Denver, Colo., Dec 28, 2019 / 03:02 pm (CNA).- On Monday of National Suicide Prevention Week this year, popular evangelical pastor and mental health advocate Jarrid Wilson, 30, reportedly committed suicide. Just hours prior to his death, Wilson had posted a message on Twitter about Jesus’ compassion for the depressed and suicidal.
“Loving Jesus doesn’t always cure suicidal thoughts,” Wilson wrote. “Loving Jesus doesn’t always cure depression. Loving Jesus doesn’t always cure PTSD. Loving Jesus doesn’t always cure anxiety. But that doesn’t mean Jesus doesn’t offer us companionship and comfort. He ALWAYS does that,” Wilson tweeted.
Wilson had been a long-time advocate for mental health, and founded “Anthem of Hope,” a Christian outreach for the depressed and suicidal, with his wife. His death this September followed that of Pastor Andrew Stoecklein, another young, vibrant evangelical pastor and mental health advocate, who committed suicide last year.
In the span of just 16 years, suicide rates among working-age Americans (aged 16-64 years) spiked 34% between 2000 and 2016, according to data from the Center for Disease Control. Among Americans aged 10-24, the spike was even more dramatic – CDC data shows a 50% increase in suicides among this group between 2000-2017.
The suicides of these two pastors highlight this concerning upward trend in suicide, especially among young people, even among those who are part of a Christian community.
CNA spoke with three mental health professionals about why suicide rates, particularly among young people, are increasing, and what the Catholic Church and other faith communities can do to help.
Overconnected, and under pressure
Deacon Basil Ryan Balke is a licensed therapist at Mount Tabor Counseling in the Denver area, and the co-host of the podcast “Catholic Psyche,” which aims to educate people on the integration between the psychological sciences and Catholic spirituality, philosophy and theology. He is also a married deacon with the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church.
Balke told CNA that he thinks one of the driving factors of an increase in suicide among teens and young adults is their constant connectedness to the world through mobile devices, coupled with a lack of greater meaning in their lives.
“When I was in high school…I would go home, and I wouldn’t really have any contact with my friends unless I wanted it,” Balke said.
“And now with the saturation of the iPhone…you get the communication that is constantly there and constantly moving and so you can never unplug, and you can never continue on with life outside of the image you have to put out into the world (through social media),” he said.
“They’re always distracted, always moving forward. I was a youth minister for many years as well, and it was just – these kids never had a moment’s peace,” he added.
Tommy Tighe is a licensed marriage and family therapist in the Bay area in California, who also hosts a podcast on Catholicism and mental health called “St. Dymphna’s Playbook.” Tighe told CNA that despite having more connections, young people today are more isolated than ever.
“There’s so much more pressure…there’s so much more of a drive to be popular,” Tighe said, but social media connections often do not equate to “a close-knit community of close friends.”
According to a 2015 article from the peer-reviewed research journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, frequent social media use in children and teenagers is associated with poor psychological functioning, as it limits their daily face-to-face interactions, impairing their ability to keep and maintain meaningful relationships.
The study found that students who reported using social media for two or more hours daily were more likely to poorly rate their own mental health, and experienced high levels of psychological distress and suicidal ideation.
“There’s a trend towards superficial relationships, and of course you don’t post on Instagram ‘I’m depressed’ or something like that, so I think people don’t know who to reach out to,” Tighe noted.
Furthermore, Balke said, “I think what is also happening is the younger people have lost meaning in their day-to-day lives as well. I think all of us have lost meaning as a force in our lives.”
Balke said especially for young people, there is an increasingly intense pressure to perform academically or athletically that has replaced the things that used to bring people a sense of greater purpose, such as faith or virtue or close familial connections.
“Whether it be sports, they have to be track stars, they have to be in all AP (advanced placement) classes, they have to have like 30 college credits before they graduate high school, a 4.0 is not good enough anymore it’s gotta be a 4.3 or something,” he said. “I don’t even know how you do that. They’re pushing themselves so aggressively to the point where there’s no meaning behind it all because they don’t have an overarching purpose. These things are substitutes for that.”
“You might do something stupid like literally eating a tide pod, laundry detergent, and you become world-famous for thirty seconds. It’s so crazy,” he said. “It’s like these kids are just waiting for their next big break.”
The lingering stigma of mental health care
Another driving factor in the spike in suicides among young people and other populations is the lingering stigma of seeking out therapy or other mental health interventions, Tighe said.
