Next Up on Wheel of Heresy…the Jesuit Superior General!

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesuit-superior-satan-is-a-symbolic-reality-60691

I swear, some of the Jesuits are just bucking to have a heresy named after them. “The Jesuitical Heresy” or “Jesuiticism” maybe? It’ll be hard to pin down exactly what defines it, though, since they have chosen sooooo many to embrace. The “Kitchen Sink Heresy” perhaps?  I’m sure the readers will come up with some doozies.

Vatican City, Aug 21, 2019 / 01:44 pm (CNA).- The superior general of the Society of Jesus said Aug. 21 that the devil is a symbol, but not a person.

The devil, “exists as the personification of evil in different structures, but not in persons, because is not a person, is a way of acting evil. He is not a person like a human person. It is a way of evil to be present in human life,” Fr. Arturo Sosa, SJ, said Wednesday in an interview with Italian magazine Tempi.

He’s bending truth again. True, the devil is not a person. The devil is a fallen angelic being.  But he’s very real, despite the fact that many Jesuits have been trying to dispel this reality forever.

We’ve been told time and again by many holy people that one of the devil’s main tactics is to try to get us to believe he does not exist.  The Superior General is using that tactic himself. What does that tell you about him?

From the Catechism regarding the fall:

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”272

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”275

And…

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279”

And…

A hard battle. . .

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

Lastly…

IN BRIEF

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

Fr. Sosa goes on…

“Good and evil are in a permanent war in the human conscience and we have ways to point them out. We recognize God as good, fully good. Symbols are part of reality, and the devil exists as a symbolic reality, not as a personal reality,” he added.

Sosa’s remarks came after he participated in a panel discussion at a Catholic gathering in Rimini, Italy, organized by the Communion and Liberation ecclesial movement.

Sorry, Fr. Sosa. The devil is a real being, not a state of the mind.

The Catechism of the Catholic teaches that “Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: ‘The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.’”

Angels, the Catechism says, are “spiritual, non-corporeal beings.”

“They are personal and immortal creatures,” it adds, who “have intelligence and will.”

Tsk..tsk…tsk..Father Sosa! It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that non-corporeal beings are fantasy or merely symbolic. There is really one of three things going on here: (1) you are stupid enough to think this; (2) Satanists in Ottawa that just held a black mass have more of belief in the devil, the Real Presence and Christ than you; or (3) you know darn well the devil is way more than merely symbolic and you are doing his will in promoting that he does not exist. Which is it?

Sosa, 70, was elected the Jesuits’ superior general in 2016. A Venezuelan, he has a pontifical licentiate in philosophy and a doctorate in political science. He served as a Jesuit provincial superior in Venezuela from 1996 to 2004, and in 2014 began an administrative role at the general curia of the Jesuits in Rome.

OK, I guess I left one off: (4) he’s 70 and dementia is kicking in? Look, I’m not saying many Jesuits don’t believe EXACTLY as Fr. Sosa, but at least they’re cunning enough not to spell it out.  I’m guessing he’ll be getting a pink slip soon.

Sosa has offered controversial comments about Satan in the past. In 2017, he told El Mundo that “we have formed symbolic figures such as the Devil to express evil.”

After his 2017 remark generated controversy, a spokesman said that “like all Catholics, Father Sosa professes and teaches what the Church professes and teaches. He does not hold a set of beliefs separate from what is contained in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

Oh, all’s good then. Not.

 

Where Has All the Affective Maturity Gone?

Wow! I have been watching the Jesuit spin machine.  It’s been set on high the last few days. They have been in such a frenzy, they’re tying themselves in knots! The pope has been saying the exact same thing for years now and the liberals know it so I’m not sure it’s worth their effort. Yes, we have homosexual clergy and religious (and yes, he uses that title Fr. Martin so despises), but that doesn’t mean we should stop saying this is imprudent and knowingly let them get to their final vows and promises.

In new book on clergy and religious life, Pope Francis addresses homosexuality

<snip>

“The issue of homosexuality is a very serious issue that must be adequately discerned from the beginning with the candidates, if that is the case. We have to be exacting. In our societies it even seems that homosexuality is fashionable and that mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the Church,” the pope says in the book “The Strength of a Vocation,” set to be released Dec. 3 in ten languages.

What?  “Very serious issue”?   What happened to Fr. Martin and homosexuality’s “special gifts”??? No wonder why he’s working so hard to say that isn’t really what the Holy Father is saying.  I’ve sat here all weekend watching him tweet things like “disingenuous”, “not what he said”, etc. Poor guy, grasping at straws only to find they’ve been banned.

In an excerpt from the book, released Friday by Religión Digital, the pope said he is concerned about the issue of evaluating and forming people with homosexual tendencies in the clergy and consecrated life.

“This is something I am concerned about, because perhaps at one time it did not receive much attention,” he said.

