www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What would you say if . . .

you heard some of these from the pulpit?







Oh, and I'm "whoring" after the gods of the past by clinging to orthodoxy--big or little "o"--because the New Age of the Church is here now.

I sit and wonder if I'm nuts after a dose of this kind of stuff.

BOB,

I'd get up and leave and never go back.

And I did!

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric

Dear Bob,

These are awful! Lord have mercy!

Can't these heresies be reported somewhere and to someone who will take them seriously? (Directly to the Pope, perhaps?)

In my eyes, this priest is not really a believer; he is not a Christian of any sort--forgive me for saying this but I think that he is practicing New Ageism rather than Christianity. He is definitely espousing major heresy.

I would say to pray for him if you can, but for your own sanity and the peace and holiness of your soul, to leave.

You have obviously done all you can do and you have not stood idly by. You can have a clear conscience about that.

Respectfully,
your sister in Christ,
Alice

I agree with Dr. Eric with the part about never going back, but I think I would wait until Mass was over and tell the priest to his face that he is the worst of heretics.

Ryan

How about . . .



My question is, Doesn�t that make God the author of evil?

Isn�t it more accurate to say that He ALLOWS evil because He respects the God-given free will He has given us to make a choice either for Him or against Him?

Theophan,

Your understanding is correct. These "preachings" truly are awful. Is this by any chance a "Latin" priest? If prayer and fraternal correction is ineffective, I'd certainly look for a different parish.

I've had two similar experiences in the last couple of years, but the priests were "helping out" the parish, not resident.

The first involved a 70-year old priest who gave a sermon on "the virtue of selfishness" and then proceeded to prayer an "anaphora" of his own composition (with his eyes closed). I was concerned that perhaps the Holy Mass was invalid, but I noted that he did say the words of the Institution according to the rubrics (and I hope he had the intention of doing what the Church does). The experience left me feeling dirty.

The second was last year for the Sollemnity of Corpus Christi. The 65-year old priest's homily dealt with the presence of Christ everywhere but in the Holy Eucharist, and this to the congregation of a parish with Perpetual Adoration! Again, I felt dirty.

I think that it is the Evil One who is oppressing these poor men, along with the hermeneutic of discontinuity of the last 40 years!

Michael

Your comment is the right one. The priest is teaching heresy and should stop.

I wouldn't go back.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

Theophan,

As a Marquette University almunus (sp?), I can say that my wife and I heard these kinds of things all the time in campus Masses and in neighboring parishes. One time, I did walk out, right after the sermon. On other occasions, I stayed but I was so angry I did not take communion (and there were some cases where one really could wonder whether it was a valid Mass). Perhaps, the ideal thing to do would be to tell the priest, gently, that his teachings are clearly not in line with the Gospel and then, based on his response, indicate that you will not be back to worship but will find another parish. The key though is to be gentle and respectful (this is the hard part!). I have never done this before because I don't think that I could go up to the priest and remain composed. To be honest, when I was a Melkite Catholic, I simply picked one or two Latin parishes where I knew that the priest would not be preaching nonsense and those were the only Latin rite Masses that I would consider attending. I had to stop going to campus Masses altogether and though I went to my own baccalauriate (sp?) Mass and was even cajoled into being a eucharistic minister (that is another story and it was one of the most horrific experiences of my life), I stopped going to all future baccalauriate Masses. My Melkite priest and spiritual father encouraged in this direction by indicating to me that going to Mass was (for me) an occasion of sin. So, I decided just not to put myself in a position where I would be tempted to ruin my whole Sunday with anger and resentment.

Joe

I've never heard this one. Sin is part of the human condition, but we're supposed to strive not to sin. I'm not into embracing my sin.


What about all those people who followed Jesus and listened to Him - oh, say, like his Apostles and friends and many, many curious folk who came to hear a great Teacher? Were His words written down by others? Yes. Are they part of history? Yes. Did the Gospel writers have different focuses? Yes.


Did anyone see the actual Ressurrection? No. Did they see the after effects? Yes.


I wanna go to Heaven. It beats the alternative.


Huh??? Try to be good. You aren't supposed to try to be bad. All the "life advice" Jesus gave out was about being good.


Again. Huh??? Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this earth. Obviously, He had "someplace else" in mind.

