“All are welcome!”
You can hardly walk into a Catholic parish today without encountering this slogan. Not so long ago all the talk was about the “New Evangelization,” but that topic has been back-burnered in favor of “welcoming.” No one should feel excluded from the Catholic Church! Who is it, exactly, that has been complaining about feeling unwelcome? That’s usually left unsaid. Yet the current emphasis on welcoming people to the Church certainly implies, at the very least, that we have been in some way inhospitable in the past.
The welcome wagon movement has as a foundational principle the need for changes in the language of the Church. It posits two problems with the language of our first 1,981 years:
1) It’s too hard to understand, and
2) It makes people feel bad.
The understandability issue relates to theological language – doctrines and how they are explained, in the liturgy and elsewhere. The accusations pertaining to hurt feelings are more often directed at moral language – how and when we speak about the moral law of the Christian life and the effect this has on those who feel implicated.
But is this desire for more understandable and acceptable language consistent with the Church’s mission? Does it help, or undermine, the work of evangelization?
First, the desire to make Catholic language understandable is, well, understandable. We know from Catholic history that the Church has had to discover how to explain her theological truths in ways comprehensible in diverse times and cultures. Current proponents of language changes argue that the Church did just this during the fourth century Trinitarian debates. They propose that the Church sought to explain the Trinity in ways people could understand, specifically by using Greek philosophical terms. However, a closer look shows that the Church was not primarily concerned with making the doctrine of the Trinity understandable. She was interested in making it precise. If the end goal is “understandable,” one usually ends up with a dumbed-down explanation which can easily lead to errors. But if the goal is precision, then although one might have to work to understand a concept, he can be assured of arriving at the correct understanding.
The irony is that when one works for precision he gets understanding, but when he works solely for understanding he gets confusion.
The Church’s desire for linguistic precision was the reason for the recent changes in the English translation of the Ordinary Form texts. Although the new translations might not be in commonly-spoken English, they are more accurate. When we see how many Catholics today have incorrect understandings of basic Catholic doctrines, the need for precision becomes clear. As one example, under the previous terminology Jesus was described as “one in being” with the Father. Couldn’t such a person still be simply a man who was very close to God, like St. Francis? Whereas a Jesus who is “consubstantial” with the Father demands an acknowledgement of his divinity.
Nor do the Gospels attest that the desire to make language understandable is a priority for our Lord. After Jesus tells the story of the Sower in Matthew 13, the disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. Our Lord replies, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:11-13). Christ himself makes it clear that the “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” will not be understood by everyone, and there is nothing we can do about it. Concentrating our efforts to do so, then, appears to be for naught.
The second attempt to change the Church’s language is more pernicious. It aims not just to make the Church’s language more understandable to modern man, but also to make it more acceptable to him. We see this in the desire to soften the Church’s language about sin, especially in the area of sexual morality. Less than a generation ago, St. John Paul II called the attempt of those who had divorced to later marry outside the Church “evil” (Familiarius Consortio 84), yet today such language is condemned in many quarters of the Church. People will only feel welcome and thus enter our doors, it is said, if we soften our language on the “hard teachings.”
Leaving aside the fact that every religious denomination that has done this has hurled themselves head-long into obscurity, this attempt is contrary to the whole of Catholic tradition. Both St. John the Baptist and St. Thomas More were martyred rather than deny the truth about the sanctity of marriage. Countless missionaries have been persecuted and killed in far-flung lands for refusing to give in to the moral errors that proliferated in those areas. Furthermore, we see that the desire to make language related to morality more acceptable is not shared by our Lord. In the Sermon on the Mount – known today only for the Beatitudes – Jesus’ language surrounding various moral questions could not be more forceful: “Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery with her in his heart,” “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” (Matthew 5: 28, 32, 30). There is no talk of “positive values” in immoral relationships or actions – just a simple and direct condemnation of them.
