FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: USCCB Chooses to "Dialogue" Instead of Preaching the Gospel
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Generations Of Faith Event Promotes Dialogue Across Religions, Age Groups

[Image: Catholic_muslim_dialoge.jpg]

November 21, 2012
WASHINGTON—Leaders and young people from Catholic, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu traditions gathered for a day-long conference at St. Paul's College, November 10, to exchange experiences and ideas on the need for dialogue among religions in U.S. society. Generations of Faith 2012 was the second such event sponsored by the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Over 20 young people and seven religious leaders representing USCCB, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the World Sikh Council-America Region (WSC-AR), and The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) participated. The first "Generations of Faith" took place in 2010.

Father John Crossin, executive director of the USCCB's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, presented a session on the importance of listening. "This art of dialogue begins on the open canvas of mutual listening," Father Crossin said. "Listening is the first and ever-present step in a process that, through God's grace, will take us to recognize the obstacles that separate us, heal old wounds, grow in our understanding of the other, grow in our understanding of self, and create a sacred space in which the genuine bonds of friendship, solidarity, respect, and peace can flourish."

Subsequent sessions dealt with the 25th Assisi World Day of Prayer for Peace (2010),sharing one's faith with people of other traditions, and the need for young people to advocate for interreligious dialogue. Young adults and religious leaders also shared personal testimony regarding the important role dialogue has played for them.

Bishop Barry Knestout, auxiliary bishop of Washington and co-chair of the Mid-Atlantic Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, gave the keynote address on the theme "Dialogue of Life: Celebrating our Commonalities, Understanding our Differences." Bishop Knestout said dialogue makes possible an understanding of differences that does not lead to strife and discord.

"We have high hopes for you – for you are the future hands and feet of God in the world," Bishop Knestout said. "This task of interreligious dialogue, a task that requires your hands and feet, that is, your commitment to interreligious service and cooperation, as well as understanding and solidarity, is of immense importance at this point in history."

More information on Generations of Faith 2012 is available online: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachin...-faith.cfm

Other participants in the event included: Rameez Abid, president of ICNA, Virginia Chapter; Rizwaan Akhtar, co-leader of Columbia Heights Halaqa; Dana Christensen, Ph.D. student of religion and culture, The Catholic University of America (CUA); Anthony Cirelli, Ph.D., associate director, SEIA; Anuttamma Dasa, director,ISKCON; Jordan Denari, Georgetown School of Foreign Service; Kirsten Evans, program and research specialist, SEIA; Kathryn Elliott, staff assistant, SEIA; Abdul Kadir, Abaynah Yemer, and Amr Hamadi, representatives of ICNA, Virginia Chapter; Maria Rodriguez, master's student of theology, CUA; Father Tom Ryan, director of the Paulist Center for Interreligious Dialogue; Keshava Sharma, director of Communications, ISKCON;Savraj Singh, representative of WSC-AR; Sayyid Syeed, Ph.D., director for the Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances, ISNA; Hanaa Unus, Muslim scholar of interreligious dialogue; Pim Valkenberg, Ph.D., director of the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue, CUA; andStu Wilson-Smith, seminarian of the Society of St. Paul.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-205.cfm
Ultimately the purpose of dialogue is to preach the gospel. It's just the method that you object to.
I think this dialogue stuff is a bad idea in response to the Vatican no longer being the center of Christendom in a political sense. Some of them may have thought this would put them at the center of a new powerful voice of concerted moral authority. That didn't happen, and it has led to craziness we see.  The winds of change after the War swirled in no discernable pattern, except in a broad direction to congregate power and consolidate the governance of the nations.

This was already starting with the European Common Market. America was already there and exerted enough power on the Continent to make it a sort of model. The Church had lost the Austrian Hungarians as the second sword, and the Vatican now sat on a piece of Rome the size of a postage stamp. They scurried to make a response and this was the best they could think to do.

In America the USCCB has been about Saul Alinsky since after the war. All the progressive Bishops; Meyers, Cushing, Spellman, and many more were employing his methods to organize their Archdioceses, and ultimately the USCCB. It was all the rage. I don't know how one squares the circle when employing methods of a godless commie as the model for these political actions taken by a Chiurch founded by the Son of God. I don't.

tim

sorry for rambling
(11-30-2012, 09:05 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]I think this dialogue stuff is a bad idea in response to the Vatican no longer being the center of Christendom in a political sense. Some of them may have thought this would put them at the center of a new powerful voice of concerted moral authority. That didn't happen, and it has led to craziness we see.  The winds of change after the War swirled in no discernable pattern, except in a broad direction to congregate power and consolidate the governance of the nations.

