"Lawyers have told the Roman Catholic Church that it cannot sack a Catholic headmaster who has entered a civil partnership with a male teacher.
"The Archdiocese of Liverpool has been unable to take action against Charles Coyne, the head of St Cecilia's primary school, who has registered a partnership with Richard Jones, who is believed to work at a nearby school.
"The couple, who live together, had a reception in a parish centre.
"Local Catholics and family campaigners have urged the authorities to take action over the "scandal".
"One churchgoer said: "Senior officials are aware of this yet they have done nothing. It's unacceptable."
"Norman Wells, the director of the Family Education Trust, said: "It is not unreasonable for parents sending their children to a faith school to expect the headteacher to be living according to that faith."
"The archdiocese - which is headed by Archbishop Patrick Kelly, the second most senior cleric in England and Wales - said it was powerless.
"It said in a statement that Mr Coyne had run St Cecilia's for many years and "matters relating to his personal life have in no way interfered with his management of the school".
"A spokesman for the archdiocese said senior officials, including Fr Michael O'Dowd, the episcopal vicar for schools and colleges, had discussed the case as issues of employment law were involved.
"Legal advice was sought," the spokesman said. "The Church was advised that in this case nothing could be done, despite the fact that the head was acting contrary to Church teaching."
"One bishop, the Rt Rev John Jukes, said school governors should ask a head teacher to step down if he or she openly flouted the Church's moral code.
"I would ask heads to think about the example they are setting to their pupils and the local community," said Bishop Jukes, an auxiliary bishop emeritus in Southwark.
"The bishop said each case was different, and added that it was possible for male friends to share a house together without breaching Catholic moral teaching."
A spokesman for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales said there was an expectation that the person upheld the position of the Church if they had been employed "to present and represent the Catholic faith".
Excerpted from Telegraph
The Bishops lodged an appeal to the High Court after the Broadcasting Standards Authority rejected their complaint against the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode which aired last year, claiming it breached standards of good taste and decency.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, saying the bishops' sense of outrage is not shared by the wider community. To add insult to injury the court ordered the Catholic Bishops to pay the Defendant broadcaster's costs amounting to $8,000.
Yet outrage apparently exists at a Pace University student, Stanislav Shmulevich who flushed the Koran in a University toilet after admittedly having a disagreement with some Muslim students. Shmulevich was arrested and charged with two felony counts of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree as a Hate Crime.
It is inconceivable in the midst of today's pervasive militant atheism, relativism and cultural self-loathing that flushing Bibles would result in prosecution. In fact as Michele Malkin recently stated: if [Shmulevich] had submerged a Bible in urine or coated a Torah in cow dung and submitted it for a federal grant, he’d be sitting pretty–and facing rave New York Times editorials instead of time behind bars.”
Why don't those who condemn the Bishop's appeal as an attempt at censorship come to the aid of Shmulevich's right of "free expression"? Why is censorship in the name of "hate speech" approved in the case of the flushing of the Koran, while censorship is condemned when it involves the of promotion and public dissemination of hate toward Christianity and its dogmas. The Mother of God can be desecrated with impunity in a Christian Nation in the name of entertainment, while the Koran is afforded protection via the thought police.
It just goes to show that Secularism and its dogmas of tolerance, relativism and multiculturalism do not work. No man-made system of justice can ever truly be blind or "tolerant" toward all. Instead, whatever the fleeting philosophy of our day is-- that in turn dictates who is tolerated and who is not.
"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14)....We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires." Cardinal Ratzinger, Sermon on Dictatorship of Relativism
"John Reaney...took the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment to the role of youth worker was blocked by the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis. Reaney is set to secure substantial compensation after the tribunal judgment, which said: "The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation.
"During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the role, which he said was a key appointment within the diocese."
This has been a bad week for Britain and an even worse week for Christianity. A teenager has lost the right to wear a symbol of her Christian faith to school, while a Church has to pay a sodomite damages when it denied him an appointment working with youth. The radical homosexual agenda must muzzle all religion that reminds them of their sin. This will surely be the source of much persecution of the Church in the future. Surely the legalization of homosexual marriage would bring about similar claims against churches that refuse to marry them. Muzzling the church, however, will not muzzle the consciences of those that live a self-loathing, self-destructive homosexual lifestyle.
For the full text of the article: Guardian Unlimited
"Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.
"After subbing at Carver, [a] teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer.
"An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don't pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)"
Attorney Brent North, who represents the school district said " Islam is one of the few religions that requires specificity of prayer obligations and denies that a new recess [was] added to address the religious needs of Muslim students."