He is right to be concerned. I’m not so sure it hasn’t been given much attention in the last few decades, but it is VERY concerning. Sadly, at least in American seminaries, huge efforts have instead been made to accommodate, recruit and enable homosexuality in the priesthood. In fact, I think it’s fair to say, in many areas heterosexual men have been drummed out of seminary under the “too rigid” canard. They’re the ones who had to sit down and keep their mouths shut if they had any hope of getting to their vocation. So, yes, I’d say homosexuality during formation got a lot of attention – just the wrong kind.

Francis said that with candidates for the priesthood or religious life “we have to take great care during formation in the human and affective maturity. We have to seriously discern, and listen to the voice of experience that the Church also has. When care is not taken in discerning all of this, problems increase. As I said before, it can happen that at the time perhaps they didn’t exhibit [that tendency], but later on it comes out.”

This has really got to rain on the LGBTSJ parade. He just said we have to listen to the experience of the Church which has consistently said that homosexuals should not be admitted to the clergy and religious life. He’s also suggesting serious vetting to make sure there is no homosexual tendency. Wow! Kind of sounds like what a huge chunk of people have been saying for YEARS!!! And here I thought we were super mean for saying that???

Still, let me tell you what the spin is on this is going to be: “Well, of course we have to educate people on integrating their sexuality and their vocation. It’s not that the pope doesn’t think gays should be in the priesthood, it’s just that they need to be educated.” 

“The issue of homosexuality is a very serious issue that must be adequately discerned from the beginning with the candidates, if that is the case,” the pope reiterated.

Francis recalled that one time “I had a somewhat scandalized bishop here who told me that he had found out that in his diocese, a very large diocese, there were several homosexual priests and that he had to deal with all that, intervening, above all, in the formation process, to form a different group of clergy.”

Umm, please note that the Holy Father didn’t say that this bishop was a big meanie nor that he was wrong to intervene in the formation process that allowed ordination of several homosexual priests. (Apparently Pope Francis didn’t get the memo from Fr. Martin that we are supposed to call them “gay”, not “homosexual”, because that’s their preference. He’s apparently as disrespectful as the rest of us.) Pope Francis is saying that this is what needs to be done.

“It’s a reality we can’t deny. There is no lack of cases in the consecrated life either. A religious told me that, on a canonical visit to one of the provinces in his congregation, he was surprised. He saw that there were good young students and even some already professed religious who were gay,” he related.

The pope said that the religious “wondered if it were an issue and asked me if there was something wrong with that.” Francis said he was told by one religious superior that the issue was not “that serious, it’s just an expression of an affection.”

Let’s take time to ponder this. Nowhere did the Holy Father nor the religious superior indicate that these religious who were homosexual were committing homosexual acts.  Meanwhile, Fr. Martin has been working overtime to equate “affection” with “homosexual acts” while at the same time telling everyone else, “the pope didn’t say that.” Well, hello, Fr. Martin! The Holy Father didn’t say the religious superior was wondering if it was OK for his guys to have homosexual sex! Geez.

“That’s a mistake,” Francis warned. “It’s not just an expression of an affection. In consecrated and priestly life, there’s no room for that kind of affection. Therefore, the Church recommends that people with that kind of ingrained tendency should not be accepted into the ministry or consecrated life. The ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.”

BOOM! No, it’s not another earthquake in Alaska. Several Jesuit heads just exploded all at once. Just for fun, I looked up “affection.” Nowhere is the definition sex of any kind nor is it a verb. Oops.

“af·fec·tion /əˈfekSH(ə)n/ noun

  1. a gentle feeling of fondness or liking”

 

We “have to urge homosexual priests, and men and women religious to live celibacy with integrity, and above all, that they be impeccably responsible, trying to never scandalize either their communities or the faithful holy people of God by living a double life. It’s better for them to leave the ministry or the consecrated life rather than to live a double life.”

Fr. Martin and buddies seem quite fond of trying to use this particular quote to say, “See!  It’s OK if gays are allowed to enter the priesthood or religious life as long as they keep their vows and promises!” This is not what Pope Francis is saying in the least. The Holy Father is acknowledging the sad reality that the poor screening (or, in my opinion, reverse screening) has allowed people to make vows and promises that weren’t suited to do so. Those who have been allowed to do so must live chaste, celibate lives and not cause scandal. Duh!  It doesn’t mean that we should keep the status quo of putting them in situations of temptation.   

The pope was asked in the book if there are limits to what can be tolerated in formation.

“Of course. When there are candidates with neurosis, marked imbalances, difficult to channel not even with therapeutic help, they shouldn’t be accepted to either the priesthood or the religious life, They should be helped to take another direction (but they should not be abandoned. They should be guided, but they should not be admitted. Let us always bear in mind that they are persons who are going to live in the service of the Church, of the Christian community, of the people of God. Let’s not forget that perspective. We have to care for them so they are psychologically and affectively healthy,” the pope replied.

Umm, he just paraphrased “Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood”, a document Fr. Martin and ilk would rather you didn’t know about, so please give it a read. 

