The following is taken from February 13 and 20 articles which ran in Catholic San Francisco and were taken from the archbishop’s January 17 talk in London.
The final document voted on at the Second Vatican Council was the pastoral constitution on “The Church in the Modern World.” That was in 1965. Then came 1968, a year of violent social unrest in many parts of the world. And so, in the 1970s, people began to speak of the “postmodern” world. And here we had just gotten used to the modern one! I would like to share some thoughts with you on living our Catholic faith in the postmodern world.
To gain an understanding of postmodernism, we must begin with the modernism of which it is “post.” I would describe “the modern world” as an approach to understanding, emerging from the Enlightenment, which rejects the ideas of revelation and divine authority, and maintains that only reason and science can provide reliable, objective information about the world…
Just as the advocates of modernism rejected a religious interpretation of reality, so, beginning in the 1970s, some began to question the absolute truth claims of the “modern world,” and postmodernism was born. What the modern world called progress or objective truth, postmodern thinkers began to describe as an explanation crafted by an elite to gain and keep power over others. They called this the “metanarrative” and urged that it be swept aside so that smaller, local narratives could have their day in the sun….
Now let us consider an example of the postmodern worldview: same-sex marriage. The argument here would be that the “dominant narrative” maintaining that marriage is a relationship which by its very nature can be entered into only by a man and woman does not take into account the experience of those with a same-sex attraction: Their experience says that they can form a deep, committed relationship with another person and that this, too, can rightly be called a marriage.
My point here is not to argue the question of same-sex marriage, but to note how in society today the process moves quickly through three stages: 1) challenging the traditional understanding of marriage on the basis of personal experience; 2) assuming that it is simply a fact that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage; 3) oppressing anyone who dares to disagree. Advocates of same-sex marriage claim the equality of different points of view until they get control of power, and then enforce their view on everyone else, all the while continuing to claim that there is no such thing as objective truth. And so, even though the Catholic Church runs extremely effective adoption programs, she must be forbidden to do so because she challenges the now-dominant narrative of same-sex marriage….
To read the entire two articles, click here for first one and here for second one.
God bless Abp Cordileone.
Everyone must read a Catholic Bible. We must know Christ is to start to be a Christian.
(“A plenary indulgence is granted to the faithful who read the Sacred Scriptures as spiritual reading, from a text approved by competent authority and with the reverence due to the divine word, for at least a half an hour; if the time is less, the indulgence will be partial.”
Read the “Manual of Indulgences, Norms and Grants” by the Apostolic Penitentiary)
Then read: “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” from the Magisterium. (All Catholics are required to adhere to the CCC in entirety.)
A good book is: “Will Many Be Saved” by Ralph Martin.
And read the exact wording in the US Constitution — so you will know your legal rights.
Reading good books can help Save our Souls by feeding our minds with truth. This is very important since there is so much influencing TRASH on tv, at the movie theaters, on the internet, Ipods, etc. within our secular society.
Why are cradle Catholics frightened to read the Bible? I’m not asking for boring excuses, but the reason why.
I don’t know if Catholics, now, are afraid to read the Bible. I’ve read it but I don’t know many Catholics who have. My mother’s generation was told it was a sin to read the Bible. They were told by the nuns who educated them that the nuns would tell them all that they needed to know. I think until the 1950s, Catholics were not permitted to read the Old Testament. It was called a “closed book.” Those days are over and the Church encourages people to read the Bible and even enriches it with a plenary indulgence if it is read prayerfully for half of an hour.
And, k, why do you suppose the Bible was a “sin” to read? (Oh, don’t come up with the tired old cliche of money and power, please, or illicit sex — no, wait, I retract this, because then you would not be able to come up with anything.)
The Church did not want people to be confused by it, interpreting it for themselves. The sin would come from disobedience to the Church. I’ve never heard anything about money or power or illicit sex concerning the rule not to read the Bible (OT). Catholics were very awe-filled concerning God and like using their hands on the host, there were things that priests were permitted to do that the laity were not permitted to do. Mom says it was a sin to read Canon Law, also. The laity were to pray, pay and obey.
Actually in the old days the monks use to hand copy the word of God and that took a lot of time, that was in the old days when they didn’t have printing. So because the Bible was considered valuable, they only allowed the faithful to read it on church site.
