In a previous post I discussed how the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College has published a lecture from a Catholic priest which presents the Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evolving" at its website (see here). The Newman Center's website, which may be found here, has a directory of related links. One of these links is to the website of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, an organization which advertises (at its website) its goal "to welcome gay and lesbian Catholics into the Church." Unfortunately, NACDLGM also condones an actively homosexual lifestyle.
In a special report for The Wanderer, the full text of which may be found here, a veteran reporter covered a 2005 NACDLGM conference which was held at the San Jose Hilton in California. This reporter writes, "For the most part, participants were unashamedly 'out and proud,' with some priests freely admitting their homosexuality and attendees railing against upcoming seminary visits and the impending approval by Pope Benedict XVI of a document banning homosexuals from the priesthood. One participant was overheard by this reporter calling the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, 'a big queen'...Copies of OutNow, a Bay Area homosexual news magazine containing advertisements for bathhouses and XXX 'gay' videos were free for the taking at the registration table..."
Is the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College engaging in homosexual agitprop? Why would this Center link to an organization which condones homosexual sex and which rails against the Holy Father and Catholic teaching while distributing "gay" pornographic literature?
Bishop McManus?
Showing posts with label Newman Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newman Center. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College: faithful to the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality?
The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College has published a series of lectures given by Fr. Bruce Williams, O.P., at its website. One of these lectures deals specifically with the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." In this lecture, the full text of which may be found here, Fr. Williams presents the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as "evolving," and adds, "Support for gay and lesbian rights legislation and (or) municipal ordinances is well within the parameters of Catholic moral teaching..."
Really? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would beg to differ. In its document entitled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, which was published on July 31, 2003 and signed by the Congregation's Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the CDF explains that marriage "is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose." This important document continues:
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts '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.'" (No. 4).
Considerations refutes the objection often raised by those within the homosexual movement (or by those who are sympathetic toward its agenda) that laws permitting homosexual unions would not harm the common good since they do not impose anything:
"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.' Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage." (No. 10).
Considerations points out the grave consequences to society if homosexual unions were to be legalized:
"The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8). Which is precisely what I argued here.
Fr. Williams doesn't see it that way. He concludes his lecture by saying, "speaking for myself as a Catholic and as a priest who has served the church for 33 years, in my prayers I try to imagine the church some day (probably after my lifetime) having a very different impact on the social status of gay and lesbian people than the impact it has had historically and still continues to have to some degree. Instead of being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination, as has been the case, could the church not become a force for society’s affirmation and inclusion of gays and lesbians – precisely by modelling such affirmation and inclusion in its own life? In moving to this point, could the church not benefit from the example of other faith communities that have already progressed further along the way.." Like the Episcopalians maybe? Better yet, let's not travel down that particular road of infidelity and self-destruction.
It is noteworthy that Fr. Williams has served on the Advisory Board of "Other Sheep," an organization which promotes the radical homosexual agenda. Sister Jeannine Gramick has also served on this Advisory Board. See here. Remember Sister Gramick? Here's what Archbishop Charles Chaput had to say about this dissident religious and the Holy See's Notification regarding her:
July 13, 1999
"Ministry to homosexual persons is important to Catholics. It will remain so. Common sense requires, however, that people ordained or consecrated for Church service should teach what the Church teaches. Unfortunately, on issues pertaining to homosexuality, Sister Gramick and Father Nugent do not, as evidenced by the body of their work.
The Holy See's action regarding Sister Gramick and Father Nugent concludes more than 15 years of study, explanation and discussion of their views on homosexuality and the nature of their pastoral work with homosexual persons. It is guided by the Holy See's commitment to teach God's truth about the dignity of the human person, and by a respect for the rights of all involved — the rights of the everyday faithful, as well as the rights of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent."
Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
The full text of the Holy See's Notification may be found here.