10. It is possible that the candidate – notwithstanding his own commitment and the support of the psychologist, or psychotherapy – could continue to show himself unable to face realistically his areas of grave immaturity – even given the gradual nature of all human growth. Such areas of immaturity would include strong affective dependencies; notable lack of freedom in relations; excessive rigidity of character; lack of loyalty; uncertain sexual identity; deep-seated homosexual tendencies; etc. If this should be the case, the path of formation will have to be interrupted.

The same is also true if it becomes evident that the candidate has difficulty living chastity in celibacy: that is, if celibacy, for him, is lived as a burden so heavy that it compromises his affective and relational equilibrium.”

Just like Pope Francis, nowhere does this document say that one simply has to keep to chastity and celibacy to enter the priesthood. Evidence that one cannot is just one more reason to bar them from formation. Uncertain sexual identity and deep-seated homosexual tendencies are enough.

Another little document (and by little I mean big) that Fr. Martin and friends don’t want you to know about is “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders”:

This document states that:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Can you see why the LGBTSJ crowd and those that support calling them that might not want you to see this document??? Seminarians are not even supposed to “support the so-called ‘gay culture’” to be admitted to seminary, and we’ve got way too many priests already ordained who participate in “pride parades!” 

Why aren’t they supposed to be allowed? Oh, yes, there is one very good reason.

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women

Both of these important documents on admission to the priesthood talk of “affective maturity.” We need to get this back into the discussion because it is very important, yet the homosexual lobby (can people really deny there’s one of these anymore?) doesn’t understand it in the least. I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen the term used in America Magazine lately, if ever. Pope John Paul II tells us what it is and why it’s a decisive factor for the priesthood in “Pastores Dabo Vobis” (emphasis mine).

In this context affective maturity, which is the result of an education in true and responsible love, is a significant and decisive factor in the formation of candidates for the priesthood.

  1. Affective maturity presupposes an awareness that love has a central role in human life. In fact, as I have written in the encyclical Redemptor Hominis, “Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself; his life is meaningless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it.(126)

We are speaking of a love that involves the entire person, in all his or her aspects – physical, psychic and spiritual – and which is expressed in the “nuptial meaning” of the human body, thanks to which a person gives oneself to another and takes the other to oneself. A properly understood sexual education leads to understanding and realizing this “truth” about human love. We need to be aware that there is a widespread social and cultural atmosphere which “largely reduces human sexuality to the level of something commonplace, since it interprets and lives it in a reductive and impoverished way by linking it solely with the body and with selfish pleasure.“(127) Sometimes the very family situations in which priestly vocations arise will display not a few weaknesses and at times even serious failings.

In such a context, an education for sexuality becomes more difficult but also more urgent. It should be truly and fully personal and therefore should present chastity in a manner that shows appreciation and love for it as a “virtue that develops a person’s authentic maturity and makes him or her capable of respecting and fostering the ‘nuptial meaning’ of the body.”(128)

Education for responsible love and the affective maturity of the person are totally necessary for those who, like the priest, are called to celibacy, that is, to offer with the grace of the Spirit and the free response of one’s own will the whole of one’s love and care to Jesus Christ and to his Church. In view of the commitment to celibacy, affective maturity should bring to human relationships of serene friendship and deep brotherliness a strong, lively and personal love for Jesus Christ. As the synod fathers have written, “A love for Christ, which overflows into a dedication to everyone, is of the greatest importance in developing affective maturity. Thus the candidate, who is called to celibacy, will find in affective maturity a firm support to live chastity in faithfulness and joy.”(129)

Since the charism of celibacy, even when it is genuine and has proved itself, leaves one’s affections and instinctive impulses intact, candidates to the priesthood need an affective maturity which is prudent, able to renounce anything that is a threat to it, vigilant over both body and spirit, and capable of esteem and respect in interpersonal relationships between men and women. A precious help can be given by a suitable education to true friendship, following the image of the bonds of fraternal affection which Christ himself lived on earth (cf. Jn. 11:5). 

Human maturity, and in particular affective maturity, requires a clear and strong training in freedom, which expresses itself in convinced and heartfelt obedience to the “truth of one’s own being, to the “meaning” of one’s own existence, that is to the “sincere gift of self” as the way and fundamental content of the authentic realization of self.(130) Thus understood, freedom requires the person to be truly master of oneself, determined to fight and overcome the different forms of selfishness and individualism which threaten the life of each one, ready to open out to others, generous in dedication and service to one’s neighbor. This is important for the response that will have to be given to the vocation, and in particular to the priestly vocation, and for faithfulness to it and to the commitments connected with it, even in times of difficulty. On this educational journey toward a mature, responsible freedom, the community life of the seminary can provide help.(131)

So, I’m just going to say it. I don’t see affective maturity in priests who are more focused on “coming out,” encouraging others to “come out”, etc. Instead, I see them acting in a manner that “largely reduces human sexuality to the level of something commonplace, since it interprets and lives it in a reductive and impoverished way by linking it solely with the body and with selfish pleasure.” JPII NAILED IT! Our priests need affective maturity so they can correctly relate to men and women. This is why I’ve said before that I don’t want my priests to consider themselves “gay priests” or “heterosexual priests.”  I just want them to consider themselves faithful priests. The pro-LGBTQXYZ clergy and religious are striving for the wrong title. They wouldn’t know affective maturity if it bit them in the behind.