This is false information perpetraited by the ignorant.
The Bible has always been read at each Mass from the pulpit (Gospels and Epistles) and this continues to this day.
By always, I mean since the Council of Trent in the 1500’s.
However, for some strange reason the majority of US Cardinals and Diocese Bishops still to this day, do not publically and actively encourage reading of the Bible and the CCC.
Sunday by itself is not enough since the readings at Mass are too short to get the entire picture being told in many cases.
This famous excerpt from Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah (Nn. 1.2: CCL 73, 1-3) is used in the Roman Office of Readings for the Feast (liturgical memorial) of St. Jerome on September 30.
In it, St. Jerome firmly insists that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.
A strong exhortation from a Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church to Christians urging all to recognize that serious Bible study is a necessity, not an optional luxury. The author, St. Jerome, was a monk and bible scholar of the 5th century, a contemporary of Saint Augustine.
Paul is correct….good comments Paul, God bless you!
Yes, Bible passages were read at Mass. Bible stories were taught in Sunday School and in Catholic schools. We are discussing the reading of the Bible in Catholic homes by Catholic lay people, and specifically the Old Testament. Catholic homes had Bibles. I don’t know how old you are but we are talking about before 1950s. The New Testament and the Psalms were published separately without the Old Testament. Perhaps it was not a directive of the Church. I cannot tell. If you are old enough to remember when one had to fast and abstain on the Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent, and you were permitted to read the Old Testament, I would like to know about that. It may have been regional or dependent on what order you were educated by. I know in Divino Afflate Spiritu, Pope Pius XII asks priests to encourage the laity to read the Sacred Letters and the Gospels.
Skai I love the word of God….In my Junior high years, I read the whole bible during the summer, I would spend hours outside under one of our fruit tree’s to read. I did skip a lot of of the war sections and all the parts that talked about who’s brother of who, being young and all I didn’t understand all that and it was long…tee hee.
I met this one lady from the Latin Mass who said to me that she didn’t read the bible because she needs a priest to instruct her or she needed the CCC just so she won’t misinterpret things. I thought that was odd to me….we must trust in the Holy Ghost to guide us..there is where the faith is. I noticed that those who read the word of God more and if they were in good will, that they are more kind and charitable, that is my experience.
I hope and pray that more and more Catholics will grow to love reading the word of God.
Oh, what a gift Archbishop Cordileone is to the Archdiocese of San Francisco and indeed to the postmodern world!
I hope I live to see this good man heard, respected and loved by the people he serves and all of us who benefit from his enlightening gifts of truth to the world.
Archbishop Cordileone is truly serving God and humankind by fearlessly upholding the light of truth to our paths. Thank you, God, for this good and great man.
Fearlessly? I would not go that far. I love the man, but so far, when it comes to actual action, there is none. There is just talk.
Amen to that. What did he do in Oakland to stop the pro-sodomy activities of Fr. James Schexnayder? What is he doing in San Francisco to stop the further destruction of Catholic morals at pro-gay churches and colleges?
Thank you Laurette – I have been pointing out the mess he left in Oakland and no one believes me – He left Oakland in such a mess that the Vatican can’t find a Bishop to take his place and clean it up – Why is he making all his comments in England and not at St Marys in San Francisco? –
Please Pray for Archbishop Cordileone.
Send him your letters of concern and disappointments that you just mentioned here PLEASE and add your compliments as well for encouragement, . That is best…..I know that he is humble and holy….
Do you for one moment think Archbishop Cordileone does not know? He knows very well what is going on in his Diocese.
About praying, Did you know that all the grace that was ever won at calvary is present at every mass? Did you know that every Mass offered in the Archdiocese of San Francisco and the Diocese of Oakland (where he is the oversear) is specifically offered for Him also?
So there you have it, he has the grace he needs to act. While there is never too much prayer, we cannot really argue that our Bishops need more grace. They have all grace necessary consindering the prayers offered for them at every mass?
It comes down to a responce to that grace.
MKM that was a beautiful way in which you explained that to me…you make sense and I appreciate you pointing that out to me….
It generally takes 8 months to a year (sometimes longer) for the Pope to replace a bishop.
