Quote: The last sin

21 comments

In a culture drunk on “tolerance,” it’s no wonder we’ve begun to mistake it as some type of supreme virtue at the expense of real virtue. And we’ve done so to the point that it doesn’t really matter what it is that we’re tolerating, as long as we’re tolerant.

In the process of numbing our guilt complex, instead of assisting in the practice of real virtues like justice and charity, tolerance has subjugated all else to it. And once we’ve reached such a point, there is no sin aside from intolerance of sins. For to call a sin a sin is too intolerant of the sin. And to be intolerant is sinful above all else. Or perhaps that’s a very intolerant thing to say.

“In a world that has lost a sense of sin, one sin remains: Thou shalt not make people feel guilty (except, of course, about making people feel guilty). In other words, the only sin today is to call something a sin.” – Christopher West

21 comments Add comment

Artie June 2, 2009 at 10:55 am

I love it, great post! I would also recommend this article http://catholicexchange.com/2009/05/21/118761/

angel croyle June 2, 2009 at 11:00 am

Sadly, this is where we are going in the US. We are to be”tolerant” of everything except Christian beliefs, it seems. We are “tolerating” our precious Faith into destruction. We must return to accepting the person, but not the sin. Teach others the way of truth so, hopefully, they will turn from their sin.

Joe Jordan June 2, 2009 at 11:46 am

Very well said Matt. Thanks & God bless!
Joe

Bill June 2, 2009 at 4:26 pm

I understand that in Canada, they’re already there. Calling something a sin can get you hauled before a Commission and fined.

We aren’t that far from the same condition in the US. Except that, of course, the US will criminalize those who call homosexual conduct, euthanasia, abortion, etc., a sin.

Artie June 2, 2009 at 6:24 pm

It is funny you mention that a couple in California were told they needed a permit to have a bible study.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/06/02/got_your_permit_to_study_the_bible

Andy June 2, 2009 at 8:34 pm

The PC movement has us all thinking we must tolerate ALL behavior, even bad behavior, or we are labeled as “intolerant”. (I shudder at the thought that this could be……..me!) To me “intolerance” is a person’s or a society’s way of communicating that there are limits to certain human behavior. Duh. Everything should not be permissible in our society. All behavior is not good. As my friend Simon Cowell says……”Sorry”. We need to have standards and rules for relating to one another. What are we thinking about as a society with all this PC stuff ? Time to step up folks ! Or just sit back and tolerate your traditional values melting away ! The choice is getting clearer and clearer every day. It’s time to do something about it, as I don’t want to live in this new “tolerant” society we seem to be creating. America is at a crossroads. The real sin is that we are all letting it happen !

Artie June 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Andy I think you will love this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM

This is wicked scary stuff.

Andy June 2, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Artie, I know what you mean….but I am hopeful that our populace is a little more discerning nowadays than to follow someone right off a cliff. Time will tell. Either way, the exploitation of children is deplorable ! Sweet little children……….don’t have a clue where we’re taking them, poor babies. I hope I live long enough to see the children’s rebuttal video in the year 2025 !

Phil June 2, 2009 at 9:48 pm

“The PC movement has us all thinking we must tolerate ALL behavior, even bad behavior, or we are labeled as “intolerant”.”

You guys totally miss the point everytime. No one is telling you to ‘tolerate’ murder. No one is suggesting that you ‘tolerate’ abortion. Folks (like me) are not screaming about intolerance, suggesting in some way that you ‘tolerate’ the bad things.

When I speak of intolerance, it’s more about the message that I am referring to. Not the actions. It’s about the way these views and beliefs are being shared and disseminated with others.

It’s about the time spent preaching to others how doctors are ‘murderers’ and ‘baby killers’ as opposed to the time spent preaching about adoption and prevention.

It’s about the time spent preaching that homosexuals are filthy and not natural as opposed to the time spent preaching the alternative notion, that irrespective of sexual orientation they are still children of God.

It’s about the time spent on spreading fear, hate, war, punishment. It’s about the lack of time spent cultivating hope, love, peace.

When we say this world needs to be more tolerant, this is what we speak of. No one is suggesting that we tolerate murder. But our message needs to be one of greater tolerance. Statements like “baby killers” show intolerance. Statements like that ouze hate from every pore. Hate. Anger. Punishment.

This World just needs to work on how to deliver the message. Once we perfect that, the sky’s the limit.

