Karen Armstrong, the former Catholic nun and self-proclaimed "freelance monotheist" whose agenda to break down dogma has been praised by Father Thomas Massaro of Boston College, has written that, "We also have a more complex understanding of sexuality than the biblical writers. Yet the Bible has to be read with care. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 condemns homosexual rape and the violation of the sacred rules of hospitality rather than homosexuality per se. It has nothing to say about the open, stable gay relationships that are essentially a feature of modern western society, and did not exist in their current form in the biblical world. Again, the rules against sodomy in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not legislating for ordinary human affairs. Throughout, the authors of Leviticus are chiefly concerned with temple ritual. The practices forbidden in these chapters featured prominently in the idolatrous religions of the near east, which, as we know from the Bible, the people of Israel found extremely alluring: ritual bestiality (as practised in Egypt), child sacrifice, and the cultic use of menstrual blood in sorcery. The verses against sodomy (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) forbid temple prostitution: in the late seventh century, there had been a house of sacred male prostitutes in God's temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:7) It is this kind of worship, which defiles the land, that concerns Leviticus.
In the same spirit, St Paul's condemnation of the 'unnatural practices' of the Graeco-Roman world springs from a visceral disgust with idolatry, the root cause of all the disorders in Paul's long list (Romans 1:20-31). The Bible is not a holy encyclopedia, giving clear and unequivocal information; nor is it a legal code that can be applied indiscriminately to our very different society. Lifting isolated texts out of their literary and cultural context can only distort its message. Instead, we should look at the underlying principles of biblical religion, and apply these creatively to our own situation." See here.
Ms. Armstrong's argument has been thoroughly refuted. As this website explains:
"The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature."
Ms. Armstrong has one thing right. The Bible does have to be read with care. This because ignorant and unstable people [and she would certainly fall into this category] wrest (or interpret) the Scriptures unto their own destruction. Which is why we have a Teaching Magisterium to interpret the Scriptures for us. Vatican II, in Dei Verbum, No. 10, reminds us that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition, has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.."
And what does this living Magisterium tell us about homosexual acts? The Catechism couldn't be more clear: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (2357).
Why would Father Thomas Massaro promote the work of such a person? What do you think?
Related reading here.
Showing posts with label Father Thomas Massaro SJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Father Thomas Massaro SJ. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Father Thomas Massaro and Karen Armstrong: False prophets pointing the way to a sentimental religion
In his book entitled The Electronic Christian, Archbishop Fulton John Sheen so eloquently warned that, "The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded. The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'
The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'
Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.
It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas." (pp. 74-74).
One popular speaker who is ardently promoting sentimental religion is Karen Armstrong, a confused soul who spent several years in a convent and then left her religious community and ultimately the Catholic Church*. In my last post, I noted how Father Thomas Massaro, professor of moral theology at Boston College (God help his students), has said that "..nothing could be more important than Armstrong's agenda." And what exactly is that agenda? To break down dogma while advancing a false conception of compassion.
In an interview with Bill Moyers, Ms. Armstrong, the former nun who now describes herself as "a freelance monotheist," said: "I was sick of religion but when I got to understand what religion was really about, uh, not about dogmas, not about propping up the church, not about converting other people to your particular wavelength, but about getting rid of ego and approaching others in reverence, I became much happier...Compassion is not a popular virtue. Very often when I talk to religious people, and mention how important it is that compassion is the key, that it's the sine-qua-non of religion, people look kind of balked, and stubborn sometimes, as much to say, what's the point of having religion if you can't disapprove of other people? And sometimes we use religion just to back up these unworthy hatreds, because we're frightened too..We fear that if we're not in control, other people will cut us down to size, and so we hit out first." (See here).
You see what Ms. Armstrong is saying here? Dogma = violence. Compassion means getting rid of dogmas, which are merely tools to back up unworthy hatreds. The Church defines dogmas as a way to exercise "control." And this need arises from fear.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these." (CCC, 88).
