Catholic Priest writes that recent decline of USRCC is due to bad sermons by priests.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03GREE.html?pagewanted=1

the laity give their clergy, on the average, scores only about half as high as what Protestants give their ministers on preaching, liturgy, sympathetic counseling, respect for women and work with young people. In the 1950's, according to a study by Ben Gaffin Associates, 40 percent of Americans (Protestants and Catholics alike) rated the sermons they heard as "excellent." In 2002, according to the National Opinion Research Study, 36 percent of Protestants still found their sermons excellent, compared to just 18 percent of Catholics.
...
In addition to the abuse cases, the big problems in the priesthood, then, are not celibacy or sexual frustration, but the constraints on excellence in an envy-ridden, rigid and mediocre clerical culture that does a poor job in serving church members.

dlw

[spl_cadet]

USRCC=AmChurch.

[elysian]

I didn't leave the Catholic church because of poor homilies (the Catholic word for sermon) in fact there were three or four priests from the church I went to who were great speakers and did preach the Gospel well. I don't know if they still rotate priests all the time- the longest I ever remember any one priest being in the parish is three or four years.

Priests generally aren't accessible (again, I hope this has changed!) except for formal Confession. Combine that with frequent rotations and you never really get to know the priests. There's also that notion in Catholicism that the priest is somehow "better" and "holier" than you, as in he's the authority figure and you're just supposed to listen to what he has to say instead of engaging in dialogue.

Now this is my own opinion and experience and I'm sure that others have had different experiences with Catholic priests.

Some of the ones I have seen are terrible preachers- some are positively eloquent and have a gift for it. Same goes for Lutheran pastors- I knew of one who related every sermon to football and it drove me insane. But my choice of denomination isn't based on that.

[apologetics]

In the political structure of the Catholic clergy, there are far too many things to occupy a priests time for them to actually be concerned with the spiritual growth of their congregation. The entire structure fails miserably to live up to the ideals Christ designed nd that the apostles envisioned for the church.

I will grant you that the same could be said for the Lutherans and I would say the Episcopalians. Whenever a political hierarchy is established, the pursuit of power and position usually takes precedent over all other concerns. However, the RCC has taken this to a near art form. It is no wonder that almost all Catholics that I know hold views that are completely contradicted by the Bible and their own traditions (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, belief pyschics and spiritualists, etc.) As a generalization, they aren't feed properly or given the tools to grow independantly. I understand that many of the same problems exist in any church, however, no where have I found this problem to be as universal as members of the RCC. Just my own observation....I'm sure there are those who only encounter pious, devout, faithful Catholics whose grasp of the Bible is only surpassed by their grasp of the traditions of the church....

[elysian]

I readily concur that all denominations have healthy and unhealthy local churches- and that some pastors are effective while others struggle. What we see in our generalizations is that each system has potential weaknesses that will be played out more in the unhealthy churches.

I agree too that the idea of encouraging church members to be like the Bereans (to double check everything taught in the church against Scripture) is absolutely essential. Admittedly the liturgical traditions (Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglican/Episcopal, Presbyterian) are weaker in this regard than are the non-liturgical traditions. The reason for this is that many of the rites in liturgy as well as catechisms and lectionaries (schedules of Scripture readings for use in liturgy) were intended to teach the very basics of faith to the "unwashed masses" who could neither read nor write. This was beneficial on one level- because how could you experience the Gospel if you are illiterate if not for the Sunday sermon? The problem with this is that if the priest/pastor wasn't preaching the Gospel, then the unwashed masses weren't getting it at all. This was a lot of Martin Luther's problem with the Roman Catholics of his day- they weren't teaching the Gospel but instead they were acting like many of today's "preachers"- in selling indulgences and in teaching a merit oriented, unscriptural faith.

I have no problem with liturgy, and I belong to a liturgical church, but unlike many Lutheran churches we place a strong influence on "being the Berean" and double checking our Pastors against Scripture. The liturgy should reinforce what we learn by our own diligent study of Scripture (the Catechisms and the Confessions are a good reference to say "what am I looking for in Scripture, and what do I believe?) But the individual should always be encouraged to study and to ask questions. If the only spiritual nourishment you get is the Sunday sermon, then you are spiritually starving! Even if your pastor is preaching really good sermons, it's not enough- especially today when Bibles and Bible study aids are so easy to come by. The discipline of study (at least for the laity) is sorely lacking in most Roman Catholic (and sadly, even many Lutheran churches) churches. This is why there are people who claim to be Catholic but also claim that abortion is OK, or that homosexuality is morally neutral- because they do not study the Bible or even the many writings of the Catholic church against such things. The laity tend not to take the discipline of study seriously in liturgical churches. There should always be an emphasis on education beyond the Sunday sermon for all age groups- much like the type of study that non-liturgical churches have done for years. I am very thankful my church offers and highly encourages adult education and Bible study!

