"Many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer..."

In his Encyclical Letter Libertas Praestantissimum (On the Nature of Human Liberty), No. 10, Pope Leo XIII teaches us that, "the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: "I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law." If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society. "

There are many (and even many who call themselves Catholic) who are agitating for legal recognition of same-sex unions. It is just such people that Pope Leo XIII had in mind when he wrote, "..many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, 'I will not serve'; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license.." (No. 14).

Anxious either to condone sinful homosexual acts or to make homosexuals comfortable in their sinful "lifestyle," those who agitate for legal recognition of homosexual unions have forgotten that while human liberty grants man the possibility to act as he wishes, it does not necessarily grant him the right to do so. For many, liberty has become license.

It was Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, who said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."

As Catholics, we are all called to an authentic preaching which does not make sinners feel good but which awakens them to the Lumen Christi - the Light of Christ. Any other "gospel" is a false gospel. A demonic "gospel." It was St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church, who explained that the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because: "Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust: It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind . . . It opens up Hell and closes the gates of Paradise . . . It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity . . . It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things . . . " (The Book of Gomorrah).

Homosexual acts expel the Holy Spirit and give entrance to the Devil. This according to a Doctor of the Church. Why then would anyone professing to be "Catholic" agitate for legal recognition of homosexual unions? Battle lines are being formed. One blogger who professes to be Catholic recently criticized me as I stood with the Church against recognizing such unions and after deleting the link to my blog [I'm actually glad that he did], placed a link to the blog of an individual who has called for legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We must stand firm with the Church. No matter the cost. Only those who persevere to the end will have their names written in the Book of Life.

Related reading: The myth of "homosexual love."

Kristine Maloney, Spokeswoman for Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts: Advancing a false understanding of academic freedom

In a Catholic News Service article entitled "Catholic identity debate*," Kristine Maloney, spokeswoman for the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, advances a false understanding of academic freedom. Responding to criticisms over some of the speakers who have appeared at that institution and whose positions and views have been contrary to Catholic teaching, Ms. Maloney was quoted as having said, "We really don’t think these criticisms are fair, especially when they come from special interest groups...that try to force everyone into a very narrow version of Catholic teaching that doesn’t always fit within the depth of the Catholic traditions...We don’t see a conflict with our Catholic identity if we have a speaker on campus who may have views that are in conflict with Catholic teachings....We’re committed to a Jesuit tradition which doesn’t suppress educational issues and intellectual debate."

Nice try Kristine. But your argument doesn’t wash. The late Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, who was a classically-educated Jesuit scholar and a brilliant philosopher, explained that, "The trouble with this understanding of academic freedom is that it takes for granted as a truth what is a falsity, indeed a complete illusion, namely, that academic freedom is absolutely immune from any reasonable bounds, limitations or restrictions. No human freedom is absolutely immune to restriction. Freedom is no longer freedom when it is reduced to being the unhindered pursuit of one’s whims and desires. This is especially true of freedom exercised in the field of philosophy where conflict with the authentic and infallible teachings of the Church is foreseeable. A true understanding of academic freedom, therefore, is in order so as to distinguish it clearly from academic license.

Academic freedom derives from the rational nature of man. It is rooted in the intellectual activity of man whereby he is called to a dominion and stewardship of the universe through a conquest of truth. Positively, then, academic freedom is a generous guarantee to the unimpeded access to the evidence of truth in any given science. Thus, academic freedom is always bounded by the canons and axiomatic truths of each discipline of learning. Thus, again positively, academic freedom is both purposive and responsible. It has its own built-in rules; its requirements are conditioned by pre-defined directions towards the truth of its particular science. The moral right to academic freedom arises from the inviolability of the proper action necessary to its scientific achievements of truth, founded on man’s connatural inner dynamism of the human intelligence’s hunger for truth. Negatively, academic freedom means at the very least the immunity from unreasonable restrictions, both from within and from outside the academic community, of the right to communicate the results of one’s researches through lectures and publications, and the right to be immune from unreasonable restriction in the pursuit of the teaching profession.

We are now in the position to ask, ‘How is academic freedom violated?’ Scholars, scientists and philosophers hold that whenever one of their members ventures consciously and freely to teach as truths doctrines that contradict the clearly established dogmas or unconditional truths of their disciplines, then such a member of the university is abusing his academic freedom, putting it at the service of stupidities or known falsehoods instead of using it to advance the horizons of truth. Now every science has its dogmas, theology, philosophy and all the natural sciences. Dogmas are not only the ultimate answers to some fundamental questions; they also prompt further questioning and research, leading thus to enlarged, more profound truth....a Catholic university that allows professors and lecturers to attack the authentic teachings of the Church, whether they are infallibly defined or not, is not faithful to the best canons of scholarship, nor to the Church or its own students who have a right in justice to receive the divinely revealed truths in their pristine purity." (The Antichrist, pp. 166-167).

