Apparently you have not read this thread. I posted this earlier:
Other Catholic writers have said it is fair to scrutinize People of Praise because the group falls far outside mainstream Catholicism.
< snip >
The group emerged out of the Catholic charismatic movement of the late 1960s, which blended Catholicism and Protestant Pentecostalism – Catholics and Protestants are both members – and adopted practices like speaking in tongues. The group’s literature shows communal living is also encouraged, at least among unmarried members, as is the sharing of finances between households. SOURCE
I’ve read it. Apparently you believe that, since you posted something, the thread is now over and there’s nothing more to be said.
I’m quite familiar with charismatic Catholicism and some of the groups that grew out of it.
As a Catholic, it’s not my cup of tea at all. I suppose it’s not “mainstream” in the sense that most Catholics don’t find that their faith leads them in that direction, but there’s nothing about it that contradicts the faith. I myself would not be at home in a charismatic group or community.
But I really wouldn’t describe People of Praise as a “cult.” As I said, it seems to me to be less cultish than the far larger and exponentially more influential Opus Dei.
To hear you tell it as long as a group has the bible/Christianity at it’s center then they cannot be a cult. I disagree. Recall the People’s Temple, made famous by Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre. Christianity was at the root of that movement and I think they are definitely a cult.
Oxford Languages defines it as:
cult
/kəlt/
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
I certainly consider People of Praise as both strange and sinister.
To compare People of Praise to the People’s Temple is, well, I don’t even know. Misleading, at best. Certainly not a comparison that holds water.
I don’t. It’s not for me. I suppose it has “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object,” but by that standard all religions are “cults.” Certainly every Christian denomination would be a cult. It’s true that People of Praise is a relatively small group, and it’s true that some others regard its beliefs and practices as “strange or sinister.” You do. That’s one. There are probably others.
Let me ask you – do you regard the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church as “strange and sinister?” I suppose you’d concede that the Catholic Church is not “relatively small,” so perhaps it doesn’t meet your definition of a cult.
It’s sort of all beside the point, anyway. Judge Barrett is going to be confirmed by the Senate. Yes, the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham and the rest stinks worse than a fish market dumpster on a hot day, but there’s nothing to stop them. Certainly not Judge Barrett’s religion, since religious tests are explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
“…there’s nothing about it that contradicts the faith.”
That, to me, sounds like someone saying that as long as they have the bible at the center of their belief system then they are Christian and all the other window dressing is nothing more than that.
Sinister? Absolutely. I doubt you can point to an organization on this planet that has been responsible for more death and suffering than the Catholic church. Even if you can the Catholic Church is certainly on that short list. Their formal veneration of Mother Teresa fairly recently is a great example (but hardly the only example).
They miss “cult” status because they are not small by any means.
I don’t see how this would be applied to a confirmation hearing.
Okay. As I said above, “I think the answers to the question posed by the OP say more about those answering the question than People of Praise, or the Catholic Church, or religions in general.”
So you would have a religious test for appointments to the Supreme Court? And perhaps the Cabinet, since those appointments also require a confirmation hearing?
No but I am not sure what you would do if a senator quizzed a supreme court candidate on their religious beliefs. Sue them? Who would do the suing? Have the supreme court decide and what would a supreme court ruling demand even if they did go there? That legal mess really boggles the mind.
You quoted me. And said “sounds like…” a bunch of stuff I didn’t say.
Allow me to clarify. I’m not aware of anything in the practices or teaching of the People of Praise group that’s contradictory to Catholic teaching. If there is something like that, and it’s pointed out to me, I will happily acknowledge that I was wrong. Clear?
Anyway, it seems that you’d have a problem with any nominee who professes religious faith. Certainly Catholic religious faith. So there’s not much point in discussing the subject with you.
Which goes to what I have been saying. As long as a group adheres to Catholic dogma anything else they do does not matter and would not make them a cult.
Is there a supreme court justice who hasn’t professed their belief in god and the importance of their personal faith in their life? I don’t think so and I have not had issue with any of them for that reason. More than a few are catholic:
Before the death of Justice Ginsburg at age 87, the Supreme Court included five Catholic justices (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh) and three Jewish justices (Ms. Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan). The ninth justice, Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but reportedly attends an Episcopal church. SOURCE
Then what’s your issue with Amy Coney Barrett? I don’t get it.
I mean, I’d understand having a problem with originalist/textualist/whatever judges. And I’m sick of the whole process being outsourced to the Federalist Society.
But on purely religious grounds, I can’t see any objection to Barrett (assuming, of course, that one does not object to the appointment of Catholics just because they’re Catholics).
As I said above, People of Praise certainly seems to be less cultish than Opus Dei, of which Scalia was likely a member. Alito is also rumored to be Opus Dei, but I don’t have a cite for that – it’s something I’ve heard (more than once, from different people, some who would be in a position to know) in Catholic circles.
Near as I can tell People of Praise is not a religion or church. Members are whatever they are (Christian of some stripe). So, the issue is not with her being Catholic. It is with her affiliation with the People of Praise.
I’m pretty sure that I had encounters with PoP when I was in college and very active at the campus Catholic Center, but I can’t actually say with 100% certainty that it was them, as they didn’t announce themselves as People of Praise or hand out business cards saying People of Praise. However, if the group of 7-8 college kids (plus their leader) weren’t People of Praise, then they were either an offshoot or something similar, but I don’t know what that could be.
-A small sect that is part of the Catholic Church, but has their own separate identity.
-Report to a leader, who is secular, but has a lot of authority over members
-Members live together and have very intertwined lives.
-Catholic, but with practices (and attitudes) more typical of evangelicals.
-Very conservative.