"Other schools have made decisions quietly, like allowing Muslim students to avoid strenuous exercise while they’re fasting or offering students Halal meat in school lunches. In Dearborn, Michigan, where at least 1 in 3 student is of Middle Eastern descent, two holidays are also scheduled for Eid. daily times monitor"
Is Islam the only religion that requires specificity of prayers and obligations? Or did we as Christians fail to practice the obligations of our religion and thereby waive our right to do so? It was precisely our lack of zeal and loss of faith as Christians that led us to an America where Christians are now unable to pray in public schools while we must permit muslim prayer. What judgment will we face if the zeal of Islam is stronger than those who possess the true faith?
German Cardinal Karl Lehmann, head of the German conference of bishops, recently expressed concern about all faiths being treated equally regardless of the size of their flock and their history.
"The neutrality of the state regarding individual religions must not be confused with indifference and uncritical tolerance toward the impact of religions on society".
There are those that agreed with Cardinal Lehmann's arguments:
"Ronald Pofalla, the general secretary of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union party, said Lehmann was right to say Islam could not be afforded the same legal standing in Germany as Christianity.
"Unlike Christianity, Islam is not in Europe's cultural centre and is not reflected in everyday life in the same way," Pofalla said in a statement.
The irony of this seemingly benevolent uncritical tolerance toward religion is that it is ultimately destructive to Christianity. It relegates Christianity to the same status as the heretical newcomer despite the indispensible impact Christianity has had on the formation of Western Civilization.
Needless to say, there are many who disagree with Cardinal Lehmann--but with tolerant friends like these who needs enemies:
German MPs...blasted Lehmann's statements, saying they were stirring social unrest.
Lale Akgün, a Social Democratic parliamentarian in charge of Islam issues, said Lehmann's statements were unrealistic and explosive. "Whoever says that Islam cannot be put on an equal legal footing (as other religions) is stoking social unrest," said Akgun.
The leader of the Green party's parliamentary group, Volker Beck, said Germany's constitution required Islam be treated the same as Christianity.
"The Cardinal is wrong if he concludes that Europe's or Germany's undoubtedly Christian character infers a legal discrimination of other religious communities," Deutsche Welle quoted him as saying.
What has brought us to this place where Christianity is relegated to the same status as a dangerous and deadly heresy? And what has brought us to a place where one is accused of causing "social unrest" by the mere suggestion that Christianity and Islam should not share the same status in the Western world? Can you imagine the leaders of a historically Islamic nation elevating Christianity to an equal status with Islam in response to Christian immigration? The notion is absurd.
It is of course the spirit of the anti-Christ which in the name of equality, nuetrality, and tolerance seeks to stomp out the true Faith. Relativism continues to prove itself to be a very powerful tool for the destruction of Western civilization and the breakdown of Christianity. The creed of the secular left requires truth be subjugated to equality and tolerance. No religion should be viewed as superior to any other--all should be regarded as equal. Thus in order to vanquish jihad all religion must be vanquished. To prevent the Islamization of Europe, the hajib or the veil must be banned along with the crucifix and chastity rings. Further, those that espouse the fundamentals of Christianity are seen as equally destructive, and dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists.
I suppose we cannot expect those who are ignorant of history, or those who have abandoned the Faith to be grateful for our Christian heritage. But there is no excuse for those who possess the Faith to watch in silence while all that was gained by the courageous Catholic missionaries and martyrs is lost.
Excerpts were taken from JTW News
Here is an interview with Cardinal Bertone on the condition of faith in Europe. The interview is reprinted from the Polish Catholic publication niedziela:
Q: WLODZIMIERZ REDZIOCH: - Some political powers regard the presence of the Church as a threat to the secular character of the state...
A: CARDINAL TARCISIO BERTONE: - One should not mix secular character and laicism. A healthy laicism means the autonomy of the political sphere in relation to the religious sphere but not to morality. Faith is not a private act. Therefore, I am sad to see that some countries, for example France, strongly opposed the idea of including 'Christian roots' of the continent into the project of the European constitution.
Q: Why does Europe need faith?
A: I will begin by quoting the brief statement of Alexis de Tocqueville (the French historian, politician and specialist in American democracy, who lived in the years 1805-1859), 'Despotism can do without faith, but freedom cannot.' In order to be active subjects able to build democracy and common good people must be open to the fundamental values of human person and society. In the Christian vision these values come from God. This does not mean that an unbeliever cannot follow the fundamental values. But without referring to God these values are considerably weaker, which is what the Pope has told to the Latin American bishops recently.