Dr. Eric:

No. I was being entirely serious. I don't generally care for personal confrontation-particular with my sisters and brothers in Christ, but this level of heresy calls for a rebuke.

Ryan

Huh, we are more alike than I thought.

My answer has been that I ACCEPT that I am a sinner, that I need grace (Christ's life leavened and inspired by the Holy Spirit), that I need the help of the prayers of the Communion of Saints, and with all that and my own will to repair the relationship with God ruptured by sin, I can become MORE THAN who I am and become what I should be.



My answer is that the oral Tradition is reflected in the written Word of God and the fact that the bishops were able to agree some centuries later when the canon was settled gives credence to the fact that they all recognized in the written Gospels and letters the common teaching that they were taught and were continuing themselves to teach. Beyond that, the Holy Spirit is at work in human history and has been the guarantee that the Church will not teach error or be mislead, even when it comes to the Scriptures handed on to us.


That isn't what Scripture says, but if you don't think Scripture is anything more than a propaganda piece then you can make any statement you want.


My answer to this one was my explanation of how "good' and "godly" are the same in older English, thus making it false that we are not called to be like Christ. "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" seems to ring some bells here for me. Or St. Seraphim of Sarov's statement that the aim of the Christian life is "the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God" and that all our spiritual and ascetic efforts are aimed in that direction.

BTW, had an email from a priest friend in the Latin Church who says that while some of these "kernels" might be worth a look, the "whole ear" is "in grave peril."

I am probably going to regret this but for the sake of advancing the discussion, I would like to point out that at least some of these statements are quite compatible with eastern catholic/orthodox perspectives. Of course, some of them are beyond the pale ... But (once again, for the sake of advancing the discussion), let me offer some thoughts on the ones that can be redeemed.


A lot depends on the meaning of the word "embrace". If "embrace" means "accept as normative" I agree that this is heretical. But if "embrace" means what St John means in 1 John 1:8, 10 and then is followed by an instruction to follow the advice of verse 9, it would be perfectly orthodox. This could be a strong critique of a perverse pride that denies sin in a person's life. This statement also matches the words of the funeral service: "There is no one without sin but you alone ..." In other words, part of true honesty with oneself means accepting that I will never be perfect in this life, that I will never fully eradicate sin in my life, that in fact sin is much more than simply wrong deeds, but is a perverted orientation that lies at the very heart of my being. It is precisely because "sin is part of who I am" that I need Christ. To "embrace" my sin therefore means to be honest with myself and others that I need a redeemer, to stop pretending that I am perfect, etc.


The problem here is with the word "merely". What is meant by this word? The reality is that no one does know what Jesus said. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the Gospels are in Greek. Therefore, the Gospels are a translation of what Jesus said. And, since (as the Gospel of John makes clear) it would be impossible to record everything Jesus said or did, obviously the Gospel writers chose to translate Jesus' words for particular communities in a particular time and place. To fully analyze this statement, one would have to know the context in which the words were spoken and understand the intent.


Again, the question is the use of the word "merely." In reality, no one did see Jesus actually rise from the dead. But they did see the Risen Jesus in the flesh with their own eyes. If this quote is meant to deny that, then it is beyond the pale. But if it is an attempt to move the discussion past the debate over history and to the meaning of the event it might be appropriate. This could be an over-reaction to a fundamentalist insistence on the fact of the resurrection without a deep understanding of its central importance in the Christian faith. (I am reminded here of Barth's comment to a woman who asked him if he believed the serpent really talked to Eve. He responded by saying that it was more important to pay attention to what the serpent said rather than get caught up in the discussion of how he said it.)


This is the one that I think could be the most in keeping with the eastern catholic/orthodox spiritual tradition. Since I have been immersed in the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos, this one sounds almost like it came from our tradition.

It has always seemed to me that our liturgical and spiritual tradition places much less emphasis on the promise of a future state in which disembodied souls rejoice in "heaven" and much more emphasis on the relationship one has can have with Christ now (i.e., the fathers insistence that heaven is open to us now) and on the central promise of the bodily resurrection after the 2nd Coming. It is precisely this future resurrection that is most lacking from most discussions of the Gospel today. Yet, this promise of bodily resurrection, according to St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, is absolutely central to the Gospel.



