The following I copied from the National Catholic Register by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND 03/12/2012
In the wake of Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, the university’s president, John DeGioia, issued an “open letter” that noted her “sincerity” and adherence to civil discourse as she advocated on behalf of the contraception mandate before a group of House Democrats on Feb 23.
“Sandra Fluke … was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression,” stated DeGioia in his letter.
But in a March 11 address, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington used DeGioia’s letter as a point of departure for a penetrating and sustained reflection that contrasted a modern, subjective view of conscience with Catholic teaching on man’s capacity and obligation to correctly choose between good and evil.
“The statement, ‘I am sincere’ is confused with the reality of being right. Everyone can have an opinion, but that does not make it right. ‘She was sincere and spoke with conviction’ does not equate with ‘She was right and her position is correct,’”
Is this the state of education in America and at a Catholic University? The truth doesn't matter and being right doesn't matter, what matters is one's sincerity and civility in delivering a sincere message! I'm all for civility, but I more in favor of the truth and what is being debated is right.
But this brings us to dissenting Catholics who hate Humanae Vitae and have made dissent from it a cottage industry in the Church. When a Catholic dissents from natural law which is in effect Divine Law, from what else is a Catholic free to dissent? The 10 Commandments? Yes, many Catholics have and do dissent from these. From Sunday Mass attendance? Yes, many Catholic have and do dissent from this? From one's marital vows? From one's priestly promises?
You see where I'm going with this. There is mass confusion in the Church and you have Catholics who claim to be Catholic dissenting from the Church's Magisterium and thinking they can do so in good conscience. They do it for which of the following reasons?
A. Abysmal catechesis
B. Sloppy and banal celebrations of the Mass
C. Poor preaching
D. Do not know how to pray as a Catholic
E. Does not know how to defend the Catholic Faith and has no desire to do so
F. All religions and no religions are equal
G. All opinions, especially sincerely held opinions are equal
H. Jesus castigated the religious authorities of His day, we should do the same with Catholic authorities
15 comments:
When I read the quote from the open letter, what I got out of it was 'whether or not we agree with her opinion, she has a right to free speech.'
This is true. We have a right to free speech. I would expect an University that calls itself Catholic to utilize this right to proclaim the Catholic Church's stance on the matter after such a statement. Did it do so, or did the University allow an opportunity for the public to hear Catholic appologetics slip by?
Had this precise conversation with co-workers within the past week. I argued that this was the primary problem with Society today and why it was doomed to destruction. Debate and discussion used to be anchored in objective truth, but now ever strongly felt emotion is treated as it's own truth. There is no basis for agreement (on anything) if you can not acknowledge objective truth. We might as well argue that the sky is red...it's true as long as we feel strongly about it being so.
Stop the world I want to get off.
Whether or not we agree with her opinion, she has a right to free speech."
Hmmm... What does Blessed Pius IX think about that?
From The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX:
"[I]t is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism."
Essentially, the Catholic view of religious tolerance does not allow for the public proclamation of errors contrary to the Catholic Faith.
"Dissident Catholic" is an oxymoron. You either believe and confess what the Church teaches...all of it...or you do not. If you do not, then you are not Catholic. Yes, that sounds like "love it or leave it" and it is. Catholic belief is not the same as assent to some political or ideological position which is up for debate and discussion. "America love it or leave it" may be problematic from a political standpoint, but America is not Divinely ordained and established by Christ...it is an Enlightenment phenomenon with a Christian overlay.
Now, this does not mean you cannot have doubts about some issues...we all have personal struggles with hot social ot theological issues (I still have a soft spot for Calvin) and sometimes we waver in our thinking. But, we confess and trust that two thousand years of Magisterium represents more collective wisdom and revealed Truth than we possess in our grandiose little minds.
Anti-intellectual, you say? Not at all. Naive...nope. I'll match college and grad degrees with anyone here (except Buck)and I'll match theology degrees and study with anyone at all. But, those things are secondary and should be submerged in our love for the Church and in our worship of Christ..."fides quaerens intellectum." So, if you tell me you are a "dissident Catholic," I'll either laugh or throw up.
