Question: If Christians want to convince us of their great beliefs, shouldn’t they make an effort to come across as more intelligent? They often come across as irrational, prejudiced and a bit wacky.

Question: If Christians want to convince us of their great beliefs, shouldn’t they make an effort to come across as more intelligent? They often come across as irrational, prejudiced and a bit wacky.

Answer: You are very observant.

Authentic Christianity, along with all its doctrines and dogmas, is laid out much like a computer algorithm: If it isn’t true and it isn’t logical/rational, then it doesn’t work and it should be rejected, since anything that doesn’t meet the standard of divine truth is essentially, good for nothing.

The Catholic Church used to excel in teaching and preaching only superb, rational and scholarly theology, but since it got “reformed” some fifty years ago, Catholic leadership seems to think that type of thing is no longer necessary, so they have opted instead to promote the kind of weak, superficial, irrational, politically correct drivel that had previously, been the hallmark of the followers of Martin Luther.

It’s still possible to discover and learn authentic Christianity and it’s still possible to learn to practice it and clearly explain it, but that evidently, requires more time and effort than many are willing to invest.

ASK A QUESTION OF YOUR OWN

Rabbi Skorka: “We need a theological explanation of what a Jew is to a Catholic, and what a Catholic is to a Jew.”

Christ on the Cross by Diego Velazquez, 1632

Cardinal Koch made much the same point at the press conference.

“The next step has to be a deepening of our theology,” Koch said. “We need a Christian theology of Judaism and a Jewish theology of Christianity.”

“I’m convinced Pope Francis wants to go in that direction,” Koch said.

At least vis-à-vis Judaism…

Link

Editor’s note: OK, let’s give this a try:

Catholics first –

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now, the Jews –

(There is no authoritative Jewish “Creed”)

Some of us believe in one G-d,
who is reputed to be the maker of heaven and earth.
But even if that’s true, we’re certain
he has nothing at all to do
with that great blasphemer, Jesus of Nazareth,
who was never mentioned in the scriptures
and who was rightly put to death for his crimes.
Nor has G-d anything to do with the mother of Jesus,
the woman known as Mary,
who was secretly impregnated by a Roman soldier.

We believe that Jesus of Nazareth
was guilty of blasphemy and sedition,
and that he was rightly put to death,
according to both Jewish and Roman law.

We believe that the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth
was stolen by his followers, who falsely claimed
that he had risen again from the dead
and who subsequently founded a heretical
new religion, in his memory.

According to the Talmud,
our most sacred book of Rabbinical commentary,
that same Jesus is now in Hell,
suffering a most humiliating eternal punishment.
He won’t be coming back. Now, or ever!

We’re not sure whether there will be
a resurrection of the dead or not,
but if there is a world to come,
we remain G-d’s Chosen People. Amen.

As you can see, there is much common ground on which
to build the new, joint Catholic – Jewish theology!

Take the quiz: How much do you know about the Catholic Church?

vatican_view

Can you tell your aspergillum from your alb? Your cassock from your chasuble? Take our quiz on all things Roman Catholic to test your knowledge of one of the world’s oldest, largest, and most powerful institutions.

Take the quiz

Editor’s note: This quiz will probably pose a bit of a challenge, for most Catholics.

Megan Hodder was a young, avid reader of the New Atheists, but her life changed when she read the work of their Catholic foes

I looked for absurdities and inconsistencies in the Catholic faith that would derail my thoughts from the unnerving conclusion I was heading towards, but the infuriating thing about Catholicism is its coherency: once you accept the basic conceptual structure, things fall into place with terrifying speed.

“The Christian mysteries are an indivisible whole,” wrote Edith Stein in The Science of the Cross: “If we become immersed in one, we are led to all the others.”

The beauty and authenticity of even the most ostensibly difficult parts of Catholicism, such as the sexual ethics, became clear once they were viewed not as a decontextualised list of prohibitions, but as essential components in the intricate body of the Church’s teaching.

Read more

A Saint defines what it means to be a true Catholic

St Vincent of Lerins

“..he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who set light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time;

but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians,

‘There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you:’ as though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not forthwith rooted up by God, namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest; that is, that it maybe apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the Catholic faith”

Link

More from St. Vincent of Lerins

12 Fruits of the Holy Spirit, in the Catholic Tradition

hspiritenhbig

…altogether we have 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit in Catholic Tradition. As we can see many  of them speak to zeal, while others in a way that seeks to set forth a virtue rooted in moderateness.