Those who are critical of Archbishop Cordileone’s work in San Francisco – remember that he has only been the head of the San Francisco Diocese since Oct 2012 – only 4 (FOUR) months.
He was Bishop of Oakland from 2009 through 2012 ONLY. He investigated this Fr. James Schexnayder and his organization for over a year, and you can find the article in the archieves of this CCD called – “NOT in MY DIOCESE “.
Some of you guys need to pay attention to whom is in office at what time rather than print falsehoods against any Cardinal or Bishop. Using the media to falsely harm someone’s good name is grounds for confession and a public apology.
– CCC: “2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.”
Paul I hope I haven’t said anything that sounded off as you have decribed…..I have only edified him because Archbishop Cardileone is holy and humble…when my husband and I met him, he was so kind and humble, we really enjoyed his company at our Annual Catholic Conference that we attended last year.
Archbishop Cordileone needs to straighten things out in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. He needs to take ACTION and put the speeches aside for a time. He is now in a major position of power running a seminary that is training priests for the entire West Coast.
He talks the talk, but there is not much action. That is where the ‘pastoral constitution’ comes in I guess. Have you seen the disaster that is USF?
All that remains to be seen of USF is the results of the disaster, the wasteland, the ruins, the “once proud city”, so to speak, which has gone up in smoke, and not the smoke of incense either but of brimstone.
Well said MaryAnne… wish we had more prelates just like him. I have a feeling our next Pope is going to be an Italian… I like having an Italian Pope… feels very natural. Really, just so long as he continues on the “traditional” path that Pope Benedict the XVI has been cultivating these many years…
Ditto, for me, Kunzite. I have the feeling that that might be exactly what happens. Anyway, whomever the Holy Spirit chooses, I will accept.
Well said Ed!
Bless ABC’s heart, but we have some REAL important situations that need to be addressed in the Archdiocese!!!
Let us make sure we all pray for him, he is a wonderful Shepherd. But in my humble opinion, needs to attend to his flock here in San Francisco.
God bless Archbishop Cordileone for his excellent speech. I need to remember his quote from Archbishop Sheen, “Win an argument, lose a soul.” I pray God I have not lost any souls by my winning some arguments on here. There is a time to blog and a time to just shut up. May God give me the grace to know the difference, and may he undo any damage I have done out of ignorance or anger.
With all due courtesy, this summary is incoherent. It careens insanely through Cordileone’s speech, making errors in reason the good Archbishop did not. Please, everyone, click on the two links to the full text.
Does it make any real difference, Rachel? The Church has provided clear treatments of documental truth for twothousand years … that is not the problem. Archbishops need to exercise the truth, not merely regurgitate it.
I can’t imagine how anyone might fit a coherent and accessible exposition of the relationship between “pre-modern” “modern” and “post-modern” modes of experience into a 500 word summary.
That said, I liked the full text more than I thought I would when I started reading it in last week’s Catholic San Francisco.
Good bishops like this one are always enlightening to read, but one can read Catholic doctrine itself, found in bookstores and libraries. What we’re waiting for is for these bishops to become holy, as the Pope has requested of them. This includes being bishops, which means altogether something more and different from being administrators, executives, managers, and whatever so forth. They need to exercise the apostolic function, which we read about in history and in Scripture, but which we do not see anymore. Bl John Paul II, for example, is called “The Great”, in my opinion, because of his excellent and amazing use of the prophetic function of a bishop and pope. But why didn’t he exercise the apostolic function?
Words, just words.
The archbishop understands our problems, but won’t do much to correct them among his erring clergy and lay “professional Catholics.”
Speaking of Professional Catholics, there is an army of them out there. Profiteers who will not go into religious life but want to make a living out of the Church. I am not talking employees at the Diocese parish schools and the likes that are a necessary to carry out the Mission of the Church, but married men, living off the speaking circuit and profiteering from their being Catholic.
And even in the parish and diocesan life, if some of these jobs were given to clergy and religious, it would be more profitable for the church.
I wouldn’t categorize all lay speakers as “profiteers.” If one has a charism to teach and does so, a basic recompense for their time and travel and the ability to continue their apostolates and support their families is certainly in order.