“I think we try to act like we’ve really changed (as a society) in our perception of mental health, but I don’t think that’s really true,” Tighe said.
“Especially…it seems like every time there’s one of these mass tragedies in our country, mental health gets brought up and I think that pushes people even further away from wanting to reach out or identify as having an issue,” he added.
Additionally, Tighe said, not only do young people today have a harder time making meaningful relationships with their peers, parents are also often afraid to broach the subject of suicide and mental health with their children.
“I’m hoping that the younger generation of parents will be a little bit more willing, but it’s scary, right? That’s super scary to talk about.”
But talk about it parents must, Balke said, and the more specific they are, the better.
“You want to use that exact phrase: ‘Are you thinking about killing yourself?’ Or ‘Are you thinking about suicide?’ You don’t want to use the phrase ‘self harm,’ or ‘Are you thinking about hurting yourself?’” he said. “You want to be very clear.”
Some people fear that bringing up suicide may plant the idea of suicide in their child’s head, or may worsen their depression, but Balke said that studies show that these fears are unfounded.
“Statistically speaking – you can’t catch suicidal thoughts,” Balke said. “You’re not going to be pushing kids to become suicidal by asking, ‘Are you thinking about suicide?’ That’s actually… helping them come out of that isolation.”
The Soul Shop movement: helping congregations prevent suicide
In 1999, Fe Anam Avis was the pastor of a Presbyterian church in a small suburban town in southern Ohio when the suicide of three students within seven months rocked his community.
Searching for help and resources for his grieving congregants, he found that there was little to nothing when it came to faith-based resources for suicide prevention and mental health. He started traveling to speak about suicide, but noticed that clergy and church leaders weren’t among his audience members.
“He said, ‘I would go to these towns and they would have me in a fire hall and I would give a presentation about suicide and a hundred people would show up in a small town. And not one of them would be a clergy person,’” Michelle Snyder told CNA. Snyder is the director of Soul Shop, an organization founded by Fe that trains clergy and congregations in suicide prevention and interventions. Fe has since retired.
“(Fe) said consistently it felt like people in the church were not connecting this issue of suicide prevention with faith, and pastors were just not showing up to engage with this as an issue as a matter of faith.”
That’s what spurred Fe to found Soul Shop movement, a group which now travels the country to give workshops to congregations on how to speak about suicide, how to prevent it, and what the warning signs are.
“I’ll often say to a group of faith community leaders, if you’re asking yourself the question, ‘Is anybody in my parish thinking about suicide?’ you’re asking yourself the wrong question. Because the right question is, which six people out of the hundred here are thinking about suicide right now?” Snyder said.
Part of the training consists in simply raising the awareness among clergy and church leaders that there are people in desperation within their own congregations who are at risk for suicide and need help. Snyder said they also train congregations on how to support people who have been impacted by the suicide of a family member or friend.
In addition, they study the stories about suicide, or suicidal ideation, found in Bible passages.
“There’s quite a few,” she said. “We’ve got Judas, the story of Judas, and that’s a suicide. But you’ve also got stories like Elijah (who was) praying to die. You’ve got Saul, who fell on his own sword and killed himself…you’ve got Job, who said death would be better than what I’m experiencing. You’ve got lots of heroes in the Bible who thought about (it) or else just said, ‘I’m in so much pain. Death would be better,’ but who didn’t attempt (it). So you’ve got lots of suicide – you’ve got suicide attempts, you’ve got suicides, you’ve got suicide intervention.”
They also train church leaders in spotting some of the warning signs of a person who is at risk for suicide.
Tighe said some of those warning signs include people who have been noticeably depressed for long periods of time, social withdrawal, talking about suicide or self-harm, or the giving away of prized possessions, among other things.
A warning sign that might seem strange, Tighe said, is when someone who has been depressed for a while is suddenly and inexplicably happy again.
“If someone’s been super depressed and then all of a sudden they’re sort of feeling really good…that makes us very nervous, because sometimes it’s because they’ve made the decision like, okay, on Friday, I’m going to do it. And they feel like a burden lifted off their shoulders, because there’s an end in sight,” he said.
When those risk factors are spotted, those are the times to specifically ask people if they’re considering suicide, Tighe added.
During the Soul Shop trainings, Snyder said, the group takes a public health approach to suicide, meaning that they train faith communities to take a collective responsibility for the health of their own people.