This actually sounds like something that comes out of the spiritual teachings of St. John of San Francisco who (according to my friends who knew him) often stressed that the Christian is not called to be "good" but to be "holy". In fact, as Fr Seraphim Rose wrote, often saints are not very "good" at all. They are holy but their holiness transcends our cultural categories of "good" and "bad" as the saint lives above the law and transcends the limitations of the law in her own person.


This too can be understood in a very eastern catholic/orthodox perspective. The idea that "heaven" is above us and "hell" below us, as Fr. David Petras wrote in this edition of the Horizons, must not be taken literally. See also the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos. I would think that all Christians would agree that Jesus is "heaven" and that He "is all the heaven we're ever going to get." As the psalmist said, "In your presence is fullness of joy." Also, as John the Seer foresaw: "They shall see his face and his name shall be in their foreheads. ANd there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for hte Lord God gives them light and they shall reign for ever."

In summary, everything depends on context. I usually prefer to try to see the good in things that people say and try to hear the truth that often lies hidden by poor word choice, etc. But perhaps I am a bit pollyannish!

You hit this one right.


This was denied.


Not holy either.

"(M)erely" means "simply" in the sense that anything else is not true.

I should tell you that we've been hurrying down a New Age road for the past six years and this is but a small sampling of things I've collected over that time span. They are not taken out of context. There is almost nothing in traditional doctrine that does not come with that little twist in it that "clunks" in one's head. It's a little like hearing your car hum along and then hear some "clunk" in the motor that just shakes the whole functioning of the vehicle. The presentations are made in such a way that confusion as to what the Church teaches remains as the one lesson repeated over and over. Everything is up to interpretation and every opinion is as good as the next. There is no authority to define anything as absolute and requiring belief.

When my daughter attended a Catholic girl's high school, her Bible Studies teacher told the students that they should NOT take the gospels literally.

It seems that there may be alot of this going on in the American RC church. I know of a few other stories like Bob's, some even from RC priests who are dismayed by their fellow clergy.

All this is sadly doing is totally confusing the laity in a confusing era where few are well catechized in either the Orthodox or the Catholic faith.

Alice

Alice,

The worst place for all of this is the typical Catholic university. There are even studies out that show that for any given graduating class at a Catholic university, the percentage of those who hold to their faith is significantly lower than the percentage when they were freshmen. I personally know of Jesuit priests who were Atheists and it was not uncommon to hear such things in homilies as "Jesus didn't come to do magic tricks with bread and wine, but to help us be a more inclusive, liberating community where all are equal, black or white, gay or staight, etc. etc. etc." Explicitly denials of the sacred character of the eucharist right in the Mass itself. It was very disconcerting. I plan on sending my kids to state schools.

Joe

Joe:

Consider University of St. Thomas in Houston and Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida as alternatives to the "typical Catholic university." At these two schools I doubt you'll encounter the sort of problems you've mentioned.

Ryan

Ryan,

Yes, very true. There are a handful of Catholic universities that are still traditionally Catholic and Christian and that provide a quality liberal arts education.

Joe

This kind of nonsense has really infected the church, and having a few more traditional bishops in place is not going to change it overnight.

I know of a Roman Catholic parish in my area that used one of Marcus Borg's books for their confirmation class (these were adolescents). it was THE primary text.

A friend of mine who is on the parish council, and had a son in the class.

I asked him, "Do you know about Borg? He does not believe in the divinity of Christ, in the resurrection, the Virgin birth, and is agnostic about the after life?"

He was alarmed, and brought it up at the next parish council meeting. They pretty much told him "tough, that's the text we are using."

I told another friend who goes there about the book, and he did not seem to think it was all that big a deal. He does not have kids.

I told him that if it were me, I would pull my kid out of the class and leave that church. I would talk to the priest about it.

Also, if I was in the Latin Church, I think I would write the bishop about it.

Are people complaining about these heresies to the Bishops? If the Bishops don't care, can't they complain directly to the Pope?

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't think that those who are catechised and clear headed enough to know heresy when they hear it, need to speak out!