To me, WHAT they are saying is the critical question: orthodox or heterodox?
You are correct Father….God bless you!
They used to have a monastic system which went far to resolve the conflict of interest that money provides to tellers of the truth.
I think this was a good article that clearly defined modernism, post-modernism and how they conflict with the Church’s traditional view of its role in society.
JonJ, your criticisms (in the academic or technical sense) are hammering a round peg into a square hole. You’re applying undergraduate college literary, art and who knows what types of critical methods to the Catholic Church: Don’t you see the futility of these endeavors? More specifically you are not even addressing the Church with these criticisms, but various superficial aspects of culture that you find among some Catholics, and generalize onto the entire Church. But, JonJ, it would be a waste of your time to attempt to find a way to apply your criticisms to the actual Church, because you cannot really contact the real Church with such critical methods. That was a Protestant concocted movement that slithered into a lot of highly placed Catholic theologians who evidently were bored with reality and preferred to go along the lines that have wrought historically significant damage to the Church … to wit, the resignation of a pope. Those who have been crying that Vatican 2 schemes have failed understand this, although not perhaps clearly. Livingston, then Freud, then Marx … These fascinate the modernist world, JonJ. But simple faith will show these to be shallow, boring and worthless in the long run; go with the real Jesus and not the so called historical Jesus. The real Jesus is found in mysterious life of the Church, such as the Sacraments and prayer, that is, in union with God. The “historical” Jesus is found in vain speculation.
Interesting you post a refutation to a post where I level no criticisms against the Church and in fact, post a positive message about a lecture of Bishop Cordileone in which he defines these ideas and identifies the conflict between the Church’s divine revelation, modernism and post modernist philosophies.
Surprisingly, I agree with much of what you said here. Much of the conflict and problems indeed come from “ramming a square peg into a round hole”.
To wit, modernists and their idea that “science” is the only reliable objective truth often try to apply this philosophy to questions its not good (or even designed to answer).
Where I see things differently than you, is the Church has done the same thing with its divine revelation philosophy. Of course, the hackneyed example is Galileo, where the Church clearly expressed the idea that the physical world had to comply with its religious doctrine. It was almost as if the Church demanded that the physical world provide symbolic validation of Church doctrine.
Other examples are when one of the popes denied vaccination in the city of Rome during an outbreak, because vaccination interfered with the will of God. Or when the Church considered trial by ordeal a valid method of fact finding in ecclesiastical trials.
Science is very useful, and is very good at answering questions within its “wheelhouse”. Yet, science wallows when it comes to things like: What is consciousness? What is a soul? Basically, anything lacking observable phenomenon, or incapable of being analyzed within the scope of a controlled experiment, is outside its effective ken.
Post-modernist ideas are quite effective when it comes to things like business marketing. People’s “subjective truth” is EXACTLY how consumers act in the marketplace. No matter how objectively wrong an individual’s perception or philosophy might be, they will act on it as if it were true.
Consequently, trying to understand the “subjective truth” of different people is extremely important when it comes to marketing a business product or winning an election. Heck, I think that modern economics primary shortcomings are due to failure to incorporate post-modern concepts in its market behavior models. (To wit, the efficient market hypothesis is demonstrably untrue because markets are NOT rational and people (and firms) make consumer choices based on subjective truth).
You however, seem to be fixated on creating a philosophical hierarchy. Since you understand (and have studied) church philosophy, you tend to put that at the top, and presume it is a superior answer to anything else.
JonJ, you even admit in your post that there is no one way to interpret religion correctly … shear relativism, dude. And relativism is condemned by the Church. Other readers know which pope condemned it, and modernism in general. So if you want to know and understand Catholicism, you’ll have to interpret its documents in truth, because a give science is not truth, but mere fact and theory. You seem to confuse knowledge with truth, but this is the fallout of relativism.
Skai, once again, you put words into my mouth that are nothing but fabrications.
I said no such thing, as anyone who actually reads my post can clearly see. I just stated that each of these philosophies have circumstances in which they work well.
I did not say ANYTHING about different methods of interpreting religion. How you twisted a statement saying that a modernist philosophy is good for addressing scientific questions, and is NOT good for addressing questions like “What is happiness?, or What is consciousness? or What is the soul?” into moral relativism, I do not know.
