… Matthew Kelly. Here.
I have to confess I thought Mr Kelly was more a darling of the Catholic Right. The milder part of that lung, to be sure. But here is a denier, it seems, who objects to one of this author/speaker’s many books that end up in churches these days.
There’s a problem with mentioning James as a “half-brother.” I suppose the problem is that the Bible and early tradition don’t distinguish “half.” A few places mention James as the “brother of the Lord.” Maybe that requires some catechesis for our more sensitive Marian-inclined sisters and brothers. Me, I’m willing to offer it up. If it’s good enough for Matthew. The evangelist, that is.
It’s serious matter, but I admit I found this funny:
While this book does state that sin hinders our relationship with God, it is quite selective about the kinds of sins with which it deals. I see talk of “greed” and “losing one’s temper”, but nowhere did I detect any mention of mortal sins such as the support of abortion, contraception, gay #mowwidge.(sic) But anyone with two functioning eyeballs can see that it’s rampant in the pews – not only the support but the participation in these mortal sins.
I have to say that in many years of service, I have never found contraceptives, 2-man or 2-woman cake toppers, or medical instruments in the pews of any churches in which I’ve ever served. The main pew sins, if I were to speculate, would be, um, greed and losing one’s temper.
John 2:13-25 aside, maybe a church book that criticizes “losing one’s temper” is written for people who, you know, lose their tempers. Folks who get angry about people who have specks in their eyes. That’s in the Gospels too. Maybe preaching or writing on mortal sins like abortion is better left for mortal sinners who happen to be Catholics. Mr Kelly’s book might be for penitents of venial sins.
The anonymous blogger professes here:
I became convinced that the evil one is quite clever in deceiving good Catholics into error and sin.
I think this is correct. I think it happens more frequently and much closer to home than many good Catholics suspect. One point of deception is often found in the personal confusion of many Catholics over the matter of tolerance. Eschewing tolerance is often a rejection of the virtue of prudence. Many good Catholics confuse their inner impulses, even when the external diagnosis is correct. There may well be serious sin in a neighboring pew. But virtue is not a zero-sum affair–there’s no guarantee that exemplary goodness is on the watch.