Q: All the fathers of the united Europe: Aleide de Gasperi, Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman were practising Christians and wanted free and peaceful Europe the foundation of which would be Christian humanism. Whereas today most European politicians cut themselves from the Christian heritage of the continent and want to impose atheistic humanism on all nations. Will they succeed?
A: History has proved that messianisms without the messiah failed. They tried to separate values from Christianity and pushed faith to the private sphere and made morality independent from religion. People deluded themselves that they would build authentically free and worthy humanity. It was the context, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Roman Treaty, in which Benedict XVI spoke about Europe's apostasy, not only from God but also from herself, and about the paradox that Europe, wanting to be a community of values, defies the existence of the universal values. Closing itself to the universal values secularisation closes itself to the truth and replaces it with ideology, scepticism and nihilism. All these things, in contrast to the truth, do not nourish the intellect but poison it; they do not enlighten it but lead it astray; do not enrich inner life but make it complicated and even suppress it; they do not strengthen values but make them uncertain or meaningless.
Q: All the powers that want laicised Europe, Europe without religion, try to show the Church as some relic and try to drive Christians into the inferiority complex...
A: Christians should not feel that they are the remains, leftovers of Europe, which are going to vanish, but they should feel as the avant-garde of new Europe, which, as Benedict XVI has stressed recently, can be realistic but never cynical, rich in ideals and free from naive illusions, inspired by the eternal and reviving truth of the Good News.
The church's vocal campaign to defeat a proposal to legalize abortions in Mexico City in April stepped over the line, politicians said in a complaint, after some prelates suggested voters should remember who voted for the law at election time. The law passed anyway.
On Saturday, the government dismissed the complaint, saying the church had done nothing wrong. But prelates say they are tired of being challenged over their every word.
If the Mexican Constitution's articles six and seven guarantee the right of free speech to all individuals ... then any law that limits that speech is like making priests second-class citizens, Carlos Villa, a church spokesman in Mexico City, said Monday.
Armando Martinez, president of Mexico's Catholic Lawyers College, said the church has asked his group to draw up a proposal to be presented in about two weeks to change the laws and allow the church to participate fully in public debate.
Mexico is one of the countries that most restricts human rights and freedom of speech in religion, Martinez said.
He called for changes that would allow priests to fully express themselves politically without supporting political parties or running as candidates.
The current law, passed in the 1990s, forbids clerics from forming associations for political ends and bars them from partisan politics or holding political meetings at churches.
Prelates who violate the law can face fines or the closing of their churches.
During much of Mexico's history, the church was a dominate political and economic force in Mexico, until reforms in the 1850s and anti-clerical laws following the 1910-17 revolution stripped the church of much its power and property.
Catholics staged a bloody uprising against those rules in the late 1920s.
Those restrictions were eased in the 1990s. Now, some fear the church may try to use its still-considerable influence in politics.
There were a lot of deficiencies in the (Saturday) ruling. The Interior Department rushed to exonerate Cardinal Norberto Rivera, said Jesus Robles, who filed the complaint against Rivera and other church officials.
We didn't want to limit their right to free speech. But for historical reasons, which I think are still valid, in our country they cannot be allowed to attack our country's institutions and political parties.
Separation of church and state is the constant cry from secularists. But this will never suffice. What secularists truly seek is the subjection of Church to the State in all things. It won't be long before the denial of sacraments to certain persons will be seen as a violation of civil rights and tantamount to hate.
This scenario is not a false alarm, but is very real and was predicted by Pope St. Pius X in 1907:
"[I]t is not enough for the modernist school that the State should be separated from the Church...the Church must be subject to the State. This, indeed, modernists may not yet say openly but they are forced by the logic of their position to admit it. For granted the principle that in temporal matters the State possesses the sole power, it will follow that when the believer, not satisfied with merely internal acts of religion, proceeds to external acts --such for instance as the reception or administration of the of the Sacraments --these will fall under the control of the State. What will then become of ecclesiastical authority, which can only be exercised by external acts? Obviously it will be completely under the dominion of the State." Pascendi Gregis
The domination of the State over religion has begun and can be seen in the following: Pharmacists and Catholic hospitals in many states no longer have the right to refuse to dispense abortion drugs based upon conscience. Landlords have no right to refuse tenancy to those who live a lifestyle that violates the landlord's beliefs or principles. Religious employers must provide birth control coverage for its employees. Some Western countries are now prosecuting those who interpret the bible in a "hateful" manner so as to offend homosexuals.
All of these laws have in common the aim to protect sin in the name of civil rights--whether that be the "right" to kill one's child or the "right" to fornicate or sodomize. The right to sin now trumps the constitutionally mandated right to the free exercise of one's religion. Today the state has a complete disregard for the spiritual good of its citizenry let alone their eternal souls. Rather than acknowledging that the domain of spiritual matters belongs to religion--the Church is instead not only silenced, but is also made to participate in the corruption of the people. In reality there is no true separation of church and state in the West, instead the Church has been amputated from any influence on the world and is becoming dominated.
"[I]t is a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule." Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII
Is it beyond reason to imagine that with the seemingly inevitable acceptance of homosexual "marriage" that the denial of the sacrament of holy matrimony could amount to a denial of civil rights or even a crime by the Church?
Behind so much of this animosity is the radical homosexual agenda. Where this agenda is present there is a powerful spirit that is truly anti Jesus Christ. With any degree of proximity to it one can sense the degree of loathing and hatred that led to Christ's death on the cross.
Although these people lack the wisdom of God they do not lack satanic craftiness. This militant atheism has infiltrated the state run public schools. They seek to gain access to the blank slate of children's minds. It is now becoming a standard part of sex education to show children images of homosexual sex. In destroying the innocence of children in the name of tolerance, they are creating a generation that will experiment with homosexuality like past generations experimented with smoking.
Children that attend denominational schools and who are lost to their indoctrination efforts are now being battled over. Access to these children will be sought by breaking down the religious freedom of denominational schools. The battle has begun in Scotland. Catholic schools in Scotland are considered to be "public schools"--but are designated as "denominational schools". Nevertheless, under the 1980 Education Act, representatives of the Catholic Church can block teachers from employment or promotion in denominational schools on the grounds of their "religious belief and character".
The union of Scottish teachers now claims that denying positions in Catholic schools to otherwise qualified teachers based upon their morality, character or religion is discriminatory and violates the European Convention on Human Rights. Here is the full story from The Herald.
But for some, denying Catholics the freedom to choose their own teachers does not go far enough. Others want Catholic schools completely abolished.
First there is the leader of Scotland's Green Party, Robin Harper. He recently stated: "State education should be secular". He promised that the Green Party would work to end government support for parochial schools. Harper also stated that the existence of religious schools "tends to divide communities". He said Catholics should receive their religious instruction through their parents and pastors.
Finally there is the call for the abolition of Catholic schools by Muslims. From the Scotsman: "An Islamic campaign group has called for a Catholic primary school to be based on the Muslim faith.
The Campaign for Muslim Schools said 90 per cent of pupils at St Albert's Primary, in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow, are Muslim, yet children are having to take part in Catholic rituals like saying the Lord's Prayer and attending mass.
Osama Saeed, co-ordinator of the alliance of Glasgow's main mosques and Muslim organisations, said he could see no reason why the main faith of the school should not change.
He said: "Clearly the parents of that area find a faith school, even if it is of another denomination, preferable to a secular one. But surely it should be possible for them to have one that is relevant to their own faith.
"To move towards this would be a fantastic example of good faith - in more ways than one - on the part of the Church."
The call came just days after Scotland's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, sparked controversy by stating that Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were "living in Scotland as a Christian country". A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland was not available for comment tonight.
From Politico:
"The decision was...notable for the way the nine justices split on the question -- 5-4, with the Court's five Catholic justices forming the majority."Never before has the court had five Catholic justices, and their joining together in a decision to limit abortion, of all hot-button issues, is likely to spark discussion about the role of religion in forming social policy."
Those who call for the extraconstitutional separation of church and state seek the separation of authentic Catholics from any position where their faith and morality could be influential. The constitution does not contain any mention of the "separation of church and state". The constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The left's call for the separation of church and state is never about the state intruding upon religion, rather, it is disguised bigotry. It is absurd to think that one's background and beliefs will not effect one's decisions and actions.
Here is an example of the bigotry we will hear in the coming months, this from the Huffington Post:
What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore. Ultimately, the five justices in the majority all fell back on a common argument to justify their position. There is, they say, a compelling moral reason for the result in Gonzales. Because the intact D & E seems to resemble infanticide it is "immoral" and may be prohibited even without a clear statutory exception to protect the health of the woman.
The language is harsh, but it is greatly lessened by the realization that the Catholics on the court stood out--again from Politico:
"...conservatives should be pleased at the unprecedented number of Catholics on the court."With Catholics, you have this very substantial body of 'natural law' teaching, which gives them a very rich tradition to draw from when they are thinking about these sorts of issues," Masci said."Catholic social teaching is underpinned, he said, by the ideas of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, who taught that there are fundamental principles -- God's law -- that provide a touchstone for navigating new issues such as stem cell research."Protestants have access to the same material, Masci said, "but Catholic thinkers spend more time working within this tradition, which gives them a foundation for building their ideas.""That foundation has made conservative Catholics a natural ally for socially conservative evangelicals on issues such as abortion. And it has helped propel Catholic thinkers to the forefront of a range of questions facing society."A large number of Catholic jurists -- more than just the five on the Supreme Court -- have become prominent doing work in areas like privacy, abortion, family and marriage," said Masci. He cited the example of Princeton professor Robert George, a member of the president's Council on Bioethics."
