"..girls can be married at age nine...it's Sharia law..."

Writing for The Daily Caller, Jonah Bennett notes that, "A bid to ban child marriage in Pakistan utterly failed, after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the legislation 'anti-Islamic' and 'blasphemous.'

The bill didn’t even move past the first stage in the legislative process, The Express Tribune reports. It was almost immediately pulled Thursday by Pakistan Muslim League party’s Marvi Menon following condemnation from CII, whose job it is to advise the legislature on whether bills are compliant with Sharia law. In this case, the bill clearly violated Islamic law as tradition holds marriage as acceptable when a girl hits puberty...

CII Chairman Mohammad Khan Sheerani reiterated in 2014 that girls can be married at age nine, so long as puberty is apparent, adding that attempts to revisit the issue are pointless and unnecessary."

But hey, all his well folks.  After deciding to rescind Robert Spencer's invitation to speak at the "Catholic" Men's Conference here in the Diocese of Worcester a couple of years ago, Bishop Robert McManus said that, "...the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men's Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern I came to share.  That concern was that Mr. Spencer's talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inner-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam...I based my decision solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims." (Bishop shares concerns about conference speaker, Catholic Free Press, February 8, 2013 edition).

Yes Bishop McManus, Islam makes provision for child marriage.  And the Qu'ran for killing "infidels" - non-believers.

"..a culture that produces weak and vacillating men will produce weak and vacillating priests.."

Some years ago, Brad Miner, in an interview with Zenit, said that: "The notion of the gentleman has been out of fashion for some time, especially because of its connection to boorish, Victorian-era stoicism..."

When asked, "What is a 'complete gentleman?", Miner responded, "First, he is an inheritor of the medieval tradition of knightly prowess, and the Victorian ideal of gentlemanly decorum. As a means for recovering a sense of the complete gentleman, I propose three archetypes: the warrior, the lover and the monk...I say that he is a warrior, because he knows there are things worth fighting for and is willing and able to fight; that he's a lover, because he treasures the woman in his life, gives her what she wants and allows her to free him from the tyranny of his own ego; and that he is a monk in that he values learning and silence.

I think the great, lost virtue in our time is restraint: the recognition that there is a difference between the public and the private. The complete gentleman practices what I call the art of "sprezzatura," which means that he is who he is and does what he does without drawing too much attention to himself in the process.

And when asked, "One commentator has described today's adolescent boys and young men as 'wimps and barbarians.' What has given rise to this phenomenon?"  Miner answered, "I suppose the 'barbarians' are the boys animated by the macho violence of hip-hop culture and the 'wimps' are the kids politicized by the various 'isms' of the New Age...There are many causes of this degradation, but it all comes down to a simple fact: Young people tend to lack a sense of calling or mission. This is partly what Michael Barone is getting at in his recent book 'Hard America, Soft America.' We have teen-agers who seem unable to cope with the rigors of competition and then 30-year-olds who are capable of running the world.

We live in a nation that has achieved an unprecedented level of luxury and in an age in which technology encourages passivity. Young people ought to be physically fit, if possible, morally responsible and intellectually active. If education does nothing but raise doubts, and culture mostly encourages predation, then the 'smart' kids will be weak and 'tough' kids will be cruel.

The antidote to this is balance and restraint. We need scholarship, devotion and self-control."

And then, referring to Cardinal Newman's famous passage describing the Victorian-era gentleman, he added, "Without question, he considered saintliness preferable to gentlemanliness, but his point of reference was an ideal of the gentleman that had long ago lost its connection to chivalry. I believe the complete gentleman recovers that connection, especially chivalry's martial quality.

Newman was reacting to the portraits of the gentleman as drawn by writers such as Lord Chesterfield, Samuel Smiles and Charles Kingsley. Having summarized their views, Newman says they are fine — as far as they go. Trouble is, they don't go far enough. It's as though the man they describe is what he is by virtue of his clothes; that gentlemanliness is merely something you wear. The biblical phrase 'whited sepulchers' comes to mind.