“We spend a whole day equipping communities of faith on how to be communities of faith in relationship to this issue,” she said.
One of the biggest suicide prevention tools that communities of faith can provide, Snyder said, is being “soul-safe” communities of faith, where people feel connected and valued as whole people, and not just for one aspect of their identity.
People who are more resilient to suicide are those whose don’t have all of their “eggs in one basket,” Snyder noted.
“If every egg is in the basket of being on a full scholarship for football, and then I get injured, every egg was in that basket. I have no Plan B, and so that becomes a risk. And helping our people in our congregation become well-rounded people with lives that are full and rich and diverse can be a suicide prevention initiative.”
At Soul Shop, church communities that are trained in suicide awareness and prevention are called “soul-safe communities,” Snyder said, which are “communities where people are intentionally connected to each other…communities where everybody knows what to look for. Communities where we are aware of our tendency to shun when we get uncomfortable and are challenged to not do that.”
What else can be done?
Besides hosting a Soul Shop or other suicide prevention training, what else can pastors and parishes do to help prevent suicide?
Balke said he would encourage all pastors to meet with their staff and frequent volunteers in order to familiarize them with locally available mental health resources. They should know the location of clinics, the hours of those clinics, and what crisis numbers to call, he said.
“They need to have quick access to them, so that when someone is coming in their office, or after a bible study or whatever it is when this kind of conversation comes up, they have it on their phone ready to go and they won’t have to go searching for it,” he said.
Tighe said he recommended that parishes have flyers posted on their bulletin boards with information on local mental health resources, as well as local crisis hotlines to call or text. In the United States, texting “741741” will connect users to a crisis text line.
Text lines get great response rates, Tighe said, because “everyone’s like, okay I would send a text, because it’s easier. And they’re incredible. We get people who come to our clinic who are like, ‘I was driving to the bridge, (because that’s a very popular thing here in the Bay Area for people who are suicidal), and for whatever reason texted these people and they told me to come to your clinic before I went.”
Pastors and clergy should also make it a point to build a personal relationship with the mental health professionals in their congregation, Balke said.
“Someone that they can just phone and say, ‘Hey, what do you think about this? What should I do in this situation?’” he said. “I have a number of priests and deacons who have phoned me on a regular basis and say, ‘You know, someone came into my office and said this this and this. What’s going on here?’”
Pastors and other church leaders also need to treat suicide and mental health issues with the seriousness they deserve, Balke said, and not treat them as something that is either not a serious issue, or something that can be solved solely by prayer or spiritual direction.
“Mental health in the Church is a real problem, and…it’s not necessarily being addressed with the seriousness, from an institutional level, that it deserves. People are committing suicide in our parishes and in our churches.”
Snyder said that she is confident that, if properly trained, churches and parishes have a key role to play in preventing suicides in their communities.
“We talk a lot about putting your seatbelt on before the accident happens. And that’s kind of what we’re describing here, is how do we do that in faith communities long before crisis strikes,” she said.
This article was originally published on CNA Sept. 15, 2019.
[…]
Having matriculation from the Mr McCarrick school of pink collegiate, His Eminence, McE is the last one to speak about creating an atmosphere of polarization…
Nothing says “PLEASE UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY” any better than having a panel discussion on “civil discourse” involving His Eminence Cardinal McElroy, a man who asserts that he is a Christian Shepherd, and denounces all Christians who accept the teaching of Jesus and his apostles as tantamount to being “deplorables,” simply motivated by what McElroy declares to be nothing other than “animus.”
So if anyone fails to conform to the sexual revolution ideology held by His Eminence Cardinal McElroy and His Holiness Pontiff Francis, and dares instead choose to obey the Son of God, it is because such people are motivated not by devotion to Our Lord and The Truth and the well-being and salvation of others, including their own family and friends, but are simply “haters” (to quote their mutual spokesman Rev. Martin) and “backwardists” and “children” and “stupid” (to conjure just a few labels employed by the Pontiff Francis).
As to taking sides in matters where some “new-office-holding-members” of the CHURCH DIVERGE from “the mind of Christ,” a quote from one of the Pontiff’s earlier predecessors comes to mind:
“Whether it is right for us to obey men rather than obey God, you be the judge.”
Interesting “weather” we’re having, isn’t it?
