Anti-Christianity: The Accepted Form of Bigotry

By Peter Reynolds

In the first class of the semester, a Georgetown professor called the crucifixes that hang upon the walls in every classroom “weaknesses that look down upon us”. He said this during class, before all his students. No one said a word to him, not even after class. All were silent as Christ was mocked and Christianity denigrated....

To read the rest of this editorial, go to:

www.orthodoxnews.com

Scroll down to: 'Editorials and Opinions'. Peter's editorial is the first one.

Why is this shocking???

Dear Mike,

I am sorry, I don't get the angle of your question to me.

I find it shocking because this is a Jesuit run Roman Catholic Institution of the highest caliber. Why do they allow these professors to take such positions?

Is there no Roman Catholic institution that is loyal to its foundation and to Christian tenets anymore?

In Christ,
Alice

Hard to say from the little vignette just what the Professor had in mind. But the Professor was certainly very effective in planting a seed in Mr. Reynolds's head. Apart from the rank growth of vicitmization, that seed did bear some quality fruit: the understanding that while this undeniable weakness is a scandal to those who are perishing, it is, to those who are being saved the very strength of God, Almighty - whose weakness is more powerful than our greatest feats.

Dear Alice,

I never did take much stock in the pretensiousness of professors, doctors, lawyers or Indian chiefs............ except for maybe a few who post here.

Bill

Dear DJS,

I understood from the article, that the professor perceived our need to believe in God, as being 'our' weakness.

Zenovia

The article gives us very little information to know the context of the discussion. We do not know in what class this took place in, nor even which professor supposedly said this.

I could write an article about how St Paul said Christ crucified is foolishness! He indeed said this, but look at the context and this foolishness is also wisdom. The professor could have been working on a similar paradox. If there was a professor who said this, that is. We have no names or dates.

Which is why another possibility is that no such event happened. With no information as to what class, what professor, and when this actually happened, no indication that this is a true story. It could be an example of how urban legends start... It's easy to accuse when you make it vague. With no professor listed, makes it more difficult to refute the story -- if you list a professor, then if what you are saying is not true, easy to refute.

We need to be careful and critical of what we read. If an article does not provide us the necessary information we need to contextualize odd statements, we must realize their might be other agendas going on -- not by the one being reported on, but by the one who is doing the reporting. What reason was this article written? Could it be sour grapes for some reason? What reason do we have for not knowing why the professor said this? Could it be a class on scripture, where the professor was quoting St Paul and explicating its meaning? Indeed, to the Romans, the crucifixion WAS a weakness (hence foolishness!) It is part of the paradox which is the passion.

Henry,

If you go to the link, you will see that this is a person of faith who is expressing himself in a religious context. He was hurt for Christ and shocked at this comment. I have also written editorials in Orthodox publications at times throughout my life. What was MY 'hidden' agenda?...a love for Christ, lamenting apostasy around me, inspiring people with words of faith, etc.

Surely, there are some political animals that write for religious publications that do have agendas. A little humility and discernment from the Holy Spirit will usually help one differentiate those of unscrupulous intent from those with sincere hearts, as the focus of the unscrupulous one with a hidden 'agenda' is usually not Christocentric, and the twists and innuendos thus become obvious.

I got the editorial from an Orthodox News Service, which means the author submitted it to them. I don't think that the Professors of Georgetown read an obscure website about Orthodox news in this country. Peter's words are beautiful, *HUMBLE* and spiritually inspiring. How about concentrating on that instead of picking it apart. I have had e-mails from folks in the know who say that the Jesuits are indeed in need of renewal.

If I were to tell you that I went to an Orthodox parochial school as a little girl, and we once had a new teacher that told us all that he was an atheist, would I also have an 'agenda'...it happened. If I were to tell you that my daughter went to a RC high school where the religion teacher told them not to take the new testament literally, would that also be having an 'agenda'. Does Francisco also have an 'agenda' by posting the terrible news about the church of Greece? OR is it that by exposing what is anomalous, we hope to make it better?

Forgive me for saying this Henry, but I cannot understand the suspicion, and the cynicism of some of your posts. REALLY!!!!

