In the aftermath of the Synod on the family, there has been a disruption in the ‘force’ that is the Catholic social media scene. We have had the usual passive-aggressive display from some on the liberal side who, whilst loudly touting the need for ‘mercy’ and an end to name calling, do so whilst condemning their opponents as ‘haters’. From the conservative side, we have had the usual cries about the sky falling in and the four horsemen of the Apocalypse being almost in sight. At the risk of annoying those eminent Catholic theologians who seem to be of the opinion that no one without a PhD in theology should comment on Catholic matters, it is necessary to remind them that the laity are also ‘the church’ and that ‘clericalism’ went out as part of that ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ which they usually laud; did they forget these things, or are they just piqued in their pride of caste by being reminded of some of the madness which their own theology departments produce? (Warning, those with blood pressure problems are not advised to click on the last link).
Schism is a serious word in theology, but here I want to use it in its more common sense of a serious division; but this division has no possibility of being healed or of healing itself; it is to be witnessed across the spectrum of confessing Christianity, and it long ago reached the point of no return. On one side of the divide are those who take Scripture, tradition and reason as their guide – that is they read Scripture though the light of tradition and attune their own reason to the teaching of their own tradition, thus putting a curb on personal infallibility: on the other side are those who read Scripture through an appeal to contemporary experience, and are quite happy to alter the reading found in Tradition on matters of sexual ethics and the ordination of women, if that is what contemporary society wants: on the one hand, an alignment with the past, on the other, an identification with the contemporary. There, are, of course, nuances here, but broadly speaking I cannot think of a large Church which does not have that division running through it.
This division accounts for much of the tone of the debate over the Synod. Those who adhere to the first position cannot see how those arguing for the dropping of traditional Church teaching on divorce and remarriage can possibly square their view with that of the Church; those who adhere to the second cannot see how the conservatives can possibly square their views with those of the contemporary world. The problem becomes especially acute in global communions such as Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, because those from the southern hemisphere generally do not live in societies attuned to the West’s sexual permissiveness, which means that when they speak to their experience, men like Cardinal Kasper tend to find themselves close to the greatest of modern sins, racism, when they disrespect them; such are the problems with relativism.
The gap between orthodox Christian teaching and Western attitudes on so many subjects is now a chasm, but then so it was in the days when Christianity was fresh in the world. The wider the chasm gets, the more difficult it will be to keep those who want to align the Church with society, and those who want to align it with Tradition, in the same place. We should treat each other with Christian love, and we should, I think, recognise that those who differ from us do so because it is where their consciences take them. That said, sin remains sin, and those who wish to redefine it cannot expect to get their way. There is a dogmatic and doctrinal content to Christianity, and those who want it to be no more than an aid to personal fulfilment are, frankly, better off looking elsewhere. That said, those who know that there is a doctrinal and dogmatic content, would be well to show themselves mindful that Jesus called them to love those who ‘despitefully’ use them. Love and Mercy are not code words for ignoring sin, they are the remedy for it and the cure for its hurts.
All Along the Watchtower 
Indeed C, some interesting points and some I have been untangling in my mind recently by reading some rather interesting articles from many years ago. It seems to me that although there are some, today, who actually have a conscience about how they read and interpret the Bible or documents etc. are real; but that is not where this whole thing started and not at the root of it. There is much evidence that much of the problem that took America into schism (actually privately admitted by the Vatican) stems from the appointments of the infamous Jean Jadot who gave us pretty near every ‘homosexualist’ or ‘gender friendly’ bishop that we had. He was appointed by Paul VI and JPII made sure that he would not continue by accepting his resignation.
These appointments had nothing to do with the consciences of these individuals but their ‘pastoral’ care (read, had a blind eye to sin) . . . usually because they were guilty of them as well. It became a cabal as such and thorougly ran the thinking of the USCCB for years as it transformed the NCCB of old into this political mouthpiece that it is today.
