The Scarlet, a Clark University publication, wants its readers to believe that I am "angry." You see, it is much easier to dismiss honest criticism that way. But I'm not the one attacking the Natural Law and Catholic moral teaching while slandering the memory of a great Pontiff. It would seem that it is Clark University which has succumbed to anger and ideology.
As readers of this Blog know, I have documented Clark University's attempt to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." For Clark University, moral opposition to the radical homosexual agenda is equivalent to being "anti-gay." It is termed "heterosexism" and is put in the same category as rape and sexual assault. This is tantamount to saying that the Natural Law is "anti-gay," a position which is so absurd that it could only originate from a place like Clark University.
Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, has slandered the memory of Pope Pius XII, suggesting that he "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably," a position which I have totally refuted. See here.
Clark University's "Freethought Society" posted a message on Facebook saying that it is "okay" to mock Christianity. See here. Before that, simply because I do not agree with the radical homosexual agitprop and Christianophobic ideology coming out of Clark University, members of the Clark University "Freethought Society" asserted [again on Facebook] that I am "a delusional nutter" who "appears to have some major persecution fantasies." I was called an "ass...." who is simply "crazy." See here.
And I am the angry one?
But even if I were "angry," such anger would be justified. This point is not understood by many at Clark University who have replaced thought with slogans and knee-jerk responses. It was Blaise Pascal who said that, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God's truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."
Because our age has succumbed to a cult of softness, it is fashionable to believe that any display of anger is due to a lack of charity or to some psychological problem. This cult of softness has, in turn, contributed much to an effeminate Christianity which is incapable of opposing the evils of our present epoch.
It is forgotten that sometimes anger is the proper response to value. In the words of Fr. Bede Jarrett, O.P., "Not only may I sin by being angry when I should not, but I may sin by not being angry when I should be. If my reason tells me that it is right to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath; for, as the New Testament teaches, it is possible to "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4:26). Our Lord Himself, when need arose, roped together a bundle of cords and drove from the Temple those who trafficked in the House of Prayer, and down the front steps He flung the tables of the money-changers. Perhaps for most of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Think of the evils that are in the world, that are known to all, admitted to exist by public press and on public platform. Would they have survived thus far, had folk all shown the indignant anger of Christ? Hypocrisy, cant, and the whole blatant injustice that stalks naked and unashamed in national life - may not our own weakness and silence have helped to render impotent all efforts to reduce these terrible things?....I have got to make myself realize that anger is itself neither evil nor good, and that it can be either. Hence I must pledge myself to see how far I allow anger to rule me when it should not, and how far I overrule it when I should give it a free hand." (Classic Catholic Meditations, p. 168, Sophia Institute Press).
There is then just and unjust anger. Is it an expression of just anger to slander a great Pontiff? To mock Christian beliefs simply because you do not share them? To label another an "ass...." and a "delusional nutter" because he is personally opposed to the radical homosexual agenda?
Here again we see that Clark University is not interested in authentic dialogue and free thought. It is more concerned with placing opposing views in an intellectual ghetto and in demonizing those who refuse to embrace its secular humanist ideology as "crazy" and "hateful."
What a shame.
11 comments:
The angry and hateful Christianophobia coming out of Clark is just frightening. How can it be considered acceptable to mock the Christian faith? These people are just hate-filled anti-Christian bigots. I also resent being told I am against homosexuals because I do not believe in "gay marriage." That too is repulsive.
VATICAN CITY (RNS) A Vatican official told a United Nations body on Tuesday (March 22) that people who openly object to homosexual behavior are at risk of losing their human rights when they are prosecuted or stigmatized for their beliefs.
“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex,” said Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.
“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatized, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted,” Tomasi said.
“The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/vatican-says-gay-opponents-are-victims-too.php
Michael, Molly Burman, a student at Clark University who claims to be Catholic, left a comment here attempting to justify Paul Agne's comment in which he suggested that it's "okay" to mock Christianity.
Ms. Burman wrote, "perhaps what Paul Agne was getting at was that because we are such an open community, all faiths get poked at from time to time, but in jest and among friends...we can make little jokes about religion because there is not an ignorance as to the validity of one system of beliefs over another."
In writing this, Ms. Burman is - as one who professes to be Catholic - rejecting the teaching of Vatican II as expressed in Lumen Gentium, No. 14: "This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."
She is essentially repudiating this teaching of Vatican II.
All faiths get "poked at"? Including the faith system of the secular humanists or the homosexual movement? Does that mean we can expect a humorous skit about the murder of Matthew Shepard? Or jokes about Judaism and the Holocaust? Or skits mocking Islam?
No, the Christianophobia coming out of Clark University has nothing to do with good-natured jesting. Which is why I have been dismissed as an "ass....," "a delusional nutter," and "crazy."
What is coming out of Clark University is hate. Ideological hatred toward Christianity.
Burman is basically saying that all religions are equally good. And she professes to be Catholic? In what sense? This remark is the same as saying "I think error and truth are equally good."
I wonder if Burman has ever read Acts 4:12 and, if so, what this Scripture means to her.
It's funny how The Scarlet refers to this Blog as "One angry blog." I haven't witnessed any anger from this Blog. Only from the anti-Christiam element at Clark.
This article fails to mention (big surprise) that numerous other Blogs and websites have carried your Blog posts. Such as Culture War Notes.
Obviously The Scarlet wants to relegate concerns over the university to the garbage bin. Your posts have hit a nerve. And the bigots don't like it.
Another totalitarian university, this one in London -
http://protectthepope.com/
?p=4640
Stewart, it didn't really hit a nerve. We just aren't used to it. Surprised, I guess would be a better way to put it.
Yes, sometimes the truth does surprise. But I still think Mr. Melanson hit a nerve.
I do God's work every day in being kind to others. I am not concerned for my own salvation because my faith has shaped me into a loving and caring person. The compassion that I have gained because of my faith gives my life meaning. I refuse to waste my energy on negativity.
1 Peter 3:8-12
Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. For "He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
Miss Burman, you are not concerned about your salvation? But St. Paul tells us to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12).
There are those who prefer to believe in a Jesus who is a sort of moronic hippy who simply walked around preaching peace and love. But when the Son of Man began His public ministry, He did so with the word "repent" (Matthew 4:17). And He advised the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11). Likewise, in the case of the man cured at the Pool of Bethesda, Jesus advised him to "sin no more lest something worse befall thee" (John 5:14). When queried on the subject of how many would be saved, Jesus replied "few" because the "gate" to Heaven is "narrow" (Matthew 7:13-14). And while no one can pinpoint the precise meaning of the word "few," still, it is sobering that Jesus chose the image of a narrow gate.
Jesus is likened in the gospel to a stern master who has lazy servants flogged and murderous ones put to death (Matthew 21:41; Luke 12:47). And while it is true that Jesus is Mercy, He is also Justice. And for every parable illustrative of His mercy, there are three or four threatening divine retribution.
The Judgment Day is always described as a day of wrath and never as a day of rejoicing (Proverbs 11:4; Zephaniah 1:15; Sirach 5:10; Romans 2:5; Revelation 6:17). Why is this? If everyone (or even a large segment of mankind) is headed for Heaven, why does Sacred Scripture refer to the Judgment Day as a day of wrath?
The smug, self-satisfied "we-are-all-saved-already" attitude found in so many Catholic parishes is the result of the sin of presumption. Because there are priests who are betraying Jesus by refusing to preach on the reality of sin and the reality of Hell, a spiritual dry-rot has infected even much of the Church. This is why nearly everyone receives Holy Communion at Mass but nearly no one goes to Confession.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about presumption: "There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (CCC, 2092).
The words of Sacred Scripture remind us that such an attitude is very, very wrong: "Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not:' Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.' For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath." (Sirach 5:5-7).
You cite a wonderful passage from Scripture: ""He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
But many students from Clark who have either posted comments here or on Facebook have not kept their tongues from evil. Instead, they have resorted to name-calling. And is it not deceit for Deborah Dwork to slander the memory of Pope Pius XII?
"..the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." Amen to that. And homosexual acts are presented by the same Word of God as gravely sinful - in both Old and New Testaments.
On that we can agree.
The Scarlet is engaging in the same kind of tactics that Clark University employs. By using words as semantic weapons, they hope to convince others that the views of Christians who comment at this Blog are lacking in substance and simply constitute an angry rant. That's why they refer to this Blog as "one angry Blog."
But it is the voices of Clark Students - and some of the faculty - which have been angry and shrill. It is their tone which has been angry.
Long-time readers of this Blog know that it is written by a lay-philosopher who has been interviewed on radio, television, and various newspaper and magazine outlets. No one from Clark University accused him of being "angry" when he was tackling the problem of anti-Semitism in certain corners of the Church. But now that he's examining the anti-religious sentiments at Clark University, suddenly he's "angry."
The Scarlet is a dishonest publication. It's not interested in pursuing truth. Only in silencing criticism of a school which has succumbed to Christianophobia and homosexual ideology.
Post a Comment