It’s REMARKABLE that the very men who spent the last 10 years showing their contempt for those who would remain “united” in Christ, and reject the alternative on offered to “unite around them instead,” are now looking to the near future, and are suddenly concerned about “unity.”
What could possibly motivate such a course change? Are they looking ahead and worried they’ll be out-voted on something coming up soon?
It’s a pity that, not only do the above men fail to appreciate the divine word, but they even fail to voted appreciation for mere irony.
But Eminence McElroy does have the consolation that some of his audience reading Harvard Magazine this month will esteem him for “distancing himself” from Christ.
More dialogue? How about just stop persecuting us for wanting the Traditional Latin Mass, and leave us the hell alone? Would that work for you guys?
Tim, amen brother!
Very gutsy (or not?) to place Bishop Barron and Cardinal McElroy at the same table–actually two parallel and different universes, like the collision between matter and antimatter. And what do we get from this encounter? The ideological harmony of “dialogue”!
Good so far as it goes, but the missing ingredient, even more than mutual respect, is fidelity.
Barron is too bland and McElroy is too much of a company man. For both to suggest that what divides the Church today is only “ideological differences” seems an ideological attempt at some sort of middle ground.
So, yes to “civility,” and “dialogue” and “love” . . . but as the realist Fr. Werenfried van Straaten said, in reference to the mid-20th-century Vatican, and of such a dance step during the geopolitical Cold War: “No peace without justice, and (!) no justice without truth.”
Was it the clericalist balm of “fraternal collegiality” that enabled the spreading and unchecked Sexual Abuse Scandal?
More dialogue? How could there be more dialogue when, in fact, at least 70% of those who claim a Catholic identity don’t believe in Catholicism?
What about more catechesis? Accurate catechesis by faithful accurate catechists. If an exchange is required during that process well and good. What are we to “dialogue” about otherwise? Premarital intimacy? Divorce? Same-sex attraction? Abortion? Beyond accurate catechesis those issues are proper to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to spiritual direction, or simply an exchange and counsel between a parishioner and their parish priest.
What actually requires dialogue? The reality of the Incarnation? The Divinity of Christ? The nature of the Most Holy Trinity? The Immaculate Conception? The Assumption? I’m unfamiliar with too many individuals, ordained or otherwise, who can plumet these Mysteries beyond what we have from the perennial Magisterium and the reflections of the saints.
Or shall we dialogue regarding the proper role of the papacy, the episcopate and the clergy class in their role to be evangelists, upholding the perennial Magisterium? Or are they to be the primary agents of the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism as they appear to regard themselves? At least the ones not hiding under their desks.
Why not just do your jobs — ecclesiastics and academic “theologians” — and otherwise be still? No one requires your sophomoric speculations. Just be and model utter fidelity to our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. We don’t require too much beyond utter fidelity, total conviction and genuine piety.
Very good, James. The only element missing is virtue—authentic virtue. Most dialogue would benefit by guardrails (also provided by the Magisterium) based on good and evil, virtue and vice, and how to imitate Christ. If Christian life were still the pursuit of holiness instead of the quest for affirmation and self-expression, the dialogue would open a world of beauty to the confused masses.
Accurate comprehensive catechesis inherently addresses the abandonment of vices and the acquisition of the virtues. The content of catechesis not directly bearing upon moral behavior in light of the Decalogue and the Beatitudes is provided to support the individual — the child, the adolescent, the adult — in conversion — in adopting a Roman Catholic perspective on human existence and its purpose. Catechesis is evangelization, it is the call to conversion and provides the rationale for such a life stance.
Both Bishop Barron and Cardinal McElroy, though distant on some mutual issues, have much in common insofar as intelligence and repartee. Fireworks are unexpected. Endless discussion on options is. Synodality in its ordinary table talk form is always the choice to end conflict and achieve unity when the players, at least these two know well east is east and west is west and the twain shall never meet. Not until the majority of the Church agrees on one baptism and one holy Catholic doctrine.
For that to occur at this stage of mutual polarity on the key issues, disordered sexuality, marriage and family, sin and repentance, personal sanctification v secularization there will be no peace since reconciliation is too incompatible. It cannot be done incrementally. There must be complete conversion. We’ve become two distinct churches within the Church united by name only. A reunification cannot be achieved by civil discussion as one bishop suggests. A strong willed pontiff firmly dedicated to Christ might succeed.