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Alice,

In all respect I don't think we can conclude that there is NO Roman Catholic institution that is loyal to its foundation and to Chrisitian tenets anymore? from this one example. Do we know whether this professor was a Jesuit? Do we know whether this professor was Catholic? I will grant you the Jesuit univesities do have people of various backgrounds on their faculties. If this was a statement against Christianity and Christ then attention should be paid to the incident. Do we know that hasn't happened?


In Christ,


Mary Jo

Send all your kids to the University of Steubenville, Ohio

I am not familiar with Georgetown, although I have heard some of the same rumors that are being posted here. Would it be safe to say that the same secularism that has affected society is also present in the universities? I think it would. Universities can be a bit self-absorbed and self-centered, and my experience with them is that some faculty members are quite taken with themselves. You will find this everywhere, not just at Georgetown. What happens at Catholic schools seems to be more a matter of who is actually in charge and how they manage a particular school. It seems to me that the religious orders and associations that are more divided in outlook, and more internally chaotic at this time, are the ones with more problems in their schools. That's just opinion, since I am sure there are exceptions.

Myles,

AMEN to Steubenville. Were my kids of college age I would if I could. Maybe the grand kids eventually.

Mary Jo

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

I have to agree, that the article was bad journalism. It shows cowardice to not name the professor, have a full quote, and the class that this was posted in. If you look at the basic questions of journalism almost none where answered.

Who- Don't Know,
What- Don't Know Full Context,
When- Don't Know,
Where- Georgetown,
Why- Don't Know.

Further, if the professor is tenured, then no action can be brought against him. The only exception would be if he was Catholic Theologian.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

This isn't quite true. Complaints can be made. If the complaint were meritorious, then professor could be disciplined in many ways (teaching load, class hours, salary) by head/dean. A tenured professor who persistently engages in a pattern of behavior against the proper dictates of head/dean can be fired for insubordination.

I say Benedictine College, Myles...

I sent an e-mail to Peter Reynolds informing him of this thread and invited him to join and participate. Here is his response:

Instead of criticizing Mr. Reynolds we should be praising him. A college student writing about the offending professor is being courageous. His decision not to name the offending professor was not an act of cowardice but, rather, an act of mercy. If one is to assume anything, one should assume that there were more details that were not included in the story and to gather those details before speculating about them or judging Mr. Reynolds. If anyone is upset that he did not include every possible detail they might consider that most of the editorials in our major newspapers also do not contain such information.

Ah, but Franciscan University is right in the heart of Ruthenian/Ukrainian country...it's engendered its share of crossovers.

***(I will get the quote-function right, sometime!!!)***

Non_nomen,

Welcome back! Good to see you are posting here again.

Mary Jo

pretentiousness - p r e t e n t i o u s n e s s

Thanks for pursuing this and providing the information.

Unfortunately Alice, Mike is right in one sense. This is hardly surprising for Georgetown University. A professor I know who teaches there quips that Catholics should only send their children there if they want their children to lose their faith.

Yes, that's an anonymous accusation, and I only repeat it because it's a catchy quip. So, based on what I have truly seen first hand or know based on solid evidence:

- Teaching of orthodox religion is not a priority of the school [first hand]

- the faculty and student newspaper was thoroughly scandalized when Cardinal Arinze condemned homosexuality. [this generated a lot of hubub in the press. My own opinion is that the University believed the African papabile would be impresed when they showed him their commitment to equality, social justice, tolerance and the like. Obviously, they didn't realize who they were inviting.]

- a priest affiliated with the Jesuits running the university spent a long daily mass homily (on the feast day of the Martyr Hippolytus) advocating a married priesthood. I also vaguely recall that he advocated the "ordination" of women to the priesthood in a seperate homily (though in fairness it may have been elsewhere; nevertheless I would not be surprised to hear something like that there). [first hand, and I have been to Mass in the area several times]

There are Catholic schools loyal to the Church. Thomas Aquinas, Christendom, and the "neo-orthodox (with a small 'o')" schools are one group. Franciscan University is another. I also know several people whose faith have grown at Catholic U.

