I don’t think anyone is complaining about the RC folks “surfing the evangelical wave”, though they are about a decade late. It is just the arrogance and dismissive attitude they bring to the “beach”. More positive vibes, dudes, and not so much negativity. I’ve often wondered why they were so laid back as the evangelical Protestants were cutting in on their turf.

When has the RCC NOT been “converting heathens” in other countries…China, Africa,Russia,India, Central and South America to name a few? In Central and South America they meddle in politics…telling some governments that allowing abortions shouldn’t be allowed. They hit the poor and scare many into following their path. On the other side, there are some places where they have helped….however that comes at a price. Follow Rome.
Do they have a “right” to do so? Probably, just leave me alone when I say I don’t want to hear it. According to the article there is no forcing of acceptance of the faith. Benny’s rules. Right. Define force.

The Catholic Church has every right to try to convert anyone it wants to its faith, assuming, of course, that as the pope says, no coercion is being done. By that token, of course, the Orthodox Christians have ever right to sent missionaries to France, South America or any other place where Catholicism is dominant. Let everyone hear every side, and come to their own decision.
God bless.

Yes, let the marketplace of ideas thrive.
Of course if there were truth in advertising they’d all have to put in little boxes some place that there they are advocating hypotheses for which there is no proof.
And if there were much fairness in the world it would be illegal to push any kind of belief regarding the unknowable on children younger than, say, twelve.

nnmns:
“And if there were much fairness in the world it would be illegal to push any kind of belief regarding the unknowable on children younger than, say, twelve.”
Ditto to that, nnmns! I “joined” the Methodist church at 10! and had absolutely no idea what I was doing. It was the age one did that.

nnmns & pagansister,
I agree completely. That is why I prefer not to lead a Confirmation Class for anyone less that 15. AT that age they are just beginning to figure out how to ask their questions. Requiring students to simply mimic answers is neither learning nor confirming a belief. My most favorite thing is to help someone phrase the question they want to ask, and then help them discover some responses (but rarely answers – they are no fun and end the game).

jesterfyl for Pope!! How much better the world would be if someone with his wisdom were in charge of the RCC.

Our Lutheran Church, (not Missouri Synod), was a small one, so I was in a confirmation class with kids 13 to 15 yrs. I was 13 and finished and confirmed at 14. Have great memories of the pastor and the kids, and for the awareness I studied. The holy spirit hit hard, and I received the whole message; in ensuing years I questioned many aspects of Christianity, found new answers, and I’m still seeking and finding. You don’t have to worry about children not being able to form questions, you do have to worry when they stop thinking of lifes reasons for being here. Usually behavior by them will indicate when this happens. When adults stop seeking and think they have all the answers they are in trouble without even knowing it.

nnmns
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don’t know which would be harder – explaining my wife and kids to the Cardinals or the Cardinals to the wife and kids. I don’t look good in pointy hats and red satin slippers – it’s hard enough getting around in my pulpit robe. It might be fun to cruise the beach in the Popemobile, however. And a week at Castle Gandolfo looks pretty cool – I’ve never been to Italy. I would sure like to roam around Rome and check a few books out of the Vatican library (how do they calculate the overdue fines there?). But, even though I am sure the hours are short and the pay is great, I guess i will have to pass.
I hold as a foundational dictum that if someone says they are sure, certain, and right they are wrong, at least in matters of religion, faith, and belief (though the same seems to be true with computer repair). I believe in the unfolding of the Great Mystery and Divine Surprise (a.k.a. the Holy Gotcha!). From platypae to Nebulae we are still trying to get “(w)Holy”.

The Church in all it’s aspects has the Christ designated OBLIGATION to go out, evangelize and tell the good news. Case closed.

Evangelartist:
“The Church in all it’s aspects has the Christ designated OBLIGATION to to go out, evangelize and tell the good news. Case closed.”
As long as you don’t evangelize to someone who really has absolutely no interest in hearing the news, good or bad. IMO no one is in trouble with anyone or anything, if they don’t believe in a divine being. Life is fine without “believing.”

“The Church in all it’s aspects has the Christ designated OBLIGATION to go out, evangelize and tell the good news.”
The “Christ” you mention is the invention of people trying to start a religion using pieces of other religions in the area at that time, and edited by people wanting to use that religion to gain or keep power.
The “good news” includes the claim we and the universe were created by an insane deity that set things up so that we all deserve to burn forever, then changed it so we can escape that if we believe Just the Right Things.
I don’t see spreading that message as a favor to anyone and I’d advise anyone who can to avoid the whole idea.

Sadly, “evangelization” has become a pseudo-religious euphemism for “bully”. It is great that people want to share the source of their peace and hope. It is not so great when they insist you listen, believe the same way, or feel threatened because you choose a different path. The original intent of evangelize did not include intimidation, shame, or divisive language. This is not to say these are the tactics of any particular denomination of any repute. However, individuals from almost every denomination (including my own liberal, progressive, and well-intentioned denomination) have used these tactics. I prefer to think of evangelization in terms of the post-resurrection episode when Jesus was walking with a couple of folks from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They were talking and sharing what they had seen, what they had heard, and what they knew. Only when they were sharing the evening meal – and breaking bread – did they have any realization who their companion was. That relationship and moment of realization is evangelism. Anything else is questionable, whether it is giggly and fawning or intellectually obfuscated by lofty lingo and academic vocabulary.

Telling them where, when and how to preach just because we don’t want to listen would be censorship, and that is a road best avoided at all costs. Tempting as some may make it, I can’t deny that they have a right to spread their ideas to others.
But that doesn’t mean that right can’t be abused.
I would be much happier if evangelization were left to open forums & presentations that anyone interested was free to attend, versus the public hellfire speeches or hunting down the unbelievers like dogs and browbeating them into “admitting” the bible is true (like my two favorite guys, Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort).