Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Jesuits Lead US Catholics Down Sinkhole - Part I

I normally spend my time commenting on how Evangelical thought and activity poses a threat to Western Culture. This of course takes quite a bit of explaining as, often enough, Evangelicals are among the only people who are standing up, not only by exposing Islam for what it is, but for the plight of Christians in the Middle East - this even though the vast majority of Evangelicals don't even recognize Orthodox and Catholics as Christians in the first place.

Today will be different. In light of the recent developments in which the Obama administration smugly counseled the US Bishops to follow the "enlightened"* advice of the recent editorial in America** magazine in the matter of government-enforced providing of artificial contraception, a post of the current state of the US Catholic Church, especially of its Jesuit Order , is needed.


This is a small exerpt of the article from America Magazine, which is run by the Jesuits, an order which has beome known for, in complete contrast to the directions of its founder, Igantius of Loyola, standing against the Church on a wide variety of issues. In this article, the conclusion is that the Church should do what the governement wants it to do,

"Avoiding Confrontation

Regarding the recent requirement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that health insurance must now cover contraception, this policy is a lamentable failure by the administration to take the religious and moral concerns of Catholic leadership as seriously as they should. " [Italics added]

OK, this is like a judge who start off his decision by making you think that he will rule one way..

"Still, this failure ought not lead to a church/state confrontation."

...Then the authors nail you with this. They pretend to be under the impression that, first of all, that a confrontation has not already been created by the government. Now that they have conveniently denied the existence of a conflict, they make sure that any blame for a confrontation that may occur will lie at the feet of the US Bishops. 

"We would suggest that since the H.H.S. policy mandates insurance coverage of contraception and not its use, Catholic institutions could rightly regard provision of health insurance in line with H.H.S. regulations as a form of “remote or indirect material cooperation” with the contraceptive action the church officially regards as immoral. 
The harm to the common good of not providing full health insurance to employees at Catholic institutions or of separating these institutions from formal connection with the church could be disproportionate."

The authors then go on to suggest that the Church should essentially roll over and just do what the government tells it to do since taking any steps to avoid a practice that departs from its teaching will cause harm. Of course any "harm" that results will be do to the obstinacy of the Church, not the Obama administration.  I am curious what these authors would suggest the Church do the next time a new law or regulation forces them to engage in or provide for other practices that are not in line with its teachings. Would they, say, hold that the Church should perform same-sex marriages if so mandated by the state?

"One need not see the recent H.H.S. ruling as drawing “a line in the sand” or as a direct threat to Catholic religious freedom, as Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has argued. "

If this is not a line in the sand, then what possibly could it be?  The Obama administration is behind every aspect of this law, they knew way ahead of time what it required, and they refused to budge one iota on the issue. The authors in the terribly Leftist and Feminist-influenced Jesuit magazine now affect to be in the position to determine that the President of the US Conference of Bishops just did not get it right. Note that they refer to Cardinal Dolan's argument as if he stands alone in his sentiments.

"Following standard principles of the Catholic moral tradition, some compromise between church and state on this matter can be sought." 

Now, just like democracy gets redefined*** to mean the redistribution of property and the dismantling of capitalism, now the "standard principles of Catholic moral tradition" is spun to justify paying for something that is specifically defined as contrary to the teachings of the Church. Of course the Church is the one that has to shoulder the burden of what, though euphemistically referred to as a "compromise", is in reality simply doing what an unlawful governmental decree requires.

"The Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom” stated that the way government should respond to matters on which there is moral or religious disagreement should be based on a presupposition in favor of freedom. Freedom “is to be respected as far as possible, and curtailed only when and in so far as necessary.” Father Murray added that this means freedom should be limited only so far as necessary to preserve society’s very existence."

Again, the truth is twisted. This time "freedom" is redefined to mean that the Church must effectively actively participate in paying for whatever the government says they must. No mention is made that everyone in the US is free to purchase any legal product that he or she desires, or that freedom has absolutely nothing to do with being provided with free products.

The authors of this article have clearly demonstrated that they have no desire to stand in support of their nation's Bishops in this matter. They prefer that the Bishops simply abandon their stance regardless of what real harm that could very well cause. Religious bodies that bow to civil law and perform required acts that are diametrically opposed to their beliefs lose all credibility. 

Early Christians, far from always being forced to worship the Roman Emperor or pagan Gods, were often pleaded with by exasperated Roman government officials (Who were not in the business of killing off all taxpayers), to sacrifice to the genius (Spirit, - not his intelligence) of the head of the Roman state. The officials then too thought that they had found a way to get the stubborn adherents of this Jewish offshoot-sect to perform an act (As little as a pinch of offered incense) that would not hurt anyone and would prevent the believers from being executed. This too could easily have been perceived as a reasonable compromise which would be in line with "standard principles of Catholic moral tradition". 

The Christians would not cooperate with this either, and the Church became all the stronger for it. Instead of slowly dying out, as did most of the other new religions that were popping up in the Empire during the first three centuries of the Church, the examples of the Christians went a long way in assuring others of their credibility, their willingness to suffer for their faith, and the level of their faith itself.

America Magazine, founded in 1909, when those of  the Church stood together, has exemplified the sorry state of much of the US Catholic Church. It is permeated by Leftists, Feminists, and others whose only intentions are to peel away every appreciable facet of the Church until nothing is left except for a feel-good, second-class social justice partner of the government. This is exactly what Bishop Spong***wanted to do with the Episcopalian Church. The Jesuits were, if not at the forefront, certainly cheerleading behind the scenes during the wild 90's push for women priests, even to the point of tacitly endorsing women of the "We Are Church" - types as they engaged in play-acting the consecration of the Host while pretending that their "priestly" actions were not a clear example of the origin  of all sin, superbia (Pride). The seminaries+ that are run by Jesuits are absolute disasters where immorality runs rampant, the greatest minds in the history of the Church are derided, and "masses" are celebrated in styles that do nothing other than subject the liturgy to mockery. The worst example of the Jesuit seminaries is the treatment of all sincere, manly, and devout seminarians who, respecting the Church, its teachings, and its practices, are subject to humiliation, ostracizing, abuse in classes, and Soviet-style ordered visits to psychologists. These visits result in a prompt labeling of the  young men as reactionary, neurotic,  homophobic, etc, and earn the aspiring priests an evaluation of being not fit for the priesthood. (See link at bottom)

Having said that, I applaud the Bishops of my country. Both Orestes Brownson and Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that the US was the best possible place for the Catholic Church to reach its potential for true application and adherence to its teachings without being tied down with old world holdovers such as being connected to the state. If the Obama administration gets a win out of this (And to them everything is a win-lose situation) they will consider themselves unstoppable. 

**** Note that America also ran an article in which a new term with which I was unfamiliar was used.
"Economic democracy" may not be new to you, but it was to me. The concept, though, was not new to me. I posted about this very idea a couple of days ago. In the post I describe the tactics of the Left as they seek to paint Democracy to mean something entirely contrary to what it actually is. The Left wants us to believe that Democracy is about taking the property of others, not protecting it. Below is my post on that subject. Below that is the article in America, which in a terribly dishonest manner, accuses the police of being too rough (You have got to be kidding me) in removing Occupy protesters who clearly were long in violation of all sorts of laws, especially those that govern public assemblies, and throws out the 'Economic Democracy" term, thus implying that such a thing actually exists.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Thank you.
      Your comment helped in another way. I went back and reread most of the post and found two typos. I must be the world's worst typist.