One of the great gifts the Spirit seeks to give us is not a rejection of passion or other human gifts, but a moderation and proper appropriation of them. For God the Holy Spirit has given all the gifts of the World, including beauty, and human passions for a reason and for a good end. But the Fruits of the Spirit are gifts to both to inspire zeal and to regulate and appreciate what God has given for a reason and a purpose. By these gifts we steer a middle ground between rejection and indulgence, excess and defect, enjoyment and hedonism. Modus omnibus in rebus (All things in moderation (including moderation)). The Sequence Hymn for Pentecost says of the Holy Spirit:

Flecte quod est rigidum (Bend what is rigid),
fove quod est frigidum (warm what is cold),
rege quod est devium. (rule what deviates).

And thus we see both zeal and moderation in these gifts and in all things a ruling over anything that deviates. Come Holy Holy Spirit, rule our hearts and inflame them with your love.

See all 12

The theological art and science of Catholic apologetics

apologetics

Seen on the web: Why is Christianity the correct religion? Please do not quote the Bible.

Q: Why is Christianity the correct religion? Please do not quote the Bible.

Response by Doug Lawrence:

A: There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than virtually any other historical figure who ever lived. The very calendar we use today is based on the approximate year of his birth, and it will end on the very day Jesus chooses to return.

Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and he proved the truth of his claim in many and various ways.

Jesus Christ accomplished what the Hebrew scriptures (not necessarily what the Hebrews themselves) predicted he would accomplish. This includes various types of miracles, and many other events and particular works that were predicted (in writing) from 200 to 6000 years, in advance.

Jesus Christ stated that he would allow himself to be put to death and he would rise again, three days hence. He did just that, in the presence of many eye-witnesses, some of whom were his enemies.

In the 40 day period between his resurrection and his ascension, Jesus was seen by some 500 eye witnesses. Many of these same witnesses preferred to die, rather than deny what/who they had seen.

Many details of Jesus’ earthly life and times were initially faithfully preserved by those who actually knew him, as well as his own family. Later, these factual accounts were reduced to writing. In both instances, people who knew Jesus Christ and the particular details of his life, his death and his resurrection were still alive and available to confirm or deny the truth of the accounts.

This process is the way genuine world history has always been recorded and preserved. It’s how we know about Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, George Washington, and every other historical figure who ever lived.

The government of the United States of America has preserved the history pertaining to George Washington, over a period of the last 230 years. George Washington’s descendants along with various other world governments confirm those historical claims.

The Catholic Church, which was personally founded by Jesus Christ, while he still walked the earth, has been the living eye witness to Jesus Christ, for the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church also constitutes the oldest, longest reigning, continuous government on earth, ante-ceding every existing world system in existence today.

The history of the Catholic Church and the history of those governments confirm both the existence of Jesus Christ as a real historical person, and the unique establishment, growth, universality, hierarchical leadership and holiness of the only Christian Church that Jesus Christ ever founded, for the purpose of our salvation.

As a rational person, you must realize that the existence of the historical Jesus Christ cannot be truthfully denied.

As a human being, who is posited to have an immortal soul, subject to divine judgment, you must study all the historical evidence, all the theology, and all the related philosophy, in order to come to a valid personal conclusion as to whether or not Jesus Christ is the divine person he claimed to be.

At that point, a modicum of faith (faith enlightened by reason … not blind faith) will be required, simply because you will no longer be dealing with the purely natural, but also the supernatural and the infinite, since that is part and parcel of the realm of the eternal, almighty God.

Enlightened by the facts and illuminated by the huge body of authentic systematic Catholic theology and related philosophy, any required “leap” of faith is not nearly as far as many people might think.

Good luck and God speed!

Much more “deep background” on this here

Also investigate these various links

Orthodox to Catholic convert explains why he did it

His conclusion was that he could not, in good conscience before God, remain Orthodox. He told me that he felt “compelled” to return to what Orthodoxy was in the first few centuries when it was in full communion with the barque of Peter. He also said that he expressed these things to his Orthodox priest as well as to the laity, but that they told him “he did not really understand Orthodoxy”. Over time, he realized that he could not escape the fact that what they were telling him appeared to be only a modern and fabricated Orthodoxy that is expounded by the clergy in spite of the historical facts. He struggled not to behave in a rebellious way about things, so it took him many years before he respectfully and humbly asked to be allowed to go home to the Catholic Church.