Even though I am Orthodox, I still feel guilty that I did not complain to the Sister/Principal of my daughter's high school about her Bible Studies teacher saying that the gospels should not be taken literally. I was new to the school, and a different faith, and I didn't want to muddy the waters for my daughter and have her new school think that I was one of the parents that complain about everything.

Alice

I have a question that is sincerely asked. Your reference to the book by Borq raised questions that many of the posts here raise.

Does the fact that Borq does not believe the things you listed mean that his books are all heresy?

Should we only read and use books that are written by people who believe all the right things?

I know nothing about this particular author. But as to the larger question, I believe that if a writer espouses heretical doctrines, it is likely that his books will reflect that thinking. While one might like to discuss them in a study group composed of (at least some) well-formed adults, it is highly inappropriate for such materials to be used to catechize our young people. That's my view.
Again, when a person has a firm grasp on the Church's teaching it may be fine to explore what someone who is shakey has to say, but as for me, life is too short.

I totally agree, Michael. Children and teens are generally not of the intellectual calaber of a fully catechised person.

Alice

ALICE:

I asked my confessor, a highly placed cleric in this diocese, about writing to the bishop and even to Rome and he told me to tread carefully because a layman could be excommunicated for complaining about this sort of thing, even if he were proven to be correct.

As an aside, I just finished a book "The Keys of This Blood" by Malachi Martin, an ex-Jesuit. He goes into great detail about the problems facing the Latin Church--and the whole Catholic Church--during the pontificate of JPII. He writes in 1990 so the material has no later additions. However, he points out that there are two views of ecclesiology competing in the Catholic Church and their struggle is what cause this sort of thing to go unchallenged. The firt is the traditional view that the Pope holds the absolute power and universal jurisdiction over all bishops, priests, etc. The second view sees the Church as a more democratic institution where each bishop is free to pay lip service and go his own way with little or no fear of being challenged by Rome. Unfortunately, Martin suggests that this second view is becoming more common and will eventually lead to the uttter destruction of the institution. In any event there are more seminaries, monasteries, religious orders, bishops, and other groups within the Catholic Church who seem to be doing their own thing today because of the spread of this second view of what the Church is and what it should be.

In light of this and what I've experienced on the ground, my Orthodox brethren have no fear of Papal universla jurisdiction because it may exist on paper but in practice seems to have little practical application or meaning in the past 40 years. The EP and MP synods have more control over their bishops than Rome seems to have.

BOB

Dear Bob,

I had realized that the Bishops have more control here than the Pope, and that they are somewhat independent.

Did this start after Vatican II? Was there an official declaration of decentralization of power?

Do these many problems exist in other countries?

Americans tend to have a 'no one tells us what to do' kind of mentality...and it even manifests itself in various ways in American Orthodoxy as well.

This is also a country that has found itself in a period of great ethical and moral polarization, and therefore, such will manifest itself in churches as well. Orthodoxy has not been completely free of it, it has just been a bit more subtle as we are very small in numbers, voice, and influence on the American landscape anyway.



I am *shocked* that one could fear excommunication for questioning a cleric's views as heresy and bringing it to light, yet those who preach heresies and practice them openly fear nothing. WOW! That is not a good thing.

I am so sorry for this confusing time in the RC Church. The contemporary RC historian Warren Carrol calls it the period of the great heresy of modernism. As all periods of great heresy, this too shall pass.

Kyrie Eleison!

Keep the faith...

In Christ,
Alice

Fr. bless!

I feel I can learn things from liberal scholars, especially about the history and culture at the time the bible was written.

I can see a mature Christian strong in his or her faith, might be able to "pick out the bones," and learn from somone like Borg. On the other hand, scholarship like Borg's, and people like Crossan and Spong, et al, is based on a lot of skepticism (i.e., a priori assumption that supernatural elements in the New Testament are mythic or symbolic) and speculation.

I strongly believe that this particular book (which I have in fact read completely) is entirely inappropriate for adolescents embarking on their faith journey. One needs to learn the basics first before having them demolished. I am appalled that my friend's church would use that for adolescents. Eternal souls are at stake here.

Blessings,

Lance

Bob, I must say, that is astounding to me, that you could be excommunicated simply for raising the issue of heresy. There is something wrong with this picture. Did your spiritual director give you any practical advice?

blessings,

Lance

Lance:

My spiritual director suggested that I continue doing what I have been doing and keeping the Faith as I have been doing. Other than that, there is little to be done except leave the parish.

