“Christ was tolerant and accepting, so you should be, too!” What a load of hooey! This little idea makes me want to hurl every time I hear it. It ticks me off that nobody can hear me yelling at my computer (where I read everything these days). Honestly, it’s one of the most idiotic statements I hear made by today’s liberal Catholics and liberals in general. Can they really be this clueless and/or delusional?
By the way, if you don’t like my blog and you’re fuming right now, you are completely and utterly intolerant and un-accepting of my point of view. Just saying.
Let’s get real. What exactly are we supposed to tolerate and accept in the minds of these catchphrase Catholics? Well, in the ongoing debate in San Francisco, we can see just some of the things that we are supposed to accept and tolerate:
- Artificial birth control
Hey, “100 Prominent Catholics” in San Francisco – show me one place in the life of Christ where he is accepting and tolerant of immorality, hypocrisy, and sin. Right about now, some are probably screaming at their computer, “When he prevented the woman from being stoned!” Or at least that’s the usual response. Anybody remember what Christ said to her after that? Anyone? Bueller? See, it’s a problem when people don’t read the book and just watch the liberal-spun movie. He said, “Go, and do not sin again henceforward.” What the what?! He told her not to sin again? How intolerant and un-accepting!
In fact, Christ’s intolerance of sin is found in many places. He talks of sin, vipers, millstones, shaking the dust from your sandals (a big dis in those days), etc. We also see him whipping money changers and rage-flipping tables. Accepting and tolerant of sin, people? I think not. Let’s just move a little more towards reality, shall we?
The short and sweet (and yes, trite) “Love the sinner but hate the sin” is the reality of Christ that we are supposed to follow. The “It’s OK. Do whatever you want and you’re still my buddy!” is the fictitious image of Christ we are supposed flee. In fact, if you see this guy…
…run, far, far away. He might be tolerant and accepting, but he ain’t loving and he ain’t the real Christ.
This brings me to the crux of what’s so wrong with the people leading the campaign against Archbishop Cordileone. They completely misunderstand the difference between tolerance, and acceptance and love. While love might be tolerant and accepting of a person, it is not accepting or tolerant of a person’s sin. That is the opposite of love.
G.K. Chesterton said (Look – she quotes from the Catechism, Canon Law, AND Chesterton! Who would ever know she’s totally uneducated? – Go away if you just said “Me!”),
No truer words could be spoken! Tolerance of sin is not a Christian virtue. As a matter of fact, it’s opposed to Christian virtue. It is the ideology of those with no convictions other than “people can’t have convictions or they are intolerant and unaccepting”. See that endless Catch-22 insanity?
Now, the “100 Prominent Catholics” (anyone ever wonder how a CPA got on that list?) like to say that Archbishop Cordileone is “fostering and environment of division or intolerance”. Uh, I’m reasonably sure that was Christ, not the Archbishop. Again, it would be nice if people read the actual book instead of those poorly written Cliff Notes that got you a D+ in English Lit.
“Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!” (Luke 12:51)
How do the “100 Prominent Catholics” repeat the “Christ was tolerant!” mantra with a straight face? I mean, really, can anyone be that totally ignorant of the Bible? I guess it’s possible. It’s either that or they’re just showing the serious lack of conviction of which Chesterton speaks.
Just for fun, I just turned around and asked my 10-year-old if Christ would tolerate or accept sin. Even the 10-year-old knew the answer was “No!”, almost with a “Duh, Mom!” tone. I’m sure there are those who are just ignorant of the Bible and confuse tolerance and acceptance with the love Christ showed. However, those self-professed “100 Prominent Catholics” and all the others who claim to know more about the Catholic Church than Archbishop Cordileone look plain stupid when they do it. I mean, they are the ones who are supposed to know so much about the Catholic Faith that they know Archbishop Cordileone is going against it. It hasn’t even dawned on them that they haven’t a clue. The ego is staggering!
Yes, people, there is a huge difference between showing love for a person and showing tolerance and acceptance of a person’s sin. I love all my kids. Don’t love or accept or tolerate their sins. If you don’t like my blog because you are a champion against all things Archbishop Cordileone, I tolerate and accept you, but I don’t tolerate or accept your dissent against the teachings of the Church. That doesn’t mean I hate you and it doesn’t mean we can’t have a civil discussion. Can one sometimes love by being tolerant of quirks, annoyances, etc.? Uh, yeah! My husband does it all the time on a VERY regular basis. That said, he’s not going to tolerate any of his wife’s or children’s sins, because he loves us and wants to see us happy in heaven someday. This is the same with the Archbishop.
Can we just go back again to those “100 Prominent Catholics” again? This has been irking me for a while. Listen, I’m a big believer of the fact that one of my kids could screw up at any moment. That said, I’m not telling the Pope that Archbishop Cordileone doesn’t know how to manage Catholic schools in his archdiocese, so I’m just going to shoot this one out there. Mr. Tom Brady, Sr., your son just might have benefitted from the type of Catholicism (aka authentic Catholicism) that the Archbishop is trying to bring to your son’s former alma mater. If Junior (you know, first child out-of-wedlock and the king of “Deflategate”?) had been taught the Faith at Serra the way that the Archbishop would love to have it taught and exemplified in his schools, maybe Tom Terrific (that’s actually his nickname for you non-football folks) wouldn’t have made such a mess of his life, his kids lives, the NFL, etc.
In short, people might want to really think about the kids in these schools and how their lives might turn out from being taught a watered down and poorly exemplified version of the Catholic Faith. Tom Jr. doesn’t seem to have benefitted much from it. (Before you get mad that I went there, be happy I didn’t mention fellow Serra grad Barry Bonds.) Is this what we want for the future alumni of our schools?