Showing posts with label Dianne Williamson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dianne Williamson. Show all posts

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Victoria Kennedy's atheistic humanism


According to Catholic faith, every sin can be forgiven during life because of God’s surpassing love (DS 349). However, the Scriptures speak of sins that cannot be forgiven in the sense that they constitute a terrible offense against the truth and the light, against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12: 31-32; 1 Jn 5:16). In speaking of sin this way, the Scriptures refer to a sin more radical than most mortal sins, for it is a sin whose nature blocks forgiveness. Since the time of Saint Augustine, theologians have provided us with a list of sins against the Holy Spirit, proceeding from initial impenitence through obduracy, presumption, despair, rejection of known truth, envy of the grace given to others, to final impenitence. Final impenitence leads to Hell, the eternal separation from God begun in this life through our free self-determining choices to turn from God and His law of love and to cling inordinately to some created good that, in effect, one puts in God’s place.

It is this final impenitence which Victoria Kennedy promotes when she advances the idea of a subjectivist conscience.  In an op-ed piece for The Washington Post, Ms. Kennedy wrote, "The pro-choice position recognizes that the United States is a diverse, pluralistic society where a woman has a constitutional right to make a decision based on her own conscience, religious beliefs and medical needs."  This is how Ms. Kennedy, who views herself as a "good Catholic," attempts to justify the killing of an unborn child.

It is most ironic that Dianne Williamson, enraged that Bishop Robert McManus has decided to rescind Victoria Kennedy's invitation to speak at Anna Maria College in Paxton, would write an opinion piece accusing Bishop McManus of closing his ears on Victoria Kennedy.  For this is what the Culture of Death advocates doThey close their ears to the Lord Jesus.  When a person rationalizes what is known to be wicked in the sight of the Lord, that person opens a chasm between themselves and God which continues to grow wider and wider until they can no longer hear His call and discern the word of truth that He has spoken.


Margaret Sanger was determined to free sex from the restrictions of Christianity.  This, she said, would bring about an earthly paradise freed from te shackles of limitations on sexual desire.  In her Pivot of Civilization, Sanger made it clear that she wanted everyone to reject the next world and any hope of obtaining Heaven and to replace this goal with that of building the earthly paradise based upon worldly happiness:

"I look, therefore, into a future when men and women will not dissipate their energy in the vain and fruitless search for content outside of themselves, in far-away places or people.  Perfect masters of their own inherent powers, controlled with a fine understanding of the art of life and of love, adapting themselves with pliancy and intelligance to the milieu in which they find themselves, they will unafraid enjoy life to the utmost....Interest in the vague sentimental fantasies of extramundane existence, in pathological or hysterical flights from the realities of our earthliness, will have through atrophy disappeared, for in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization, already suggested, that there close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity.  Not by leaving it and our essential humanity behind us, nor by sighing to be anything but what we are, shall we ever become enobled or immortal.  Not for woman only, but for all of humanity is this the field where we must seek the secret of eternal life."

Victoria Kennedy is an atheistic humanist.  She just hasn't steeled herself to admit this.  She has succumbed to a humanistic, pragmatic philosophy, a progressist atheism in which religion, as Harvey Cox put it in his Secular City, "..is in a sense the neurosis of culture."  For Cox, "secularization corresponds to maturation, for it signifies the emancipation of man first from religion and then from metaphysical control."  And humanity "must cease worshiping certainties.  For when certainty enters a question, authority also enters as the implacable enforcer of certainties."  And authority is viewed as the enemy of free intellectual research, scientific advancement, social development and moral maturity.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, in his book The New Tower of Babel, stressed that, "The egocentric sovereignty that modern man arrogates to himself bans everything that has the character of coming from above, of imposing bonds upon us, and of calling for an adequate response.  Modern man also shuns all the factors in life which are gifts, which he cannot grant to himself: they remind him of his dependence upon something greater than himself and above himself. Thus truth in its implacable sovereignty - absolute truth that judges our reason instead of being judged by it - is denied." (p. 19).  And ironically, those who want to shake off the demands of absolute truth and who come to view the Christian faith and its teachings as mere "superstition," fall "into the web of the most naive, uncritical (not to say superstitious) worship of unfounded opinions," for "He who shirks episteme (knowledge) inevitably becomes a disciple of doxa (opinion). (p. 19).