Does Ms Fluke, or anyone for that matter, have the authority to redefine things according to her opinion? Even the Bishops does assume to do this. This is Post Modernist nonsense on stilts and debating it, even its errors, is foolish on our part. These people are simply too cowardly to nail their thesis to the door and walk off to their own church. They have sold themselves to the sovereign that will give them the power they are to CS to grab for themselves.
We waste our time and talent on this minor character. She is the surrogate for Sebelius taking our fires whilst the big fish maneuvers away or prepares counter fires.
The Bishops need to make it clear that they are not arguing that a non-Catholic view is not valid, but there is a great deal wrong claiming to be Catholic and speaking for Catholics, when you are neither.
rcg
I am sure they do it for all those reasons, and more. But the essential issue, of course, is that sincerity does not equal correct reasoning, or presentation of facts. (Being old, I continue to hold that "facts" are items known to be true, not assertions.)
Yes, this is the state of American education. The Socratic method is a fine thing when applied to students with knowledge in the subject, but as it has been used in the lower grades, simply convinces those with no knowledge that their ignorant opinions are valid. Given students whose entire education has been on such a basis, how can we expect better when they reach the university level? This execrable practice has been so long common in our schools that in many cases, the professor is as deluded as his students.
Now in the Church, the equivalent is the post V2 notion of a magisterium of theologians and catechists. They are authorities only in their own minds; the Church remains the sole repository of the Magisterium, and is the source to which we must turn for the fullness of truth.
This same fallacious teaching has been equally responsible for the numerous magisteria in our collapsing society.
The greatest error of the Modernists and the reason why Pope St. Pius X called it the synthesis of all heresies is this: Modernists believe the Church's doctrine can and should change over time.
I am not surprised that many Catholics believe that the Church's doctrine has changed in the recent past as many in the hierarchy give off the impression that the doctrine has indeed changed.
Until Catholics, both laity and clerics, understand that the Church's teaching has not changed as a result of Vatican II or any other Council and will never change regardless of how much people may clamor for it, these sorts of people will call themselves "Catholic."
Afterall, if the doctrine can change, shouldn't we try to make sure it changes in a way that suits us? This is the spirit of liberal Catholicism and it is particularly Modernist and anti-Catholic. This is the reason why there are Traditionalist Catholics: there are many in the Church hierarchy who believe and promote the Modernist heresy, just as there have always been clerics who believe and promote heresy.
Is Fluke even Catholic? I assumed not since she said that she chose that school because others were "less prestigious", and because I see that she has such an anti-Catholic stance on the HHS issue.
The root of this issue is lack of Catholic identity. If people want to call themselves Catholic, it should be a given that they live according to Catholic teaching. If an Institution, such as a school, wants to be identified as Catholic, it too should abide by Catholic teaching (and teach the TRUE FAITH if it is an institution of learning).
What is the answer? The Church is obviously in need of house cleaning. The ignorant need to be catechised, and the dissident need to be given the excommunicative boot. Of course, this is my opinion.
I would love to hear others' opinions of possible solutions. If there are no solutions, I'm ready to get off the world like Templar.
"Is Fluke even Catholic?"
More recently, it's been widely reported that she's actually Buddhist.
Henry,,
You might be confusing Fluke with Barbara Johnson, the self-proclaimed lesbian Buddhist activist who was denied communion by a priest at her mothers funeral Mass (said priest now being relieved of his duties because he had the nerve to acknowledge the existence of, and to apply, Canon 915.
I believe that Fluke is a self-professed Protestant.
So, she's a Leftist, Protestant, Buddhist, Lesbian...so, tell her not to leave her windows open or the squirrels will grab her...
Anon 5: You're right, I was confusing one non-Catholic with another.
"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus."
from Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 381-382.
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
...ever notice that for progressives, "sincerity" and "speaking with conviction" doesn't apply to orthodoxy? If those are their standards for being convincing or right, they don't apply them evenly, since they believe that they themselves have a monopoly on sincerity, conviction, right, righteousness, and this, that, and the other thing.
Post a Comment