It was the science of the Church against artificial contraceptives, especially the Birth Control Pill which is a carcinogen, that has kept me alive all these years. Some people’s science is just “junk” science, although many will not admit it. Had I taken any kind of estrogen I would have been dead over twenty-two years ago. That is a good enough answer for me to follow Church teaching. If Church scientists were that smart (intelligent) about the Pill, I certainly will trust them about deviant sexual behavior. Put simply, they know the facts.
Anne, I am , of course, glad you are still among us.
However, you are aware that the church used science only to frame the scope the issue? Their decision was squarely on moral grounds.
I do remember the discussion we had on this issue; and, looking back, I’m not sure if you understood that what I strenuously objected to was the website I was directed to that said 1) that pharmacuedical companies intentionally lied about risks and 2) that doctors were too “busy” treating patients that they didn’t know that the pharma’s lied to them.
That was a blatant lie—because the issue of hormone therapy and cancer risk in women was a big debate that went back and forth in the medical literature of the time and wasn’t resolved until a definitive study on the issue with massive numbers and long-term tracking was published in the year 2000.
So, my primary objection was falsely demonizing these entities.
When even the Vatican, filled by men who have devoted their lives to God, cannot agree—I think its hubris for laity to expect perfect harmony. But, I believe we should at least strive toward factually accurate accusations about wrongdoing.
jonj, the Pope (& Magisterium) is ONLY infallible in official matters of FAITH and MORALS –
NOT Science, Math, or anything else.
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 (“Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . “).
What individual Pope’s may say or think outside of Faith and Morals has no bearing on the teaching of the Church.
We must also remember that there are no perfect human beings (Popes), and all of us sin in one way or another – which again has nothing to do with TEACHING Faith and Morals.
Actually, Papal and the Church’s doctrinal infalliblity is more limited than the “faith and morals” rubric.
First, encyclicals—though teachings of the Pope in the area of faith and morals—are not all infallible. If you recall, Humanae Vitae was not declared infallible until 1979, a good 11 years after it was issued. Consequently, it is clear that not all teachings of the Pope in the area of faith and morals are infallible.
Second, infallibility is limited to DOCTRINE. Application of doctrine to a specific situation is not guaranteed to be error-free, even if they are based on, or reference, infallible doctrine. The Pope, or other church authority, can make an error in judgment or reasoning and thus make an error in the area of “faith and morals” but one of policy and administration rather than doctrine.
Thus the Pope can wrongly apply doctrine to Galileo and imprison him for life due to an erroneous decision. However, one cannot say that the judgment of an ecclesiastical court falls outside the ambit of “faith and morals”. Similarly, such decisions as using trial by ordeal as a fact-finding method for ecclesiastical courts or to use torture to elicit confessions are also errors made in the area of “faith and morals”. Since, these practices were Church-wide (they conformed to direction from Rome) and lasted over hundreds of years, you can’t attribute them to anything but Church-wide error (as opposed to individual error).
And, even more obviously, individual clerics or church authorities can make errors in the area of “faith and morals” no matter how valid their authority or the infallibility of the doctrine they attempt to construe. One obvious example of this kind of “faith and morals” error was the ecclesiastical court that decided to execute St. Joan of Arc for heresy.
And, of course, as another thread notes, even the college of cardinals may make error when selecting a Pope—even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As Benedict himself pointed out in 1997, there have been a number of Popes who would certainly not have been chosen by the Holy Spirit. As the then Joseph Ratzinger put it, the Holy Spirit merely ensures that they “won’t completely screw it up.”
Anything that conflicts with Church teaching as stated in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” is heresy or schism.
The CCC covers the role of the Bishop, Priests, other Religious, and the Laity within society.
The CCC is only 20 years old, and is the only Catechism of the Catholic Church – world wide since 1566AD when the Catechism of the Council of Trent was written.
All those who wish to be Catholic must adhere to the teachings in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ in entirety.
“This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (CCC pg 11)
All Diocese Bishops and Priests must encourage all literate persons over age 16 within their Diocese to read and study the CCC, or they are not teaching properly.
The CCC is available in many languages.
