curse since they disrespected prophecy ( Aquinas ST)....the two groups of fifty who sought to harm Elijah...the sons of Aaron for using strange incense rather than that prescribed...the house of Ahab slaughtered by Jehu for idolatry which Jehu was anointed by the prophet to do just that...Acts 12 Herod is killed by the angel for accepting the title of "god"....Acts 5 Ananias and wife for
lying to the Holy Spirit.
The only time Christ is violent is consistent with that: for sacrilege vis a vis the temple. Christ is not violent against groups of prostitutes or tax collectors or even the pharisees.
This is a never touched subject but the expulsion from the temple was unique as to Christ being violent and it was consistent with a theme in the Bible discussed by no one: [God kills intimately in the OT for sacrilege] (even in the Onan case...Onan was risking the end of the house of Judah from which Christ would come hence the new translation used a manuscript that says "whenever he went in to Tamar").
Here's the tradition of death to humans by God for sacrilege:
Dathan and Abiram and their families swallowed by the earth for revolt against Moses...Achan killed for stealing the precious metals reserved to God...Uzzah slain by God for touching the ark... the sons of Eli for abusing the priesthood....the 42 children killed by bears at Eliseus' curse since they disrespected prophecy ( Aquinas ST)....the two groups of fifty who sought to harm Elijah...the sons of Aaron for using strange incense rather than that prescribed...the house of Ahab slaughtered by Jehu for idolatry which Jehu was anointed by the prophet to do just that...Acts 12 Herod is killed by the angel for accepting the title of "god"....Acts 5 Ananias and wife for
lying to the Holy Spirit.
The only time Christ is violent is consistent with that: for sacrilege vis a vis the temple. Christ is not violent against groups of prostitutes or tax collectors or even the pharisees.
8.23.2012 | 2:08pm
Artaban7 says:
Bill Bannon, you state that fraternal correction has required steps, but you confuse fraternal correction and evangelization. They are not the same, and for this reason your series of steps are of greatly limited relevance to the discussion at hand. Fraternal correction is exercised among/between:
1. Members of the Church.
2. People who have already accepted Christ and His teaching, though they may not be fully converted to its fullness;
3. Accept the authority of his appointed earthly ministers.
4. People who at least intellectually view each other as brothers or sisters in Christ (something their behavior toward Fr. O'Reilly clearly contradicts).
The protesters in question are clearly not fellow believers, and thus all the criteria of fraternal correction don't correspond--indeed might even be detrimental to their good--if followed.
I dispute wholesale your claim concerning the necessity of "a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded" for rebuke or correction. Indeed, the whole experience of the prophets with the stubborn, hard-hearted people of Israel, as well as the exchanges of the Apostles with various groups in the Acts of the Apostles, refutes this "rule 3" of yours.
1. Members of the Church.
2. People who have already accepted Christ and His teaching, though they may not be fully converted to its fullness;
3. Accept the authority of his appointed earthly ministers.
4. People who at least intellectually view each other as brothers or sisters in Christ (something their behavior toward Fr. O'Reilly clearly contradicts).
The protesters in question are clearly not fellow believers, and thus all the criteria of fraternal correction don't correspond--indeed might even be detrimental to their good--if followed.
I dispute wholesale your claim concerning the necessity of "a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded" for rebuke or correction. Indeed, the whole experience of the prophets with the stubborn, hard-hearted people of Israel, as well as the exchanges of the Apostles with various groups in the Acts of the Apostles, refutes this "rule 3" of yours.
8.23.2012 | 2:35pm
Doug says:
Edmond, bill b.: Something to consider about the temple scene is that Jesus was acting for the Founder of the Temple, his Father. That's consistent with Jesus' other actions or inactions- he came here to offer himself as a ransom sacrifice for us, not to defend himself against insults. He was acting in harmony with the "Our Father" prayer- "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed [cleansed] be your name."
John 2, Douay: "And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic. And his disciples remembered, that it was written: The zeal of your house has eaten me up ... Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up." Note that he did not then raise another physical temple; temple worship was over. (Jer 7:4, 31:31; Mt 5:17)
Remembering James' counsel at 1:20- "the anger of man works not the justice of God", we should follow our Lord's example, to hate what God hates. Our teaching against those things- we have no authority to act- should be 'salted for savor'. Mt 5:13
John 2, Douay: "And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic. And his disciples remembered, that it was written: The zeal of your house has eaten me up ... Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up." Note that he did not then raise another physical temple; temple worship was over. (Jer 7:4, 31:31; Mt 5:17)
Remembering James' counsel at 1:20- "the anger of man works not the justice of God", we should follow our Lord's example, to hate what God hates. Our teaching against those things- we have no authority to act- should be 'salted for savor'. Mt 5:13
8.23.2012 | 5:15pm
bill bannon says:
Artaban,
Read my post again. I stated that rule three did not apply to prophets and certain others yet it's as though you never got to that sentence.