There is a great deal to rejoice about with this decision. Not only is "partial birth abortion"--state sanctioned infanticide--now outlawed, but this may be a shining moment for Catholicism in America.
Fr. John Hardon often repeated that the Catholic Church was the only hope to fight abortion.
"The future of the human race depends on the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion.... I mean that the survival of the human race depends finally on the acceptance of the Catholic Church’s two thousand years’ teaching that the killing of unborn children is murder."
"Liberty
will ever be more free and secure in proportion as
license is kept in restraint."
Pope Leo XIII
Secularists condemn
Christianity as the foe of all liberty, most
especially in the realm of intellectual and social
liberties. They believe that the West will only
be free when all vestiges of Christianity are removed
from our culture.
The secularists are wrong. The abandonment of
Christianity as a basis for our laws will eventually
destroy our liberties. It is precisely because
the West embraced Christianity that we have enjoyed
freedom so consistently and extensively throughout
history.
A delicate balance
between authority and liberty is necessary for the
proper functioning of a society. Too much
liberty leads to anarchy, while too much authority
leads to tyranny. The excess of either leads to
a backlash toward the other.
Liberty increases or decreases depending on how a
society views the nature of man and the value of
human life. The hallmark of all pagan cultures
throughout history has been the lack of belief in the
inherent dignity of human life. Man in the
eyes of a socialist or a communist state is merely a
means of support for the State and little more.
On the other hand, Christian societies view
man as an eternal soul uniquely created in the image
and likeness of God with a free will.
Every human life is to be valued. The
state exists to serve man.
The state’s estimation of itself in relation to man
is like a sliding scale. The less human life is
valued the greater the state becomes and vice
versa. Since Christianity presumes the inherent
value of every human life, no man-made laws can
compete with the liberty that Christian based laws
provide. Thus, only Christianity guarantees a
proper balance between liberty and
authority.
Rome was one of the first civilizations to guarantee
its citizens’ rights. It did not, however,
recognize any inherent rights to human life outside
man’s role as a citizen. All rights came from
the state and resulted from the subjective
benevolence of the rulers. Man existed for the
State--not the other way around. Rome
sanctioned slavery and infanticide. A contempt
for human life was seen in the public games where the
destruction of human beings became
amusement.
It would take a radical new way of thinking to confer
upon human beings the dignity that would elevate the
life of every man above the
state. Christianity transformed man from a
slave of the state to a uniquely created individual
who was created in the image of God.
Christianity rescued man from the meaningless
repetitive drudgery of daily life and gave him a
personal destiny, not simply a tribal, cultural or
national destiny. His actions now had eternal
consequences, and the State was no longer the
ultimate authority. Instead there now existed a
higher authority under which he was no longer a
slave, but rather a child of God. Man suddenly
had not only a purpose for living but also for
dying.
Death was no longer man’s sad end and enemy.
The belief in eternal life gave the West a courage
which was unmatched at the time. It ennobled
the West to do battle with all those who would
destroy liberty. The belief in the eternal life
of the soul cannot be separated from the will to
fight to the death for liberty.
In Christianity man was endowed with “free
will”. Even his Creator would not tread on
man’s free will-- even unto his own
destruction.
Christianity was also the great equalizer among
classes, races, and yes, even the sexes. It
brought an equality like no other man-made, social or
intellectual idea ever could or will. The king
of the land was no more important in the eyes of God
than a slave.
The West seems to have come full circle since the
pre-Christian pagan days of Rome. Our lawmakers
and governments of the West have now largely
dispensed with Christianity as the influence of laws,
and work at a frenzied pace to create new laws to
make society more fair, free and less
objectionable. These secular laws, too often,
not only strip us of our liberties but deny the
inherent dignity of human
life.
“Choice”, unfortunately, is the operative word rather
than liberty or freedom. The West is less
concerned about liberty than “license”. License
is a laxity and an abandonment to all
moderation. License sanctions all “choices” and
must silence those that seek to inhibit their
exercise. Liberty does not and cannot derive
from license. It is a false freedom since it
robs the moderate of their liberty, lessens the
dignity of human life and creates a slave of the
licentious.