All that said, the parent intending to send their children to a Catholic college should do a thorough investigation of the school to ensure that the Faith is taught there. Good things to do are to look at the course catalog, obtain syallbi, sit in classes, talk to professors, attend daily masses [things someone should do before choosing a college anyway]. Unfortunately, this requires at least a few days visiting the said college.

Marc the - uncomfortably trad-ish sounding - Roman

If I recall correctly, didn't the Pope say something a few years back, to the effect that Catholic universities should hire Catholic professors, and not athiests. It appears he was quite concerned.

Now there is something else brewing here. If I also recall correctly, (probably on CBN News), I had heard that under the Clinton administration, grants were being given to schools with the understanding that certain classes, clubs, etc., had to be established with very liberal agendas.

I remembered this when I went to pick up a grandchild, and found that she was ready to join a club in order to show how open minded she was. I believe the club was something called Gays and Straights. She was 13, a very impressionable age, and I blew a fuse.

Now this was not a public state run school where the parents would not have allowed it, but rather a very distinguished private school, that somehow suddenly found a substantial amount of money. So much so, that it expanded three fold.

I also noticed that in college, that a highly moral boy I knew was encouraged to take a class on 'Aids' etc. Again, I couldn't help but feel that the university was taking advantage of certain federal grants, and in order to do so, were forced to incorporate certain cariculums in order to obtain those grants...I say this, if one should ever wonder, how great the influence the government in Washington has had on our culture.

Zenovia

Now that sounds a bit too much like an urban legend or something from Mr Limbaugh

Good morning all!

Brian wrote:
"Now that sounds a bit too much like an urban legend or something from Mr Limbaugh"

Yes, Brian, I have to agree. I try to stay away from these threads ... too contentious on the whole.

Zenovia wrote:
"I also noticed that in college, that a highly moral boy I knew was encouraged to take a class on 'Aids' etc. Again, I couldn't help but feel that the university was taking advantage of certain federal grants, and in order to do so, were forced to incorporate certain cariculums in order to obtain those grants...I say this, if one should ever wonder, how great the influence the government in Washington has had on our culture."

Zenovia,

Any college which encourages its students to take a class on AIDS (not "Aids") should be commended. Whether a young person is "highly moral" or not does not enter the equation. HIV/AIDS is a fact of life in the 21st century and high morals, sadly, at times fall by the wayside. If I had a teenage son or daughter, I would want that young person`s college to make such courses available and to encourage students to take them. I never did like the ostrich syndrome.

As for the influence of the government in Washington on our culture, IMHO it has very little influence. If one wants to talk about influence, try the multi-national corporations, the tobacco and liquor industries, the oil industry, the film industry, etc., etc., etc.

Corporate and individual donors have much greater influences on college curricula than does the federal government. The federal government looks at compliance with federal policy guidelines - EEO, OSHA, etc.

Now, about the subject of this thread. I, too, wonder about the motives of the young man who wrote that article. Since college courses are, at the least, a semi-public arena, professors who make outlandish and offensive statements should expect that such statements might be publicized along with their names. When I was in college - many, many years ago - I wrote a weekly column for my school`s student newspaper. If I had a problem with this or that professor`s or administrator`s utterances, I wrote "Professor `x` stated `y` and let the public discourse begin.

At the beginning of his article, Mr. Reynolds writes: "No one said a word to him, not even after class." However, in his reply to our good Administrator, Mr. Reynolds wrote: "When we confronted him, he apologized [only to us] and implied that we are too sensitive about the faith since everyone else didn't mind." So my question: which of Mr. Reynold`s comments should we believe? Did someone say something to the professor or not?

Alice wrote: "I find it shocking because this is a Jesuit run Roman Catholic Institution of the highest caliber. Why do they allow these professors to take such positions?

Is there no Roman Catholic institution that is loyal to its foundation and to Christian tenets anymore?"

Not to be pedantic, but the professor did not take a position - he made a statement. And yes, the cross is a scandal, a weakness, for the reasons so ably stated elsewhere in this thread.

Now we know that he is not a professor of theology. If he were, he could face disciplinary action `if` the statements were made in such a fashion or with the intention of insulting the faith or calling it into question.