Here were his particular reasons for his reconciliation with the Catholic Church:

1. No central authority in Orthodoxy means no clear authority at all–He said that the expressed unity of Orthodoxy ignores the essential (and detrimental) divisions that exist within her ecclesiastical authorities. Not having a central papal authority has caused the Eastern Orthodox to develop into a confused and jumbled group of jurisdictions that speak loudly about their unified nature, while it has little to no real substance. Admittedly, there are “Bishops” and “Archbishops” (yes, I know they use different terms), but since only a Pope can call a proper council, there is no means for Orthodoxy to solve its problems until they humble themselves and submit to the successor of Peter. His assessment is that the reason Orthodoxy rejects the recent doctrinal affirmations of the Catholic Church is more because they reject the Pope than because they reject the doctrines themselves. He believes that this is actually one of the things that attracts people to Orthodoxy over Catholicism: rejection of the papacy and its authority.

Read more

Reports now available from the “Intellectual Tasks of the New Evangelization” symposium


Visit the site for PDF formatted reports

Related article

Editor’s note:

These guys are bright, but they like to do things the hard way.

The reason the world needs re-evangelization is not because of a defective message. It’s because the guys who ran the post-conciliar Catholic Church lost their focus, became corrupt, and failed to faithfully live, proclaim and defend the eternal truths of the sacred deposit of faith that were entrusted to them by Jesus and the apostles.

Once the church again begins to “fly right” … toning down the corruption, re-catechizing the world, universally reaffirming the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and promoting the church’s traditional work, worship, sacraments and devotions (instead of a bunch of watered down, liberal, modernist, BS) things can’t help but improve.

You may find these points mentioned in the above reports, but it will be couched in language that is so complicated and convoluted, that most people won’t be able to understand it … let alone do it.

What ever happened to the simple, direct approach?

1) Decide for yourself whether you believe in God.

2) Assuming the answer is yes, consult the only “source” who ever really knew him, in the flesh, while he still walked the earth … the only assembly or group that was ever divinely authorized to teach, sanctify, and govern in the name of Jesus Christ … the Catholic Church.

3) Begin directed prayer and study, in order to become intimately familiar with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, as only the Catholic Church knows him, by taking full advantage of over 1900 years of the world’s finest theological scholarship and related philosophy (which includes, but is certainly not limited to the Bible.)

4) Become an official member of the Catholic Church (a living temple of the Holy Spirit, an adopted child of God, a citizen of Heaven, and co-heir with Jesus Christ) through the Sacrament of Baptism.

5) Embark on a lifetime of ever increasing holiness. faith, and love in Jesus Christ, through continuing prayer and study, along with full, faithful and regular participation in all of the work, worship, sacraments and devotions of the Catholic Church … “keeping it up” until the very moment God calls you home.     

The Church’s job is to facilitate points 1 through 5, for the salvation of souls and the common good of all mankind. But because of all the confusion and corruption in the post-conciliar Catholic Church, that has not been happening.

We don’t need new theology. We just need to effectively put to good use what we already have!

KC history teacher has things bass-ackwards

John Veal, a lifelong Catholic and a history teacher, recently wrote:

There is simply no valid scriptural or theological basis for the celibate male clergy. Almost all other Christian churches rejected celibacy centuries ago. Many have also admitted women to their clergy. Yet Rome still condemns these changes as strongly as it once condemned Galileo’s proof of a sun-centered universe.

Read more

Editor’s note: I beg to differ, Mr. history teacher and life-long Catholic. Jesus Christ is the theological basis for a celibate, all-male clergy … and due to the limited state of the scientific arts at the time, Galileo was totally unable to provide proof for his various scientific theories … several of which, as things eventually turned out, were wrong. As for “all the other Christian churches” … who cares what our poor, misguided, separated brethren decide to do? The Catholic Church alone remains the true church of Jesus Christ … and only the Catholic Church is qualified to claim the Holy Spirit as its infallible advocate and comforter.

Galileo was wrong: The Bible does not teach how the Heavens go … but rather, how to go to Heaven.
 

Science, Galileo and the Catholic Church

Cause of Schism: “those who assert that Vatican II founded a new Church with a new theology and new sacraments.”

Rorate Caeli has posted an English translation of a Die Welt interview by Paul Badde with Martin Mosebach, author of the seminal lay apology for the traditional Mass, The Heresy of Formlessness.  Mosebach, with his usual insight and ability to get to the crux of an issue quickly, discusses the new instruction on the Extraordinary Form, Universae Ecclesiae.

Link

Stephen Hawking’s dark and dangerous philosophical assumptions

Smarts in one area doesn’t make him an expert in all areas. Perhaps CBS News would like to interview me on string theory? Of course Mr Hawking and many others might object that I wasn’t exactly the best “go-to guy” on this topic. And that would be true. Asking Mr. Hawking to opine on heavenly matters and the psychological makeup of believers is in the same vein as trotting out Hollywood stars to testify before congress as “experts” on global warming, or some other highly technical matter. Mr Hawking’s opinion on believers or the afterlife is of no more value than anyone else. He is entitled to his opinions on this matter, but it doesn’t deserve to be in headlines and is no more true because he is smart in other areas.