Anon, your general claim is false (“Anything that conflicts with Church teaching as stated in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” is heresy or schism”): Your error is the same as the one made by “Bible thumpers”, who replace Jesus with the Bible.
Skai – You are wrong again. The CCC is from the Magisterium – a matter of Faith and Morals which all Catholics must adhere to.
If you read the CCC you would see that Jesus is quoted, as well as the Bible in the footnotes.
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” – Pope John Paul II. (CCC pg 5)\
“….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)
See CCC 2089 for the definitions of heresy and schism.
“2089 HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Skai, what is in the CCC that you object to, maybe we can help you?
Prayer for the Bishop of the Diocese: Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord, to Thy servant our Bishop, that, by preaching and doing such things as are right, he may by the example of good works edify the minds of those under his authority, and receive of Thee, most tender Shepherd, an everlasting recompense and reward. Through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
My goodness, k, all these “beseech” and “Thy” words make the prayer sound very Anglican indeed. Verily.
Nope. It’s from an 1895 Catholic prayerbook.
“If heretics no longer horrify us today”… it’s NOT because we are more charitable
Posted on 22 February 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
I picked this up from Let Nothing You Dismay:
“If heretics no longer horrify us today, as they once did our forefathers, is it certain that it is because there is more charity in our hearts? Or would it not too often be, perhaps, without our daring to say so, because the bone of contention, that is to say, the very substance of our faith, no longer interests us? Men of too familiar and too passive a faith, perhaps for us dogmas are no longer the Mystery on which we live, the Mystery which is to be accomplished in us. Consequently then, heresy no longer shocks us; at least, it no longer convulses us like something trying to tear the soul of our souls away from us…. And that is why we have no trouble in being kind to heretics, and no repugnance in rubbing shoulders with them… It is not always charity, alas, which has grown greater, or which has become more enlightened: it is often faith, the taste for the things of eternity, which has grown less…”
Henri de Lubac: Further Paradoxes (Newman Press 1958) and reprinted in Paradoxes of Faith (Ignatius Press 1987)
A good point of reflection during this Year of Faith.
Google Church Militant .TV
The New Pope & Homoheresy 02-22
There is a link to the entire 36 page report titled
WITH THE POPE AGAINST THE HOMOHERESY
Fr. Dariusz Oko, Ph.D.
“For several weeks now Poland has witnessed a heated discussion on the “huge homosexual underground in the Church”, provoked by the most recent book by Fr. Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski entitled Chodzi mi tylko o prawdę(Truth Is All That Matters). Some deny any such underground exists, and put forward theses profoundly inconsistent with the teaching of the Church, both being at odds with truth. The problem is serious to the extent I feel I must join in the discussion as well, because I also care about truth, and first of all about good, the fundamental well- being of man and of the Church – the basic community in which he lives.”
Google USA Chaplet Battlebeads
WITH THE POPE AGAINST HOMOHERESY
F. Darius Oko, Ph.D.
“We cannot build our lives on sweet illusions, for only “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32), and that is why “God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7).
The global network of homolobbies and homomafias must be counterbalanced by a global network of decent people.
All interventions should be made with utmost respect and love for every person, including the abusers. The essence of Christianity is reflected in the will to save everyone, and the worst criminals are especially at risk of losing both their earthly and their eternal life, so they need an especially abundant portion of concern and prayer. The greatness and beauty of Christianity resides also in the fact that Abel here should try not only to save himself, but everybody else too, including Cain.
LOVE AND TRUTH OF THE CHURCH
In our struggle for the Church of Jesus Christ, we must not be misled by arguments like: “The Church is our mother, and one must not say bad things about one’s mother”. Such words are often heard from those who have hurt their mother the most, who have made her seriously ill, and now refuse to begin the treatment. If the best mother of all is sick, to treat her effectively we need the best possible tools and the best, most accurate diagnosis possible. Thus, we must know about the illness and talk about it. If the Church in Poland is now heading for harder times, if it must prepare itself for persecution, if it must resist and fight, its organism must be healthy and strong, and any gangrene must be removed. President Joachim Hauck said that in the former East Germany the process of cleansing and compensation was opposed most strongly by those who had the most to weigh on their conscience, who had hurt their brothers and sisters the most, who betrayed them the most.”