For Ms. Maloney, faithful Catholics who insist with Pope John Paul II that "the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected" (Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113), are trying to "force everyone into a very narrow version of Catholic teaching." This charge is particularly ironic since the College of the Holy Cross, like many other Catholic institutions which have devaluated the faith, has become enslaved to a narrow (and conceptually flawed) notion of academic freedom. And why have these institutions sold out to secularism? Again, Fr. Miceli, S.J., explains: "Gradually, over the years the essential purpose of the Catholic university has been radically changed. Lusting after secular academic excellence, huge student bodies, expensive science complexes, notoriety, publicity, political clout and financial power, the leaders of Catholic universities somehow lost sight of the unearthly purpose and spirit of the Catholic university. Thus, in today’s Catholic university, intellectualism is preferred to Catholicism; scientism to faith, relativism to truth, immanentism to transcendence, subjectivism to reality, situationism to moral integrity and anarchism to authority. The essential purpose of the Catholic university has de facto been changed, despite the lip service that is still paid to the original Catholic ideal. Conduct flows from convictions and when the conduct is consistently depraved [Such as allowing controversial plays like the Vagina Monologues, my note] it is because the convictions have been corrupted. For example, Judas, forerunner of the Antichrist, had radically changed his deepest convictions about the person and mission of Christ before he sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver. No virtuosity at contorted rationalization can mask the massive turning away from the Catholic ideal that has taken place in the Catholic universities of the United States. The light and love of the world have made tragic advances against the light and love of Christ." (The Antichrist, p. 161).

Holy Cross officials, who have succumbed to such contorted rationalization, may believe that there is no conflict between a university’s Catholic identity and having speakers on campus whose views and positions are in conflict with Catholic teaching. But Cardinal Newman would have disagreed:

"It is no sufficient security for the Catholicity of a university, even that the whole of Catholic theology should be professed in it, unless the Church breathes her own pure and unearthly spirit in it, and fashions and moulds its organization, and watches over its teaching, and knits together its pupils, and superintends its actions....It cannot but be that if left to themselves, they will, in spite of their profession of Catholic truth, work out results more or less prejudicial to its interests. Nor is this all: such institutions may become hostile to the revealed truth in consequence of the circumstances of their teaching as well as of their end. They are employed in the pursuit of liberal knowledge, and liberal knowledge has a special tendency, not necessary or rightful, but a tendency in fact, when cultivated by beings such as we are, to impress us with a mere philosophical theory of life and conduct, in the place of Revelation....It is not that you will at once reject Catholicism, but you will measure and proportion it by an earthly standard. You will throw its highest and most momentous disclosures into the background; you will deny its principles [such as the authentic meaning of academic freedom, my note], explain away its doctrines, rearrange its precepts, and make light of its practices, even while you profess it....This intellectualism first and chiefly comes into collision with precept, then with doctrine, then with the very principle of dogmatism.." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Idea of a University, Image Books, N.Y., 1959, pp. 223-225).

How prophetic Cardinal Newman was.

In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith tells us that, "The Church ‘is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men’ (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the ‘leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit’ to start to work." Faithful Catholics understand this. And they understand what Pope John Paul II meant when he said (in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113) that: "While exchanges and conflicts of opinion may constitute normal expressions of public life in a representative democracy, moral teaching certainly cannot depend simply upon respect for a process: indeed, it is no way established by following the rules and deliberative procedures typical of a democracy. Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church’s Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts."

Dissent in the Church leads to polarization and destroys peace within the Church. Faithful Catholics who refuse to accept a dissenting view must resist it for the sake of restoring an authentic peace, a peace which Pope John XXIII taught: "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

In the Catholic News Service article, Chaz Muth describes the Cardinal Newman Society, which works to restore a Catholic identity at many institutions which have become Catholic in name only, as a "self-appointed watchdog group." This is really quite insulting and betrays a profound ignorance of who the lay faithful are. In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, No. 9, Pope John Paul II reminds us that: "Through Baptism the lay faithful are made one body with Christ and are established among the People of God. They are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ. They carry out their own part in the mission of the whole Christian people with respect to the Church and the world." John Paul reminds us in the same document that "Because the lay faithful belong to Christ, Lord and King of the Universe, they share in his kingly mission and are called by him to spread that kingdom in history" (No. 14). The lay faithful who make up the Cardinal Newman Society are not "self-appointed watchdogs." They are members of the Mystical Body of Christ who, individually and collectively, have been called by Christ to promote and defend His kingdom in history. This vocation is not only a right but a duty. Hence we read in canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."

I call upon the College of the Holy Cross to admit that it has succumbed to a false understanding of academic freedom. Until it does, and until the Church once again "breathes her own pure and unearthly spirit in it," the College of the Holy Cross will never be authentically Catholic. She will only be an earthly counterfeit.

* This article may be found in the April 17, 2009 edition of The Catholic Free Press, p. 5.