  

 

 

The Low Bar of Loyola Marymount

I was looking more at Loyola Marymount since I’ve had a lot of responses to the blog posts on them.  I also confess they’re the proverbial accident at which I can’t help but look.  I perused their website.  http://www.lmu.edu/  You know that little navigation bar at the top?  I clicked on buttons until I finally found one that had anything remotely to do with the Faith under “student life” and that was “campus ministry.” Finally made it to the final “about” button and this is what they list:

“The Jesuit education we provide is a diverse academic community rich in opportunities for intellectual engagement and real-world experience.  We enroll an academically ambitious, multicultural, and socioeconomically diverse student body.  We recruit, retain and support a diverse faculty committed to excellence in teaching, research, scholarship and creativity.”

Diverse, diverse, multi-cultural, blah, blah, blah.  How about more on the Faith.  I think they should just remove the Catholic thing all together. 

That’s all for Catholicism folks.  Those two little sections.  Maybe I missed some other areas but they were buried.  Not a top issue for them.

Of course, splashed on the front page is Bill Clinton, their commencement speaker this year.  Yes, that Bill Clinton.  You know, the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, serial philanderer Bill Clinton.  Awesome pick, LMU.  Could you ever find a guy closer to that good old “Ignatian Spirituality” than Bill Clinton? (Notice the quotations? Yes, it’s sarcasm, in case any of the 3% of faithful, Catholic Jesuits who are trying to preserve authentic Ignatian Spirituality were worried)

What was really disturbing, found again under “student life”, was a link that caught my attention.  LMU CARES: Living the Lion’s Code.  Lion’s Code?  How cool.  So I checked out and here’s what I saw on a scrolling slide show.  Here’s some screen captures of the whole gory thing.

LMU

And…

LMU2

“Stand in faith?”  Where’s the faith in that?

And I found this lovely little tip sheet:

http://studentaffairs.lmu.edu/lmucares/whatisconsent/tipstools/

Well thank heavens they didn’t bog these kids down with all that Church teaching on respect, dignity, human sexuality, etc.  This is a far better approach.  “Don’t rape people!”  You know, because “Just say ‘no’” worked so well.  Let’s definitely not mention “Theology of the Body”, chastity, or consequences (other than jail time and expulsion) for their actions.  Don’t mention it at all.  And, please, keep bringing in the moral paragons like Bill Clinton.  What better example can you find of how not to be a rapist? Oh, wait…

Let’s take in the messages on these pictures.  I truly hope these were stock pics and these young men aren’t attached to this crud forever.  These pictures portray anything but respect and honor for a woman.  Let me explain to you boys: not raping someone does not equal respect and honor.  It equals not being quite the brutal animals some are.  Can we set a little higher standard than that?  How about being men and women of self-control and self-mastery?  Whoa!  There’s a thought.

If these young men respected and honored their “partners”, they wouldn’t put them in a situation to use birth control which is detrimental to their health, birth control that is going to fail, convince them to engage in activity that has a good shot at putting them in an unintended pregnancy situation.  And, as Catholics who have a clue (clues are not being doled out at LMU), they wouldn’t aid and abet damaging someone’s mortal soul. That would be respect and honor.

Now, before some college kid drops by to say “We live in the real world you old lady!”, don’t.  You have no idea how real my world is. I’d love, love, love to live in a faithful Catholic bubble but I don’t have that luxury.  That said, I know tons of people who are my age (which is going to look a lot younger when you get here) and a lot your age who didn’t or aren’t sleeping together before marriage who also live in the “real world.”  Why?  For starters, they were taught that true respect and honor meant more than not raping someone.  Next, they were taught Catholicism!  What a novel idea.  While the idea is catching on in the secular world, the disease-free, baggage-free, emotionally mature folks are almost always the one who practice some sort of faith.  They’re the ones playing the long game for eternal salvation and they understand true love is wanting your “partner” to get to heaven, not simply to give you pleasure.  They value sex, sexuality, and the dignity of each individual.  Their reward for this attitude in marriage is a deeper bond with their spouse and more enjoyment of sex because it wasn’t “done to death” and trivialized with several partners.  It was seen as something sacred and beautiful, not a hobby.  It holds the “wow!” factor and is treated as such.  

Those Catholic values that you’ve been cheated out of at LMU are just the opposite of what you’ve been taught.  You’ve been taught that they are oppressive when they are really the most freeing thing you’ll ever know.  But, hey, let’s use Bill Clinton as a role model of someone who understands healthy relationships.  Then you can all go out, ignore the Faith and, as he said, “Set the world on fire!” That should pretty much result with the an out of control flame leaving scorched earth and devastation in its wake.  Good luck with that!