This was already starting with the European Common Market. America was already there and exerted enough power on the Continent to make it a sort of model. The Church had lost the Austrian Hungarians as the second sword, and the Vatican now sat on a piece of Rome the size of a postage stamp. They scurried to make a response and this was the best they could think to do.

In America the USCCB has been about Saul Alinsky since after the war. All the progressive Bishops; Meyers, Cushing, Spellman, and many more were employing his methods to organize their Archdioceses, and ultimately the USCCB. It was all the rage. I don't know how one squares the circle when employing methods of a godless commie as the model for these political actions taken by a Chiurch founded by the Son of God. I don't.

tim

sorry for rambling

I have always thought that all of this "dialogue" with other faiths had as it's purpose ecumenism. I thought that it was supposed to bring our "separated brethren" back into the true fold. Fifty years have passed.......we have lost so many of our own.......gained a few Anglicans, who, IMO., are not going to be happy in NO. land. Does the USCCB. not realize that CATHOLICS are the ones who need dialogue. My ex-daughter-in-law, divorced my son for another man, is living with this other man without benefit of marriage.......still acts as an EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Minister every Sunday.  She supposedly asked the priest if that would be alright & was told it was fineHuh?

As far as the USSCB. goes, I wish we could get rid of it.  And Tim, when speaking of progressive members of the Catholic hierarchy, you forgot your own Cardinal Bernardin. Much damage was done by the group of whom you speak.    Cry(
No where is preaching the Gospel excluded. "... dialogue makes possible an understanding of differences that does not lead to strife and discord." It makes the world safe for conflict.
Joni, I mentioned Cardinal Meyers he came many moons before Cardinal Bernardin. I could've mentioned Cardinal Stritch also. The progressives were way before him. He was a  tool of their liking. He was in the nascent USCCB, coordinating Msgr. Illich turning Latin American to communism. Read the Book Betrayed by Kevane, it has details of his efforts. What I was speaking of was the years immediately after the war as you probably remember.

I think this idea of dialogue is okay but in the wrong department. It should be a diplomatic post. I would have entire departments of diplomats for each religion, with the purpose first at cooperation against immorality, while schmoozing them as Ambassadors do and with out conflicting the purpose of conversion. Evangelization would be separate completely. This would be the proper place for B. Pope John Paul II's phenomenology stuff.The diplomats could take them as they are and aim for cooperation on specific moral issues. In my mind's eye mixing Evangelization and Diplomacy has watered down both with this Ecumenicism.

tim

 
I wonder what the conclusion will be on the "need for dialogue" in the USA.

My opinion is, we need to talk about religion in the public sphere more. But the obstacle isn't the threat of religious conflict, its the big stick of secularism wielded by most public and private institutions today.
In my model they are separate, this allows them to come down with both feet on immorality for the flock, and the dipomats can make appropriate deals with the other religions, and both are separate.

tim

As far as the Prots go, how on earth is one supposed to "dialogue" with them. We hear the number of their sects to be about 40,000. That I think may be a stretch. But it is certainly in the 20,000 range. Whatever the number, it is far too many to begin to deal with. Talk about the definition of confusion.

Making the "world safe for conflict", sounds ridiculous to my ears. Conflict is never safe. What kind of safety are we talking about here? Safety of our bodies or the salvation which is the security of our souls?

St. Andrew embraced the Cross and looked at it as his key to glory. He preached for two days from the gibbet and begged the people to not interfere with the martyrdom he so longed for. He was very safe.

Let's face it. Dialogue with your enemies is useless. Time for Unity among ourselves. We are not fit in this time to negotiate with anyone. We are weak, poorly catechized, etc., etc. You don't engage in Dialogue, which like it or not is a form of negotiation, from a point of weakness. Unless you've got the best poker face in the world, which apparently the bishops do not.

As someone already alluded, let us Dialogue among ourselves. Show those who want no part of the True Faith the door. It's their choice. They can go to any number of sects or just stay home. Apparently the stay at homers have won the day, and that actually is a testament to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. For they found nowhere else to go. They know, even if they are not conscience of the fact, that the Truth resides in the One Church established by Christ. Since the modernists let them down, they are lost.

Time to go back and find these lost sheep, many who are walking around by their own designs through no fault of their own. I used to be among them. I know the territory. Somehow I found my way back. I don't know how. Only God knows.

Read Ezechial, the four creatures, who also make an appearance in the Apocalypse. They went only forward. They did not turn around. The Church Militant must march in one direction and that is forward.

But who are the masters of negotiation? Who likes to trade paper as if it held value? Answer this question and you will know exactly who wanted to get us to the negotiating table in order to water down that which was already a paper thin faith among the majority of priests, religious, and of course lay.
Great post, Adam.
Pages: 1 2 3