A real man, we might say, was in Newman's view someone who 'discerns the end in every beginning,' which means he lives more fundamentally, less superficially.

He is patient and forbearing on philosophical principles — not on the basis of social expediency; he 'submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.' This is a flesh-and-blood man with, perhaps, emphasis on the blood..."

And when Zenit asked him, "How can men exhibit the manly virtues, but at the same time exhibit the appropriate sensitivities? In other words, what is authentic manhood"? Miner replied: "At the risk of seeming to duck the question, I have to say that each man must answer in his own way. Authenticity is inseparable from individuality. I have no 'Seven Steps to Manliness.'  But I will say this: We do well to reconsider the ancient qualities of the knight, which are loyalty, generosity, courtesy, honor, courage and restraint. It's fair to say that men in the Middle Ages mostly fell short of the ideal, as probably we will today. But for heaven's sake, let's at least aspire to a higher standard.

If I could give one rather reckless bit of advice to American men, it's this: Learn restraint, learn to fight, remember that you will die, and meditate devoutly on the fact that death is preferable to dishonor....a culture that produces weak and vacillating men will produce weak and vacillating priests."

Increasingly, the Church is being feminized and effeminized. This is a great tragedy because, as Dr. Leon Podles explains, "Since men continue to want to be masculine, they will continue (unless there are major changes in the Church) to put a greater or lesser distance between themselves and the Church....Feminism and homosexual propaganda dominate the liberal churches, and both drive men even further away. Apart from some groups of evangelical Protestants, whose commitment to Scripture has made them aware of the lack of men and led them to use tactics which have had at least initial effectiveness, all other varieties of Western Christianity are totally bent on expanding the role of women in the Church and choose to ignore the absence of the male laity....Catholic and mainline Protestant churches that cultivate a gay atmosphere...will keep heterosexual men away. Fear of effeminacy is one of the strongest motivations in men who will sometimes die rather than appear effeminate....Christianity has within it the resources that allow it to appeal to men, to show that not only will Christianity not undermine their masculinity, but it will also fulfill and perfect it."

But the Church continues capitulate to the Cult of Softness. And we wonder why vocations are drying up. I cannot even apply for the priesthood in Worcester. But the Diocese has ordained men who acted out homosexually or who committed acts of satanic pedophilia.

Rather than trying to cater to the homosexual elements within the Church, our Holy Father should be working to restore sound Catholic doctrine and pastoral practice.

Do we have to be a Church which caters to disorderly tendencies and a criminal subculture?

The crisis faced by the Catholic Church today is, as in every age, a crisis of saints.  As long as the Church continues to promote a distorted feminism and toleration of homosexuality as an ersatz "orthodoxy," the crisis will only deepen.  Events such as the "Catholic Men's Conference" might lead some men into the Church or to deepen their commitment to her in the short term, but if they do not encounter a spirituality which permits them to be both men and Christian at the same time, they will either remain marginalized Catholics or will leave the Church altogether

 

 

Deacon James Connor on the Fall

Deacon James Connor, who serves at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts, would apparently like to "correct" God's Holy Word in Sacred Scripture.  For on two separate occasions, while speaking at Holy Mass, Deacon Jim as he is known throughout the parish, has advanced the idea that Adam failed Eve and that the world would be a much better place if only Adam hadn't failed Eve.

Now it is certainly true that Adam was the head of Eve, his wife, and of the whole human race which was to be generated by him  through his wife.  It is also true that Adam, a primordial priest, rejected God.  As first priest and representative of the entire human family, he brought sin and damnation upon this entire family.

But it is a distorted interpretation of Sacred Scripture to suggest that Adam failed Eve and that Eve had no share in the Fall.  This is exactly what Deacon Jim has implied.  Perhaps Deacon Jim has been unduly influenced by some radical Catholic feminist interpretation of the Scriptures.  Perhaps he attended the "Gather Us In" Conference sponsored by the Diocese of Worcester.