 

Loyola Marymount and the Thought Police

OK, I haven’t delved into this story since so many sane people already have, but I just can’t take it anymore!  Not going to quote much, so read it yourself:  http://www.dailywire.com/news/5338/catholic-college-employee-investigated-police-amanda-prestigiacomo

First of all, I think we can all agree (or we at least have to face the facts) that the AVERAGE college student/millennial’s maturity has been severely stunted.  I really can’t figure out why.  Maybe Gen X tried to make life a little too comfortable for their kids?  Haven’t we heard a million times that we should make the lives of future generations better than our own?  Maybe that was the problem.  Society removed a few too many obstacles and now these kids are just bored and lost.  Whatever the reason, they are just plain immature.

Because of their stunted maturity, I’d like to suggest that these kids totally qualify under Matthew 18:6-7 and that the vast majority of the faculty of Loyola Marymount (a Jeusit college – a shocker, I know) might want to go find their milltones, because you’re going to have to pay up for what you’ve promoted at your school.  It may have started in their childhood with their parents, or possibly the twelve years of Catholic schooling they received before they ever got to you, but you’ve added insult to injury, and everyone who molded these students is going to face a reckoning.

And if anyone hurts the conscience of one of these little ones, that believe in me, he had better have been drowned in the depths of the sea, with a mill-stone hung about his neck. 7 Woe to the world, for the hurt done to consciences! It must needs be that such hurt should come, but woe to the man through whom it comes!

Do you think Loyola Marymount remembered it was the “Year of Mercy” before they started to investigate and have the police investigate their own staff member for a hate crime???  Probably not.  Mercy only goes one way with these people.  The ONLY person who has shown any mercy in this story is the employee who bothered to share a shred of truth with the students on that campus.  Thank you, unnamed employee.  You appeared to have known that this was going to be an issue, yet you trudged forth anyway. Your reward will be great in heaven. 

So let’s look at some facts here:

  • Loyola Marymount doesn’t actually believe in science, so if you’re thinking of science as a degree, I’d rule that one out. There are only two genders.  It’s totally biological and it’s in our DNA and cannot be separated nor changed.
  • Loyola Marymount has a Bias Incident Response Team which, apparently, is called in to weed out faithful Catholics. What is BIRT you may ask? 

 

BIRT’s Charge

The purpose of BIRT is to manage institutional communication and university-wide responses to incidents where bias may be a factor. Duties include making recommendations to the president on proposed responses, developing university communication protocols, and reviewing bias incident reports.

 

Excerpt from LMU’s Non-Discrimination Policy Concerning Biased Incidents

The university does not tolerate hate crimes or bias-motivated incidents and will respond to them with appropriate sanctions, which may include: for students, expultion [sic – too bad a Catholic university can’t be bothered with something as basic as proper spelling!], suspension, or exclusion from the campus; for faculty and staff, disciplinary action up to and including termination. Students, faculty, or staff who experience or witness any form of hate crime or bias-motiavted [sic – ditto on spelling properly] incident should immediately report it to the Department of Public Safety.

 

One of the students reported an employee for espousing the teachings of the Catholic Church on a Catholic campus?!?  Color me Catholic, but aren’t we supposed to be biased TOWARD Catholicism?!?!?!  We do consider it Truth, after all.  Well, at least some of us do.  Not entirely sure about most of the Jesuits. 

  • Which brings me to the fact that Loyola Marymount considers teaching Catholicism and science to be a hate crime. 

Seriously, the words “thought police” now have some actual meaning outside of the dystopian novel “1984.”  By the way, if you haven’t already and you want to have your kids really see what’s going on in today’s world, you might want to have them read it. 

Remember when universities were promoted as “a place for the free exchange of ideas?”  “Free” has been abused to the hilt.  There is no more looking at opposing views, trying to understand them, and figuring out ways to debate them.  Universities (especially Jesuit ones) no longer want opposing view even discussed.  Nope.  Cannot even be uttered.  Those with opposing views are marginalized, ostracized, and now, prosecuted.  Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

  • Loyola Marymount chooses to completely ignore Pope Francis’ comments on the little game they’re trying to play. 

Here’s a nice compilation: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-paul-kengor/pope-francis-vs-demon-gender-theory  Ouch!  What do you say, Loyola Marymount?  Going to call out the BIRT on him too?

And then there’s Pope Benedict.  They don’t just ignore him, they rail against him.  They really don’t want anyone to see his explanation on gender and nature.  He’s definitely hateful and, BTW, he was part of the Hitler Youth. Who are they going to call out for him?  BIRT might be a little to light weight.   http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html (emphasis mine):

While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

 

Does anyone find it ironic that you find more “free thinking” people at a faithful Catholic university than at a liberal university who considers them to be “oppressive”, “narrow-minded”, “hateful”, and “judgmental”? I love watching the kids come out of these schools where they supposedly teach nothing but hate.  I’ve seen people walk up to these students and practically spit in their face about some point of the faith, yet they will respond with a “Let’s talk about that,” which either shocks and amazes the person or sends their head spinning.  They don’t actually know how to have a conversation.  They only know how to hatefully espouse their opinion.  Listening, studying, and understanding another person is a foreign concept.  All they can do is say, “hate, hate, hate, hate.”  Again, rather ironic.  Where’s the love and mercy there?  There isn’t any.  True love and mercy is not found in these liberal, Jesuit schools.  They have utterly failed their students.  They sacrificed compassion a long time ago for the sake of political correctness.

The scariest part about this whole story?  This:

Carleo said, “‘[Y]ou can have your opinion’ as long as it doesn’t ‘deny my existence,’

Since the unnamed employee obviously thought she was having a conversation with somebody, it’s not about denying anyone’s existence.  This is about Carleo and club denying freedom of speech and religion.  Carleo is saying that the unnamed employee cannot have an opinion if it contradicts the one? Apparently the supposed ROMAN CATHOLIC Loyola Marymount University wholeheartedly agrees!

Sad and pathetic, but I’ve come to expect that from a school run by Jesuits. 

 

 

USF: Traditional, Progressive or Door #3?

I’m sure all sorts of strange noises of shock and exasperation came out of my mouth as I was reading this:

https://sffoghorn.org/2016/04/21/traditional-progressive-both/

And then this came out before I could even get an article written:

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4847/USF-Basketball-Coach-Doesn%E2%80%99t-Want-Faithful-Catholics-on-the-Team.aspx

So, you’re going to get a two-fer.  Let’s take them one at a time.

It’s taken me awhile to process this boatload of fantastical theories.  It rather epitomizes why the vast majority of schools bearing the “Catholic” moniker are a danger to society.  I mean, people actually believe what is spewed here is Catholic!

Traditional, Progressive, Both?

How about neither?  I choose door number three.  Dissenting is probably what that door would be labeled.  No progress is being made.  In fact, we’re kind of stepping back to the decadence and debauchery of ancient Rome or Greece at the University of San Francisco.  Without a doubt, it’s anything but traditional unless you’re counting lunacy as some sort of tradition.

The tall, dark wooden doors of the St. Ignatius Church are open every day from dusk ’til dawn, yet a relatively small fraction of the USF’s students are seen among the pews. Metal crosses decorate the front walls of many classrooms in the Lone Mountain building, though only a handful can be seen in any of the newer classrooms down the hill. The prevalence of the school’s religious identity appears to have slowly but surely weakened on campus over the years.

The school’s religious identity has slowly but surely weakened?  I don’t think so.  Unless slow and sure means 100 miles per hour in a Midwestern thunderstorm.  That said, most of USF sees things through a myopic lens, so 50 years for them is FOREVER.  Wait until they find out how long eternal life and hell last.  What a wakeup call that’s going to be.  Unfortunately, I’m reasonably sure it’s not considered much there.

A majority of students are mainly attracted to USF because of its liberal and open-minded reputation. While the University is proud of its close connection to the progressive city of San Francisco, it also has a deep Jesuit Catholic identity. At times, it’s hard for some people, students especially, to reconcile these two aspects of USF.

Deep Jesuit identity?  Again, people need look at the history in total.  It’s not just one person’s lifetime.   Does anyone see the “Jesuit Catholic identity” of their founders in the vast majority of today’s Jesuits?  One would have to wonder if these kids actually know the names of Jesuit saints.  There are not two aspects of USF, just the one, liberal, open-minded one, progressive (or the stupid one, as those of us with some knowledge and sanity would say).

As she cautiously sipped her freshly brewed latte in the cafeteria in the University Center, Consuelo Reyes, a sophomore communications major, explained her initial attraction to USF. Reyes said, “[I could] see honesty, progressiveness, sincerity, and integrity rooted in the values that this school had when it came to education.”

How about Catholicism?  Anyone? Not important?  Didn’t think so.

At the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, USF President the Rev. Paul Fitzgerald, S.J. spoke at the annual faculty and staff meeting. During his talk, he proposed a conversation on the Jesuit university experience. In an email response to questions about his proposal, Fitzgerald wrote, “[I] asked deans and directors to have conversations with their team members about how well we are fulfilling the vision statement that we articulated back in 2008.” He explained that the first round of conversations would discuss USF’s Catholic and Jesuit tradition while the other “four essential features” of this tradition would be part of later conversations.

As director of USF’s University Ministry, Julia Dowd has been involved in these conversations at USF. She said that although Catholicism gets a bad rap in society these days, “It’s important to claim who we actually are because if we don’t, other people get to claim what ‘religious’ looks like.