How critical is dogma to one's faith life? Again the Catechism explains, "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith." (CCC, 89).
And as far as compassion is concerned, we must define our terms. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).
It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such "compassion" provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:
"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).
An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:
"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49,
* "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(124) 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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14). This is the Church's authentic understanding of the axiom "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'
Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.
It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas." (pp. 74-74).
One popular speaker who is ardently promoting sentimental religion is Karen Armstrong, a confused soul who spent several years in a convent and then left her religious community and ultimately the Catholic Church*. In my last post, I noted how Father Thomas Massaro, professor of moral theology at Boston College (God help his students), has said that "..nothing could be more important than Armstrong's agenda." And what exactly is that agenda? To break down dogma while advancing a false conception of compassion.
In an interview with Bill Moyers, Ms. Armstrong, the former nun who now describes herself as "a freelance monotheist," said: "I was sick of religion but when I got to understand what religion was really about, uh, not about dogmas, not about propping up the church, not about converting other people to your particular wavelength, but about getting rid of ego and approaching others in reverence, I became much happier...Compassion is not a popular virtue. Very often when I talk to religious people, and mention how important it is that compassion is the key, that it's the sine-qua-non of religion, people look kind of balked, and stubborn sometimes, as much to say, what's the point of having religion if you can't disapprove of other people? And sometimes we use religion just to back up these unworthy hatreds, because we're frightened too..We fear that if we're not in control, other people will cut us down to size, and so we hit out first." (See here).
You see what Ms. Armstrong is saying here? Dogma = violence. Compassion means getting rid of dogmas, which are merely tools to back up unworthy hatreds. The Church defines dogmas as a way to exercise "control." And this need arises from fear.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these." (CCC, 88).
How critical is dogma to one's faith life? Again the Catechism explains, "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith." (CCC, 89).
And as far as compassion is concerned, we must define our terms. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).
It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such "compassion" provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:
"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).
An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:
"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49,
* "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(124) 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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14). This is the Church's authentic understanding of the axiom "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Father Thomas Massaro, S.J. and the Charter for Compassion: Breaking down dogma
Remember Father Thomas Massaro? The professor of moral theology at Boston College who appeared as a guest speaker at Father Bryan Hehir's Social Justice Conference last year? In a previous post, I detailed how Fr. Massaro is a member of the Cambridge Peace Commission, an organization intimately linked with the GLBT agenda.
Fr. Massaro is now promoting the "Charter for Compassion," which is described as "..a document that transcends religious, ideological, and national difference" which is "supported by leading thinkers from many traditions." In a review of Karen Armstrong's book entitled, "Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life," which appeared in America Magazine [see here], Fr. Massaro writes, "..nothing could be more important than Armstrong's agenda to 'retrain our responses and form mental habits that are kinder, gentler, and less fearful of others.' All people of good will and open minds will admire the Charter for Compassion and its promotion of more constructive patterns of social behavior."
The problem? The Charter for Compassion is an assault on dogma. It reads:
"The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community."
"New Church" Catholics who have embraced the tenets of Modernism and who desire to create a new humanitarian religion and a church made in their own image and likeness view the Church founded by Christ as "too dogmatic," "authoritarian," "rigid," "legalistic," "intolerant," "Medeival" and "triumphant." Such modern-day Judases within the Mystical Body of Christ hurl these snide slogans against the Church because they have lost the faith and cannot steel themselves to admit it. Their hatred of dogma is most significant.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen explains in his essay entitled "The sense of sin": "It may be interesting to inquire at this point why the modern world has lost its sense of sin. It should be immediately evident that it is the obvious consequence of the loss of the value of man. Under traditional Christianity, a man was a theological creature, an adopted son of God and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ; in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries man became a philosophical thing bound to God by some vague ties of creaturehood. But man today is only a biological phenomenon with no other destiny than that of the worm he crushes under his heel. Once one loses hold on the primary dogma that man has a moral end, and that his actions, thoughts, and words in this life are all registered in the Book of Life, and therefore will one day determine his eternal destiny, sin becomes meaningless. The modern mind has forgotten the dogma of man, and hence cannot avoid forgetting the morals of man, for one is the corrollary of the other. Deny that God is interested in the behavior of men and you immediately create a society in which man is uninterested in the behavior of his fellow man."