Unfortunately I did distance myself for about three months with the thought of easing myself out, but it was my fellow parishioners who sought me out and asked me repeatedly to return. Even the people that I have trained in ministry came around and made it a point to say that they felt they and the parish needed my example, witness, and continued participation. These people who came were actually very powerful in their requests. Many have a little idea of what is wrong but don't have the background in reading over many years that I have had. I admit that I don't have a formal education but have been tutored and been doing recommended reading for over 40 years. And the sources that I have read have always been sold and orthodox. In fact, for a long while I had a rule that I did not and would not trust any English-language Latin Church source written after 1965 with the exeption of translations of Roman documents. To some that stance seemed prideful and arrogant, but I felt that it would be better to have a solid grounding before delving into sources that seemed to tear down everything that I'd been taught to believe. Seems it was the right path though it did cause a fair amount of isolation. On the plus side my former spiritual director told me privately that I was not only a breath of fresh air for him but also a touchstone with sanity in the face of so much "ongoing formation of the clergy" where he'd be forced to listen to the very things I refused to read or accept.

I should add that my pastor when I was a senior in high school told me that "In the future you will not be able to trust your parish priest because of the direction the seminaries are going. You will have to know the Faith and teach it to your children." As I have passed through almost 40 years since I heard that, I have come to see how prophetic that statement was. Of course, at the time, I was so stunned that I couldn't even react to it. I just sat like someone who'd been touched with a cattle prod.

BOB

Dear Bob,

I haven't heard these myself from the pulpit but I also don't know what was said in between these quotes. May I offer some apologetics?



If we do not "embrace" our sin,(Poor wording perhaps?, I would think "realize" would fit much better.),how do we acknowledge we ARE sinners. So I would say, sure, "embrace" your sin and do all you can to correct it.


The Gospel of Mark was the first to be written, without researching I think scholars date it somewhere between 70 and 80 A.D., a couple of decades after Christ's resurrection. So what is written is not literally or exactly what Christ said "verbatim" but what the evangelists empowered by the Holy Spirit remembered and wrote. This takes nothing away from the fact it is the inspired Word of God.


No one actually literally did see him rise form the dead.

It was only after encounters with him risen that anyone knew who he was. Mary Magdalene in the garden, the disciples on the road to Emmaus are only two examples.


I almost refrain from using this example but it is fitting. May God forgive me.

I had an elderly neighbor who attended church every day, stayed to clean the church afterwards,etc.; crucifixes and statues in every room, even religious light switchplates on her walls,the whole nine yards. She was however the biggest and meanest gossip on the block. (Eternal rest and mercy upon her, O Lord.)

How do we expect get to heaven without helping build the Kingdom.


We need to try to be "good" for all the right reasons not just for the sake of being good.


Though yes indeed He did rise to Heaven, He is also right here with us. Perhaps another poor choice in wording.

As I said in the beginning I didn't hear the entire sermon and all that was said in between. At first sight this is all pretty alarming. I may be totally wrong, but maybe this priest simply isn't the best preacher and I can see how it leads to confusion.

In Christ,
Bill

Dear Bob,

Reading back through this thread I overlooked or forgot about this post and Father Mack's above it.

Forgive my weak memory and thick head.

Prayers that all works out to the best for you.

In Christ,
Bill

Bill:

The thrust of all these quotes has been to bring us 180 degrees from the traditional approach to the Christian life as any of us would understand it or have been taught it.

The "embrace your sin, it's part of who you are" is followed by "forget about this trying to be good thing that you've been taught in the past" because "we spend too much time trying to get to be something we can't become." To summarize, embrace your sin and wallow in it. It's who we are as human beings and we'll never be anything more.

There is no room for the Holy Spirit, no room for Divine Inspiration, no room for the ascetic struggle, no room for the Scripture to be inspired, no room for . . .

These things started to "clunk" in my head early on and they continue to do so. It's often not as stark as this, but usually a little subtle twist to something that is completely orthodox that gives it just enough turn to make it just not quite right. I should add that an article that was published in a newsletter for laypeople was so far off the wall that I sent it to some priests that I trust and they came back with a near unanimous decision of its being "heretical syncretism," though none knew that I had sent it to anyone else.