Our Lord told us that if we love Him, we will keep His Commandments.  And loyalty to the commands of Christ is inseparable from loyalty to the commands of the Church He founded, of which He is the Head and with which He identifies Himself.  Victoria Kennedy rejects this.  She rejects Our Lord's commands made known through His Church.  She has opted instead to work for Margaret Sanger's idea of an earthly paradise where man is his own god.

But this road of self-will doesn't lead to paradise.  It leads to an eternity in that place where self-will has been embraced to the point of final impenitence: Hell.


Monday, June 14, 2010

Homosexuality must be normalized and Christianity demonized

Dianne Williamson: Annihilator of Common Sense


Five years ago this month, I explained in detail how the media would first plea for "tolerance" of aberrant sexuality and eventually would come to the point of legitimizing homosexuality and lesbianism and demonizing Christianity. See here. And increasingly such is taking place. Dianne Williamson, an anti-Catholic columnist for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette with a long history of attacking the Church and her teaching*, is now accusing Professor Michael Pakaluk of spewing "anti-homosexual blather disguised as intellectual morality" because of his recent column in The Pilot [ official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese] addressing the recent controversy in Hingham, Massachusetts over the child of lesbian parents being denied admission to a Catholic school.

Williamson, annihilator of common sense that she is, writes, "Pakaluk's screed should come as no shock to anyone familiar with the intolerance of the Catholic Church, even as it's written on the heels of a well-publicized, 25 year study showing that the children of lesbian parents are less likely to have behavioral problems and 'rated higher in social, academic and total competence.'" See here.

Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality [unlike Ms. Williamson] says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. See here. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has warned that the adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children" whose situation of dependence would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development" which this study has shown.


Dianne Williamson is blinded by her hatred for the Catholic Church. As a result, she is incapable of anything even remotely approaching objectivity when she writes on the Church. The irony here is that Ms. Williamson is guilty of the very thing she accuses Professor Pakaluk and the Catholic Church of: intolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind. The mind cannot tolerate error for even an instant. To do so would be to declare truth and error equally good. Which is why the Church so zealously protects and guards the truth even while showing love for those in error. The Church says with Saint Augustine: Kill the error, love the one who errs. She proposes while the world imposes.

But Ms. Williamson has demonstrated her intolerance toward the Church time and again.


Related reading: The health risks of homosexual sex here. And Homosexuality and mental health problems here.


* See here, here, here and here for example.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Dianne Williamson just doesn't get it...

In a previous post, I mentioned how Massachusetts second grader Jalen Cromwell was forced by the Taunton school district to undergo psychological evaluations for drawing a stick figure of the crucified Jesus with his own name on a placard above the corpus. Now John W. Whitehead, the president of the Rutherford Institute which is taking on Jalen Cromwell's case, has issued a statement saying that, "the effective suspension of Jalen from school deprived him and his parents of their constitutional rights to due process and punished Jalen for engaging in protected speech."

But for Dianne Williamson, columnist for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, this sad affair is simply much ado about nothing. Ms. Williamson describes the incident as "perfect fodder for the annual Christmas Wars, during which peace-loving Christians festively sue the pants off of anyone suspected of religious bias." She writes, "..the Taunton incident is only one more reminder that there's really no war on Christmas, but there's one heck of a battle waging against common sense." (Full article here).

In other words, Christians who object to their constitutional rights being violated or their due process rights denied are really not so peace-loving but are, rather, hypersensitive idiots who are lacking in common sense.

If there is any "battle against common sense" being waged in the Bay State, Ms. Williamson is a foot soldier in that campaign. See here for example.

Friday, September 11, 2009

A question for Dianne Williamson...

Back in June, Worcester Telegram & Gazette columnist Dianne Williamson assured us that the murder of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller was, "nothing short of far right-wing terrorism" (see here). I responded to this load of bovine scatology here. Now, a pro-life activist has been shot multiple times and killed in front of Michigan's Owosso High School (see article here).

Of course, this begs the question: Does the murder of this pro-life activist constitute far left-wing terrorism?

I look forward to a response from Ms. Williamson. Especially since she is such an expert on domestic terrorism and lunacy. Hopefully we will hear from her soon.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Dianne Williamson: An expert on lunacy?