I wonder if Catholicism will fracture like Judaism, with Orthodox, Conservative and reform versions? Yes, we are polarized, but cracking the whip and issuance of ultimatums will not work. When you employ ultimatums, people might take you up on them. And not in the way you want. Do you really want for half the laity to walk?
Will, I think half the laity in the West have mentally walked away already. But that’s much more a First World issue. Elsewhere,the Church is growing and flourishing. And more orthodox.
If half of the laity are progressives, then yes, they should walk and not let the church door hit them on the way out. Then the church could get back to the business of being the church.
So we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Although I respect Bp Barron, I must demur when he says that theological differences in previous eras were carried on in a civil manner.
Let us consider the “dialogue” between Polycarp and Marcion: Marcion asked the bishop of Smyrna, “Do you recognize me?” Polycarp answered, “I recognize you as the first-born of Satan.”
Or, what is one to think of St Nicholas whacking Arius?
In eras when Christians took doctrine seriously, everybody didn’t always play nicely in the same sandbox.
Yo, Fr. Stravinskas, why so negative? Here, have a smiley button for your lapel!
And, more about Arius…Yes, the ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) was about faithfully evaluating and then excluding (!) his contradictory ambiguity and doctrinal reductionism, not about syndodal inclusivity and forwardism…
A clarifying moment for the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea in 2025 and, likewise today, discerning truly the ambiguity of ecclesial and moral reductionism. But, who are we to judge? Or dialogue, or monologue, or whatever?
Don’t forget St. Jerome, especially to Pelagius!
Dear Fr. Stravinskas,
I agree with Bishop Barron’s desire for greater civility in theological discourse. You are correct, though, that there are many examples in Church history of uncivil theological exchanges.
The example of St. Nicholas whacking Arius at the Council of Nicaea is probably a legend as this article explains: https://aleteia.org/2021/12/06/did-st-nicholas-punch-arius-at-the-council-of-nicea/
Professor Christian D. Washburn, however, described a memorable example of uncivil discourse from the Council of Trent in his article, “Transformative Power of Grace and Condign Merit at the Council of Trent,” published in The Thomist 79 (2015), 183–184. Here’s the incident:
“From July 15th to the 23rd [1546], the council fathers discussed the issues dealing with the second and third stages of justification in eight general congregations. As they did, the theological battle among the council fathers over justification and merit became increasingly antagonistic, as illustrated in the infamous behavior of two bishops. Already in late June, Dionisio de Zanettini, known by his nickname Grechetto, the Franciscan Bishop of Chironissa, had accused the entire Augustinian Order of being infected by the teachings of Luther. Then during a speech to the general congregation of July 17th, 1546, Tommaso Sanfelice, the Bishop of La Cava, reasserted the theory of double justification and explicitly denied the value of merit. This only confirmed some of Zanettini’s suspicions about the extent of the infection. As the council fathers were preparing to leave, Zanettini insulted Sanfelice to another bishop, muttering under his breath that ‘he is either a knave or a fool.’ This sentiment was encouraged by the Bishop of Bertinoro, who added that he had often told Sanfelice that he ‘does not understand these things at all.’ Sanfelice overheard these remarks and reproached his insulter by asking, ‘What are you saying?’ Zanettini repeated his words: ‘Yes, you are either a knave or a fool.’ Sanfelice grabbed Zanettini’s beard, shaking him so violently that he was left with a handful of hair. Zanettini, unruffled by the violence done to his person, shouted, ‘I have said that the Bishop of La Cava is either a knave or a fool, and I shall prove it!’ Sanfelice had struck a bishop, a crime punishable by excommunication, and was immediately imprisoned in a local monastery.”
A colorful account of dialogue during Trent. And I think I get your surprising meaning…
Surely we are to notice how, instead of overly-demonstrative dialogue in centuries past, the equivalent today–instead of beard-pulling and imprisonment and possible excommunication–is banishment from the Vatican. As with Cardinal Burke. Or maybe Cardinal Muller when he was still Prefect for the CDF, and who was told to fire three of his best priests for no stated reason except that “I’m the Pope, I don’t need a reason.” Some dialogue! Some civility! “Backwardists” begone! As the adage goes: “Shut up, he explained!”
As you say, “there are many examples in Church history.” Thank your for this tutorial!