Further, I hope you will note a VERY DARK philosophical assumption he makes at the end of the article. Beware, for he is an influential man.

Read more of Msgr. Pope’s article

Some Light Lenten Reading On The Passion of Jesus Christ


(click any graphic to enlarge)

Read “The Passion Behind the Passion”

The late Cardinal Avery Dulles gives us the 15 criteria of authentic Catholic thinking

First, when we look at somebody whose thinking claims to be Catholic, we need (1) to see reasoning within the faith. This requirement frames the operation of the individual thinker, however insightful and creative. Yes, human reason can really reach the truth, but only with the light of faith for all of the important matters of human life. Then the object of the thinker’s inquiry is (2) the God who is knowable. We don’t only have vague metaphors to describe God. Instead, we have real analogies that actually tell us something. God is one, true, good, and beautiful. He is Father, Son, and Spirit, and God is really known in Jesus Christ.

Then too, we must acknowledge (3) the Catholicity of Christ, which is to say that everything came to be through him, “in whom all things hold together, the mighty Word who sustains the world in being.” (Dulles) Fourthly, this truth has a genuine missionary universalism. It actually is the horizon of the meaning of the whole world and needs to be spread to the ends of the earth.

There is (5) an inescapable ecclesial context to this thinking because, “faith is ecclesial in at least three senses, the Church mediates faith, is perceived in faith and is the Great Believer.” The faith of the Church precedes the faith of the individual believer, and so thinkers serving the Church “cannot make themselves accountable in the first instance to secular communities whether academic, political or ethnic, or the like.”

Ten more

Dr. William Oddie: The (present) Novus Ordo is a valid Catholic Mass, written in unambiguous language.

The issues involved, however, will be with us for some time, and still have to be faced, since the casual acceptance of some supposedly “traditionalist” views has done considerable damage. One of these was summed up by one participant in the ongoing Herald debate: his view is essentially that the Novus Ordo is an invalid rite:

“The Novus Ordo does not signify the Catholic theology of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. It is ambiguous – deliberately so – and tends toward giving a Protestant understanding of the Lord’s Supper, which gradually will replace the Catholic Mass in the eyes and psyche of whatever remaining “Catholic” attend it. It is simple: no sacrifice = no need for a sacrificing priest = no need for an altar but merely a table for a commemorative meal over which the presbyter presides and in which the people of God exercise their universal priesthood and so they, not any priest, worship God in their way instead of in His.”

This is a grotesque distortion – no, worse, an actual direct untruth – simply asserted as though it were self-evident. The Novus Ordo is very clearly a valid Catholic liturgy, in which the doctrine of the Mass as sacrifice is both assumed and unambiguously stated. Consider the following, from the current English translation of Eucharistic prayer III:

Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious Resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

Look with favour on your Church’s offering, and see the victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world…

Read more

Editor’s note: Assuming the complete absence of many, popular, wide-spread abuses, the writer is probably correct. Otherwise … not!

A Philosophical Study On Contraception and Chastity – Circa 1972

Roman Catholic thinker (the late) Elizabeth Anscombe reflects on the theological implications of contraception and chastity.

This is a penetrating moral analysis of marriage and sexuality that will benefit any reader who rejects the secularist reduction of marriage as merely a union that sanctions sexual activity between partners.

Short excerpt:

Christianity was at odds with the heathen world, not only about fornication, infanticide and idolatry; but also about marriage. Christians were taught that husband and wife had equal rights in one another’s bodies; a wife is wronged by her husband’s adultery as well as a husband by his wife’s. And Christianity involved non-acceptance of the contemptible role of the female partner in fornication, calling the prostitute to repentance and repudiating respectable concubinage. And finally for Christians divorce was excluded. These differences were the measure, great enough, of the separation between Christianity and the pagan world in these matters. By now, Christian teaching is, of course, known all over the world; and it goes without saying for those in the West that what they call “accepting traditional morals” means counting fornication as wrong – it’s just not a respectable thing. But we ought to be conscious that, like the objection to infanticide, this is a Jewish Christian inheritance. And we should realize that heathen humanity tends to have a different attitude towards both. In Christian teaching a value is set on every human life and on men’s chastity as well as on women’s and this as part of the ordinary calling of a Christian, not just in connection with the austerity of monks. Faithfulness, by which a man turned only to his spouse, forswearing all other women, was counted as one of the great goods of marriage.