Licentiousness has become the false freedom of the
West. So many of our laws are based upon
justifying our hypersexuality and comforting the
licentious. We legalize prostitution in order
to elevate and dignify the woman and the
“profession”. We enshrine fruitless sex as a
right and call it “reproductive freedom”.
Strip clubs and pornography are an exercise of the
“freedom of expression”.
None of these so called freedoms elevate
man, rather they destroy his dignity.
They make man an object for use by
another. We mistakenly believe that we
love our fellow man and dignify him by legalizing and
protecting his favorite sin. Instead we have
simply dignified sin and degraded and demeaned man.
The ultimate in the denial of liberty is the denial
of life. The West has killed millions upon millions
of its own offspring through abortion under the
banner of “choice”. Many nations have also
passed laws that take the life of its elderly and
disabled. Secular governments will soon
realize the financial incentive for eliminating those
that “drain” society and the right to die will fast
become the duty to die. China recently made headlines
by harvesting organs from living human beings who
were
imprisoned.
In the name of tolerance the secular governments
probe the minds of citizens to ensure the absence of
intolerant thoughts. Should one express a
thought that is subjectively determined to be
intolerant-- punishment awaits. Homosexual
intolerance is the ultimate secular mortal sin.
Many “enlightened” countries of the West have
justified the forced silencing of their people so
that homosexuals won’t be made to feel uncomfortable
about their “choices”. This however liberates
sin and not man. It also results in the loss of
human dignity and liberty.
Liberty is also lost when we cannot raise our
children in a manner that is in keeping
with God's laws. We are no
longer free when we are at war with our culture to
retain innocence and purity in our children.
Our hard earned money is taken in the name of public
education where birth control is passed out to
children without their parents knowledge or consent
and they are force fed deviant ideas in the name of
tolerance.
The subjectivism and relativism embodied in the
secular laws of the West are flawed and cannot
produce true fairness, liberty, and
equality. When we make way for the
practice of every
sin then man's dignity and liberty is lost.
We have become pagan
by dignifying sin and demeaning human life.
According to a recent Harris opinion poll only one in three people in England say they are "a believer". In Italy less than two-thirds are believers, and in France it's less than one in three.
A recent ICM poll found that an overwhelming majority of Britons believe that religion does more harm than good. Neither of the above polls account for the percentage of "believers" that are Muslim in Britain and France.
Everywhere we hear the mantra that religion has caused nothing but hatred, violence and bloodshed throughout history. The secularists assert that they can do a better job at keeping peace, justice and order in society than Christianity did.
So how do secularists propose to achieve a better society? What is christianity replaced with?
Christianity is replaced with no less than a man-made, man-centered religion that demands a human rather than a divine faith. This faith has been in the making for centuries. We are now at its culmination. Some may refer to it as the spirit of the anti-christ. After all it is indeed against Christ.
The secularists are not theists since their belief system does not include a diety per se. Although they abhor the notion of dogma they nevertheless rigidly espouse the strict adherence to the fundamentals of their faith.
One of the essential dogmas of secularism is relativism. Relativism tells us that truth is subjective and veryone's truth is different. What may be wrong for you could be right for me and vice versa. Relativism holds that no one religion has a monopoly on the truth. It tells us that there is no such thing as objective truth. It makes the practice of orthodox Christianity impossible. Since Jesus Christ revealed Himself to be the living Truth then the rejection of objective truth is necessarily the rejection of Christ and Christianity.
A second dogma of secular fundamentalism is multicultural tolerance. Converts to this system of belief are convinced of the peace and harmony that can be achieved when one strips himself of any and all preferences for one's own culture. An untempered openness to everything, except of course christianity, is part of the fundamental dogma. A contempt for all things Western and most especially Western history frees one to conclude that Islam is the religion of peace and christianity is the religion of crusaders and the inquisition.
Toleration is to secularists what love is to christians. Truth and toleration do not go hand in hand for the secularists. If someone is engaged in something that might cause harm tolerance requires a "live and let live" approach. After all "I cannot impose my morality on someone else". We must tolerate all things liberal and licentious.
Secularists condone everything that christianity condemned as an abomination. The doers of the abominable have been declared secular saints and martyrs. The stripping of the mind, heart and soul of so called rigid belief systems is supposed to bring about peace, justice and order.
Will our society flourish now that it has rid itself of christian influences? Are we finally on the threshold of utopia?
Would anyone in their right mind answer these questions in the affirmative? Most elements of our society are in a steep and speedy decline.
Our entertainment elevates vice to the status of virtue while mocking marriage, motherhood, fatherhood, parenthood, innocence and glorifying all things sexual. Our educational system is a dismally dumbed downed government program that creates an anti-socialized, cookie-cutter, apathetic citizenry.