In his book Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, Fr. Fanzaga explains that, "...he [Robert Hugh Benson] also warns of a great danger for the Church which has to do with the 'great seduction' - the 'great prostitute' the Book of the Apocalypse calls it - that is, humanitarian religion. Only the Church, reduced to a tiny flock will resist. The Church will be tempted to follow the path of humanitarianism which would reduce Christianity to a form of humanism in which Christ is regarded merely as a man - although the greatest man ever born...At the same time, Benson foresaw that the tiny flock - of Paul VI - would resist the reduction of Christianity to humanitarian religion and that it would be branded a public enemy of the people and of progress. It would be accused of being out of step with the times and of belonging to the Middle Ages. Thus, Benson has prophesied [in his book The Lord of the World] both the seduction and the persecution of those who would uphold the supernatural dimension of Christianity." (Fr. Livio Fanzaga, Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 128).
Fr. Massaro is now promoting the "Charter for Compassion," which is described as "..a document that transcends religious, ideological, and national difference" which is "supported by leading thinkers from many traditions." In a review of Karen Armstrong's book entitled, "Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life," which appeared in America Magazine [see here], Fr. Massaro writes, "..nothing could be more important than Armstrong's agenda to 'retrain our responses and form mental habits that are kinder, gentler, and less fearful of others.' All people of good will and open minds will admire the Charter for Compassion and its promotion of more constructive patterns of social behavior."
The problem? The Charter for Compassion is an assault on dogma. It reads:
"The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community."
"New Church" Catholics who have embraced the tenets of Modernism and who desire to create a new humanitarian religion and a church made in their own image and likeness view the Church founded by Christ as "too dogmatic," "authoritarian," "rigid," "legalistic," "intolerant," "Medeival" and "triumphant." Such modern-day Judases within the Mystical Body of Christ hurl these snide slogans against the Church because they have lost the faith and cannot steel themselves to admit it. Their hatred of dogma is most significant.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen explains in his essay entitled "The sense of sin": "It may be interesting to inquire at this point why the modern world has lost its sense of sin. It should be immediately evident that it is the obvious consequence of the loss of the value of man. Under traditional Christianity, a man was a theological creature, an adopted son of God and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ; in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries man became a philosophical thing bound to God by some vague ties of creaturehood. But man today is only a biological phenomenon with no other destiny than that of the worm he crushes under his heel. Once one loses hold on the primary dogma that man has a moral end, and that his actions, thoughts, and words in this life are all registered in the Book of Life, and therefore will one day determine his eternal destiny, sin becomes meaningless. The modern mind has forgotten the dogma of man, and hence cannot avoid forgetting the morals of man, for one is the corrollary of the other. Deny that God is interested in the behavior of men and you immediately create a society in which man is uninterested in the behavior of his fellow man."
In his book Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, Fr. Fanzaga explains that, "...he [Robert Hugh Benson] also warns of a great danger for the Church which has to do with the 'great seduction' - the 'great prostitute' the Book of the Apocalypse calls it - that is, humanitarian religion. Only the Church, reduced to a tiny flock will resist. The Church will be tempted to follow the path of humanitarianism which would reduce Christianity to a form of humanism in which Christ is regarded merely as a man - although the greatest man ever born...At the same time, Benson foresaw that the tiny flock - of Paul VI - would resist the reduction of Christianity to humanitarian religion and that it would be branded a public enemy of the people and of progress. It would be accused of being out of step with the times and of belonging to the Middle Ages. Thus, Benson has prophesied [in his book The Lord of the World] both the seduction and the persecution of those who would uphold the supernatural dimension of Christianity." (Fr. Livio Fanzaga, Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 128).