Worcester Telegram & Gazette columnist Dianne Williamson, referring to the murder of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller, writes, "..it's nothing short of far right-wing terrorism. While anti-abortion [read pro-life] groups were quick to denounce the killing, a quick check of the online comment sections of this newspaper shows that there's no shortage of lunatics in our own backyard." One of the comments she cites: "You live by the sword you die by the sword...How did those babies feel when he did his procedures on them?" But it was Jesus who said to Peter [after Peter cut off the ear of the servant Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane], "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26: 52). Unborn babies might be killed with a scalpel or a suctioning device and not a sword. But the principle remains the same. This isn't to justify Dr. Tiller's murder. It's only to re-state a spiritual principle which Jesus Himself taught. And as for describing a late-term or partial-birth abortion as a "procedure," such a word is actually inadequate to describe these truly heinous acts. Hardly the stuff of lunacy.

And what are we to make of Ms. Williamson's assertion that Dr. George Tiller's murder is "nothing short of far right-wing terrorism"? The American Heritage dictionary defines terrorism as "The systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end." Systematic means characterized by purposeful regularity. How long has it been since an abortionist was killed by someone who opposes the murder of the unborn? Ten years. And Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz has described the shooting as "an isolated incident" (see here).

Here in Central Massachusetts, we may or may not have "lunatics in our own backyard." But one thing is certain, Dianne Williamson appears to be somewhat of an authority on lunacy. When she's not practicing psychiatry without a license, she's hard at work ignoring reality when it doesn't suit her agenda. Click here for photographs of murdered unborn babies who suffered through late-term abortions at the hands of "health-care providers" such as Dr. George Tiller.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Dianne Williamson's private war against celibacy

Dianne Williamson, a columnist for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, is at it again. What this woman doesn't know about Roman Catholicism could fill a library. But once again she has found it necessary to pontificate on matters which are really beyond her grasp. Ms. Williamson writes, "The most facile observation one can make about the latest Catholic sex scandal - this one involving a popular priest caught cavorting on the beach with his girlfriend - is: Well, thank God she's a grown-up. It could have been - and has been - so much worse. As noted though, that's just the easy part of the story. The aptly named Rev. Alberto Cutie is the latest clergyman to reignite the debate over celibacy within the priesthood, and call rather heart-breaking attention to the unreasonable demands the Church places on its priests.." (Another rigor of priesthood ends in scandal, Sunday May 31 edition of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette).

First of all, as Bishop Juan Ruben Martinez has reminded us, celibacy cannot be reduced to a "mere imposition on the Church." It was the Apostle Paul who explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the clergy: "He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." (1 Corinthians 7: 32-33).

In its Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) No. 16, the Second Vatican Council taught that, "Celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift. Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, commended by Christ the Lord (cf. Mt 19: 22) and through the course of time as well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world...celibacy has a many-faceted suitability for the priesthood. For the whole priestly mission is dedicated to the service of a new humanity which Christ, the victor over death, has aroused through his Spirit in the world and which has its origin 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God" (Jn 1: 13). Through virginity, then, or celibacy observed for the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt 19: 12), priests are consecrated to Christ by a new and exceptional reason. They adhere to him more easily with an undivided heart (cf. 1 Cor 7: 32-34), they dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and men, and they more expeditiously minister to his kingdomand the work of heavenly regeneration, and thus they are apt to accept in a broad sense, paternity in Christ.."

Do some priests fail to remain celibate? Of course. But as Bishop Martinez has said, "bad examples and even our own limitations do not invalidate the contribution of so many who, in the past and today, give their lives for others." There has been sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. But there has been much more across society - including in the public schools. But Ms. Williamson hasn't addressed this fact. Why? I think we all know the answer to that one. As Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan has said himself, "This [child abuse] is a societal problem, not a Catholic problem."

Another point Ms. Williamson fails to acknowledge in her column: most of the abuse which has taken place within the Church has been homosexual in nature. But then, as an ardent propagandist for the homosexual "lifestyle," why would she? In fact, she perpetuates the myth that most of the abuse has constituted pedophilia writing, "..his actions [Cuties] likely won't elicit as much condemnation from the flock as Church leaders may expect, partly because it seems tame compared to the sickening parade of priestly pedophilia and coverup we've witnessed over decades."

Surely the Telegram & Gazette can do better than Dianne Williamson. Its readers (what few remain) deserve better.
Site Meter