Artie June 2, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Awesome Phil,

I think we are making some head way in this. So you essentially believe that some things can be tolerated while others cannot… I agree with this 100%.

You think the way certain people spread messages can be more harmful than fruitful. This is where I differ to a certain degree.

Stating a matter of truth and being poignant about a topic is regarded as intolerance in this day an age, depending if it fits your moral compass or not.

This is called political correctness… another virtue in today’s world.

Some of the greatest saints throughout history would be considered the most intolerant according to your definition.

One example is Padre Pio, he had zero tolerance for women who would come to the confessional with low-necked dresses or short, tight skirts, and transparent stockings. Each year his severity increased. He stubbornly dismissed them from his confessional, even before they set foot inside, if he judged them to be improperly dressed.

Some message Padre Pio, you are soooooo intolerant!

Problem with the abortion debate is that people need to know the *truth* about it, in that it is murder not just some medical procedure that removes tissue.

Murder is a harsh word you say? Well unfortunately in this debate the baby in the womb is nearly always forgotten.

As far as the message of abortion, look at Rachel’s Vineyard. (http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/)

As far as homosexuality is concerned, look at Courage. (http://couragerc.net/)

Artie June 2, 2009 at 10:32 pm

I agree that popular culture believes that the Christian majority speak on doom and gloom topics more than they do hope, love, and peace.

I also believe there needs to be a healthy balance of each.

We cannot ignore sin and we cannot ignore faith, hope, and love either.

I am not a political beast by any stretch of the imagination. I think the right is the stupid party and the left is the party of death.

The left is willing to give up their beliefs in order to appease others, while the right is willing to stomp out others beliefs and could care less about others.

This is an stereotype of both parties, but pretty accurate in my opinion.

The problem in today’s society is moral relativism… and how dare a person who maintains absolute truth call out a sin.

Jesus was about truth and love, our Lord did not sugar coat anything, but he also did it out of love.

Jesus was not this hippy that soley talked about love and peace. He actually mentioned sin a whole lot more… I understand though… He was God and he can do that… completely understand.

However, if we truly love somebody we do so with truth and love. Both must go hand and hand.

I guess the problem I have is that people are judging Matthew’s blog about calling Tiller a Killer. Does that necessarily mean he did so out of hate? Isn’t that judging Matthew?

Cindy June 3, 2009 at 10:00 am

“I guess the problem I have is that people are judging Matthew’s blog about calling Tiller a Killer. Does that necessarily mean he did so out of hate? Isn’t that judging Matthew?”

Artie, judging Matthew’s title and calling it an imprudent use of language is NOT the same as judging Matthew as a person. My point regarding that title is threefold. The first problem is that when extreme language is used it can prompt unstable, disturbed people to rash action. (i.e. the murderer of Dr. Tiller) The second is that it diminishes the credibility of the speaker–a reasoned argument is listened to by reasonable people–an emotionally charged issue is only received well by those ruled by their passions. The third problem may well be tinged with a judgement against Matthew: to whom much is given, much is expected. He has created a successful, widely read blog and has influence as a thought leader among some of his readers. This places a great responsibility on him to use that influence prudently.

Paul’s comments above regarding this confusion about what tolerance is or isn’t are spot on. It’s critically important in debate to define what the issue is first. What, exactly, do we mean when we use the word “tolerance?” I doubt Paul uses it as a synonym for “permissiveness,” which others on this blog seem to be doing.

Matthew Warner June 3, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Cindy,

Your first problem: I didn’t use extreme language. I used accurate language.

Your second problem: I didn’t do so out of emotion. I did so with reasoned restraint.

Your third problem: I appreciate that. And you are right here and that’s why I appreciate your feedback. But I just disagree with you on this one.

Andy June 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Phil,
Your statement: “You guys totally miss the point everytime. No one is telling you to ‘tolerate’ murder. No one is suggesting that you ‘tolerate’ abortion.”
Are you kidding me? We are a nation of laws and our current laws ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE us to tolerate murder and/or abortion. Do you deny this?
The problem with the PC crowd is they cannot use precise language to express reality. They think everything has to be softened, sugar coated and glossed over so that we don’t upset anyone. As Simon says, “Sorry”, but some things are black and white (right or wrong) to some of us. (ie. killing babies is wrong….period).