Well…considering some of those involved have been at the heart of spreading division and and even depend on it. How many times has McElroy demonized groups of the faithful? And America mag. routinely does the same. And the Jesuits? And Purvis is becoming a Catholic Al Sharpton, fomenting the narrative there is “systemic racism”, including in the church. (With no data to back it up with.) She basically has carved a niche for herself as self-appointed activist in this regard and it depends on furthering such narratives no matter what. It also includes now frequently inferring people who disagree with her are racist, etc. That’s not divisive right? Good luck with that! How about discussing the basics such as heterodox vs. orthodox, the most basic source of division.
I used to enjoy listening to Gloria Purvis on EWTN radio. I don’t know what happened but whatever the reason it’s a shame. She shared some really important things about her faith.
Everything isn’t about racism and “race ” isn’t even real science. But people really can treat each other differently according to our ancestry. If my ethnic make up was more apparent I don’t think I would have been hired for a single one of the jobs I’ve held. And I wouldn’t have had an opportunity to hear the sort of really distressing comments about “race” that people say when they think it’s safe to do that.
“Race” is bogus but racism is not. However it’s becoming generational. Young people care less and less about that. Thankfully.
On the contrary, I believe people of my generation care very little about race. We expect life to be a meritocracy. But the “woke” young people of today are obsessed with race and any other difference or identity they can twist into a rationalization for their failure to cope and succeed.
I see many young people today marrying folks of other ancestries and having families. No one seems to pay much mind to it except the elderly. And I live in the Deep South. Things change.
I hear what you say about Wokeness but that’s not as much a concern here and it’s seen as a separate issue I think.
I remember once while at the University I brought my composition to my teacher. My concern was a technique. She said “Anna, when you really have something to say, you will find the way how to say it – even if crudely it will be convincing”. My composition was empty and this is why it was unconvincing. I learnt that lesson and I believe it is universal. Rephrasing it, one does not need to proclaim “we need a dialogue in the Church”. It is as stupid as my composition because it has real substance. If one is desperate to discuss the matter he does, in whatever way.
I do not recall that iconoclasts (people who destroyed the holy imaged out of wrong theology) wanted to have a dialogue with those who defended the imaged. The first camp removed the icons and burnt them, the second hid them, often ricking own lives. Both caps believed they did the right thing. It took the Ecumenical Council to settle the matter via proclaiming that it is right and proper to depict Our Lord and that such images must be venerated.
From here follows that there is no such a thing as a vague “dialogue” and even worse “mutuality with synodality” (or synodality with mutuality, whatever you prefer) but the disagreements are examined in the light of truth (revelation). For example, there is no need for the opposite camps to engage in “a dialogue” about a possibility of ordination of women because we have an answer, in the revelation. There is nothing to discuss here! It is all about determining who is right and who is wrong via applying the objective measure, of the Person of Jesus Christ and the revelation.
But this is precisely what most people do not wish to do, i.e. to surrender own view to the examination against the revealed Truth. To surrender to the truth means losing all that this world esteems so highly – own “nicety” and own significance. The revealed Truth makes everyone very small and this is unbearable.
This is why when I hear the words like “we must engage in a dialogue” I feel like throwing up. For Christ’s sake, engage if you want, stop talking about that engagement.
They are now disturbed by the problem of division in the Church that they themselves created by tinkering with the perennial Teaching of the Church as well as its Tradition? These are the ones eho ought to be looking in a mirror: Bergoglio, McElroy, the USCCB, the Jesuits, America magazine, etc. Hypocrites all.
Bingo!
In my simple terms, the cultural divide is over the definitions of evil and sin, what is Right and what is wrong hence the Church must define the definition of Kingdom Building to either conform the world to God or conform their god to the World.
The TLM was and is the “loving” dialogue. Maybe some of those attending were ideologically harsh, but so what? The obvious problem for the other side of the “dialogue” is that the TLM was quietly, and one might say lovingly, taking over. The relative youth of the participants with their large families and children have been such a stark contrast with the septuagenarian-and-up attendees at the “ordinary form” masses that the handwriting was on the wall for anyone with eyes to see. Suppression was their last, withered gasp, a death rattle, and it won’t last.
What a nice, lukewarm panel. They are inadmissible. Revelation 3:16
At least the Pope still has a bit of the old bouncer: http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
A fish rots from the head…
What a boring thing to cover with a story, more bishops talking dialog. If they are talking political divisions, politics has no business being discussed, past reinforcing teachings of past 2000yrs and telling people to vote for the candidate they see as aligning closest with those teachings. And reminding them no party can be trusted to not turn on a dime for votes and power.