I would not be surprised if someone in the Georgeown administration remonstrated privately with this professor about his comments. However, the days of the Inquistion are, thankly, behind us. This has nothing to do, IMHO, with loyalty to the magisterium.

As for the Jesuits and Georgetown, both are regular and favorite whipping-boys for the Catholic right. I know of no Catholic relgious community, in the U.S. or elsewhere, which does not have its problems, and that includes those with both liberal and conservative perspectives.

Peace,

Charles

First of all, everyone should stop making lame excuses for what this professor did. There is no reason to assume that he was referring to the "scandal of the cross" in any pious sort of way--at least the students who witnessed the remarks did not think so. Second of all, the cross is not "a weakness." The cross is the tree of life. O Crux! Ave, spes unica!

Third of all, all Catholic colleges are inferior to Christendom College in Front Royal, VA!! :p

I think Thomas Aquinas College would beg to differ with your concluding observation...

You're darn right they would!

Is there a problem with the Jesuits? Does the order need reform to get back to the intentions of its founder? There are no Jesuits in my area, so it's difficult to ask these questions directly.

I took several courses in theology and church history at Georgetown after law school. I really did not see or hear anything I thought was terribly off the wall there. Indeed, one of my friends converted to Catholicism after studying there.

There was, however, some controversy spurred by non-Catholic students who were offended by Crucifixes in classrooms. That was ridiculous to me. Don't go to a Catholic school if you don't want to see Crucifixes. That's a no-brainer, really.

I have always enjoyed Jesuits. However, they are sometimes too "smart" (intellectual) for their own good. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are highly intellectual - blame it on the early councils and the need to make sense of things that are very hard for our small minds to grasp. But sometimes you just have to see with your heart and not with your mind. To me, that's where Jesuits often fall short... but there is a place for the Thomases (as in the doubting Apostle) and they fit the bill oft times.

I think that if an order diviates from the original vision, i.e. charism, of its founder there can be a big problem and there is a need to get back to that vision. Franciscans must keep that wonderful poverty of spirit; Dominicans need to keep preaching; Benedictines need to uphold monastic community ideals; and Jesuits need to keep the strength and mobility of their founder and soldier of Christ --Ignatius Loyola. All must have at the center of that vision the love of God, the promulgation of the Gospels of Christ, fervent prayer, and love of others.All must value the Trinitarian ideals and the glory of worship in liturgical settings. But if there is to be one vision it is this and it is for all:

"Love one another as I have loved you." The words of Jesus. +

Mary Jo

I recommend considering the possibility that both are true. It is highly probable that Mr. Reynolds and one or more other students probably talked about the incident after they had left the classroom, and then together went to the professor for this later discussion.

No matter how this happened I think that Mr. Reynolds and his fellow students deserve our praise for having the courage to speak with the professor. Most students do not have such courage.

I think that if an order diviates from the original vision, i.e. charism, of its founder there can be a big problem and there is a need to get back to that vision. [/QB][/QUOTE]

That was the entire intention of the 2nd Vatican Council in it's documents regarding religious life.

That was the entire intention of the 2nd Vatican Council in it's documents regarding religious life. [/QB][/QUOTE]

And the road to Hell is paved with what???

Dear Brian,

My long term memory is usually quite accurate, (And my short term stinks). CBN News does reveal many things that are not revealed in the media. These issues we are having with our courts today, started at least 12 years ago...and was mentioned quite often on the show by Jay Secolow of the ACLJ.

I recall that when Pres. Clinton came into office, I was quite surprised at his mentality. He was quite 'Northern European' in his outlook, yet I knew that he had gone to school in England and couldn't figure it out...that is until one day.

Someone in Germany was being interviewed, and he said that Pres. Clinton speaks fluent German, and speaks to the Chancellor every morning.

So, I suggest that you check up on the grants.

Zenovia

From the time of St Ignatius, the Jesuits have been the center of criticism and attacks. Some suggested early on the Jesuits were too intellectual, too free with their theology. It's not just in the modern age they have been considered liberals, after all. It was Jesuits who initiated missionary reforms, trying to get a Chinese rite established in China to help bring the Chinese to the faith; it was the Jesuits who went to India, and tried to inculturate the Gospel, recognizing that it was not Europe and European culture which needed to be spread, but the Gospel transcending cultural norms. The horror of it, the liberal ideology behind it! How liberal they were, from the very beginning!

