The Myth of a Thick Skin

No one has a "thick skin." I studied this in Psychology for years. You would not believe the victims of verbal sexual and verbal emotional abuse that counselors treat in their daily work. I have many Psychologist and therapist friends who talk about it daily.

When I hear this term I just shake my head and ignore most of what the person says after that. Speech Communication theory has studied cussing extensively. What is not surprising is that cussing is universally offensive, even to the person doing the cussing. Anyone heard of self-abuse?

Low Self-Esteem

Low self-esteem is often caused by verbal abuse.  Calling someone stupid or an idiot is not something a person can brush off if the person doing the abusing is their family member.  These persons are close to you, they have a deep effect on your life. If you are called dumb as a child these attacks often become "tapes" that replay in the victim's mind over and over again throughout your life, until the tapes are dealt with in a healthy way.

People are sending messages all the time. If someone is sexually abused, the message that is sent is "you are worthless"  and "a sexual object to be used." The abuser does not have to say a thing.  It is communicated by the action of the abuse. If you were worthwhile in their mind, they would not abuse you.

Final Thoughts
Get rid of the "thick skin" analogy, research disproves it. In apologetics and evangelization I often encounter people who cuss or call names. I ask them to stop. If they continue, I cut off communication. When they can calmly talk about a subject, I am with them. When they want to abuse, I am gone.

What happens over time, and many people have told me this. is that they learn to be respectful. It is part of the evangelization. Otherwise, they are gone.

If a evangelee has a different opinion on something, I can deal with that. If another person wants to attack, there is the door. Come back when you are respectful. I can put up with some slips, but intentional attacking is off-limits. Learn to respect yourself and others will begin to respect you.

The Case of Schismatic Apologists

In case you did not know, several apologists seem to have stepped on the line of schism over the years. Some seemed to have stepped over. Gerry Matatics (see below) comes to mind, a fervent Catholic apologist who defended the faith, yet fell into schismatic traditionalism.

Schismatic Apologists Online
There are several schismatics (calling themselves Catholics) who perform apologetics online. This blog is not intended to be a laundry list of them, but to generally examine a couple of their positions.

Dimond Brothers
Michael and Peter Dimond have taken to debating with the Vatican, taking to attacking Vatican II, Current and past Post-Vatican II popes and other unpopular positions (to Sedes) such as the Novus Ordo (Post-Vatican II Mass).

Robert Sungenis
Currently Robert disagrees with the beatification of Pope John Paul II. He points to errors of judgement in his pontificate, saying they had to separate his pontificate from his cause for the first time in history.

Gerry Matatics
Gerry Matatics states that he believes in no salvation outside the Church. A strict position of "No Salvation Outside the Church" has been condemned by the Holy Office in condeming Fr. Feeney, who said Catholics cannot be saved:

“These things are clearly taught [in the Encyclical on the Mystical Body], in it the Supreme Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who actually are incorporated into the Church as members, and those who adhere to the Church only by way of votum (will)...” (The Holy Office).

Sede Vacantism
I have address the Issue of Sede Vacantism in another blog. I will not get into it here.

I know Better
Sola Scriptura (using Scripture alone to interpret) and Sola Traditio (interpreting Tradition by personal judgement) cause these errors. In reading pontifical and papal-approved conciliar documents, we are not privately interpret them. We are rather to refer to other papal documents in interpreting such documents. This is because we individually have not been given infallibility, but it has been given to the pope, the bishops in union with the pope, or the Catholic Faithful as a whole.

No one knows better. Even the pope in his personal judgement does not know better. Rather, in view of his office as the successor of Peter, do we have a reliable interpretation.

Sheep-Stealing?

There is a common saying amongst priests and religious today, that I first encountered in the 1990s. I was visiting the Paulist Community in Washington, D.C. when a priest there said that evangelization of Protestants was "sheep stealing."

I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it.  Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth?  All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"

I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief.  To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.

There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.

The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.

This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:

"For that reason, Saint Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: 'Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!' (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, 2).

While we are to respect other faiths, not forcing our views of people of faith (Dominus Iesus) we must present the truth, even to Christians:

"Today the Church must face other challenges and push forward to new frontiers, both in the initial mission ad gentes and in the new evangelization of those peoples who have already heard Christ proclaimed" (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mission, 30).

Are Non-Catholics in Heaven?
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic.  The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God.  When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).

So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim?  The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why?  Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.

While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better).  It is also clear that:

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II, Paragraph #14, Lumen Gentium).

and...

 “...it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions...” (Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church).

Is it not time that certain individuals killed relativism in their own hearts? Maybe what they might find is a flourishing desire for the conversion of others, not a condemnation of others as some might fear.

The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.