Unforetunately also there are baptized separated brethern that permit gay acts.
And outside of the baptized there are those unbelievers who can be fraternally corrected who are trying to perceive the natural law....noted by Karl Rahner as "anonymous Christians" but noted long before him in St. Justin Martyr, Apology 1. chapter 46: " we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them.."
Read my post again. I stated that rule three did not apply to prophets and certain others yet it's as though you never got to that sentence.
Unforetunately also there are baptized separated brethern that permit gay acts.
And outside of the baptized there are those unbelievers who can be fraternally corrected who are trying to perceive the natural law....noted by Karl Rahner as "anonymous Christians" but noted long before him in St. Justin Martyr, Apology 1. chapter 46: " we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them.."
8.24.2012 | 12:22am
edmond says:
Bill and Doug, I doubt that the withered fig tree would agree totally with you. I'm really driving at who was intolerant to whom? Was the priest intolerant to the gay group because he prayed the rosary? Should he have denied Christ in order tobe politically correct and crowned tolerant. The worst kind of evengelization is political correctness in my view.
8.24.2012 | 8:39pm
R.C. says:
Mainly, I was surprised that nobody noticed -- especially after the close-up at the 2:20 mark -- that "Father Gerald O’Reilly" was actually comedian Jon Lovitz with some Godfather-style cheek padding and his hair dusted to look gray.
8.25.2012 | 11:44pm
Doug says:
edmond: withered fig tree? I guess you mean he was 'provoking' the tree. Not in the same category IMO as a 'provoked' human.
In any event, I've heard two reasons for the incident. (And it's clear that Jesus set up the thing; both days.
He indicates why he killed it when he goes on to say: “Amen, I say to you, if you shall have faith and stagger not, not only this of the fig tree shall you do ..."
And, considering the time and audience, there is another connection between the withering of the fig tree and the quality of faith. "The nation of Israel, like this fig tree, has a deceptive appearance. Although the nation is in a covenant relationship with God and may outwardly appear to observe his regulations, it has proved to be without faith, barren of good fruitage. Because of lack of faith, it is even in the process of rejecting God’s own Son! Hence, by causing the unproductive fig tree to wither, Jesus is graphically demonstrating what the end result will be for this fruitless, faithless nation." From The Watch Tower of 4/15/1989. Is this an unfounded attempt to read the mind of Jesus? I think not, for two reasons. The fig tree was often used in the OT as a symbol of the Nation, and Jesus' audience was a group of covenant members. And the episode has an air of casualness about it that is out of line with Jesus' other actions and teachings.
What do you think?
In any event, I've heard two reasons for the incident. (And it's clear that Jesus set up the thing; both days.
He indicates why he killed it when he goes on to say: “Amen, I say to you, if you shall have faith and stagger not, not only this of the fig tree shall you do ..."
And, considering the time and audience, there is another connection between the withering of the fig tree and the quality of faith. "The nation of Israel, like this fig tree, has a deceptive appearance. Although the nation is in a covenant relationship with God and may outwardly appear to observe his regulations, it has proved to be without faith, barren of good fruitage. Because of lack of faith, it is even in the process of rejecting God’s own Son! Hence, by causing the unproductive fig tree to wither, Jesus is graphically demonstrating what the end result will be for this fruitless, faithless nation." From The Watch Tower of 4/15/1989. Is this an unfounded attempt to read the mind of Jesus? I think not, for two reasons. The fig tree was often used in the OT as a symbol of the Nation, and Jesus' audience was a group of covenant members. And the episode has an air of casualness about it that is out of line with Jesus' other actions and teachings.
What do you think?
8.28.2012 | 8:12am
a says:
Forgive me, I don't at all intend to come off with a rude/argumentative tone...but I'd say that Evangelization is meant to 'propose' (salvation in Christ), not so much as it is to persuade. Persuading in a way would be like imposing (at least that's the way I'd see it). While proposing on the other hand, would be more like showing others a life in Christ, presenting the option, so to speak. I don't know if that makes any sense to any of you.
God bless!
God bless!
More than once I've had other good pro lifers gently call me back and they'be been right and Elizabeth Scalia is right. Fr. O'Reilly was doing a good thing in standing up for and praying for marriage, but it was not wise or good to stand in the middle of Chick-fil-a protesters and pray the rosary at them.