Others viewed them as too strict, and a threat -- usually to the political order of a state (did not the Russians call them devils?) They continue, even today, to get that charge, and to draw ire from non-Catholics, who see them as shock troops ready to reinstall an Inquisition all over the world.

Therefore it seems they are keeping on their mission very well. They keep getting the same reactions as they have recieved from their foundation, which shows us, they are still the order which seeks to challenge and that challenge often draws out scorn and criticism wherever they go.

I am not sure if Mr. Reynolds has stopped by, but I hope he has. As Yuhannon mentioned the original editorial is so bereft of salient detail - and as Charles noted, careful wording - that the article invited skepticism. Particularly in our times, when fictionalized accounts and spin are so common in the media, and agenda driven complaints about the university curricula are so common on the internet.

The administrator made an interesting point.

I think that this idea of mercy is mistaken.

First, as I mentioned before, the conduct as reported and elaborated is misconduct that is not protected. The offence needs to made at least to the supervisors of this professor, if not in public, to ensure that this misconduct is terminated. If not done, one is being merciless to potential future students of this man, who did not show remorse.

If the choice is made to talk only with head/dean, then one has to consider the propriety of the elliptical editorial. Such vagueness in detail puts many people under a cloud of suspicion. It evokes questions about Georgetown University as a whole, and the Jesuit order as a whole - as evidenced by comments in this very thread. This misplaced mercy for the offender entails unfair treatment of the every other faculty member at Georgetown (later, every Business faculty member) and every Jesuit.

I doubt that Mr. Reynolds meant to be malicious (I doubt he meant to leave out so much salient detail). But it should be realized that that technique of subtly tarring a whole group with misconduct of one of its members is standard procedure in much public debate. A deliberate effort should be made to avoid such vagueness in criticism.

Thanks for the above post, djs. Your comments have helped clarify things for me.


May the Lord bless your Lenten season.

Dear Mary Jo,

Forgive me for not responding to the following post:

As a professor, I can understand that this became more personal to you.

I am really sorry, and I didn't mean it to be a personal attack on Catholic institutions AT ALL...or I wouldn't have sent my daughter to RC High School and private college..she even did summer credit at Georgetown in Ethical Philosophy--(actually, a very traditional Latin poster here told me that I should have been careful, and come to think of it, she did come back a bit non-conventional and strange in her outlook for a few months! :rolleyes: )

Infact, when I was asked why it was shocking, I was late for work, and I just wrote the first thing that came to mind. If I had more time, I would have clarified my emotions about the incident.

I believe that Peter was trying to make a general statement about the anti-Christian nature of our land lately, and most specifically-his life. I have written many such editorials/letters for Orthodox publications. Since I don't think that his editorial was meant to be a witchhunt at his university, I don't think that he needed to state names and such anymore than I ever did when I relayed an experience in my writing here or elsewhere. He was not writing an article for a newspaper and it was not 'journalism' per se. It was simply a letter to the editor, making a general statement--or atleast that is how I read it.

Perhaps I was just thinking about some experiences at universities here in the North East--(my son goes to American Univ. in Washington, D.C., and the experiences he has also had in relation to holding religious beliefs). And, as I said before, in an Orthodox parochial school in the sixties, we had a teacher who advocated (his) atheism to us! (he didn't last long, I will admit! :rolleyes: )

My daughter had a 'world religion' class mandatory at her RC Univ., and she said that she was *the only one* in the class that openly BELIEVED in God!!!

Again- I don't blame the university..I applaud them for making the class mandatory, but I do blame, society, parents, and the, uhh-- let's say: 'unique personality' of the North East!

We do live in a strange, new world. Maybe that is what Peter was trying to convey?

And didn't the Pope himself once make a comment that Catholic institutions of higher learning in the U.S. better clean up their act?

Anyway, because, yet again, I was thinking in a generalized manner, and because I was actually inspired by Peter's openness and concern for his faith, which, trust me-- is a RARITY for young people in these parts,(before I get jumped on by anybody for THAT statement--this is MY personal experience working with Orthodox youth and having young college aged adults) that is why I shared Peter's letter..