Ummm… Honey, you don’t get to explain what Catholicism is.  You don’t get to define it.  You don’t get to shape or change it.  It is what it is, and anyone can look to Her teachings to see Her.  What does “religious” look like?  Who the heck cares when the school you attend doesn’t even teach the True Faith?

A year ago, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone sparked conflict with many local Catholics with his decision to require teachers at Catholic high schools to sign a morality clause that depicts sex outside of marriage and same sex relationships as “evil.”

Holy Moses!  Do your homework, dear student reporter!  THIS IS WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES!!!  This isn’t some new and exciting teaching Archbishop Cordileone invented.  HE WAS CITING THE TEACHING OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!  Get it through your thick skulls, liberals.  If you don’t like it, fine.  Just admit that it is so and that you dissent from it.  Stop this whole “Isn’t the Archbishop a great big meanie?!” routine and admit that you HATE the teaching of the Faith you profess.  I mean, a little honesty would be nice.

In opposition to the archbishop’s edict, 100 prominent Roman Catholic donors and church members, including many Catholic educators, former Catholic Charities board members and executives, and the father of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady Jr., published a full-page open letter in the San Francisco Chronicle that asked Pope Francis to replace Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. The signers wrote, “Archbishop Cordileone has fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance.”

Or, as most of us can see, the Archbishop is teaching the exact same thing as Pope Francis.  You know what’s funny?  The non-Catholic flaming liberals point this out on a regular basis.  Sadly, they’re a little more honest than the Catholics. 

Among the signers of the letter was Charles Geschke, whose family name is on USF’s Geschke Center and who served USF’s Board of Trustees for about 18 years.

Via a phone conversation, Geschke who went to a Jesuit high school, a Jesuit university, and taught at a Jesuit college for about five years, said he signed the letter because, “As a lifelong Catholic and very involved in Catholic causes, I didn’t feel he [Cordileone] represented my viewpoints on what it means to be a Christian in a pluralistic world.”

Oh Mr. High and Mighty, heaven forbid the Archbishop doesn’t represent your viewpoints!  Because, you know, that’s oh so important.  The megalomania of these rich, liberal Catholics is staggering.  Pluralistic world?  Does the word “missionaries” mean anything to you?  Again, might be nice if you knew just a bit about the Jesuit missionaries after your Jesuit high school and college tenure.

The archbishop’s action has made it more difficult for some students to associate with Catholicism because of his exclusivity. When asked about the significance of Cordileone’s stance, Reyes said, “It’s important to recognize and respect each individual student’s decision to either engage religiously throughout their academic career or not.”

How about this?  It’s important for the students’ moral souls to teach them just what the Catholic Faith is.  What a thought!  Imagine a Catholic school trying to help people gain heaven!  Nobody is putting a gun to these students’ heads and making them accept Catholicism.  They can accept or reject it, but that doesn’t mean a Catholic school or a Catholic bishop shouldn’t do everything possible to teach authentic Catholicism.  The only threats being made here are to the Archbishop. 

In addition to the archbishop sending a bold and conservative message to the San Francisco Catholic community, last summer Fitzgerald faced a situation which seemed to represent the tension between Catholic principles and his own apparently more liberal views. Fitzgerald attended the San Francisco Pride Parade with others from USF in support of LGBTQ+ members. This happened the same week he removed a tweet an assistant in the university’s communications office sent out under USF’s Twitter account in support of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage the law of the land. When the tweet was criticized by conservative Catholic groups, Fitzgerald issued a statement that said the tweet did not reflect the views of USF. This caused some confusion and upset among USF students: if even their own president was having trouble expressing to his multi-layered identity, how were they supposed to have an easier time?

Oh, believe me, Fr. Fitzgerald doesn’t have any Catholic principles, so his liberal views aren’t in conflict with anything other than authentic Catholicism and he really doesn’t give a rip about that.  I’m quite sure the only reason for a tweet retraction is that someone with money wasn’t too happy.  Money is the only thing that could possibly stop Fr. Fitzgerald from erasing every last trace of Catholicism.  Might be the only reason crosses still exist on that campus.

“It’s clearly a sensitive and relevant topic, I mean for students for faculty for staff, everyone, for Father Fitzgerald. Right?” said Conor Smith, a USF resident minister. “So I think it’s a great question to be asking like where does the university stand on some of these issues and is the university’s stance necessarily reflective of the student body and the staff and faculty who work here.”

LOL!  It sounds like the liberals a starting to turn on each other.  I’m all for Conor Smith’s proposal.  Let’s hear the answer, Fr. Fitzgerald!  Well?  Come on, let’s just put the cards on the table.  I’m sure young Conor doesn’t understand the careful balance of donor money.  We probably should let Conor in on the fact that money really does make the liberals’ world go ‘round.

The identity formation dilemma for students at USF is nuanced and multifaceted. Attempting to address all parts of a student’s identity and not compromise their progressive ideals (for those who have them) is not an easy task for a Jesuit university to accomplish, though it is critical to acknowledge the multiple layers of students identities — which seems to be the goal of these conversations. The root of the tension for USF lies in balancing students’ identities with modern times, all while maintaining the core Jesuit and Catholic education principles.

Interviews with various members of USF’s community revealed a range of reactions to this tension. Reyes explained her battle with this tension and her concerns about coming across as hypocritical. Although she is currently not practicing Catholicism as she has in the past, she is worried that if she were to return to practicing, her progressive values would conflict with Catholic rules.

Let me just clear this up for you, Ms. Reyes.  Yes, your progressive values would be in conflict with Catholic truths (or doctrines, as those who actually practice the Faith call them.)  Full disclosure: you will also most likely find yourself in conflict with the Catechism, Canon Law, and a lot of disciplines.  Catholicism isn’t for wimps.  We are the Church of martyrs.  Conflict is our middle name, whether it be internal or societal.

Sophomore media studies major Jennifer Kang said she hasn’t experienced any sort of religious pressures at USF. “I never felt like an outsider as a non-religious person,” said Kang, who also observed, “USF is pretty conscious of change and current events and is willing to hold important conversations about it.”

A simple “Gag!” will suffice here.  That’s because USF is about as non-religious as you, Ms. Kang,  unless moral relativism is now considered a religion.

Connor Smith, who worked for a USF volunteer program in the Philippines after he graduated from Boston College, said, ”Working with Jesuits and working and going to school at Jesuit establishments — that is the educational model and framework that includes things that have become really important to me.

Smith took a moment to share his own complexities of having a Catholic identity and being a gay man, since he believes the church’s conservative approach to social issues will carry on. “You work for a university that can’t necessarily ‘come out’ so to speak and support gay issues or any other issues that the church is terrible at addressing,” said Smith. After a moment of reflection, Smith shrugged and sighed, saying, “To keep that identity as both progressive and a Catholic is hard.”

Connor Smith just spelled it out even if he doesn’t know it.  These two “identities” (they are really choices) are completely incompatible.  If they are claiming both, one of them is a lie.

Now let’s look at Coach Azzi’s comments.  Totally intimidating don’t you think?  First she says:

Azzi said of anyone who “has an issue” [with her same-sex attraction lifestyle]: “I don’t want to coach them anyway.”

And then she says:

They first told four players over lunch, and their response — and that of their teammates later — was ‘overwhelmingly supportive.’

Um, yeah.  Coach Azzi, let’s think about this.  Do they have a choice?!?! You just said you didn’t want to coach people who didn’t accept your lifestyle, and then you say that they were overwhelmingly supportive?   You’ve basically said “Get in line or you don’t play here!” No pressure on the players here. How so very “tolerant” you are!

Lastly, there’s this:

The Chronicle quoted one student saying, “Frankly, I don’t see how this can have a negative effect on our program. If someone loses interest in our program because they hear that two of our coaches are married to one another, they are clearly missing the point.”

Who’s missing the point?!?!  You know, the one about the University of San Francisco supposedly being a Catholic school.  Don’t feel bad, anonymous student.  Most people at USF, teacher or student, seem to miss that minor little point.  Grooooooaaaaaannnnnn!

Just one last bonus for you from Fr. Fitzgerald: 

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4846/USF-President-A-Priest-Congratulates-Staff-on-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx

Coach Azzi has entered into a civil marriage according to the laws of the land,” Fr. Fitzgerald stated. “We will afford her every benefit and legal protection which she is due. The university is a Catholic Jesuit institution that is purposefully diverse and dedicated to inclusivity.

It’s so wonderful to see Fr. Fitzgerald follow in the tradition of so many of the Jesuits who were martyred rather than to ever follow “law of the land” that was contradictory to the Faith.  Oh, wait.  Maybe not so much.  Honestly, how do the Jesuits like Fr. Fitzgerald and his ilk live with themselves?  I mean, it’s just EMBARRASSING!  Certainly doesn’t sound like the heavy hitting Jesuits who built the order!  Anyone see these saints putting forth the drivel of Fr. Fitzgerald?

And touching our Society, be it known to you that we have made a league – all the Jesuits in the world – cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted; so it must be restored. ~Edmund Campion (Restored, USF, not destroyed! I think you’re mixing up some letters.)

To have prevented one single sin is reward enough for the labors and efforts of a whole lifetime. ~Saint Ignatius (It would seem like 97% of the modern Jesuits have gotten this one completely backwards.)

Many, many people hereabouts are not becoming Christians for one reason only: there is nobody to make them Christians. ~Francis Xavier (Who knew the Jesuit schools of America would resemble Francis Xavier’s missionary territory?!)

Freedom of belief is pernicious, it is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.  ~Robert Bellarmine  (Take that all you moral relativist!)

Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.  ~Peter Canisius  (You modern Jesuit college types have fallen far away from the inventors of Jesuit education!)

So, please USF, how about you spare us all of the “Jesuit Catholic identity”delusions and admit you gave that up a while back?!