For example, a statement made that "Jesus is no more present in the Sacred Host than in the monstrance that holds it or the pew you are sitting on" is quite a way off the mark. That one is usually a shocker for clergy as well as other people who hear it. A little like God being defused throughout creation but not being the Totally Other that He is. So if you destroy the creation, you don't have God anymore either.

How about atonement meaning that you become God yourself and become part of God: sort of like the Hindu idea that we all become fused into some impersonal oneness with the universe and lose our individual identity. I understand the idea of communion, "coming into union," and "at-one-ment," but cannnot ever see myself as the creator of the universe. I also find it demeaning to think that I'd just disappear into nothingness, becoming part of some greater whole but losing my own thougths, memories, etc. And this free-wheeling use of language together with so many authors like Matthew Fox and others leaves me with little reason to give someone immersed in this stuff the benefit of the doubt.

But my purpose was not to stir up things for people. It was to gauge how far off this sort of thing is. I read a book some 16 years ago that was a study of how far the New Age had penetrated the Catholic Church to that point. And many of the things I have posted were hinted at in this book as being taught at some seminaries during the 1980s. I should add that my former spiritual director just emailed me and told me tht he was shocked by all this and says that while some of these "kernels" might be something to discuss in depth it appears that the whole "ear" is in "serious peril."

I can assure you that these are not taken out of context but are the things that make one sit up and say "What"?

BOB

Emrace your sin.


Oh well, guess it doesn`t matter that Jesus told the sinners to go and sin no more!

Bob,

If you belong to the Latin Rite, then under Canon Law you have rights:

THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL [vatican.va]

I'm not saying that your counsellors are wrong, especially if they are speaking prudentially, but I do think, that unless your bishop is incredibly arrogant, you could express your opinion without any fear of censure. One of the most important rights is to be taught the fullness of the Catholic Faith, and nothing else, in the Church. Again, I'm not saying "go for it"; just that you are not without (Church) legal recourse.

Michael

Hi Alice,


After the VCII Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church Christus Dominus "built up" the description of the Bishop's office in the Church, and with the creation of the Episcopal Conferences, there was a lot of cheerleading from American canonists and theologians that the bishops should show more "spine" with regard to the Vatican, Pope included. Some of the bishops drank more deeply than others from these prideful waters, and have given the impression that they are in a practical schism with Rome. "Vatican documents" is how they designate directives from the Holy See; and various experiments have been carried out for which nobody was ostensibly punished. Some have taken that as "encouragement" from the Vatican, while others seem to just have a "tin ear".

I think the Eastern Church was not thrown into such a tailspin by all this for a number of reasons. One of them seems to me to be that the hierarchs are much closer to the laity there than in the Latin Rite. I understand that many (most? all?) lay people in the Eastern Churches are acquainted with their Bishops. This is certainly not true in the Latin Rite. I think your Bishops have more feedback loops than ours, whose sources of information tended to be like-minded clerics and religious, rather than a broad sample.

Another probable reason is that the Eastern bishops were already "decentralized" by virtue of sui iuris designation.

A third possible reason is that many of the Eastern churches were suffering persecutions, and were more interested in important matters of life and death than in niceties of "spirit of Vatican II" experimentation. This was an important aspect of the Latin Church in Poland as well.

We all pray that the Lord rebuke this storm soon!

Michael

Dear Michael,

Thank you very much for your response.

I do still wonder if this 'independent' spirit of the Bishops is as predominant in other Roman Catholic countries (Europe, South America) as it is here.

In Christ,
Alice

Just my opinion...

I think that the Pope's recent talks to the South American bishops imply that some of them have also suffered from a bit of "independitis". Liberation theology is mostly "communism with a snarling face on a Christian", and the priests have become very politicized. I think Europe is about the same as the USA, if not a bit worse (since their attitude is "the Bishop of Rome is one of Us").

I think in Africa and Asia, there is much too much work, and evangelization taking place, and "realworld" problems to address, for Bishops to worry how they stack up versus the Pope. I think they see him as a friend and ally. It seems to me that the mistakes they make are by excess; the kind of mistakes you "like" to see.