At any rate, as Donna Steichen explains in her excellent book Ungodly Rage, "Cunning, the serpent draws Eve into dialogue.  She knows the limits God has set, but she listens as the deceiving voice lures her with a promise of autonomy - the promise that she can be her own God.  When she yields, her disobedience separates her from God and from Adam.....Adam chooses to evade the very duties of leadership that Eve covets.  He is not deceived by the serpent, but he eats the forbidden fruit anyway.  Perhaps he cannot bear to be separated from his bride by her sin.  Perhaps he is intimidated by the prospect of confronting her.  In either case, the head of the first family disobeys his Creator and betrays his patriarchal obligations with his eyes open." (Ungodly Rage, pp. 375, 376).

This is a balanced interpretation of the Genesis account of the Fall.  One which recognizes that both Adam and Eve disobeyed their Creator and that Eve was the one who was deceived and became a transgressor: "..Adam was formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2: 13, 14).

Steichen notes that, "Contemporary Catholic feminists are part of a vivid, and ruinous, re-enactment of that ancient tragedy.  Their history strikingly recalls Eve's susceptibility to false promises, her rebellion against legitimate authority and her presumptuous ambition to make herself  'as God.'  Women, it seems, are more prone than men to such fraudulent spiritual enthusiasms." (Ungodly Rage, pp. 375, 376).

I'm sure that Deacon Jim's one-sided interpretation of the Fall is most appealing to certain confused types who view the Church as "patriarchal" and "oppressive" and who seek to manipulate and politicize language while deconstructing various Scriptural texts with the aim of re-constructing these according to radical feminist ideology.  Many are those who manipulate Scripture to agitate for women's ordination.  But as Mother Teresa warned, "Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness."

Deacon Jim, it should be mentioned, presides over a Bible Study group at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish.  One has to wonder if those in attendance are receiving the Light of Christ or words which increase the darkness.

For those of you interested in a balanced teaching on the Fall, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the subject: "Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience.  Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.  They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives." (CCC, 399).  And again: "...By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state." (CCC, 404).  And again: "Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin.'" (CCC, 417).

Eve believed the serpent's lie.  And bound humanity through her disbelief. But the New Eve - the Virgin Mary - is the Undoer of Knots (which is the title of a popular devotion by the way): "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.  Comparing her with Eve, they [the Church Fathers] call Mary 'the Mother of the living' and frequently claim: Death through Eve, life through Mary.'" (CCC, 494).

Just yesterday, at the Vigil Mass, Deacon Jim strongly recommended the upcoming Catholic Men's Conference sponsored by the Worcester Diocese.  This is the same event which Robert Spencer was invited to speak at before Bishop Robert McManus rescinded his invitation.  I would stay away.  Especially given the diocese's history of welcoming unsound speakers while barring good people like Mr. Spencer.

Related reading here:

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2013/04/bishop-mcmanus-and-dialogue-with-muslims.html

And here:

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-worcester-diocese-welcomes-heretic.html

Bishop McManus claims that Catholic-Muslim inter-religious dialogue has produced a good harvest; But has it?

In a previous post, I noted how Bishop Robert McManus (Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts) - the same Bishop who couldn't find the time to dialogue with me regarding my desire to discern a priestly vocation within the diocese - has asserted that the Catholic Church's inter-religious dialogue with Muslims "has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is the sort of statement which is so asinine that only someone whose mind is far-removed from reality can actually believe it.  Islam, as Hilaire Belloc reminds us, "began as a heresy, not as a new religion.  It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine.  Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was - not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing." (The Great Heresies, p. 42).

This perversion of Christian doctrine, which denies that Jesus is the Christ and that He died on the cross to atone for our sins, makes the claim that it alone is destined to become the religion of all mankind.  Islam divides the world into two camps: those who are lost and those who are the elect, the Dar al-Harb and the Dar al-Islam respectively.

Is an authentic dialogue with Islam even possible?  In any inter-religious dialogue, Pope John Paul II insists that, "There must be no abandonment of principles nor false irenicism, but instead a witness given and received for mutual advancement on the road of religious inquiry and experience, and at the same time for the elimination of prejudice, intolerance and misunderstandings." (Redemptoris Missio, No. 56).