I admire people who stand up and say strongly and unequivically “This is the way it should be!” (Even if I don’t agree with them, I can still, sometimes, admire their commitment to their cause) If you want to take this issue head on, why don’t you tell us all why late term abortion (>21 weeks) is so justified? Explain why only THREE doctors in the whole country will even perform them. (And coincidently FYI they are all multi-millionaires.) If you, personally, don’t believe it’s justified, then why don’t you speak out against it? The biggest cop out in the PC movement is when people say things like “Well just because I wouldn’t have an abortion, who am I to tell someone else they can’t have an abortion?”. “Sorry”. You are somebody that matters in a democratic society and should make your true feelings known. That’s all WE are doing. Join us.

Phil June 3, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Andy:

I think late term abortion is justified when a doctor can predict with little margin for error that the baby is terminally ill and suffering and the mother’s health may be at risk. You will say this is immoral – it’s murder. I will argue allowing a baby to be born when it’s terminally ill, suffering, and the mother’s health is in danger is immoral. Different principles I suppose. I do not support any other late term abortions period, only those in which the baby is terminally ill and will suffer or where the mother may die. If you want to know why, I would suggest you look at Matt’s other blog. I’m too tired to rehash it all.

As to why there are only 3 doctors (2 now) that do this? Well one of them was brutally murdered by some extremist nut a few days ago – you tell me.

And finally, I do speak out about it. Read my last 1000 blog posts on this site and tell me if you think I speak for what I believe. And I don’t subscribe to the “who am I to tell someone they can or can’t do something”. That is total crap…people have no problem telling someone that shooting someone in the face is wrong but when it comes to the grey issues they cop out. That annoys me too.

But it annoys me no more than someone who tells me how I must live my life.

Point being, there are ways to stand up for a cause without passing the buck or telling someone how they must live their life.

Andy June 3, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Good…..So you agree with me that most of late-term abortions are wrong. Those kinds of problems are easily detectable WAY before 21 weeks. We all understand that the life of the mother and the baby can be a factor. We can discuss that civilly without any problem. It’s just such a small number that I think we all know that it’s disengenous to base an argument for all late-term abortions on that. I think that they are mostly done for convenience and to avoid the responsibility for a baby that may “mess up” a teens life, or embarrass the parent’s etc….pick one. (This was borne out by the investigation of the dr. as well.) A more common sense approach would be to give the babies to the thousands of people who want them via adoption. Makes a lot more sense I think.

My comment about “who am I to tell someone they can or can’t do something” was not aimed at you, but it is certainly what a lot of PC’ers use to stay out of controversy. The PC culture is rooted in not saying anything to upset anyone. That’s their problem. If you can’t discuss the truth you can’t resolve anything. I think it’s good that you feel strongly about an issue a say so. I’m just surprised you can be so vocal for the few abortions that might be arguably justafiable, when it is a fact that most of them are not, at least by your criteria. I think you should be more vocal about the 50,000 + lives that were snuffed out for convenience. Just my opinion.

Phil June 4, 2009 at 10:02 am

Andy:

And I am surprised that so many people can be so vocal against those few that might be arguably justafiable. Especially in light of the fact that they ARE arguably justafiable.

So ask yourself which is more important: For me to stand firm on an issue that is arguably justafiable or to shout loud about an issue that everyone on this board agrees is wrong (including me)?

The 50,000 were wrong. There is no need to rehash that. I have said that I am against 99% of all abortions vehemently over and over on this board (perhaps if you have a few hours you can look at some of the discussions Matthew and I have had over and over). I have also said that I am against all other late term abortions. Out of convenience, out of fear, out of laziness, etc. all evil.

What I am standing up for, what I have been standing up for since day one on this blog, is that 1% who may really need an abortion but in the future may not have the OPTION to do so. In my eyes, that’s a terrbile mistake. We can play the numbers game all day. Maybe my shouting should be geared at the 50,000 or so. I don’t agree though. Here’s why: Personally, I think abortion will eventually become illegal in this country. It’s coming down the road for sure. The numbers are starting to show it as well. But I am going to continue to fight for the 1% who may need one so that no one is required by the US GOV to birth a terminally ill, suffering child and watch them slowly die a painful death.

Catholic debating pro-life April 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm

And I will fight for that child’s right to live outside of a womb before he or she dies.

We fight on.

21 comments Add comment

Previous post:

Next post: