Tom Roeser: Liberalism has been called by some a mental disorder but essentially it’s a spiritual illness.

Probably the most bitter disappointment to me has been the stealthy takeover of the Catholic church by liberal theologians. They influenced the appointment of liberal bishops (you have to try hard to exceed the mysterious Bernardin whose history is as masked by liberals in the Church as is Obama’s school grades and early life) under the false rubric of “the Spirit [sic] of Vatican II.”

When I criticized my own bishop for allowing the USCCB, the bishops’ trade association which he headed, of cutting a deal to support ObamaCare he called me a “hate monger” the same week he conferred a reward on Fr. Pfleger for “social justice”—the same Fr. Pfleger who went on a tirade before a crowd gathered in front of a legally constituted gun shop, demanding the legitimate owner come outside or “we’ll come in and drag you out like the rat you are!” Then announcing over a loud-speaker that he—Fr. Pfleger—“will snuff you out!”—a threat of murder.

My bishop criticized me for using my own personal blog to express my views and urged advisory council members of a Catholic organization to get rid of me. This same bishop and the USCCB issued not a single word of complaint about the Congress’ repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell…while the organization lobbied extensively on its website and personally for passage of the DREAM Act.

Read more

The history now taught in schools is often ideologically motivated revisionism.

Signs of this are everywhere, though one example will have to suffice: During the period marking the dedication of the World War II Memorial on the Mall, the Washington Post did a story on knowledge of the Second World War among Virginia high-schoolers. What did the students know? A little bit about Hitler; a bit on the Holocaust. Nothing on Mussolini. Nothing on Japanese Fascism, or the rape of Nanking, or the victimization of Korea, or the willful destruction of Manila in 1945. But students were well informed about the Nisei — the Japanese Americans interned by Roosevelt at the beginning of World War II.

Was the Nisei episode an injustice? Of course. Have we acknowledged as much? Yes. Have we compensated the survivors and heirs? Yes. But what scholar would say that this is the main or most important story to come out of World War II? Even the writer for the Washington Post was shocked.

He shouldn’t have been. In a study for the American Textbook Council in 2000, historian Gilbert Sewall reviewed in depth the PC influence on history textbooks in the last decades of the 20th century. Most of the textbooks advanced one trend, summarized in the ultimate example of PC history, the so-called National History Standards of 1994. These were in part produced, ironically, by the federal government. The project started innocently enough and was part of the attempt to establish Goals 2000 — a set of standards of what K-12 public-school students should know in such subjects as math, English, and history. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush endorsed Goals 2000, and the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities, under Lynne Cheney, funded the history set.

Read more

The Bible is replete with “discriminations” shocking to modern man.

The Sixties brought about not only political revolutions but religious, artistic, and cultural ones as well. Today discriminating has assumed an almost exclusively negative meaning: to be prejudiced, intolerant, unfair, politically incorrect. Many are those who live in constant fear of a lawsuit because of an accidental remark they made that is (willfully) interpreted as discriminatory. There are plenty of lawyers who specialize in cases of discrimination. This historical fact had the regrettable consequence of making us totally forget that we should be “discriminating.”

The curse plaguing our society was already identified by Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness . . .” (5:20). “Dictatorial relativism” (so designated by Pope Benedict XV) commands us to eliminate distinctions: Statements and propositions are “true for oneself,” and not necessarily true for another person. To call some modern churches shockingly “ugly” is arrogant and undemocratic. To place Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven above rock music should be condemned as elitist, and an imposition of one’s subjective taste on others. The individual subject is the “measure of all things” (Protagoras). Truth, moral values, beauty are empty words; what matters is what the individual accepts as true, what he calls morally good, what he likes. It is up to the all-important “me.”

This is “the climate of the time.” That it is nefarious and unhealthy is best proved by the Bible: One of the plagues affecting modern man is that he has caught the disease diagnosed by Isaiah quoted above — we no longer know how to discriminate.

Read more

(2nd Vatican) Council paved the way for the diffusion of error by declining to teach the whole truth – or through teaching opposing, ‘politically incorrect’, truth.

…I have discovered that the near-silence and inactivity of the post-conciliar Church establishment regarding the Jews’ need for conversion can probably be traced to a conscious decision of the Council itself during the preparation of this Declaration. When the revised draft of NA was circulated, with the original draft in parallel columns, the Fathers found that the aforesaid section in article 4 about the conversion of the Jews, with its specific citation of Romans 11: 25, had now been totally omitted. And (unlike Bishop De Smedt) the relator for this document, the German Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea, was quite open about the reason why the original version was now considered unacceptable: “Very many Fathers,” Bea announced in his relatio, “have requested that in talking about this ‘hope’, since it has to do with a mystery, we should avoid every appearance of proselytism. Others have asked that the same Christian hope, applying to all peoples, should also be expressed somehow. In the present version of this paragraph we have sought to satisfy all these requests” (ibid., p. 648, emphasis added). The tactic of His Eminence and all those “very many” (but unnamed) Fathers was thus to tarnish the previous draft with the pejorative label “proselytism”, and to ‘elevate’ the future conversion of the Jews to the ethereal status of a “mystery”, thereby insinuating that it will somehow ‘just happen’ spontaneously one day without the necessity of any human missionary activity on the part of Catholics.

The tactic, combined with the great personal prestige of Cardinal Bea, worked perfectly. The vast majority of the Fathers duly voted in favor of the new draft, thereby relegating to the finest of fine print this particular point of our “unshakable faith” regarding the Jews. It proved to be literally unmentionable in a modern conciliar document, and so has been ‘buried’ in the middle of a much longer passage of the Epistle to the Romans which is indicated (but not cited) among various other biblical references to NA #4. What now appears in that passage is a much blander statement referring to Christian hopes for mankind in general. And in accord with the non-threatening spirit of this ‘pastoral’ Declaration, all explicit mention of anyone actually joining, entering or returning to the Catholic Church has been carefully excised. We read that “the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Soph. 3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65: 4; Rom. 11: 11-32)”.

Read more