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Father Thomas Massaro, Sarav Chidambaram and Gender Neutral Bathrooms
In the comments section of a previous post, Mr. Michael Cole noted how, "Homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals are often afflicted by evil spirits. Gender confusion is often a sign of demonic possession. Fr. Malachi Martin recounts the story of a possessed transsexual in his bestselling book "Hostage to the Devil." In the chapter titled "The Virgin and the Girl-Fixer," he writes, "At one moment, Father Gerald, the exorcist, was bending over the possessed, Richard/Rita, who had sunk his teeth into his own instep. In the next instant, the glaze in Richard/Rita's eyes broke, melting into a lurid gleam of mockery. Greenish. The teeth loosened their grip on the instep. The mouth opened, baring gums and throat, the tongue protruded, quivering on a stream of gray foam bubbles. The whole face was furrowed in irregular lines, as Richard/Rita broke into peals of laughter. Great buffeting gusts of mocking, jeering, Schadenfreude laughter. Laugter pouring from a belly of amused scorn and contemptuous hate." See here.
Gender confusion has led to the push for so-called gender-neutral bathrooms across the United States. Mr. Sarav Chidambaram, a radical homosexual activist who received an award from the Cambridge Peace Commission, of which Father Thomas Massaro of the Boston Archdiocese is a member, has been one of those agitating for gender neutral bathrooms. See here.
If the Archdiocese of Boston is not advancing a homosexual agenda, why is it tolerating dissent from the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality? See here.
Related reading here.
Gender confusion has led to the push for so-called gender-neutral bathrooms across the United States. Mr. Sarav Chidambaram, a radical homosexual activist who received an award from the Cambridge Peace Commission, of which Father Thomas Massaro of the Boston Archdiocese is a member, has been one of those agitating for gender neutral bathrooms. See here.
If the Archdiocese of Boston is not advancing a homosexual agenda, why is it tolerating dissent from the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality? See here.
Related reading here.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Archbishop John C. Nienstedt denies Holy Communion to Homosexual Activists
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."
Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda. Homosexual activists are not properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, which is "properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395; Canon 915, CIC).
Since all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda, Father Thomas Massaro's involvement with the Cambridge Peace Commission may be seen as all the more disturbing. As I noted in a previous post:
It should be noted that Father Massaro is a member of the Cambridge Peace Commission, an organization intimately linked with the GLBT agenda. Recently the Cambridge Lavender Alliance honored Cathy Hoffman of the Cambridge Peace Commission for her "exemplary activism." Additionally, this past May the Cambridge Peace Commission held its 12th Cambridge Peace and Justice Awards and an award was given to Sarav Chidambaram of the Cambridge GLBT Commission. Mr. Chidambaram "was chosen for his work as an advocate and activist within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community."
Mr. Chidambaram is on the Board of Directors of MassEquality, a radical homosexual activist group which promotes same-sex "marriage." Did Fr. Massaro vote for Mr. Chidambaram to receive an award for his homosexual activism? Is Cardinal Sean O'Malley concerned at all about this?
Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda. Homosexual activists are not properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, which is "properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395; Canon 915, CIC).
Since all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda, Father Thomas Massaro's involvement with the Cambridge Peace Commission may be seen as all the more disturbing. As I noted in a previous post:
It should be noted that Father Massaro is a member of the Cambridge Peace Commission, an organization intimately linked with the GLBT agenda. Recently the Cambridge Lavender Alliance honored Cathy Hoffman of the Cambridge Peace Commission for her "exemplary activism." Additionally, this past May the Cambridge Peace Commission held its 12th Cambridge Peace and Justice Awards and an award was given to Sarav Chidambaram of the Cambridge GLBT Commission. Mr. Chidambaram "was chosen for his work as an advocate and activist within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community."