Michael

Michael, I would take issue with this one particular comment.

Even Benedict when he was the head of the CDF made a disctinction between different types of liberation theology. He only condemned the type that made uncritical use of Marxist philosophy, and that replaced the redemption in Christ with social liberation. Admittedly, this type of liberation theology has been widespread, but the CDF did not condemn all liberation theology. See the book, The Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His Central Writings and Speeches Joseph Ratzinger is very clear he is only calling out a certain type of liberation theology for criticism.

I do not believe in any liberation theology that is not based on Christian orthodoxy.

But sometimes the critics of Liberation theology offer nothing else to address the social injustice in Latin America.

Surely the answer to Latin America's grinding poverty and social injustice is not silence. In many of these countries, only a handful of families own the vast majority of airable land.

We cannot be content to practice charity along; the Scripture is replete with condemnations of social injustice and calls us to speak out against, and to defend the right of the oppressed (Cf. Isaiah 1:17; Proverbs 24:10-12; Proverbs 31:8-9; Psalm 103:6-7; Psalm 82:3-4; Amos 2:6-7; Jeremiah 22:16)

Although secular, Marxist, forms of liberation theology have been condemned or censored- liberation theology has not been condemned in all its forms.

The context of poverty and oppression in Latin America in the 1980's produced at least one well-known, undeniably holy saint- Blessed Oscar Romero, assisinated Archbishop of El Salvador- and doubtless many others that we have not heard about it.

The Preferential Option for the poor, which has its roots in liberation theology, has been adopted in to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1586
For the bishop, this is first of all a grace of strength ("the governing spirit": Prayer of Episcopal Consecration in the Latin rite):78 the grace to guide and defend his Church with strength and prudence as a father and pastor, with gratuitous love for all and a preferential love for the poor, the sick, and the needy.

2443 God blesses those who come to the aid of the poor and rebukes those who turn away from them

2448...Hence, those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere."[247]

Blessings,

Lance

OH MY!!!!! Umm I dont know if I would hang around, so this was a priest and where is he now?

Hanni

Hanni:

This is just a sampling of things I've heard over the past six years. The priest is still in the parish and most people to whom I've gone are shocked because no one has ever brought quotes like this to anyone' attention. It's a test for us and many don't catch enough of this type of thing to know that it just isn't right.

In Christ,

BOB

haha I heard a stomach full of this kind of thing for sooooo long. I could barely tolerate it, but for courtesy's sake, I kept relatively quiet.

No more. I can't tolerate it, and I go off when I hear such evil being pandered as Gospel.

"Woe to those who call good evil, and evil good."

I think I read that in the BIBLE.

Has anyone noticed that a lot of the priests making these weird statements seemed to have been ordained in sixties and seventies right when the seminaries started going to hell in a hand-basket? I volunteer at a local Roman Rite parish and one weekend we had a priest come and visit us from the Diocesan Vocational Office. He gave a talk on how great it was to be a priest by listing all the materialistic perks to being one. Traveling, monthly allowance, time for you and so on an so forth. It was the most repulsive thing I have ever heard, it was like he was saying it was a career and not a calling, a job and not a vocation. There was no indication of how much it meant to be a Shepard of souls or how he loved celebrating the Sacraments. However at the same meeting we had a seminarian talk to us, and he was filled with the Holy Spirit. He glowingly spoke of his love for Our Lord and sacraments and how he was yearning for ordination. Also a very elderly nun was there in her habit (gasp a Roman Catholic Nun in a habit...its a sign of the Apocalypse!) who spoke of Our Lord as the source and summit of her existence and that He is the constant fount of mercy at whose foot she abides. Needless to say the students got a lot of good advice from the last two, and after the meeting the priest was handing out vocational cards and waiting to talk to the students but they all went over to the seminarian and nun instead.

Thank God that Vocation Office director didn't get anyone to "sign up" based on that garbage; those kinds of people are equivalent to shady military recruiters who list the 'perks' of being a soldier - college money, housing, insurance, loans, free travel, monthly stipend, etc - without mentioning the primary purpose - 'be prepared to give up your life and take someone else's life for your country when ordered' .. if that's not for you, the rest will not remove the misery! And you'll probably be out of there faster than you got in!