But as Father Piero Gheddo has said, "In no Islamic country are Christians totally free, unlike Muslims in the West...The Muslims should examine their own consciences with regard to their collective behavior: the systematic violation of human rights, terrorism, oppressive practices against women and children, the lack of democracy, religious and social formalism that crushes the individual." ("Islam, accordo impossibile," Global Foreign Policy, March/April 2004).

And Bishop McManus insists that inter-religious dialogue with Muslims has produced "a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation"?  More like a harvest of shame Bishop.

For some people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

Take note of what Dr. Brown is saying here.  Authentic dialogue involves the "presentation of evidence by each party."  Why then did Bishop McManus rescind Robert Spencer's invitation to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference?  Where is the mutual willingness to learn from each other?

What is the real reason for Bishop Robert McManus' decision to rescind Mr. Robert Spencer's invitation to speak?

In a statement which was published in The Catholic Free Press this week, Bishop Robert McManus explained his decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Diocese of Worcester's Catholic Men's Conference which is to be held next month.

Bishop McManus writes, "In light of my recent decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference next month on the topic of Islam in its relation to Christianity, I should like to reflect briefly on the conciliar document entitled, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), specifically on paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 which speaks about the special relationship that Christianity has to Islam.  The paragraph states, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.  In the first place among these are the Muslims who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

As a result of such a theologically salient statement, the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims.  This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men's Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern I came to share.  That concern was that Mr. Spencer's talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inner-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam...I based my decision solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims." (Bishop shares concerns about conference speaker, Catholic Free Press, February 8, 2013 edition).

At first, Bishop McManus cites a document of the Second Vatican Council - Lumen Gentium - to make it appear as if there is a theological basis for rescinding Mr. Spencer's invitation to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference.  Then he later acknowledges that his decision was really entirely subjective, admitting that his decision was based "solely" on his concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would have negative consequences with regard to Catholic-Muslim inter-religious dialogue.

While it's certainly true that Vatican II insists, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems" and that Christians and Moslems should "forget the past and..work sincerely for mutual understanding.." (Nostra Aetate, No. 3), dialogue, if it is to be authentic, always means taking the other seriously and approaching him with reverence and love.  And this can only be accomplished by communicating with the other in truth.

In his book entitled Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, Pope Benedict XVI makes a few observations which Bishop McManus would apparently find problematic.  The Holy Father writes, "To what extent the new surge forward of the Islamic world is fuelled by truly religious forces is..open to question.  In many places, as we can see, there is the danger of a pathological development of the autonomy of feeling.." (p. 104).

Which is why Mr. Spencer's talk would have been most beneficial.

On page 204 of the same book, Pope Benedict XVI writes, "...even with Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism."

Wasn't this to be the point of Mr. Spencer's talk?  Would Bishop McManus accuse the Holy Father of undercutting the positive achievements which Catholics have attained with regard to inter-religious dialogue with Moslems?  Why is it acceptable for Pope Benedict XVI to speak of the danger of Islam "letting violence have a place" but unacceptable for Mr. Spencer to talk about "extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally"?

Bishop McManus insists that Mr. Spencer's presentation would not be "suitable" for the Men's Conference because its focus 'would be on the danger of militant Islamist jihad."  But jihad is not just an aspect of "militant Islam."  Jihad is the duty to engage in holy war against unbelievers or enemies of Islam if called upon to do so.  It is one of the basic tenets and requirements of Muslim faith.  Which is why Pope Benedict XVI has warned that Islam "is always in danger of losing balance" and succumbing to violence.

There are forces in this country and around the world which want to combine Christianity and Islam into a global religion which would be called "Chrislam."  Still others seek to blend many different religions into a syncretistic one-world religion with truth being sacrificed in the name of a false irenicism.

Those who have the courage to warn others about the dangers inherent within Islam can expect to be ostracized and increasingly relegated to the margins of society.

The Antichrist will head a one-world religion.  This has been prophesied.  And it will take place.

For more on "Chrislam" go here.