Mr. Chidambaram is on the Board of Directors of MassEquality, a radical homosexual activist group which promotes same-sex "marriage." Did Fr. Massaro vote for Mr. Chidambaram to receive an award for his homosexual activism? Is Cardinal Sean O'Malley concerned at all about this?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Archdiocese of Boston "Social Justice Conference" to feature backer of pro-abortion politician
"It's a madhouse!...a madhouse!"
Joe Sacerdo of Bryan Hehir Exposed writes, "When the archdiocese says they have 'reached out to bloggers on numerous occasions to ask them to enter into a professional and Christ-centered conversation with us' we assume that probably is referring at least to this blog, perhaps others. There are two problems with their statement. First, their latest announcement about speakers for their upcoming Social Justice Conference further proves they don’t care the least about doing something about the problems we have raised. (Remember, the objective of meeting with us from their perspective was '…to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church, and to give you a broader frame of reference for future blog entries.' (Nothing about acting on the issues we have raised–just lecturing us on how to blog in a friendlier, less critical way).
Secondly, the reference to 'unfounded claims' sounds strikingly similar to their comments to us about posts considered 'untrue' or 'inaccurate.' We asked several times in good faith for specific examples so we could correct them and never got a response.
Anyway, welcome to Fr. Bryan Hehir’s Social Justice Conference #3, “Charity and Justice in our Daily Lives.” taking place Saturday, October 9, 2010.
Join parishes from around the Archdiocese of Boston to learn more about Catholic Social Teaching, celebrate the work for justice already going on, and find out concrete ways to connect faith with action in the service of justice. Featuring:
Keynote Address by Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services for the Archdiocese of Boston
Anyway, welcome to Fr. Bryan Hehir’s Social Justice Conference #3, “Charity and Justice in our Daily Lives.” taking place Saturday, October 9, 2010.
Join parishes from around the Archdiocese of Boston to learn more about Catholic Social Teaching, celebrate the work for justice already going on, and find out concrete ways to connect faith with action in the service of justice. Featuring:
Keynote Address by Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services for the Archdiocese of Boston
Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching by Fr. Thomas Massaro, SJ, Professor of Moral Theology, Boston College
Fr. Massaro, of course was one of 26 signatories to a letter supporting the nomination of pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Just Google on “Fr. Thomas Massaro abortion” and here’s a sampling of what you get.
Catholic Professors Criticized for Supporting Pro-Abortion Sebelius for Health Post
'The pro-abortion group Catholics United has started an organization to defend President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion health selection and has been criticized for spreading misinformation about Sebelius’ record. Now, the Cardinal Newman Society is concerned that half of the 26 Catholic activists, scholars and theologians who signed the CU statement are professors employed by Catholic universities.
These professors are giving comfort and aid to those whose stated goals are to advance policies directly opposed to Catholic teachings on life issues,” CNS president Patrick Reilly told LifeNews.com. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed pro-life legislation on four separate occasions as governor of Kansas,” Reilly said. “After she vetoed the pro-life Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act in April 2008, Bishop Joseph Naumann [said she should stop receiving communion.]'" (For Joe's entire post, go here).
Now, Father Massaro is the same person who, arguing against the war in Iraq, said that:
"We're putting soldiers in combat positions where they're afraid for their lives on a minute-to-minute basis. They're suspicious of every Iraqi they see because they could be suicide bombers...These young soldiers begin to see human life as cheap...Young people come home from the war and not respecting the dignity of human life is a great concern for theologians and ethicists." (See here).
Yes, clearly American soldiers coming home is our real problem*. Not moral theologians and ethicists who back pro-abortion politicians. As a veteran, I find Fr. Massaro's attitude troubling. The combat soldier, more than most, detests violence because he has faced it head on and lived with it up close. He has done his duty. But it is something which stays with him for the rest of his life. If anything, the horrible experience of war gives him a renewed appreciation for the sanctity of life. Which is apparently more than we can say for some of our theologians and ethicists.
*"The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised." (See here).
Related reading: The Church's understanding of social justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)