The Pastor's responsibility is to be a leader but he is still accountable to the laity. He should be accessible for questions, for confession or counsel (to a reasonable degree.) In large churches in which there is more than one Pastor
it would be helpful to divide duties according to each one's spiritual gifts. One might be a great administrator but a poor teacher- or one might be better with preaching sermons, or comforting the bereaved. Getting the lay leaders more involved with ministry also helps the Pastors in their duties- for instance in my church we have a lay ministry for homebound and hospitalized people, and another lay ministry for temporary assistance (emergency housing, disaster relief) for people in crisis.

I believe yes we should respect the pastoral office (after all they are called by the Holy Spirit and are educated in matters of Scripture, they learn the Greek and Hebrew languages, and most have a deep passion for their ministry) but pastors are not above being accountable. When the laity take an active role in their own spiritual growth, maintaining accountability and transparency in the congregation as a whole becomes easier as well.

When we understand each person has unique spiritual gifts given by God to complete His purpose, we understand how important "the priesthood of all believers" is- yes we need our Pastors but we also need the average person to get involved right where they are. That means not just being passive receptacles or zombies, "yes, I agree with you...." but more like the Bereans that Paul praised. "Trust but verify" is a Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting. We should trust and respect our Pastors, but we also need to get into the study of Scripture ourselves.

[spl_cadet]

In the political structure of the Catholic clergy, there are far too many things to occupy a priests time for them to actually be concerned with the spiritual growth of their congregation. The entire structure fails miserably to live up to the ideals Christ designed nd that the apostles envisioned for the church.

There's several hundred people in the average parish. I don't think any one person would have the ability to follow up on everyone's spiritual growth.


I will grant you that the same could be said for the Lutherans and I would say the Episcopalians. Whenever a political hierarchy is established, the pursuit of power and position usually takes precedent over all other concerns. However, the RCC has taken this to a near art form. It is no wonder that almost all Catholics that I know hold views that are completely contradicted by the Bible and their own traditions (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, belief pyschics and spiritualists, etc.)

The Modernist heresy is quite rampant in AmChurch unfortunately.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I don't think it is right to call the USRCC AmChurch, since the RCC is also quite well established elsewhere in the Americas.

Would you also define what the modernist heresy is, Spl?

dlw

[spl_cadet]

I don't think it is right to call the USRCC AmChurch, since the RCC is also quite well established elsewhere in the Americas.

AmChurch is a (usually derogatory due to the state of it) term that American Catholics use for the Catholic Church in the United States. We think it is right, and the opinions of Protestants don't matter on that score :tongue:


Would you also define what the modernist heresy is, Spl?

dlw

"In general we may say that modernism aims at that radical transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and hereafter,"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

[Jude3b]

Maybe more people are being set free from idolatry and the idols of Romanism!
"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (I Cor. 10:14)

[kofh2u]

I didn't leave the Catholic church because of poor homilies (the Catholic word for sermon) in fact there were three or four priests from the church I went to who were great speakers and did preach the Gospel well. I don't know if they still rotate priests all the time- the longest I ever remember any one priest being in the parish is three or four years.

Priests generally aren't accessible (again, I hope this has changed!) except for formal Confession. Combine that with frequent rotations and you never really get to know the priests. There's also that notion in Catholicism that the priest is somehow "better" and "holier" than you, as in he's the authority figure and you're just supposed to listen to what he has to say instead of engaging in dialogue.

Now this is my own opinion and experience and I'm sure that others have had different experiences with Catholic priests.

Some of the ones I have seen are terrible preachers- some are positively eloquent and have a gift for it. Same goes for Lutheran pastors- I knew of one who related every sermon to football and it drove me insane. But my choice of denomination isn't based on that.

1) Incentives:
The socialism of thevCatholic order contrasts with the free enterprise of Protestantism in regard to building a base of what in Economucs would be called "customers."

2) Nationalism.
No, not really, but like tge fotce of Nationalism, people are birn into Catholicism more or less. I mean, its cultural. If you tell me you're a Spaniard, I assume that Catholicism is just much oart if how you see your own identitynas tge way you see tge flag of Spain. So, fire from the pulpit and moving speechs are usually less antivipated by tge congregation each Sunday than the hope for a short sweet visit.

