By BRIAN CLOWES
Part 3
(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For an electronic copy of the book Call to Action or Call to Apostasy, consisting of a detailed description of the current forms of dissent and how to fight them, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org.)
+ + +
We have seen that the “Charter of the Rights of Catholics in the Church,” drawn up by the dissenting group Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, calls for the supremacy of conscience in moral decision-making, the ordination of women, and the freedom to dissent (unless, of course, liberals are in power).
That charter goes on to propose a number of administrative rules that would tighten liberal control over the Church if “progressives” ever achieved a sufficient number of their objectives.
The Ninth Article. This article of the charter claims: “All Catholics have the right to be dealt with according to commonly accepted norms of fair administrative and judicial procedures without undue delay.”
The complicated system proposed by ARCC’s constitution, which backs up the charter, would make it impossible in practice to impose any sanctions on any person for any opposition to any Church dogma, rule, or teaching, no matter how flagrant. The constitution would construct a tribunal bureaucracy of extraordinary complexity and with many layers of authority, all dominated by liberals. Thus, selective enforcement of the law would be the norm as it usually is in civil society.
Of course, if the Catholic Church were to adopt this system, any orthodox remnant could be prosecuted with impunity under this system, and orthodox Catholics could expect no mercy, similar to the situation experienced by pro-life rescuers and picketers in countries where a liberal court system is in place.
The 15th Article. This article alleges that “All Catholics, regardless of race, age, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, state of life, or social position have the right to receive all the sacraments for which they are adequately prepared.”
The term “adequately prepared” is not defined in the document, but is widely understood under this view to mean that the only guide is one’s conscience. This means that anyone, even if he is in a state of objective mortal sin, would receive the Sacraments of Communion, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Matrimony, thus committing the sin of sacrilege.
This would reduce the sacraments to mere social markers in the life of the liberal “Catholic,” robbing them of all their saving power.
Of course, dissenters think that they have absolutely no use for the Sacrament of Confession, since they have neatly defined “sin” as something that others commit.
The 20th Article. This article says that “Catholic teachers of theology have a right to responsible academic freedom. The acceptability of their teaching is to be judged in dialogue with their peers, keeping in mind the legitimacy of responsible dissent and pluralism of belief.”
Under a liberal regime, all belief systems are treated as equal, from the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (yes, it does exist — its adherents call themselves “Pastafarians” and wear colanders on their heads. Do an Internet search). The objective of such silliness, of course, is to ridicule and isolate true religion.
The charter would ensure that situational ethics would be enshrined as the principle under which Catholic institutions of learning would operate. Indifferentism — the heretical belief that all religions are the same — would reign supreme. As far as the “legitimacy of pluralism of belief,” we can be certain that the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church will be considered unworthy of respect or even acknowledgment, as I have personally witnessed at national Call to Action conferences.
Articles on Sexual Morality. As usual, liberals leave their most specific demands regarding sexual morality at the ends of their documents.
Article n. 28 of the charter alleges: “All married Catholics have the right to determine in conscience the size of their families and the appropriate methods of family planning.” All pro-lifers know that “family planning” is a pro-abortion weasel word meaning the total acceptance of abortion, sterilization, and all means of contraceptive and abortifacient birth control.
Articles n. 30 and n. 31 say: “All married Catholics have the right to withdraw from a marriage which has irretrievably broken down. All such Catholics retain the radical right to remarry. . . . All Catholics who are divorced and remarried and who are in conscience reconciled to the Church have the right to the same ministries, including all sacraments, as do other Catholics.”
Note the phrase “who are in conscience reconciled to the Church.” Once again, the dissenters stress that even a grossly malformed conscience — not Church law or the natural law — is the basis for decision-making regarding even the most serious matters. This phrase translates into: “If I feel that I am right on this matter, I can receive Communion and even become a priest if I want to.”
In other words, emotions and personal feelings would trump the truth.
Dissenters often go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize the sins they commit. In the case of divorce, Mary Grace Crowley-Koch of CORPUS goes so far as to ask:
“The question is: What would Jesus do in these circumstances? Would Jesus say, ‘I’m sorry, a manmade church law does not allow you to get married because you didn’t get an annulment,’ or would he say, ‘Here are two people who are in love, who ask that their marriage be blessed and who are inviting Jesus to be in their midst.’ I can’t imagine Jesus coming across and saying that this is wrong.”
Of course, what Crowley-Koch “can’t imagine” actually did occur, and the Apostles Matthew (19:9), Mark (10:11-12), and Luke (16:18) all recorded our Lord proclaiming: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Crowley-Koch also displays a distressing ignorance of even the most basic theology, because she seems to believe that this teaching of the Catholic Church is “manmade,” and not established by our Lord Himself.
If dissenters can ignore such a direct statement made by Jesus Himself in no less an authoritative text than the Gospels, we know their ability to deceive themselves knows no boundaries.
Of course, liberals believe that the Bible is just another man-made document. They consider it “living” (i.e., open to unlimited tampering and modification) just as they consider the Constitution of the United States to be a “living document.”
As Frances Kissling, former president of “Catholics” for [a free] Choice, said, “We all have the obligation to interpret the gospels in light of the times. Anyone who thinks that the gospels were so explicit that they do not call for a strong element of interpretation is really not on this planet.”
The Final Article. Article n. 32 of the charter claims that “all Catholics have the right to expect that Church documents and materials will avoid sexist language, and that symbols and imagery of God will not be exclusively masculine.”
Yet again, the dissenters are trying to rewrite Church history and even the Gospels to suit their own purposes. Our Lord did not say, “Our Father/Mother who art in Heaven” (Matt. 6:9). He did not say: “Whosoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge before my Mother in Heaven” (Matt. 10:32). And He certainly did not say: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father and/or Mother with his female/male angels. . . .” (Matt. 16:27).
Even though Jesus refers to God as “Father” over a hundred times in the Gospels, the dissenters’ mad zeal for change still drives them to attempt to expunge the “maleness” of God from the Bible.
This fanatical meddling has led to ridiculous abuses in other denominations.
As the graduates of the newly “modernized” Protestant seminaries took their seats as pastors or church bureaucrats in the 1960s and 1970s, they naturally banded together to enact their personal agendas. Once again, this was no overt or organized conspiracy; just as orthodox clergy naturally associate and work together toward common goals, so do modernist clergy.
However, the modernists have a vast advantage. They appear to be on the side of freedom and tolerance, a message that has always been more appealing to man’s fallen nature than self-discipline and self-control.
An absolutely classic example of infiltration and subversion took place during the late 1980s in the Presbyterian Church USA. Modernists packed the 18-member National Worship Committee and proceeded to enact sweeping changes in the liturgy without once consulting the 2.9 million person membership to see what their opinions might be.
This committee took a huge step toward enacting the modernist agenda by striking at the very heart of the Church — its manner of worship.
Allegedly in order to avoid being perceived as “sexist,” the committee jettisoned the great traditional hymns God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen, Faith of Our Fathers, and Once to Every Man and Nation. They said that they did not want to appear “militaristic,” so they dumped Onward, Christian Soldiers and even The Battle Hymn of the Republic. And in order to avoid offending handicapped people, they even went so far as to discard Stand, Up, Stand Up for Jesus!
Music has always stirred our souls. But in Presbyterian churches, all that remains is a hymnal packed with inclusive, non-sexist, non-militaristic, non-homophobic elevator music that will stir absolutely nobody to authentic Christian evangelism or action.
And this, of course, is exactly what the Presbyterian modernists desired.
This atrocity (and many, many others) may be the future of the Roman Catholic Church if the dissenters attain sufficient power.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress