The Wanderer continues to pursue the Teresa Kettelkamp story (1, 2, 3).
When contacted she denied being pro-abortion, but wouldn’t provide an explanation as to why she would then associate herself with the Feminist Majority Foundation. She also refused to answer questions about her memo to the US bishops, the remarks she made about parents who didn’t want their children involved in safe environment sex education programs, what the Church teaches about parental rights in this area, or anything else really. She did say that her phones have been ringing off the hook from concerned Catholics around the country.
The Wanderer recommends that readers contact their bishops to ask some questions:
Who at the USCCB was involved in Kettlekampf God (conceding for the moment that gays are born that way, people are born with all kinds of genetic predispositions to bad things; we don’t say it’s ok to indulge them); and most recently on literal 7-day creationism (since I hold the Bible to teach truth).
I’ve come once again to the conclusion (as I have many times before) that most people are not truly opposed to the Church’s teachings. They simply don’t know what the Church actually teaches, just simply what people like Fr. Walter Cuenin tells them it teaches, and so they buy those dissenters’ alternatives as the most Christian and reasonable alternatives.
I would suggest to these people that rather than immerse yourself in stuff that only reinforces your point of view, that you pick up the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the documents of Vatican II, the writings of Pope John Paul, books by authors like Christopher West, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, and others, and read the other point of view. If you’re going to reject the Church’s teaching, then reject it based on what it actually says, not on some flawed understanding.
I think it was Fulton Sheen who said (although Melanie insists it was G.K. Chesterton): There are millions who reject what they think the Church teaches, but there aren’t a hundred who reject what she actually teaches.
Interesting commentary on radio today about Fr. Cuenin by Fr. DiLorenzo.
Said Fr. Cuenin was only teaching the bad theology he learned in the seminary.
Here’s the quote:
“There are not over a 100 people in the U.S. that hate the Catholic Church, there are millions however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
(On the other hand, Chesterton could well have said something similar.)
As the Bishop Sheen quote reminds us, too many Catholics know little about their Church. I heard the old critique today that the “Pope is obsessed about sex.”
It seems to me the opposite is true; the Church’s critics are the ones obsessed.
Then there is the tired argument about there being other sins like fornification, adultery, etc., so why do conservative focus so much on homosexuality being a sin?
Well, homosexuality gets so much attention because of the “in your face” tactics from activists. I cannot recall sash-wearing fornicators organizing protests during Mass, or adulterers demanding that their relationship be blessed, etc.
The Chesterton quote is, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
thank you Fr Clark, that is indeed the Chesterton quote that was lurking in my mind and causing our marital discord.
I found an interesting note in today’s readings for Holy Mass. Perhaps for the first time (I admit!) I paid special notice to the fact that the Good Samaritan poured not only oil (for its soothing properties) but also wine on the wounds of the victim of the robbers.
I had to ask myself, “Why wine?” I imagine because wine is full of alcohol, which cleanses wounds. This cleansing is necessary before binding them up, as we all know. And it also stings, as we also know from the time of our childhood.
The image of Christ as healer is omnipresent in Scripture, but we today often focus only on His “binding up” and “soothing” of our wounds, and neglect—or reject—his cleansing thereof.
The difficulty that many of us have with the many church men and women who focus on Christ’s gentleness is that they do so at the expense of actually excising from the sinner the root cause of his/her ailment. It’s akin to visiting a doctor for a herniated disk and being told that you’re all right the way you are! Affirming, certainly, but is it in any way healing? I think not.
None of us enjoys the sting of treatment, and certainly fewer of us enjoy being diagnosed as ill when we have convinced ourselves that we are fine. But I would argue that this is precisely the job of the physician: to convince the patient that he/she is truly in need of care, and to coax them into accepting the temporary pain associated with long-term healing.
I think that priests, configured to Christ as Healer, abuse their office and dignity when they refuse to diagnose and/or treat spiritual sickness for fear of feeling the brunt of the patient’s rejection.
And I think that priests who do not believe that ALL of us are in some wise sick are, in fact, rejecting Christ and His Cross as necessary for salvation.
I’m sorry that there are people who feel that some of us (myself included) are “hurtful,” or even that some feel that we are “hateful.” But I’m even more afraid that the Just Judge, who has entrusted priests with the exercise of His earthly ministry, will find me guilty of shirking the work He has assigned, to the detriment His people’s eternal salvation.
So I’ll continue to preach The Word; hopefully I will do so with tender care, and hopefully those who hear me will feel that I preach in love rather than hate—but I’ll preach The Word nonetheless.
Thank you for your edifying words, Fr. Clark. God Bless you.
It was Chesterton. I’ve quoted him before, but I can’t find it now.
David—see above.
So Joe, what was the gist of the commentary by Fr. DiLorenzo?
Fr. DiLorenzo was in my area last week for a retreat day (actually 2 minutes from my house!) but I had to work and couldn’t go. I’ve never heard him speak but heard he’s orthodox and dynamic. Where can I hear him on the radio?
As an aside… most of the Our Lady’s parishioners seem to be coming from far and wide… most of those quoted for stories or sound bites seem to be from other than Newton. Wondering if most Catholics from Newton go to Our Lady’s?
for archived broadcasts: http://www.christian.tv/ministries.cfm?display=1014&CFID=78877&CFTOKEN=12800976
or
http://www.inseason.net/r_schedule.htm has the radio schedule
The gist was that Fr. Cuenin truly believes everything he says, because that is what he was taught back in sem’ry in 1965. They were taught that Sodom and Gamhorrah were not about Homosexuality, but about Hospitality, and people breaking into hospitality tents.
It should be rebroadcast this evening and it will be on the website eventually.
My recollection of GKC_author_IP>151.203.241.201
2005-10-03 19:07:13
2005-10-03 23:07:13
“They were taught that Sodom and Gamhorrah were not about Homosexuality, but about Hospitality, and people breaking into hospitality tents. “
Yes, people have quoted that to me before (sigh)…
Goodbye, Good Men…
Fr. Tom DiLorenzo can be heard on WROL AM 950 (Boston area)in the morning, I believe either 11:15 or 11:30 am.
My website, produced after thinking long and hard about these issues, goes into Church teaching for those with same sex attraction:
http://www.ssaml.com