Small wonder that Fr. Williams would view the Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evolving" and would accuse the Church of promoting "homophobia." After all, Other Sheep has the following Mission Statement:
"Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities is the only worldwide ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to empowering sexual minorities throughout the world with the Good News of God's unconditional love for all and salvation through God's Son, Jesus Christ. With other LGBT activists throughout the world, we recognize that ideological fundamentalism in various religions, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, constitutes the major obstacle to justice for our people. Consequently, within the International Lesbian and Gay Association, Other Sheep pioneered the establishment of the ILGA Working Party on Homophobia, Ideology and Religion."
Does the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College also view the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" as nothing but "ideological fundamentalism"? If not, why would the Center publish a lecture which accuses the Church of "being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?
Where does Deacon Ben Nogueira of FSC's Newman Center (who also serves at St. Camillus de Lellis Parish in Fitchburg) stand with regard to the Church's teaching? Does he view the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church as "ideological fundamentalism"? Does he view the Church as having been "an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?
Is Bishop Robert McManus aware that FSC's Newman Center has published this lecture at its website?
Really? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would beg to differ. In its document entitled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, which was published on July 31, 2003 and signed by the Congregation's Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the CDF explains that marriage "is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose." This important document continues:
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts '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.'" (No. 4).
Considerations refutes the objection often raised by those within the homosexual movement (or by those who are sympathetic toward its agenda) that laws permitting homosexual unions would not harm the common good since they do not impose anything:
"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.' Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage." (No. 10).
Considerations points out the grave consequences to society if homosexual unions were to be legalized:
"The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8). Which is precisely what I argued here.
Fr. Williams doesn't see it that way. He concludes his lecture by saying, "speaking for myself as a Catholic and as a priest who has served the church for 33 years, in my prayers I try to imagine the church some day (probably after my lifetime) having a very different impact on the social status of gay and lesbian people than the impact it has had historically and still continues to have to some degree. Instead of being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination, as has been the case, could the church not become a force for society’s affirmation and inclusion of gays and lesbians – precisely by modelling such affirmation and inclusion in its own life? In moving to this point, could the church not benefit from the example of other faith communities that have already progressed further along the way.." Like the Episcopalians maybe? Better yet, let's not travel down that particular road of infidelity and self-destruction.
It is noteworthy that Fr. Williams has served on the Advisory Board of "Other Sheep," an organization which promotes the radical homosexual agenda. Sister Jeannine Gramick has also served on this Advisory Board. See here. Remember Sister Gramick? Here's what Archbishop Charles Chaput had to say about this dissident religious and the Holy See's Notification regarding her:
July 13, 1999
"Ministry to homosexual persons is important to Catholics. It will remain so. Common sense requires, however, that people ordained or consecrated for Church service should teach what the Church teaches. Unfortunately, on issues pertaining to homosexuality, Sister Gramick and Father Nugent do not, as evidenced by the body of their work.
The Holy See's action regarding Sister Gramick and Father Nugent concludes more than 15 years of study, explanation and discussion of their views on homosexuality and the nature of their pastoral work with homosexual persons. It is guided by the Holy See's commitment to teach God's truth about the dignity of the human person, and by a respect for the rights of all involved — the rights of the everyday faithful, as well as the rights of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent."
Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
The full text of the Holy See's Notification may be found here.
Small wonder that Fr. Williams would view the Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evolving" and would accuse the Church of promoting "homophobia." After all, Other Sheep has the following Mission Statement:
"Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities is the only worldwide ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to empowering sexual minorities throughout the world with the Good News of God's unconditional love for all and salvation through God's Son, Jesus Christ. With other LGBT activists throughout the world, we recognize that ideological fundamentalism in various religions, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, constitutes the major obstacle to justice for our people. Consequently, within the International Lesbian and Gay Association, Other Sheep pioneered the establishment of the ILGA Working Party on Homophobia, Ideology and Religion."
Does the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College also view the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" as nothing but "ideological fundamentalism"? If not, why would the Center publish a lecture which accuses the Church of "being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?
Where does Deacon Ben Nogueira of FSC's Newman Center (who also serves at St. Camillus de Lellis Parish in Fitchburg) stand with regard to the Church's teaching? Does he view the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church as "ideological fundamentalism"? Does he view the Church as having been "an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?
Is Bishop Robert McManus aware that FSC's Newman Center has published this lecture at its website?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)