Sorry to have caused, yet again , a fuss.

Since my intentions are not clear lately, maybe I will just lay low from posting too much for a while.

Respectfully,
in Christ,
Alice

Pax tecum, frater meus in Domino.

In reply to your third point, there are many excellent Catholic universities and colleges around the world whose administrators, students, and alumni would vigourously dispute your statement. I would suggest that Christendom College adopt the motto "Humilitas". It was the motto of my heavenly patron, St. Charles Borromeo, and also of Pope John Paul I.

To your second point, I should have been more to the point in my comments and stated specifically that I was alluding to Henry Karlson`s statement:
"Indeed, to the Romans, the crucifixion WAS a weakness (hence foolishness!) It is part of the paradox which is the passion."

I would offer for your consideration the words of Pope John Paul II.

In Salvifici doloris §22, Pope John Paul II writes "In weakness He manifested His power, and in humiliation He manifested all His messianic greatness." In §23 the Pope writes "Those who share in Christ’s sufferings have before their eyes the Paschal Mystery of the cross and resurrection, in which Christ descends, in a first phase, to the ultimate limits of human weakness and impotence: indeed, He dies nailed to the cross. But if at the same time in this weakness there is accomplished His lifting up confirmed by the power of the resurrection, then this means that the weaknesses of all human sufferings are capable of being infused with the same power of God manifested in Christ’s cross."

Peace,

Charles

Dear Brian,

We all have different experiences. For years, I would watch CBN News and the 700 club. Jay Seculow, the head lawyer of the ACLJ, would talk about the different court cases pending...especially combating the ACLU and prayers in school.(The ACLJ always won).

Others would also speak about the different issues confronting Congress etc. Now these are the things that one would not readily hear on the News, nor read in the papers, unless they were papers that were forwarded specifically to Christians.... And these are also the things that have formed my experiences, and my opinions.

Yes, I am sure that different industries have a great deal of influence on our government, and I for one, am the first person that will say so, especially in regards to our health.

These though are not 'moral' issues. Issues that will affect our youth and our culture for years to come.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,

Actually, it was I, not Brian, whom you quoted. I don`t mind being confused with Brian - he expresses himself eloquently - a quality which I admire. Now Brian may not want to be confused with me.

I would respectfully and strongly disagree with you that the film, tobacco, liquor, and oil industries do not confront us and our youth with "moral" issues. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and the obscene marketing done by the liquor, tobacco, and film industries have had and, unfortunately, will continue to have profound effects on us and our youth. While I do not wish to paint all of the CEOs and boards of directors of these industries with a wide brush, these industries have a track record of targeting our youth (and certainly their parents, but not to the same extent). Young people today have enough issues confronting them without having the enticements which these industries offer them. Over the past several decades, young people have been told by these industries that it`s "cool" to smoke (and the tobacco industry knew how addictive smoking is and added ingredients to make cigarettes even more addictive); that it`s "cool" to drink (and not saying anything about the deadly dangers of drinking to excess, DUI, etc.); the film industry contributed and still contributes to a view of sexuality as being me-centered, not a gift from God and to the mockery of relgious beliefs, among other things.

IMHO, these are, indeed, "Issues that will affect our youth and our culture for years to come."

I wish you a peace-filled and grace-filled weekend.

Charles

Dear Charles,

I do believe that young people will drink even without the advertisements, (they have throughout history), and that they will always try to smoke, (they started at 14 in the 1940's), but as for the oil industry, it will take time for our economy to adjust to any changes. So it really can't be rushed.

The worse thing though, with the exception of the film and media in general, is in regard to our health. There are natural products that can be taken for various problems, but because the drug companies cannot make money on them, they refuse to develop them.

The doctors again, could care less for preventive medicine, after all it will cut into their pockets, so it's disregarded. Everything we know, (and it's been that way for the past 50 years), comes from Europe and Asia.

As for the food industry, it is pathetic. I noticed in Italy, that the portions given in restaurants were exceedingly small. Good for them! Of course I wondered why, and realized that food there was very expensive.