In reading some of the last reports that Stephen Brady of the RCF (Roman Catholic Faithful) wrote before his life-altering motorcycle accident, there was overwhelming proof against many (in high places) and a reluctance to do anything about it. The reason, from the Vatican: that they are schism and we cannot stop it . . . speaking of the American Church at the time. I would say that this corruption has spread and was already in places like Germany and the Scandanavian countries who lead the way in these matters. But we made their opinions . . . mainstream Catholic thought.
God help us . . . it looks more like the time of St. Peter Damian everyday. And that also ended up in schism, didn’t it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you my friend. It is interesting the way this division exists in every Church with a presence in the West, so it goes way beyond what individual do – whilst explaining why such individuals exist and get the purchase they do on events. It is so easy (which is why it is done so often) for these people to argue that it is all about making the Church ‘relevant’; it is always relevant to our sinful state, but I supose if you don’t believe that, then it is society to which it has to be relevant. But why be a Christian at all in that case? It baffles me sometimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many of them probably aren’t and were not Christian in any real sense of the word. They merely use the Bible and theology as tools of their trade to transform the country and shape the future of society so that their lifesyles might be acceptable. A sad thing my friend and Stephen Brady and his reporting got too close for comfort it seems as his closest priest friend wound up murdered. There is nothing Christian in that or no use of conscience: it is just unfettered evil that is lurking beneath the surface and we seem to not have the will to actually confront it: perhaps because of the scandal that would be involved????
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evil takes many forms, and we are bound, alas, to find it where Satan fears most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is much truth in that my friend.
Psalm 67
Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered: and let them that hate Him flee from before His Face!
As smoke vanisheth, so let them vanish away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My Eastern Orthodox friend always says, which I believe him, The central idea of relevance is the battle between the philosophy and doctrine of Classical liberalism–Focus on the secular individual person vs. the philosophy of the Christian Church. Liberalism, even in the classic sense, creates an acid in society, which sole purpose is eat away every foundation that rejects Classical individualism.
The above idea seems appalling to those who live in the West, those who are product of the Enlightenment; however, there its certainly a sentiment that needs consideration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that’s an interesting line of thought, but I do wonder now whether we are not so steeped in liberalism that there is no way back?
LikeLike
Honestly, I think people aren’t aware of it. I, admittedly for the longest time believed in Social Contract Theory that was created by Enlightenment theorist, now I’m starting to doubt whether it’s applicable and compatible to Christianity. Is it strange that my friendship with a member of the Orthodox Church has made me, in my opinion, a better adherent to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
I reexamined the teachings of the Church Father’s like St. Augustine and St. Ignatius of Antioch to ask, are they compatible with American Secular Classical Liberalism?
However, I also have acquaintances who wish the Church to become more ‘modern’. The Dreher book gets at the heart of the matter coupled with Classical liberalism, was it that the drop of poison, or Acid, that has transformed the West?
It’s rarely examined in schools or universities, in my experience, whether John Locke or Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy is actually dangerous. Of Course, that would be American/Secular heresy. Some of the major Catholic Universities are controlled by the Jesuits, so it appears it will never be questioned there.
But how did we arrive here? The Autobiography of The Hunted Priest John Gerard S.J. has no issues calling a spade a spade–heretic. Why does James Martin have such an issue with it? Well, if you’re party to it or have personal relationships with those who are promoting heresy, isn’t it a natural reaction to counter it?
I ask for those not to misconstrue my words, I’m not calling James Martin a heretic.The issue here, as Dreher points out, is that it’s a trigger word, but isn’t that something that’s developed out of the modern secular world? Why should we be so quick to dismiss actually having these conversations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, my own brief time in the Orthodox Church was the prelude to my crossing the Tiber, so I know what you mean about the effect which contact with it can have for the good!
Dreher is definitely on to something, and it is such a shame that the Jesuits seem to have a finger in every sort of heterodox pie.
I wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bath-water and think there is much in liberalism which can be reconciled with our Faith – but there is much which, if we do not take care, is corrosive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some people will call out Fr. James Martin without having second thoughts: http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2015/10/28/wherein-ann-barnhardt-justly-discriminates-against-fr-james-martin-essjay-who-is-a-raging-flaming-queen/
LikeLiked by 1 person
You certainly have a point, although I was stressing the point that I didn’t want someone who objected to only focus on me mentioning James Martin.
However, one could probably figure out my thoughts on him personally, as I never use “Fr.” whenever I write or speak about him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good decision . . . nothing Catholic to see here . . . move along. 🙂
Nobody is going to accuse Ann of being politically correct . . . I doubt she will be seen on the Colbert show or interviewed by Amerika. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another point, isn’t Ann following Catholic teachings and philosophy?
In St. Augustine’s work the City of God XIV, 28, he discusses how the history of man is governed by divine providence but his divided by the two loves promoted by man. The two loves are the love of oneself and the love of God. As St. Augustine notes, to love God one must do so “to the point of indifference to the self.”
In many ways, Ann is living by this assertion made by St. Augustine because to fully love God we must reject those who seek to promote individualism over the teachings of the Church. St. Augustine writes in the City of God XII 27 that humanity by its nature is social but becomes anti-social (individualism) through vice which requires the need to be saved by Christ. Diversity philosophy, it seems, is the natural evolution of Classical Liberalism. James Martin, as Ann points out, by promoting is actually not following the teachings of the Church, like I said before, my goal is to express thoughts; however, wouldn’t rejecting these teachings be called… ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . heresy. Yes. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back in the distant past of July last year I wrote a blog “Gays, Abortion, Women’s Rights- Is the Church Out of Touch?” This bit seems relevant here-
“I never tire of restating this proposition- the Church is not the advocate of a philosophy, she is the steward of a Divine Revelation. What she proposes for belief is the truth about God and the things of God which she has received from God Himself most fully and completely in the person of Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary. Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever. (Hebrews 13:8) That being so her propositions though they may vary in form as the centuries roll by cannot, will not and should not vary in content. The world may believe what it will but where the beliefs of the world contradict the truths of Revelation then the world is wrong and the Church is right. It would be a grave dereliction of duty for the Church to turn aside from the straight path to pursue the world through its twists and turns of fashionable belief and practice. More than that it would be a great act of folly. If the truth is indeed truthful then it will, in the end, always prevail. To attach herself to a chariot heading for the cliffs is no act of wisdom.”
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/gays-abortion-womens-rights-is-church.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s an excellent post – and that last sentence is spot on.
LikeLike
The last few days I have been listening to some lectures by the Anglican bishop N T Wright. In a comment he made in the context of the differing views of Baptism he mentioned a conversation he had at the Sistine Chapel with a Catholic Cardinal. The Cardinal commented that things were in a bit of a muddle (or words to that effect) with a world full of Baptised people who were NOT Christians. Given the proposal of a church with ‘wheat and tares’ as opposed to a ‘believers church’ is it any wonder that there should be a contingent seeking to conform the church to the world.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good point Rob – and of course, that is part, a major part, of the problem.
LikeLike
It is a good point Rob. There is a fight between those who have carried on a traditional belief of good and evil and paint the world in white and black (the believer’s church). The progressives and non-believers begin to create grey where once things were black and forbidden; thus the world is nothing but shades of grey. The next move is to apply the whitewash again and make everything good except for anyone who sees the world in black and white. The sad part to me is that for those who are truly cognizant of what they do, they harbor such a deep love of sin and hatred of good that they possess an almost murderous rage for all things viewed from the standpoint of good and evil. It seems ironic to speak of mercy and love when they hold such loathing for anything other than a licentious life free from the taboos revealed by God. These folks may now live in a church of ‘wheat and tares’ but they dream of a church of tares without a need for wheat which threatens their existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a very good point, the Wheat and the Tares is one of my favorite parables. On the flip side, although we’ve been instructed to let the Tares grow amongst the wheat, we must be careful not to endanger the field to being an entire field of tares.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The point of the parable was that the wheat and tares should be allowed to grow together until the harvest i.e. the day of the Lord / end of the age.