As for dialog with those within the Church who disagree with the same 2000yrs of constant teaching, they can dialog all they want from outside the Church until they can accept those teachings and be readmitted. Dangerous species are best studied and possibly tamed outside the home. To bring them inside has predictable results which we see in the Church today.
Dialogue. Smh.There can be no dialogue in re: chastity, sin, damnation. These things are clear and have been clear since the beginning.
The fault lies in all of us, but it is up to the bishops to teach the fullness of the faith.
They haven’t done it, not for decades.
Also, lex orandi, baby. What happened to the lex orandi? Vatican 2.
“Suppression was their last, withered gasp, a death rattle, and it won’t last.”
It all depends on the next conclave. Could be interesting!
We’ve spent 50 years in “dialogue,” which is why we are in the mess we are in: the failure to teach clearly because that’s “rigid,” so let’s fudge everything. A Francis-McElroy specialty in “discourse,” but not in practice, where it’s VERY CLEAR where they are.
Being nice is not enough to achieve unity. Being charitable is not enough to achieve unity. We can be (and hopefully are) charitable even to enemies with whom we never reconcile.
Unity comes from One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.
If you reject One Lord by allowing syncretism and Pachamamas and admitting other religions as equivalent means of pursuing God, you won’t have unity.
If you reject One Faith through heresy (a.k.a. cafeteria Catholicism), intercommunion, and ambiguous teaching on faith and morals, you won’t have unity.
If you soften the need for One Baptism by speaking and acting as though the unbaptized are as likely to be saved as those baptized Catholics seemingly in a state of grace, you won’t have unity.
If you have that framework, then all the liturgy wars and disagreements can be worked through rationally and charitably and with a lot of liberty in diversity. If we don’t agree on that framework, there is no means but force and tyranny.
Only Bishop Barron has the ears of the Gen Z Catholics and non-Catholic Christian youths, the rest of this motley crew of ex-hippies can sing “Kumbahyah” all they want but in 20 years it will be as if they never existed. The rallying song of my Gen Z kids and their peers is, “And They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love”.
One of the great quips, made about “dialogue,” came from Joseph Ratzinger, in an aside to a friend when Rev. Rahner was holding court at another interminable meeting or conference:
“More monologue about dialogue.”
Newsmax tickertape reports Bergoglio says: “US Catholic conservatives “have a suicidal attitude.”
Dialogue?
With who?
The process of constant discussion on doctrine, praying for spiritual discernment, questioning perennial doctrine, never reaching a just revelation based resolution is in effect the Protestantization of the Catholic Church. Since the Roman pontiff supports this process, Synodality, bishops and cardinals are obliged to speak the truth of the faith for sake of the faithful, and press His Holiness on what’s occurred and continues to deteriorate the faith. That the Roman pontiff has with the office of the Chair the commission to defend and uphold the faith.
The choice of words needs a little correction.
When they say “polarization,” they should say “alienation.” When something is polarized, like a magnet, there is still a basis for unity and fruitful interaction.
When they say politics, they should say defined doctrine, or sacred teachings. Politicians may compromise on debatable policies. Apostles give the truth in it’s fullness.
When they say ideology, they should say the Catholic Faith.
When they insist upon civility and dialogue, I think of the example of Jesus cleansing the Temple, or the prophet Elijah meeting with the 400 prophets of Baal.
Bishop McElroy is a divisive presence in the Church because of his philosophies that are polar opposites of Church teaching.Ms Purvis show on EWTN was taken off air because of her stances on BLM.Bshp Barron is controversial in his teachings as well.They are part of the problem.
Bergoglio has striven hard to polarise the Church for political gain and to advance his Synodal Superlodge project for NWO, unhindered by Catholics.
How?
1) Bergoglio initiated the German Synodal Disaster with his C9 left-hand man Cardinal Rainbow Marx. Bergoglio is entirely responisible for millions of Germans fleeing the Rainbow Synodal Madness.
2) Bergoglio iniated a purge on Freedom to Worship for Catholics attending TLM first in China and then shortly after, the China-Deal went world-wide with Traditionis Custodes.
Bishop Daniel Flores got it wrong – he “emphasized the need to remember what Christ would do” he should have emphasized, what did Jesus teach us to do in the Gospels? Jesus is the Teacher, we are the students, it is up to us to get it right.