But the quarrel is far greater between Christianity and the present-day heathen, post Christian, morality that has sprung up as a result of contraception. In one word: Christianity taught that men ought to be as chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans thought men need be.

And if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contraceptive intercourse, and if it could become general practice everywhere when there is intercourse but ought to be no begetting, then it’s very difficult to see the objection to this morality, for the ground of objection to fornication and adultery was that sexual intercourse is only right in the sort of set-up that typically provides children with a father and mother to care for them. If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don’t mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree but it’s the reproductive type of act) then why, if you can change it, should it be restricted to the married? Restricted, that is, to partners bound in a formal, legal, union whose fundamental purpose is the bringing up of children? For if that is not its fundamental purpose there is no reason why for example “marriage” should have to be between people of opposite sexes. But then, of course, it becomes unclear why you should have a ceremony, why you should have a formality at all. And so we must grant that children are in this general way the main point of the existence of such an arrangement. But if sexual union can be deliberately and totally divorced from fertility, then we may wonder why sexual union has got to be married union. If the expression of love between the partners is the point, then it shouldn’t be so narrowly confined.

The only objection, then, to the new heathen, contraceptive morality will be that the second condition I mentioned – near-universality of contraception where there ought not to be begetting – simply won’t be fulfilled. Against the background of a society with that morality, more and more people will have intercourse with little feeling of responsibility, little restraint, and yet they just won’t be so careful about always using contraceptives. And so the widespread use of contraceptives naturally leads to more and more rather than less and less abortion (The exception to this in the short term is where abortion has been encouraged and contraceptives not available, making contraceptives available then produces an immediate but only temporary reduction in abortions.) Indeed, abortion is now being recommended as a population control measure – a second line of defense.

Read more

Editor’s note: This great work, along with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae ought to be required reading for Catholics … married or single … young or old … gay or straight.

Was Humanae Vitae Prophetic? A look at 40 year old message.

Fr. Z’s advice to seminarian: Smile a lot and keep your mouth shut.

From a seminarian:

I was wondering if you could offer some advice. I am what people in today’s church would call ‘ultra-conservative’ I love the Old Mass, Old Breviary etc. etc. I’m at a very [minor] seminary right now …. The problem is that in a year I’m going to end up being sent by my bishop to a warm and fuzzy pastorally correct seminary for theology.  I’ve seen many people who have a ‘traddy tendencies’ go there and come out very warm and fuzzyish, and most certainly do not want this to happen to me, however, the chances of me being somewhere solid for theology are extremely poor.

Read more

Galileo was wrong: The Bible does not teach how the Heavens go … but rather, how to go to Heaven.


Lima, Peru, Aug 25, 2010 / 10:06 pm (CNA).- In an interview this week with the Peruvian daily El Comercio, physics expert Fr. Manuel Carreira clarified numerous and often misunderstood details about the life of Galileo, also touching on the relationship between faith and science.

The priest confirmed to El Comercio that Galileo “was a believer” and that, despite assumptions to the contrary, “he did not spend one minute behind bars … nor was he excommunicated.” Fr. Carreira added that Galileo “died professing the faith under the care of a religious sister and with a papal blessing.”

Fr. Carreira, who was in Lima for the Second Congress on the Holy Shroud of Turin, said that during Galileo’s time, there was no proof  that the Earth moved around the sun. “His supposed evidence was invalid,” the physicist noted, as well as dismissed by other astronomers.

Galileo’s correct idea, he explained, was that “the Bible does not teach science.” However, the famed astronomer “also wanted theologians to change their interpretation of the text according to his theory.” Although the theologians of his day “were mistaken in thinking that the Bible teaches astronomy,” the priest added, “they were correct in saying that as long as there was no evidence, Galileo should have presented his ideas as a theory and not ask them to change their opinions.”

Read more

Whatever happened to well-read, theologically-knowledgeable heretics?

The modern heretic, all in all, is a different animal. If he has any interest in theology, it’s usually a negative interest; he wishes it would go away. It is an annoying fly in the ointment of his grand scheme to remake the Church in his likeness and image. He usually embraces heresy not because he makes a mistake while pondering theological nuances but because he has accepted the dominant cultural mores and social attitudes and is now intent on remolding Catholicism to fit them, rather than scrutinizing them in the light of Catholic teaching.

The ancient heretics eventually ran up against Church authority and, alas, made bad choices. Modern heretics make bad choices and then try to run over Church authority. “Minds no longer object to the Church,” wrote Abp. Fulton Sheen, “because of the way they think, but because of the way they live. They no longer have difficulty with the Creed, but with her Commandments … Briefly, the heresy of our day is not the heresy of thought; it is the heresy of action.”

Link