Answers to modern liberal critics of the Catholic Church were written long ago

How interesting that two of the best responses to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s recent op-ed in Newsweek, “Without a Doubt: Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does” (July 9, 2009), were published nearly forty years ago. What to make of it? For starters, it indicates the simple truth expressed long ago by the author of Ecclesiastes: “Nothing is new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). It also highlights what might seem, at first glance, contradictory facts: the beliefs of Townsend and Co. are both dangerous and dull. Dangerous because they are false and destructive; dull because they are clichéd and intellectually empty.

Dr. Hitchcock’s book is both a helpful overview of the turmoil of the late Sixties and a measured, devastating critique of the flawed and, yes, heretical perspectives of progressives who sought and fought to remake the Church according to the latest leftist ideologies and fads. One of the primary themes, as the quotes above indicate, is how progressives, in employing an ecclesiology that is thoroughly secular in nature and horizontal in scope, attack and destroy the heart of Catholicism, which is a life-changing, supernaturally-transforming encounter with Jesus Christ, who is King of Kings and—oh, by the way—the giver of the keys of the Kingdom to a certain St. Peter and his successors.

Dr. von Hildebrand’s book, which is a companion of sorts to his earlier (and equally excellent) work, Trojan Horse in the City of God (Franciscan Herald Press, 1967), covers similar ground as Hitchcock’s book, but more through philosophical critique and theological reflection. Especially notable, regarding Townsend’s essay, are von Hildebrand’s chapters on authority and democracy, especially “Democratization of the Holy Church,” where he states, “The idea that one can make the Church more accessible to the spirit of the times by this ‘democratization,’ or that this ‘democratization’ represents an improvement, has sometimes a pernicious, sometimes a naive character—but it is always an illusion. One can call for the democratization of the holy Church only if one has lost all sense for the true nature of this sacred institution.”

Read the article

Obama and Blair. Messianism reinterpreted








Obama and Blair. Messianism reinterpreted

by Michel Schooyans

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States has raised many expectations all over the world. In the United States, the voters chose a young, mixed race, brilliant president. He is expected to keep his promise of correcting the errors of the president who preceded him. Some excessive terms have even been used, for example the assertion that the time has come to “rebuild” the United States, or to reorganize the international order. This shows the influence of Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972), one of the intellectual guides of the new president and Hillary Clinton. There has been no lack of zeal among the dynamic new president’s admirers, who demonized the beleaguered president George W. Bush, calling for the dismantling of the politics that he developed as soon as possible. Now the Bush administration, although it did have its merits, was characterized by failures that have been acknowledged, even by the president’s inner circle. Nonetheless, on one essential and fundamental point, President Bush promoted a policy worthy of respect and continuity: he offered both unborn children and medical personnel legal protection, certainly less than sufficient but still effective.

The voters who put Barack Obama into the presidency did not perceive the weakness and ambiguity of the statements made by their candidate concerning this decisive point. Moreover, once elected, one of President Obama’s first actions was to revoke President Bush’s measures to protect the unborn child’s right to life.

President Obama is thus reintroducing the right to discriminate, to “set aside” some human beings. With him, the right of every human person to life and liberty is no longer recognized, much less protected. As a result, President Obama disputes the reasoning invoked by his fellow African-Americans when they demanded, rightly, the recognition of the right of all to the same dignity, to equality and freedom. In its prenatal version, racism has been restored in the United States.

Read the entire article

Sola Scriptura, the Anemic Man-made False Doctrine!

Sola Scriptura, the Anemic Man-made False Doctrine!

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
2Timothy 3:16-17

Those are the most common verses which non-Catholic sects use in a vain attempt to “prove” that the man made false doctrine of ‘Sola Scriptura’, or ‘Bible Only’ is Biblical.

However, when these people quote Holy Scripture, they will invariably quote a verse or two entirely out of context.

Before anyone even begins to discern the message of what Scripture is really trying to present, they must abide by the established rules, the main axioms of discernment of Holy Scripture, one of which is that you never take verses out of context.

It is the context, the senses, and the literary genre, which must be taken into consideration for proper discernment.

It is a virtual impossibility for any writer to put into words the true meaning of what he is trying to convey, without someone misconstruing and twisting his intended message. That is why having only one authority for proper discernment is of paramount importance.

“In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction.” 2Peter 3:16

More at The Catholic Treasure Chest