Those who desire to change the language of the Church to make it more welcoming might have good intentions, but focusing our evangelization efforts simply on a message of “welcome” is fruitless. Imagine encountering a person who is lost because he misread a map. Would you be fearful of using precise language, contradicting his misreading and possibly offending him, in order to set him on the correct path? Or picture finding a person drowning in quicksand. Would your first concern be greeting her cheerfully and making sure she feels comfortable in your presence?
Today there are countless souls lost and drowning, and the mission of the Church is to set them on the right path to salvation. This is done by a message not of welcome, but of conversion. Whereas a message of “welcome” often masks the desperate state many souls are in, a message of conversion highlights the need for people to leave their erroneous and sinful lifestyle and embrace Christ. It confidently asserts that there is a better way: the way of Jesus Christ as found in the Catholic Church. Too often Catholics have accepted the mess of pottage that the world offers – adultery, abortion, birth control, homosexuality, fornication – as the best some people can achieve, instead of embracing our birthright – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5-22-23) – as something anyone can obtain through the grace of conversion.
Conversion, however, includes a confrontation with one’s own misunderstandings and sins, and because of the fallen nature of man, such a confrontation is, for most people, unwelcome. For who wants to be told that they believe something wrong, or even worse, do things that are wrong? Those who use precise language and preach conversion therefore are often seen as unwelcoming, especially in an age of constant affirmation and inflated self-esteem. Yet Catholics are obliged to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner, as the Spiritual Works of Mercy tell us. Paradoxically, this message of conversion will be the most welcoming message of all, for once one confronts his failings, and, like the prodigal son, decides to convert from his former life and return home, he will find the greatest welcome possible in the arms of his loving Father.
tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr. Sammons. You are advocating actions contrary to the actions called for by our Pope
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/28/pope-francis-urges-catholics-protestants-work-together-video/
CRUX is part of the secular Boston Globe. It is not a Catholic publication
The Bishop of Rome has made it abundantly clear he is opposed to conversion and when a video illustrating that is posted at Crux or Rorate is irrelevant to what Our Pope and Our Cross is saying.
O, and the tsk, tsk, was tongue in cheek
Well said!
Thank you!
You’re falling behind in your Catholic buzzwords, Steve. As of this week it’s “accompanying”.
Nonono! We’re falling behind in our Catholic buzzwords! As of this week, it’s all about “accompanying”.
Isn’t the latest (from several Cardinals at the Synod) accepting the mortal sins of others on their terms – “Gradualism”.
The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness.
–Pope Francis
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
— Saint Paul
Yes, this is apparently how the Holy Father sees it. Of course, this view also seems to contradict 2000 years of consistent Catholic teaching and practice. It also seems to contradict what St. Paul said. He said the exact opposite – that people of the Church in Corinth were getting sick and dying because they took the Eucharist in an unworthy state. So what are we to make of this?
Remember there is a song, I kid you not, called “All Are Welcome”.
That song drives me crazy. There are countless examples of people who would, and should, not be welcome. A mass-murderer wielding an Uzi is NOT welcome at Mass. A Muslim who throws down his prayer rug in the aisle and does his prayers in the middle of Mass would not, and should not be welcome. A Satanist who plans to storm the altar and desecrate the Eucharist is not welcome. The femi-nazi’s (FEMEN?) who did the same at St. Parick Cathedral in NY a few years ago should not be welcomed. Basically, anyone who is not there in a spirit of respect and friendship should not be “weclome.” So, all are definietly NOT welcome.
That song, as someone who has been involved with music ministry church adult choir for 15 years, that song “All Are Welcome” is not really one of my favorites and it in this dark and difficult time can really, really be taken way out of context when it comes to worship at mass. It can be used to mean welcome even the worse.
You present a false dichotomy. It is possible to welcome others to the Church AND to call them to conversion. The love of God is a message of inclusion and transformation. God loves us as we are but He loves us too much to leave us as we are. The problem is that too many are turned off from the Church because they only perceive condemnation and judgment – not love and concern.
Straw man of the Day. Please tell us which parish, diocese, priest or bishop that goes out of its way to condemn and judge its parishioners. I’ve been to several parishes across the country over the decades and I have yet to meet a priest or bishop that stresses condemnation and judgement. In the years I’ve been Catholic I’ve only heard one Bishop castigate the flock about birth control (and that was during a Friday evening Mass attended by perhaps 50 people some 20 years ago).