Families have been destroyed so quickly and efficiently it is no less than diabolically orchestrated. Materialism beckons and fathers become slaves to the tremendous "needs" our society impose on us. Motherhood is lost to the lie that the drudgery of work is more fulfilling than truly impacting the future by rearing one's children. We have defrauded generations of our children by sheer neglect. We have stolen children's innocence and have force fed them lies about what will make them happy. Then our secular society has the gaul to act surprised when school shootings occur and the number one cause of teenage deaths is suicide. Everywhere is the toleration of what is wrong as right--and the intoleration of all that is right as wrong. Despite both parents pursuit of the American dream, we cannot "afford" more children so we make the mortal blunder of contracepting away our future. Meanwhile the West is oblivious to the looming demographic crisis that its love of contraception has created.
Islam does not share the West's love affair with contraception. It is now at the West's doorstep with a punishing zeal and it will not tolerate, nor peaceably coexist, with the West's secular dogma and perversion of right and wrong. The West's very existence is threatened by its own suicidal extinction. A society that makes the family its enemy will make an enemy of its future.
Essentially secularism is a religion that compels no specified behaviors and asks for nothing of its adherents. Even a secular fundamentalist would not suffer, let alone die, for the cause of secularism. After all, the dogma of relativism tells them that their beliefs are no better than anyone else's. Yet marching now into Europe is a religion that believes itself to be superior and its adherents will die for their faith. Herein lies the crux of the matter--without conviction and willingness to fight or die for something, a quiet death will come upon the West. It will tolerate even its own demise.
How can a civilization continue when it fails to see the benefit of reproduction of the human race and attempts to thwart it at every turn? How can a civilization continue when we have all become mini-gods, each with his own divine plan for right living? How can a civilization that accepts everything condemn anything? An ordered peaceful and just society based on secularism is doomed to fail. All around us is destruction. But in this vast destruction lies a tremendous gap or void that offers hope. Hilaire Belloc, prophetically saw this in Survivals and New Arrivals.
"Meanwhile there is a gap: and that gap is our opportunity. ... [It is Catholicism's] "...unique power to answer the great questions, it has always seemed to me the most powerful instrument possessed by the Faith in the spiritual crisis now so close upon us. You cannot perhaps convert despair when despair has been erected into a system, ... but you can check it in its beginnings, when it is no more than the loss of something which the despairing man knows he has enjoyed, and cannot but wish he might recover.
"To the Great Questions which man must ask himself and which so insistently demand an answer (What is man? Whence comes he? Has the universe a purpose? What part does man play in that purpose? What final destinies may be his?) the Catholic Church gives not only a reply... but a fully consistent solution: a sound complete system of philosophy. Moreover Her answer is not only consistent; it is triumphant. She knows fully Her own validity; She can point in actual practice to the effect of happiness produced in society by her philosophy.
"Those great questions will be asked again and again. We are not hearing the last of them; we are at the beginnnings of their second postulation, at the beginnings of a new interest in them.
"The falling of Christendom into Paganism must necessarily produce results shocking to our inherited culture...I cannot but wish---somewhat temerariously--that the new Paganism may develop a little too rapidly, shock a little too violently the dormant conscience of Europe and thereby prepare the counter-attack against it." Hilaire Belloc, Survivals and New Arrivals.
"NPQ: When Pope Benedict XVI recently denounced what he saw as the "dictatorship of relativism," especially in European culture, it caused great controversy. Is the Pope right that we live in such a dictatorship?
René Girard: Yes, he is right.... It makes sense that this formula comes from a man—(the former) Cardinal Ratzinger—whose specialty is dogma and theory.
This reign of relativism which is so striking today is due, in part, to the necessities of our time. Societies are so mixed, with such plurality of peoples. You have to keep a balance between various creeds. You must not take sides. Every belief is supposed to be accorded equal value. Inevitably, even if you are not a relativist, you must sound like one if not act like one.
As a result, we have more and more relativism. And we have more and more people who hate any kind of faith. This is especially the case in the university. And it hurts intellectual life. Because all truths are treated as equal, since there is said to be no objective Truth, you are forced to be banal and superficial. You cannot be truly committed to anything, to be "for" something—even if only for the time being.
Like Ratzinger, however, I believe in commitment. After all, we are both convinced by the idea that responsibility demands we must be committed to one position and follow it through.
NPQ: For all the controversy Pope Benedict’s comment caused, it was really in the stead of the late John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor," which criticized "postmodern" society as becoming indifferent to values—disbelief—in the name of tolerance. His fear was a new nihilism that could plunge the world into dehumanizing will-to-power episodes akin to the fascist and communist disasters of the 20th century.