[Jude3b]

Maybe people are getting tired of Religion and want the reality of Christ instead.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

AmChurch is a (usually derogatory due to the state of it) term that American Catholics use for the Catholic Church in the United States. We think it is right, and the opinions of Protestants don't matter on that score :tongue:

You are not exclusively American Catholics. Objectively, it is wrong and it doesn't matter whether or not I'm a Protestant in this regard. American correctly refers to any one who lives in either South or North America.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

1) Incentives:
The socialism of thevCatholic order contrasts with the free enterprise of Protestantism in regard to building a base of what in Economucs would be called "customers."

2) Nationalism.
No, not really, but like tge fotce of Nationalism, people are birn into Catholicism more or less. I mean, its cultural. If you tell me you're a Spaniard, I assume that Catholicism is just much oart if how you see your own identitynas tge way you see tge flag of Spain. So, fire from the pulpit and moving speechs are usually less antivipated by tge congregation each Sunday than the hope for a short sweet visit.

There is also more concentrated hierarchy in the Catholic church, which could explain the intensification of church-politics, at the expense of church-ministry.

Whereever the Catholic Church is predominant, such as Spain, Italy, it is also weak in its hold on members. Wherever it is a minority religion, such as US, England, Germany, it is more vibrant.

Regardless of the problems of the USAmChurch, it has done a better job than Rome in maintaining the allegiance of much of the faithful.

dlw

[spl_cadet]

You are not exclusively American Catholics. Objectively, it is wrong and it doesn't matter whether or not I'm a Protestant in this regard. American correctly refers to any one who lives in either South or North America.

Not in the USA. Here, American means one who lives in the US and nothing more. I'm aware that in Latin America and possibly other parts of the world, they use the term differently. Regardless of how they use it, we use it the way that Americans use it.

[spl_cadet]

Regardless of the problems of the USAmChurch, it has done a better job than Rome in maintaining the allegiance of much of the faithful.

Hardly. America is the hotbed of heresy and has very few faithful.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Not in the USA. Here, American means one who lives in the US and nothing more. I'm aware that in Latin America and possibly other parts of the world, they use the term differently. Regardless of how they use it, we use it the way that Americans use it.

The American def'n is arrogant and un-Christian, which is why I'd counsel against using it.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Hardly. America is the hotbed of heresy and has very few faithful.

Probably depends on your def'n of faithful.

I've been to Italy and grew up next to a RCChurch and I have a large number of catholic friends in the US and in Mexico. The strength of the convictions were by far stronger for USAmericans. Its more mixed here in MX. Many people just disregard what the Church teaches if it inconveniences them much. And so, even if there is much theological heresy among many USAmerican Catholics, imperfect theology doesn't mean that one doesn't have a relationship with God.

dlw

[spl_cadet]

Probably depends on your def'n of faithful.

Only about 4% who hold to the Church's teachings regarding contraception. That is my barometer.

[spl_cadet]

The American def'n is arrogant and un-Christian, which is why I'd counsel against using it.

dlw

The American definition is not arrogant or unChristian. It's a natural followup from living in the United States of America.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Only about 4% who hold to the Church's teachings regarding contraception. That is my barometer.

Why should that be the sine qua non of whether one is a devout catholic? Its traditions are much richer than any particular doctrine.

Though it is true that the rhythm technique can be effective is used carefully and there is much to be said for imparting discipline into the enjoyment of each other's sexuality in a marriage.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The American definition is not arrogant or unChristian. It's a natural followup from living in the United States of America.

Many of whose residents can't even pick out the US of A on a map and who are arrogant and unloving/unchristian to people from other countries of the world.

As Christians your allegiance should be higher than that and be willing to go out of the way to avoid offending others.

dlw

[spl_cadet]

Why should that be the sine qua non of whether one is a devout catholic? Its traditions are much richer than any particular doctrine.

Because the faithful are simply that: faithful. They hold to the faith of the Church and all it's doctrines.


Many of whose residents can't even pick out the US of A on a map and who are arrogant and unloving/unchristian to people from other countries of the world.

There's a difference between a simple term and arrogance towards others. The use of American comes from the name of our nation, not from any arrogance.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Because the faithful are simply that: faithful. They hold to the faith of the Church and all it's doctrines.

But is the faith of the Church the same as the wisdom of all its teachings?

There's a difference between a simple term and arrogance towards others. The use of American comes from the name of our nation, not from any arrogance.

The name of our nation is United States of America. That is why USAmerican is the proper term for us.

When we refer to ourselves as Americans without qualifications, it is excluding others and that is arrogant.

Go ask your priest about it.
dlw

[elysian]

What Cadet is referring to was the reason why I left the Catholic Church- their doctrine regarding contraception wasn't the only reason (I do believe that non-abortifacient methods such as condoms, male or female sterilization, diaphragms and cervical caps, are OK- within marriage only) but one of several. I had serious issues with several theological and doctrinal teachings of Roman Catholicism. I was also taught that if you didn't believe, agree with and adhere to the Church's teachings 100% then you weren't Catholic. If you are being intellectually honest and adhering to the Catholic Church's rules, you can't be a "cafeteria Catholic," just taking what you believe and disregarding what you don't, and still claim to be Catholic. It doesn't work that way. There is very little room for dissent.

So out of intellectual honesty, prayer and diligent study to clarify what exactly I believe, I could no longer remain a part of the Roman Catholic Church. What Cadet is referring to is the millions of (so-called) American Catholics who neither know what the Church teaches nor do they adhere to it. Also there are some who claim to be Catholic for political expediency (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc.) who act and vote completely contrary to Catholic (and most other Christian) teachings.

[jramage]

Though it is true that the rhythm technique can be effective is used carefully and there is much to be said for imparting discipline into the enjoyment of each other's sexuality in a marriage.
dlw

This is a common misconception (no pun intended), but Natural Family Planning is alltogether different from the rhythm method. There are several different methods, but it's based on science and actually yields great benefits beyond simply avoiding conception. For one, the side effects of birth control pills are avoided. Second, you get to take the time while abstaining from sex to find other ways to express love as a couple. And third, that time of abstinence actually improves your sex life in the long run because abstinence reaffirms the reasons why you are married to one another in the first place.

In addition to that, birth control can be an abortificant by causing implantation to fail after conception.

Also, there are other non-Catholics (Lutherans For Life is one organization that I'm aware of) who are against the use of contraception, plus some people who aren't Christians at all avoid the pill and turn to NFP as an alternative for health reasons.

[jramage]

What Cadet is referring to was the reason why I left the Catholic Church- their doctrine regarding contraception wasn't the only reason (I do believe that non-abortifacient methods such as condoms, male or female sterilization, diaphragms and cervical caps, are OK- within marriage only) but one of several.

Interesting... the Church's teaching on contraception was one of the final straws for me, especially when choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I know that a lot of Catholics disregard this teaching, but then most people in the world aren't even Christians and that doesn't change the truth of what we believe.

What I've come to respect is that marriage is chiefly intended for the purpose of bringing new life into the world. It certainly doesn't have to, but a couple must be open to that possibility and realize that sex is meant for procreation. The fact that we have to take measures to avoid pregnancy attests to that. When we take those measures, sex becomes chiefly about the pleasure and the line between giving love to your partner and fulfilling your own selfish desires becomes blurred. And when you get down to it, if a man and a woman can use forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy, why can't two people of the same sex be allowed to marry and enjoy the same sexual pleasure?

Granted, Natural Family Planning also prevents pregnancy, but the key difference is it requires active participation and works through abstinence from sex during fertile periods. Therefore, the sexual act isn't removed from its procreative purpose.

[tizzidale]

Wow, there's been a rash of 'thread-resurrection' lately.

[Pilgrim]

I didn't leave the Catholic church because of poor homilies (the Catholic word for sermon) in fact there were three or four priests from the church I went to who were great speakers and did preach the Gospel well. I don't know if they still rotate priests all the time- the longest I ever remember any one priest being in the parish is three or four years.

Priests generally aren't accessible (again, I hope this has changed!) except for formal Confession. Combine that with frequent rotations and you never really get to know the priests. There's also that notion in Catholicism that the priest is somehow "better" and "holier" than you, as in he's the authority figure and you're just supposed to listen to what he has to say instead of engaging in dialogue.

Now this is my own opinion and experience and I'm sure that others have had different experiences with Catholic priests.

Some of the ones I have seen are terrible preachers- some are positively eloquent and have a gift for it. Same goes for Lutheran pastors- I knew of one who related every sermon to football and it drove me insane. But my choice of denomination isn't based on that.
Just a nit pick. "homilie" is not the Catholic word for sermon. A homilie is the name for a "brief" sermon.