Now why can't our food companies stop making junk, with that terrible aftertaste, and start using natural ingrediants...which are bound to be smaller because of the cost.

Did you know that the fat that is formed when animals graze, helps people lose weight? It is the grains that our chickens and cows eat that is really causing our weight problems. But letting that out to the average American, will hurt the grain industry and our economy. It's time though that the companies started making adjustments.

The one thing though that I have found simply rediculous over the years other than the oversized packaging, is recycling. I noticed that from the time plastic started being recycled, plastic bags started becoming thicker and more and more plentiful.

So think about it! Here we are recycling, (a farce), and the industry is not producing less plastic, but rather more.

As for my concern towards the film industry, it is certainly the same as yours.

Part of it though, is because of the culture formed by decisions made in our courts. You know all this garbage that is 'allowed' by our courts, (and I know this because I recall hearing about the different court cases), enter childrens minds when those minds are still forming...like 11, 12, and 13. Then at 14 they go wild. (My observation).

...And today it's worse, because they are allowed to use computors for school. Do these people that say parents should be supervising their children, really expect parents not to work, or hire someone to be on top of their child each and every moment? As one priest so aptly said, "we don't realize it, but our children are in a different universe."

Just some of my beefs, and I'm very sorry about mistaking you for someone else.

Zenovia

Hi Charles! Just one caveat: I cannot speak for Christendom College in any capacity, official or otherwise (I'm just an enthusiastically loyal alumnus who had a great time there). Please don't mistake my personal vices, such as lack of humility, for being part of the College's ethos. I think that there is a great deal of humility at Christendom, and there is also a very strong respect for the many other Catholic institutions of higher learning that are pursuing similar goals. Several of these have been mentioned on this thread. My statement that they are all inferior to Christendom should be understood humorously.

God bless you! Thank you, also, for your response about the issue of the cross being "weakness." I think, however, that we ought to distinguish our perspective from that of the unbelieving Romans for whom the cross was ultimately a symbol of weakness and defeat. For Christians, the cross symbolizes not only Christ's taking on weakness, but also Christ's conquering that weakness and, through it, manifesting His omnipotence (as your quote from JP2 indicates). Thus, the professor's reference to the crucifixes as "weaknesses" shows a woefully incomplete and non-Christian understanding of the cross.

For example, St. Paul also says that Christ became sin, but it would terribly misleading if I were to point to a picture of Christ and say "look, it's sin incarnate." It would be misleading because I would be leaving out the rest of the story--i.e. that Christ became sin in order to defeat sin.

Happy Lord's Day to all,

LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

Salve!

I did take your comments about Christendom College in a humorous vein. I apologize if my reply did not come across as being in the same vein. It was not a criticism of CC or of you. Humilitas is one of my mottos - I have several - and most of them express goals which I hope to attain - humility and patience among them.

Yes, the cross is folly to those who do not have the gift of faith. I participated in a funeral Mass yesterday morning. It was a sad occasion - not the liturgy itself, which spoke of the new life into which the deceased had entered - but because there were only 14 people present - our pastor, our deacon, me (reader for the occasion), 8 family members, and 3 other parishioners. The first reading was 1 Corinthians 15: 51-58. For those without faith, death indeed does have a sting and a victory. Our pastor`s homily centered on this reading and the fact that death, ultimately, has neither sting nor victory for those of faith. By His cross and resurrection, Jesus has conquered death, once and for all time. We die with Him and we rise with Him.

As a closing thought, I would offer my observations as an extraordinary minister of holy communion to the sick and homebound. When I was asked to enter this ministry, I was apprehensive about dealing with people, most of whom are in the last months of their earthly lives. The first person I visited was a woman in a skilled nursing facility. She suffered immense pain on a daily basis, she was virtually abandoned by her family and often went weeks without visitors other than me and our parish priest. She was a beacon of faith to me. She knew what waited her at the end of her earthly journey and she looked forward to her death with joy and expectation. I have seen this so many other times. While this is not a ministry for everyone, I recommend it for those who discern a call to it. You will bring Christ and His peace to the dying and you will be gifted a hundredfold for what you give to those you serve. And what you do is a work of mercy and love.

My apologies for this lengthy post.

Peace,
Charles