Almost all parishes bend over backwards to make people feel good about themselves. If there is judgement and condemnation is that we are not charitable enough, progressive enough, or that we are unwelcoming to illegal aliens, or that we do not strive to be peacemakers. Nothing is mentioned of divorce, adultery, homosexuality, or artificial contraception.
Again, you bring up a straw man.
“God loves us as we are but He loves us too much to leave us as we are.”
Unfortunately, too many Catholics today just say “God loves us as we are.” Period. Full stop. That is what I am addressing.
“The problem is that too many are turned off from the Church because they only perceive condemnation and judgment.”
Is that because the Church has condemned and judged them unjustly or harshly, or because too many people take any critique of their actions and beliefs as automatically an unjust and harsh condemnation of them as persons? The culture paints the Church as condemning and judgmental simply because she will not cave into the current mores, but we have seen what happens when a religious denomination caves to this pressure: true, no one thinks they are condemning and judgmental, because no one thinks about them at all.
Finally, note that I never said we should not welcome people – I said that this is not the essential mission of the Church; i.e. it is not the end goal, as too many take it to be. It is one step towards the end goal, which is conversion and life in Christ.
Jesus did not change His teaching, His vocabulary, or His message in any way when many of his disciples and sinners decided they were too hard and left Him.
Jesus let them go, and He did not beg them to return.
Jn 6:66
Why just this morning, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is quoted in St. Luke saying,
“Lord, will only a few people be saved?”
He answered them,
“Strive to enter through the narrow gate,
for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter
but will not be strong enough.
After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door,
then will you stand outside knocking and saying,
‘Lord, open the door for us.’
He will say to you in reply,
‘I do not know where you are from.’
And you will say,
‘We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.’
Then he will say to you,
‘I do not know where you are from.
Depart from me, all you evildoers!’
There is no way to read His last utterance in this quote as being welcoming.
This is the time, IE while you live, of the year of Jubilee. Repent and believe the Gospel! He is among us now, as we live, but one day the welcome mat will be pulled out from under us.
The question then is, OK welcome, but welcome to what? After having welcomed is our duty done? Everyone is welcome to begin the undertaking of working out or salvation in fear and trembling. However, we do no one any favor by encouraging them to think that are parishes are not organized for a serious purpose.
It’s a great article, but the author implies that these errors are driven by social forces, some sinful and others just good intentions run amok. There are social forces indeed, but we need to remember these forces are the product of many years of meticulous planning and engineering, by powerful families, enveloped within concentric layers of preferred minions who hate the mystical body of Christ. Powers and principalities, metaphysical AND physical. We need to target the trunk and root of the tree that is producing this bad fruit. We have prayer, we have penance, we have the internet, and we have plowshares, both figurative and real. Expose and attack the shadowy inbred banking dynasties, and attack the groups that openly hate the church, like, for example, all of the Jewish advocacy groups, whose mission says that Catholicism is bad for Jewish security. Attacking a group, that attacks the Church is not racism; if it’s antisemitism than so what, that’s not against Catholic Law. They don’t scruple to practice antiCatholicism. That laity needs to rise up and participate with the Holy Ghost. Are we men or mice? We’re Church Militant, we need to do violence to our own concupiscence, and be militant toward those who attack us. Our good bishops not only need our prayers, they need our militant support. If we are true Catholics, the world will hate us, it’s time we threw down the gauntlet. We need to be physically present at the next synod…all of us.
Another key issue is the LEVEL of the language. At the local level with a friend, we can be welcoming and gradual: but when the same thing happens at the level of the Vatican, that is a completely different–and damaging–matter.
It seems that in the past the Catholic Church co-opted pagan symbols, places, dates, etc. in order to use them for converting pagans to the Christianity. Today we seem to have done the opposite in that we’ve adopted secular terms not to convert them to Christianity but in fact we have been converted to their understanding of those terms.