But where they should be allowed to grow has been answered in two different ways. Augustine I believe taught that they should be allowed to grow together in the church and in this case we see the development of state churches where all the citizens were baptised as infants and considered church members.
Whereas in Christ’s words the parable states that realm where the wheat and tares are together is in the world NOT the church and believer’s churches particularly those practicing adult believers baptism organised on this bases.
Most of these churches would contend that this was the manner in which the early church operated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fully understand what Christ meant, but it’s interesting the points you bring up. I guess I’ve never what the field actually is.I suppose I’ve always envisioned it as the world, but it could certainly mean just the faithful. However, I think my point, which was more or less thinking out loud to produce a conversation to form a better idea was what do we do if we look at the field and there’s nothing but tares? As the farmer, so to speak, do you wait until harvest?
Again, the proposed question and ideas are only meant to create a better understanding of the parable as told by Christ.
LikeLike
“At the risk of annoying those eminent Catholic theologians who seem to be of the opinion that no one without a PhD in theology should comment on Catholic matters, it is necessary to remind them that the laity are also ‘the church’ and that ‘clericalism’ went out as part of that ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ which they usually laud; did they forget these things, or are they just piqued in their pride of caste by being reminded of some of the madness which their own theology departments produce?”
Exactly, I ‘tweeted’ some ‘experts’ who signed this ‘letter’ asking to specifically clarify where in the theology of the Catholic Church did Douthat got it wrong. I, personally, may not be an expert on theology, but the bulk of my undergrad education was on Classical Education and I can tell you by the rules of logical debate these P̶h̶a̶r̶i̶s̶e̶e̶s̶ theologians are committing the most basic of fallacious argument, ad verecundiam—appeal to authority.
Let’s examine this: “Those who adhere to the first position cannot see how those arguing for the dropping of traditional Church teaching on divorce and remarriage can possibly square their view with that of the Church; those who adhere to the second cannot see how the conservatives can possibly square their views with those of the contemporary world.”…
“The gap between orthodox Christian teaching and Western attitudes on so many subjects is now a chasm, but then so it was in the days when Christianity was fresh in the world.”
The idea of Christian philosophy is to reject the desires of the temporal world! One cannot live by the philosophy of the City of Man—this concept is nothing new! Many of the lessons of the letters of Paul are based on teachings to reject the pagan world. The left seems content to adopt the philosophy of the secular world and in many ways the Jesuits of led this charge. Isn’t troublesome to see S.J. by all of these names?
People get bent out of shape when the world heretic is thrown around, but perhaps, we should all consider if it’s used enough. I’m a cradle Catholic, and really for the first time in mass media this is the first time I’ve seen the world. We live in a society that doesn’t want to teach or acknowledge our sinful nature. There are those in the church, many on the left, who do not want to focus the doctrine of sin and hell. However, isn’t this the point of Christ’s sacrifice? The philosophy of St. Augustine claims that all things that God made are good that the evil in the world is not created by God but by man alone. Why is there no longer reflection on this concept? We must ask ourselves within the Church is this there conscience that leads them against Church doctrine. St. Paul speaks about this directly in Gal. 5: 17-24 RSV
“17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy,[a] drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
We must consider that experts have attempted to lead the Church astray in the past, we must considers these words from Pope Leo XIII
“The worst kind of heretic is the one who, while teaching mostly true Catholic doctrine, add a word of heresy, like a drop of poison in a cup of water.” – Pope Leo XIII
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, and yes again and again to what you write here; all of it is on the money. The society in which Christianity was born was not too dissimilar to our own, so we should not despair too much I suppose – but it is hard sometimes not to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. forgive typos–wrote on my phone– fyi The use of World the first two times in the 6th paragraph should be “word”– Iphone autocorrect
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you can do all that on the phone my friend, kudos!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good C, and I encourage all to spend enough time to read your links, especially Dreher’s. This is what is great about the Synod. It brings to the surface, into the light of day, what’s been lurking just below. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there are plenty others out there that believe as we do. It gives us a chance to fight it out and both end up at the hospital, neither of us having won, but bloody, beaten, and still snarling at one another. Deo Gratias!
