A response to James Carroll's editorial from the October 3, 2005 edition of The Boston Globe:In his encyclical letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned that, "A person who is concerned solely or primarily with possessing and enjoying, who is no longer able to control his instincts and passions, or to subordinate them by obedience to the truth, cannot be free: obedience to the truth about God and man is the first condition of freedom, making it possible for a person to order his needs and desires and to choose the means of satisfying them according to a correct scale of values." (CA, 41.4).
His Holiness goes on in this encyclical letter to explain that it is only when a person has subordinated his needs and desires by obedience to the truth that he is able to enjoy personal growth and that, "This growth can be hindered as a result of manipulation by the means of mass communication, which impose fashions and trends of opinion through carefully orchestrated repetition, without it being possible to subject to critical scrutiny the premises on which these fashions and trends are based." (CA, 41.4).
Many within the mainstream media are engaging in such manipulation because they have embraced what Pope Benedict XVI has rightly referred to as the "dictatorship of relativism," a totalitarian philosophy which rejects the dynamic nature of man and which views him as a mindless and submissive automaton rather than as an autonomous human being and which lends itself to the service of propaganda, slogans and ready-made judgments which wage a constant war against any and all absolute truth.
It was Adolph Hitler's contention, "that by the clever and continuous use of propaganda a people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell, and vice versa, the most miserable life for Paradise." And Hitler knew full well that, "The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it."
Like Hitler, Mr. James Carroll understands how valuable propaganda can be in promoting a lie or an ideology which is rooted in falsehood. In an article for The Boston Globe entitled "A Catholic moment of truth" (October 3rd edition), he employs its use with reckless abandon asserting that "leaders of this church (the Catholic) have squandered their moral authority in recent years" because of their opposition to artificial contraception (a position which he claims "has the church on the wrong side of the global fight against HIV/AIDS"), because "the coterie of American bishops chosen by Pope John Paul II failed their greatest test by protecting abusive priests instead of the children who were their victims," and lastly, because "church authority stands on the edge of yet another act of moral self-mutilation with a coming 'instruction' banning homosexuals from seminaries." Such a policy, according to Mr. Carroll, "threatens to turn an iminent program of 'apostolic visitations' of US seminaries, which overtly targets 'heresy,' into a full blown sexual witch hunt."
What Mr. Carroll neglects to mention is that the ban on homosexual priests has been in effect since 1961 but was largely ignored by advocates of the very libertine agenda he defends in his article. And now that Holy Mother Church has said "enough" and is moving to fix the problem (most of the abuse within the Church being homosexual in nature) by reaffirming the largely-ignored ban, Mr. Carroll is crying fowl.
He then proceeds to accuse the Catholic Church of, among other things, "authoritarianism," "discrimination against women," and a teaching on human sexuality which he labels "immature." What he doesn't do, being the ardent propagandist he is - a man addicted to the slogan - is provide us with anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument in support of his assertions. But then, The Boston Globe has a long and distinguished history of publishing articles which are long on emotional appeal and short on substance. So this comes as no surprise.
What of Mr. Carroll's assertion that the Church is "authoritarian"? Of course she is. As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains: "The holy Church is 'authoritarian' because of her supernatural divine origin, although this term takes on here a completely new meaning, quite different from its meaning when applied to the state. The authority of the Church is sacred. All genuine authority, whether of parents or of the state, is a partial representation of God. But in the case of the Church the representation of God is not just grounded in the kind of community which the Church is; it was explicitly established by Christ, the Son of God. His words, 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,' as well as the words which follow and are addressed to the Apostles, 'Whatever you will bind on earth, will be bound in heaven...,' show clearly the direct, explicit authority which God has committed to the Church, and which gives her a sacred character which no natural authority has." (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 198-199).
And his accusation of "discrimination against women"? This tired canard is always whipped out by dishonest types who cannot and will not accept the Church's clear and unambiguous teaching as expressed in both the Catechism and Ordinatio sacerdotalis, No. 4 that women are not called to the ministerial priesthood. Ironically, it is Mr. Carroll who is discriminating against women. In his book entitled "The Antichrist," Fr. Vincent P. Miceli explains that: 'The Dutch scholar Buijlendijk has expertly unmasked a modern error concerning the sexes. In his book, Woman, he says that it is only at an embryonic state of modern 'feminism' that it is naively supposed that equality of women to men means women must do all things men usually do. This error fails to honor women, for it neglects their positive, unique contribution to human society. Indeed, under the guise of advancing women to equality with men, this false principle makes a final attempt to subject women completely to the tyranny of purely masculine criteria. Women cannot be made 'copy-cat' men without degrading them by unnaturally robbing them of their femininity. A bogus masculinity does not honor or liberate women."
As for Mr. Carroll's accusation that the Church's teaching on human sexuality is "immature," I would submit that he hasn't read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or familiarized himself with Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. But then, why would he? As a propagandist for the dictatorship of relativism, Mr. Carroll is not concerned with facts and will do everything in his power to protect himself - and keep others from - absolute truth. This is why he remains so vague. Like the drug addict who needs his fix, Mr. Carroll cannot live without his slogans which he repeats like a sort of mantra.
What is truly chilling about a man like James Carroll is that one cannot reach him because he is incapable of engaging in any authentic dialogue. Like most liberal "journalists," he will no doubt continue to masquerade as an objective newsman while refusing to even consider the philosophical underpinnings of Catholic teaching. And he will more than likely isolate himself in that liberal fortress of other delusional thinkers (abandon all hope ye who enter here) who will reinforce him in his washed-out ideas and enable him to maintain the facade of objectivity while assisting him to remain immune from any reasonable propositions.
Pray for him.
Paul Anthony Melanson
