Battling a Modernist and heretical Priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apocalypse_12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Have you ever thought of your time in University as a time to grow and explore? You should know that the Jesuit order is known for broad open thinking. What I see this professor doing is challenging his students. This is not a bad thing, much less anything with “heterodoxy” or should he be “excommunicated” you are really harsh on him. In real life, the Church does change, like your professor says, it has never been and never been rigid.
Click to expand...
Harsh? The truth is harsh. The laws of the Church are harsh. Try telling anyone who is openly pro-choice that they are not allowed to receive communion otherwise it’s a mortal sin. They will probably think you’re harsh. Broad open thinking? Jesuits have a reputation for their Marxist, liberal thinking. And you don’t need to attend University in order to “grow and explore.” You can grow and explore in every facet of life.
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
You appear to want a rote Catechism approach, which this class is not. It is expected for you to think outside the box, out of your comfort zone. There is nothing to fear with looking and analyzing different ideas. As you will learn as you go through life that life is not black and white, but infinite shades of grey.

I put this challenge to you, listen to what the professor is saying with this class. Challenge yourself and do not fear the differences in opinion. You will learn much through the experience and this will follow you as you grow through life. University is a time of exploration of different ideas, it is why you came to get (I hope), so embrace this approach.
Click to expand...
Law, whether religious or non-religious, is absolute and BLACK AND WHITE. Other matters may be grey.

Let me explain something. I’ve already had to exit my comfort zone. This is not the first time I’ve had to battle heretics. I attended a Baptist high school. When I was in high school, I knew that I was Catholic, but I didn’t know why I believed what I believed. As the Baptists took me on, it became necessary for me to analyze my beliefs and ask “Why does the Catholic Church teach this?”

So, the point is, I’m not afraid that the topics the priest brings up in class will somehow shatter my belief system and make me question my beliefs. I’ve already questioned my beliefs. They are firm now because of my scrutiny. Which is why it is my duty to fight this tide of compromise and end the heterdoxy that is being spewed toxically in that class. As one poster had said, if I don’t do this, if I do nothing, he will continue to spread his heresy in the coming semesters, and prey upon Catholics who don’t know too much about their faith. Then those Catholics will adopt his teachings, most likely.

I do not fear differences in opinion. The only thing I fear is the destruction that this priest and others like him are doing to the Faithful.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Have you ever thought of your time in University as a time to grow and explore? You should know that the Jesuit order is known for broad open thinking. What I see this professor doing is challenging his students. This is not a bad thing, much less anything with “heterodoxy” or should he be “excommunicated” you are really harsh on him. In real life, the Church does change, like your professor says, it has never been and never been rigid.

You appear to want a rote Catechism approach, which this class is not. It is expected for you to think outside the box, out of your comfort zone. There is nothing to fear with looking and analyzing different ideas. As you will learn as you go through life that life is not black and white, but infinite shades of grey.

I put this challenge to you, listen to what the professor is saying with this class. Challenge yourself and do not fear the differences in opinion. You will learn much through the experience and this will follow you as you grow through life. University is a time of exploration of different ideas, it is why you came to get (I hope), so embrace this approach.
Click to expand...
Whoah! Teaching heresy is not challenging students. There are other ways to challenge students thinking without leading them astray.

Many students would not know one way or another what is Catholic teaching. No wonder so many students lose their faith going to college.
 
These last postings have to do with the basic question–what is a Catholic university?
In 1990 Pope John Paul came out with a document that faced this very question–a document titled Ex Corde Ecclesiae (which means out of the heart of the Church). Anyone who would like to read it can get it by typing the title of this document into google.com.
In this statement on what a Catholic University is, the Pope said that the theologians at a Catholic university should be faithful to Catholic doctrine. This comes from the nature of the university as a Catholic university.
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
This is University. 🤷

University is supposed to be a time of exploring new ideas and to be challenged at times. All accredited institutions of higher learning has a broad liberal arts base to grow ideas in students.
Click to expand...
 
Dempsey1919 said:
This is discrimination. A teacher cannot fail a student because he does not like the pupil. All work should be analysed objectively .
Click to expand...
This is impossible to do, especially in the social sciences and humanities. All people are biased.
 
buffalo said:
Whoah! Teaching heresy is not challenging students. There are other ways to challenge students thinking without leading them astray.

Many students would not know one way or another what is Catholic teaching. No wonder so many students lose their faith going to college.
Click to expand...
“Heresy” is tightly defined here. What the OP is looking at is a narrow definition just because of a disagreement during his class.