Your last paragraph seems to me to be no more than lazy circular reasoning.
“…is now a chasm (correct)…the more difficult it will be (correct)…We should treat each other with Christian love…where their consciences take them.” Doing this and understand that is what got us to where we are. Is this a good place? I don’t think so. Compromise, consensus, congeniality, brotherly love, and going along to get along, is not a good way forward. We need to fire the Head of the Theology Dept. at Villanova and all others like him. Sodomites and those whose ill formed consciences said they should stay, begone! (yes, my blood pressure got way out of control) “Love and Mercy are not code words for ignoring sin, they are the remedy for it and the cure for its hurts.” (great!) but, when you have a pope who thinks not…wherein the circle begins again.
LikeLike
Interesting reflections Steve. If we treat those we think err as Amalekites to be smitten hip and thigh, and they treat us the same way, what sort of witness is that to Christ? It is a hard saying of Jesus that we should love those who hate us, but I cannot find anywhere him saying ‘those who hate you, smack ’em hard’. Jesus does not say it is easy to follow him, but he calls us not to hate. A world in which we begin to call for the firing of those who dare disagree with us, is not one I much care for – having been on the end of such calls myself.
LikeLike
Indeed so, C, but we did have an obligation and a push which started under JPII to take away the title Catholic from schools that do not teach in accord to the faith. We also have demanded in the past that theolotians that write books and sell their books by presenting themselves as Catholic is also something that was revoked from some. Unfortunately, these folks ignore Rome (or their bishops did) and continue to do this. I think the Church has an obligation to the ‘faithful’ to protect them from error. We live in an age where that does not seem possible. Rome is largely shrugging its shoulders today and giving up. No excommunications , , , unless a very public charge of disobedience is noted . . . is hardly adequate.
LikeLike
If those in authority can show that the things you say are so, then they can, and they do, take away the title ‘Catholic’ – as they did with Kung. But no one can stop these people writing, and it would be a very ill-informed Catholic who bought one of his books thinking he was official Catholic teaching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They still do and Kung was a very public case. But even then, Catholic parishes and dioceses allow them to speak to their flocks etc. You must admit that what ever we did these past 50 years was inadequate. And the threats had no teeth: Georgetown University and Notre Dame are prime examples of schools that continue to defy the edict that a Catholic School should teach the Faith. I wonder how many uninformed Catholic parents spent their life savings sending their children to such schools thinking that they would get a good Catholic education only to have them come out of school . . . having lost their faith or having a corrupted faith?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know enough about the schools to say, but if it is so, then those in authority are wanting in doing their duty. I don’t know what the arrangements are. Here, all universities receive some state funding and none are funded wholly by the Church. I’d be surprised if those you mention received all their funding via the Church. In this age there is no way anyone could stop people looking at the internet to see what these people say – but again, I should be very surprised if people doing so did not know these people were not approved by the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even to this day, good Catholic families in the pews, look back to the alma maters of their fathers with Catholic pride and yet know nothing of the anti-Catholic posture of these schools. Lets face it, we are not the average Catholics here at AATW. Most respectable Catholics simply continue to pray and accept what they hear on Sunday as Church teaching even if it soothes the itching in their ears without questioning anything. They are trusting in the Church and the Church is letting them down. Yes, they do receive funds from the government and tax breaks. But those in charge of these schools have an obligation to teach the faith as it has been taught if they want to use the name Catholic to attract the faithful to enrolling their children. Of course, the students can view every sort of unorthodoxy on the internet as in days of old, you could subject yourself to it by leaving the campus and sitting around a pub and listen to some conversation or other . . . or by reading a secular newspaper. But that isn’t the point. Academic Freedom is a cry that has gone beyond the freedom of the people attending a Catholic institution to recieve that which is Catholic. Where do their rights figure in all of this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that if we are going to talk about rights, then we have to acknowledge that to retain them needs vigilance. If those attending these Schools are not aware of what is being taught, then they are not doing much in that line when it comes to vigilance; if people did not go to these places, they would change. As people do, it suggests that the market model is working – and that’s part of the problem. We live in a society where the market is king.
