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?

Father John Unni urges those in attendance at St. Cecilia's "Welcoming Mass" to shed the burden of shame

In a statement issued yesterday by the Catholic Action League, we read:

"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for allowing the so-called 'welcoming Mass' for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered persons to go forward at Saint Cecilia's Church in Boston's Back Bay. The mass had been originally scheduled to celebrate Gay Pride month in Boston. Following protests by faithful Catholics, the event was rescheduled and re-themed.


The Catholic Action League called the decision to allow the mass 'a cowardly betrayal of trust resulting in the spiritual abandonment of Saint Cecilia's Parish to moral error and mortal sin.'

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: 'The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Everyone is welcome, and everyone deserves to hear the full truth of the Church's teachings. Sadly, that was not the case at this morning's liturgy at Saint Cecilia's.

Today's liturgy was a scandal and a surrender, where the homosexual identity was affirmed, and where Catholic moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior were ignored. Those prohibitions are explicit, longstanding, and severe. Instead of calling his congregation to repentance, interior conversion, and the personal pursuit of holiness, the homilist, Father John Unni, attempted to anesthetize the consciences of his listeners by urging them to shed the burden of shame.

The salvation of souls demands that Catholic priests and prelates demonstrate the courage to tell homosexuals that their participation in the sin of impurity against nature deprives them of sanctifying grace and imperils their immortal souls. At Saint Cecilia's, however, today's message was the spiritual equivalent of 'Don't worry, be happy.' The Archdiocese of Boston has, once again, failed to protect the moral and spiritual welfare of its members.'"

Should a Catholic priest be urging others to "shed the burden of shame"?  In his book entitled, "True to Our Feelings," Robert Solomon writes, "Aristotle calls shame [in his Nicomachean Ethics] a 'quasi-virtue' because to act wrongly and not be ashamed is much worse than to act wrongly and be ashamed because one has done wrong." (p. 96). 

Thomas Aquinas follows Aristotle in viewing shame as a "quasi-virtue" and asserts, in his Summa Theologica, that shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue.  He says that shame is a recoiling from that which is dishonorable and disgraceful, and since lack of moderation is the most dishonorable and disgraceful thing there is, shame contributes more to moderation than to any other virtue.  He says that shame is not so much an essential component of moderation as it is a preparation for it, laying its foundation by instilling in persons the horror of that which brings dishonor and disgrace.

Which is why Father Unni's exhortation to "shed the burden of shame" is so very troubling.  One who is shameless fears neither God nor man.  For such a person, that which is shameful becomes something to boast in.  But we already have St. Paul's warning: "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ.  Their end is destruction.  Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their 'shame.'  Their minds are occupied with earthly things." (Philippians 3: 18, 19).

Is this really what Father Unni wants for his people?  For them to glory in their shame?  To fear neither God nor man? 

Will this teaching lead others to embrace holiness of life or will it encourage them to embrace self-will while rejecting the salutary fear of God*?


*  "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to decline from the ruin of death." (Proverbs 14: 27).

*  "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1).

New Hampshire Representative D.J. Bettencourt views the Catholic Church in New Hampshire as being in a state of shame and dishonor

In these times of scandal it is critical to remember that the Church remains spotless even when Her members sin. There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members. Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand explains: "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins."

D.J. Bettencourt has lost sight of this.  The Huffington Post is reporting that, "The Republican leader of the New Hampshire House on Friday called Roman Catholic Bishop John McCormack a 'pedophile pimp' who should have been led from the Statehouse in handcuffs after speaking at a rally criticizing a state budget proposal.


McCormack was among about a dozen speakers at Thursday's rally to protest deep cuts to social services included in the House's $10.2 billion budget. Rep. D.J. Bettencourt of Salem took issue Friday, writing on his Facebook page that McCormack had no business urging lawmakers to protect the vulnerable, given his role in the clergy sex abuse scandal in the last decade."  See here.

When asked later about his language, Rep. Bettencourt responded, "Yes, my language was colorful, but I stand by the sentiment in describing a man who has in my opinion brought shame and dishonor on my church here in New Hampshire...As a practicing Catholic it is truly disappointing that we would have a leader with a record of enabling such egregious and unacceptable behavior."

So D.J. Bettencourt views the Catholic Church in New Hampshire as being in a state of shame and dishonor because of the personal failures of Bishop John McCormack.  Good to know.  Perhaps this exlains his inability to muster the necessary fortitude required to oppose same-sex "marriage" within the Granite State.  See here.

Representative Bettencourt has failed to understand that Bishop John McCormack's shame and dishonor is his own, not that of the entire People of God in New Hampshire.  The great Cardinal Journet would have told him that, "All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood.'" (Acts 20:28).

So here's where we're at folks: D.J. Bettencourt believes that any debate on repealing same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire should be put off until next year so that "full and undivided attention" may be focused on New Hampshire's "outstanding financial issues."  But he does have plenty of time to hurl stones at the Church.

President Obama wants homosexual persons to take pride in, to glory in their shame

In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us that, "Shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue....Shame is in fact a recoiling from what is dishonourable and disgraceful.." And what is more disgraceful than homosexual acts? St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church, Cardinal, and great reformer of the clergy, says that: "Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices...It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth....This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence. And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out." (Book of Gomorrah).

Saint Thomas himself teaches that, "If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature...

But President Obama sees things differently. This master of the spiritual life and expert in theological matters believes that moral opposition toward homosexuality is based upon "worn-out arguments" and that homosexual persons should take pride in their illicit unions. But the words of Saint Paul continue to echo throughout the centuries and to our present time, "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. Their minds are occupied with earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippians 3: 18-20).

Pray for President Obama. For he is not serving the citizens of this country well.


Related reading here.