Girard: Postmodernism is dramatic in saying there are no absolute values, that there is no Truth, that language can’t reach the truth...Pope Benedict is engaging this battle head-on by attacking this vogue of disbelief in the world today, especially in Europe. Like John Paul II, he knows from personal experience that, without religion, societies go to the dogs. And he doesn’t hesitate to say it.
I hope his message resonates. His challenge to relativism is important not only for the Church and for Europe, but for the whole world..."
NPQ: Even Jean Baudrillard once agreed that "the whole world, including China and Japan, is implicated in the postmodern fragmentation and uprootedness that leaves values behind. There is one exception: Islam. It stands as a challenge to the radical indifference sweeping the world. Isn’t it true that Islam remains the only civilization fully based in faith, and thus is in conflict with our secular postmodern culture the same way Ratzinger is? After all, despite Pope John Paul II’s determined efforts, the drafters of the EU Constitution rejected any mention of the Christian heritage of the West. Every state in the Islamic world mentions Islam as its cultural foundation.
Girard: Western civilization is, no doubt, predominantly on the side of secular relativism. That is not true in the Islamic world, where faith dominates. This victory of relativism is precisely why Pope Benedict has made defending the Christian Truth his central mission.
Having said this, I should also say that American secularism—which arose in defense of freedom of religion—and French laicite—which arose from the Jacobin opposition to the Church—are more similar than most people recognize because they are experienced in the same way at the personal level.
NPQ: It is not only the Pope who doesn’t like the relativism he sees in Europe, where the churches may be empty but the mosques are full. It is also the radical Muslims like the young Moroccan who slit Theo Van Gogh’s throat in the Netherlands, possibly the world capital of relativism.
Girard: This conflict, you are right, is most acute in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, where the postmodern idea of equality of cultures has been most enshrined in policy. God knows they are so liberal, which is why this violence should not have happened.
In America, there is not really a recognition of how far things have gone—that, in France, for example, one child out of three is born a Muslim..."
"NPQ: Shortly after 9/11, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a Catholic, was widely condemned for saying that Christianity was superior to Islam. When Ratzinger said a few years ago that Christianity was a superior religion, he also caused controversy. In 1990, in the encyclical "Redemptoris Missio," Pope John Paul II said the same thing. It should not be surprising that believers would affirm their faith as the true one. Perhaps it is a mark of the very relativist dominance Pope Benedict condemns that this is somehow controversial?
Girard: Why would you be a Christian if you didn’t believe in Christ? Paradoxically, we have become so ethnocentric in our relativism that we feel it is only OK for others—not us—to think their religion is superior! We are the only ones with no centrism.
NPQ: Is Christianity superior to other religions?
Girard: Yes. All of my work has been an effort to show that Christianity is superior and not just another mythology. In mythology, a furious mob mobilizes against scapegoats held responsible for some huge crisis. The sacrifice of the guilty victim through collective violence ends the crisis and founds a new order ordained by the divine. Violence and scapegoating are always present in the mythological definition of the divine itself.
It is true that the structure of the Gospels is similar to that of mythology in which a crisis is resolved through a single victim who unites everybody against him, thus reconciling the community. As the Greeks thought, the shock of death of the victim brings about a catharsis that reconciles. It extinguishes the appetite for violence. For the Greeks, the tragic death of the hero enabled ordinary people to go back to their peaceful lives.
However, in this case, the victim is innocent and the victimizers are guilty. Collective violence against the scapegoat as a sacred, founding act is revealed as a lie. Christ redeems the victimizers through enduring his suffering, imploring God to "forgive them for they know not what they do." He refuses to plead to God to avenge his victimhood with reciprocal violence. Rather, he turns the other cheek.
The victory of the Cross is a victory of love against the scapegoating cycle of violence. It punctures the idea that hatred is a sacred duty.
The Gospels do everything that the (Old Testament) Bible had done before, rehabilitating a victimized prophet, a wrongly accused victim. But they also universalize this rehabilitation. They show that, since the foundation of the world, the victims of all Passion-like murders have been victims of the same mob contagion as Jesus. The Gospels make this revelation complete because they give to the biblical denunciation of idolatry a concrete demonstration of how false gods and their violent cultural systems are generated. This is the truth missing from mythology, the truth that subverts the violent system of this world. This revelation of collective violence as a lie is the earmark of Christianity. This is what is unique about Christianity. And this uniqueness is true."
This interview was excerpted from New Perspectives Quarterly--and can be found at NPQ.