I am also nervous of any one defining what is ‘Catholic’ who is not authorised by the Church to say that. I see much petty censorship by liberals, and I’ve no desire to see it replaced by a censorship by self-appointed vigilantes.
From where I sit, the freedom to speak as I find is becoming very precarious indeed. As you know, Jessica took this private because some on the infantile left were warmbling about ‘tirgger warnings; and whether it was ‘appropriate’ that someone in my position should be associated with some of the views here -and this despite my pseudonimity!
Academic freedom exists in a very precarous place at the moment – as this piece indicates:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297734/Death-free-speech-Germaine-Greer-branded-transphobic-student-feminists-academic-attacks-self-righteous-zealots-censoring-history-literature-crushing-debate-universities.html
All of that is from the left, but they learnt it from those who once tried to suppress views from the left.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have no problem with progressive issues and views being discussed and presented to the students of a Catholic School; for that has always been the case where the errors of the day would be discussed and disputed . . . and a distinction made between Catholic Teaching and the errors rampant in society. But that is not the case when the proponents themselves are supposedly ‘Catholic’ professors and protectors of the Deposit of Faith. We are losing an orthodox voice even within our own schools of higher education. We have lost the will to fight the ideas of progressivism and the motive to do so valiantly. God knows we can hear anyside of any argument out in the world but if there is anywhere that we might hear the Truth expounded in great detail it ought to be in our Universities and parishes. You won’t hear anything of substance in the media or from the casual conversations that occur in our day to day lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, and my argument about ensuring free speech is part of this – already, without any sttate censorship, people in universities are of a like mind – and that includes so-called Catholic ones. I suspect there are not enough orthodox Catholics who want to devote their lives to fighting this good fight in universities – if there are, they are well hidden where I am
As someone known to be a Conservative, I have always had, shall we say, an uneasy coexistence with many colleagues, but latterly, for the first time, it has felt as though the battle is being lost – I am not surprised so few want to be in this trench!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can only imagine, my friend, what you have endured in the University environs all these years. It is indeed a field where the laborers are few. Most don’t have the strength of will to battle against overwhelming odds. God bless you for your stamina. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you my friend. It is a cruel coincidence that as my own vigour lessens, the assailants get bolder – but God willing I shall hold out 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess we should not be offended if God intends to put us to the test. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, indeed, but as they say, sometimes I wish he didn’t put such trust in me 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye, my friend, He trusts us more than we trust ourselves at times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s for sure 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
If these schools advertise as Catholic but do not teach in line with the church parents should be able to sue the school managers for false advertising – a few cases like that would sort the problem in a hurry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is intriguing that this seems not to have happened.