The professor in this case is following the school’s mission of teaching to the liberal arts with broad based ideas.
 
Apocalypse_12 said:
Harsh? The truth is harsh. The laws of the Church are harsh. Try telling anyone who is openly pro-choice that they are not allowed to receive communion otherwise it’s a mortal sin. They will probably think you’re harsh. Broad open thinking? Jesuits have a reputation for their Marxist, liberal thinking. And you don’t need to attend University in order to “grow and explore.” You can grow and explore in every facet of life.

Law, whether religious or non-religious, is absolute and BLACK AND WHITE. Other matters may be grey.

Let me explain something. I’ve already had to exit my comfort zone. This is not the first time I’ve had to battle heretics. I attended a Baptist high school. When I was in high school, I knew that I was Catholic, but I didn’t know why I believed what I believed. As the Baptists took me on, it became necessary for me to analyze my beliefs and ask “Why does the Catholic Church teach this?”

So, the point is, I’m not afraid that the topics the priest brings up in class will somehow shatter my belief system and make me question my beliefs. I’ve already questioned my beliefs. They are firm now because of my scrutiny. Which is why it is my duty to fight this tide of compromise and end the heterdoxy that is being spewed toxically in that class. As one poster had said, if I don’t do this, if I do nothing, he will continue to spread his heresy in the coming semesters, and prey upon Catholics who don’t know too much about their faith. Then those Catholics will adopt his teachings, most likely.

I do not fear differences in opinion. The only thing I fear is the destruction that this priest and others like him are doing to the Faithful.
Click to expand...
No, the Church’s teachings do not have to be harsh. The Church is not a strict father with a paddling stick to anyone who steps across any predefined line. In real life it is not harsh, people are diverse, so the teachings and interpretations of the teachings are diverse. You have your own and your professor has his. Neither is wrong, they just are.

Your school, like all accredited schools follows a liberal arts cirrculcum. This is designed to spur critical thinking of the students in all facets of life beyond school.

No, law is grey much more than the rare times it is applied in black and white applications. As you grow and experience life you will see this. This is why we have trial by jury in this country, everyone sees the application of laws differently so the jury of their peers works to get an agreement of a subset of people following the laws. If the law was truly black and white then there would be no need for a trial by jury, it would be bring someone in, present to the judge the evidence and the rule on the spot. Judges do not rule that way, the weigh all the many parts of each case with the jury. This includes past precedents but also the social situation as it happened. It prevents a misapplication of the law. This principle goes across civil and church law, life is an infinite spectrum of greys.

I see this professor continuing on, you appear to be assuming your classmates have very little faith by this line of critical thinking to challenge them. They have a strong spirituality, which no two people have the same type. We are all unique. They will not loose their faith or spirituality by being challenged as they relate to it in their day to day lives, as we all do. While tools like the CCC are out there, it is just one listing of rules and are unable to have a solution to every problem in life. The professor is getting students to think critically to go beyond just a arbitrary book of rules to use the book as a reference but not an end-all.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
No, the Church’s teachings do not have to be harsh. The Church is not a strict father with a paddling stick to anyone who steps across any predefined line. In real life it is not harsh, people are diverse, so the teachings and interpretations of the teachings are diverse. You have your own and your professor has his. Neither is wrong, they just are.

Your school, like all accredited schools follows a liberal arts cirrculcum. This is designed to spur critical thinking of the students in all facets of life beyond school.

No, law is grey much more than the rare times it is applied in black and white applications. As you grow and experience life you will see this. This is why we have trial by jury in this country, everyone sees the application of laws differently so the jury of their peers works to get an agreement of a subset of people following the laws. If the law was truly black and white then there would be no need for a trial by jury, it would be bring someone in, present to the judge the evidence and the rule on the spot. Judges do not rule that way, the weigh all the many parts of each case with the jury. This includes past precedents but also the social situation as it happened. It prevents a misapplication of the law. This principle goes across civil and church law, life is an infinite spectrum of greys.

I see this professor continuing on, you appear to be assuming your classmates have very little faith by this line of critical thinking to challenge them. They have a strong spirituality, which no two people have the same type. We are all unique. They will not loose their faith or spirituality by being challenged as they relate to it in their day to day lives, as we all do. While tools like the CCC are out there, it is just one listing of rules and are unable to have a solution to every problem in life. The professor is getting students to think critically to go beyond just a arbitrary book of rules to use the book as a reference but not an end-all.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with you.

I have shown that the priest is propagating heresy. And I want to know what actions I can take to stop him.