LikeLike
Yes, but the outcome would be ‘iffy’ at best with the present divide (hidden schism) within the Church. They would undoubtedly say that they are bringing us valid Catholic concerns and that they come down on the side which . . . in the secular world of courts could be said to be ‘normal’ Catholic teaching. It needs be taken care of at the Church level . . . bishops etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for replying. I’ll try and answer your question. What we have here, according to Dreher, is a very specific case at Villanova. At a Catholic institution, the Head of Theology, has allowed one of his professors to spout anti-Catholic and anti-Christian hate speech. Now, should we just turn our Christian cheek? And what sort of witness is that to Christ? We have learned very well from the left how to advance an agenda, and we need to ram it down their throats, as they have done to us over the last 50 years. (as we just sat around turning that cheek till our heads came off) Same with active homos in the Church. Oh yeah, the bishops say they have taken care of this. Then why does it continue to happen, over and over, again? Because the homo bishops are lying to us! When will we wake up? No, answer the question…when will you wake up? Schism, civil unrest, now is the time. ‘those who hate you, smack ’em hard’…those people are in MY church trying to make it protestant, if they won’t leave, yes I will want to smack em hard!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would think that, given your 1st Amendment, you were onto a loser here. Even if you could prove it was ‘anti-Catholic’ you’d have to prove you had the right to gag her – do you really think any US Court would do that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, see below, I replied to myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, no courts needed. The president calls all of his dept heads in and says that he may be over looking something very important, i.e., this is a Catholic school. He tells them that Katie Grimes writing has brought this to a head and he and the head of the Theology Dept. will decide what is to happen in her case, seeing that they both have made a bad mistake in giving her a position at Villanova. And in the future all faculty will be strongly encouraged to be Catholic and all the faculty in the Theology Dept. will be. All will be given time to find jobs, but if you disagree with this, you should begin looking now. At that point we all would see what happens with Catholic public opinion and of course the president would have to face the board. They will agree and cheer, or I’m sure this courageous Catholic president could at least find another job at a truly Catholic school. And I bet, because of his leadership, others would follow. We need this kind of leadership at every parish and diocese because it would save souls.
LikeLike
Would that not infringe the first amendment of your constitution?
LikeLike
Pingback: Reformation Day, Millenarianism, and Saving the World | All Along the Watchtower
In this case, as the oldest private Catholic school, they have the right and even the obligation to require of their professors an orthodox teaching of the faith and issues that are defined by the Church (which includes living in conformity with the teachings . . . no scandalous, irregular marriages, active homosexuals etc.). This is what many bishops have required in their Catholic High Schools for their teachers. Can it not be applied to colleges as well or is there some fundamental difference?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect there is as in college you are dealing with adults.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In these days, spiritually, they are mere infants given the state of our catechetics. In fact, even if not, don’t the well informed Catholics go to Catholic school to escape the decadence and false teaching in secular institutions? I think we have a responsibility to ensure that these kids are getting what is implied by the calling a school Catholic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They and their parents are the ones who ought to be insisting – and alas, it seems they don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it is because there are probably as many or more secular students attending as Catholics these days. If the Catholics quit going they will merely find them among others who aren’t Catholic. So if we don’t regulate our own schools we will soon lose them altogether. I doubt you will find a private protestant denomination school teaching atheism or Catholicism in their schools and the haven’t nearly the organization and clout that our bishops weild. What is wrong with us?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question my friend – leadership is sadly lacking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is indeed . . . I had in mind Bob Jones Univesity in Greenville, SC where I visited there wonderful museum (much of which is very Catholic). However, you will not find an atheist, a homosexual or a Catholic teaching there, much less, attending.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, some still hold the line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They do . . . but we threw the door wide open as did all the secular institutions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would be interesting to trace how this happened – but a sad labour. I suspect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would be at that. The obvious appearance is sadly, that we either do not believe in our teachings or that we are willing to negotiate a compromise with others concerning our principles. We seem utterly unprincipled, in fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It boils down to a lack of leadership in the 60s and 70s, when a lot of those in charge seemed to lose their nerve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . and their way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s for sure 😔
LikeLiked by 1 person
😢
LikeLiked by 1 person
No! The presidents and all faculty should be pressing and demanding that this is where Catholicism is taught by Catholics.
LikeLike
If the Presidents and Faculty were siund, there would be no problem, surely?
LikeLike
Sound or not, they would be Catholic, and that would be a start.
LikeLike
Here, the law would not allow you to exclude people from a school receiving public money on grounds of religion – I’d be surprised if your law allowed it.
LikeLike