So, since you disagree with me, no offense, you can’t offer me much help here. And since you disagree with me, you can’t really offer me advice on what next steps to take. I would say your job is done here.

If you want the last word, you can have it. If you think you’re right and I’m wrong because you’ve lived longer than I have, and if that makes you feel better, than go on and think that. But I will tell you, and it’s not my opinion, you are wrong when you say, “teachings and interpretations of the teachings are diverse. You have your own and your professor has his. Neither is wrong.” In fact, I will tell you, that line of thinking is condemned in PASCENDI.

My interpretation of the teachings are not my own. They are the Church’s interpretation of Her OWN teachings, and those teachings are infallible. Like it says in I Peter, it is not up to private interpretation.
 
Apocalypse_12 said:
I do not agree with you.

I have shown that the priest is propagating heresy. And I want to know what actions I can take to stop him.

So, since you disagree with me, no offense, you can’t offer me much help here. And since you disagree with me, you can’t really offer me advice on what next steps to take. I would say your job is done here.

If you want the last word, you can have it. If you think you’re right and I’m wrong because you’ve lived longer than I have, and if that makes you feel better, than go on and think that. But I will tell you, and it’s not my opinion, you are wrong when you say, “teachings and interpretations of the teachings are diverse. You have your own and your professor has his. Neither is wrong.” In fact, I will tell you, that line of thinking is condemned in PASCENDI.

My interpretation of the teachings are not my own. They are the Church’s interpretation of Her OWN teachings, and those teachings are infallible. Like it says in I Peter, it is not up to private interpretation.
Click to expand...
I agree, we will not convince each other anything at this point.

Actually, the teachings are not infallible. Infallibility has always been looked down upon on the Church. It has been a fallible human institution for many centuries run by fallible people. Papal Infallibility is rarely used and only came about recently and has was very controversial when it was introduced.

Everything is open to private interpretation, that is how many grow in spirituality, through questioning and examining what is said and how it came about and the reasons it came about when it came about. The Church is not a monolithic institution with only one take it or leave it interpretation. We have a Billion people with different opinions worldwide just in the present, many more if you go through 2000+ years of history.

Knowing something can be fallible does not always invalidate it, it allows a growth in wisdom to know the limitations as it relates to the real world.

I wish you well in your future studies and hope your class remains in peace through the rest of the semester.
 
In my opinion you are right to be concerned about this priest’s teaching and ought to bring it to someone’s attention outside the classroom.

I’m not sure that going to his Jesuit superior or the bishop would be the correct course to take. To draw an analogy, I would liken that to bringing a complaint about an incompetent public school teacher directly to the governor’s office without first talking to the principal and/or the superintendent of schools.

In a university, there is a hierarchy. The first place to go would be his department chair. Next up the line would be the dean of the particular school or faculty in which he teaches. You might also check with the university ombudsman.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
No, the Church’s teachings do not have to be harsh. The Church is not a strict father with a paddling stick to anyone who steps across any predefined line. In real life it is not harsh, people are diverse, so the teachings and interpretations of the teachings are diverse. You have your own and your professor has his. Neither is wrong, they just are.
Click to expand...
Moral relativism rears its ugly head. Saying Satan doesn’t exist is wrong. Saying there was no original sin is wrong. The Church is not a hippie encounter group whose motto is “I’m OK, you’re OK.”

And grey is the devil’s favorite color.
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
The professor is getting students to think critically to go beyond just a arbitrary book of rules to use the book as a reference but not an end-all.
Click to expand...
This professor is an ordained priest. He is teaching in a Catholic university. He has a duty to convey the teachings of the Church to his students. There is no shortage of places where Church teaching is questioned - one of those doesn’t have to be in the classroom of a Catholic university, with the dissenting coming from someone wearing a clerical collar.

Reading the OP’s post gives me hope for the new generation of leaders in the Church, that they are seeing through the fog of moral relativism and dissent that has poisoned our Church for the last generation, and have the courage to do something about it.
 
Actually, the teachings are not infallible. Infallibility has always been looked down upon on the Church. It has been a fallible human institution for many centuries run by fallible people. Papal Infallibility is rarely used and only came about recently and has was very controversial when it was introduced.
Click to expand...
The doctrines of the faith are infallable, and always have been. I don’t know where you have gotten the idea that infallability has always been looked down upon, because that is totally wrong.

Papal infallability did not come out recently as you say, nor was it simply introduced. Papal Infallability has always been professed as true, but it was only solemnly defined during the First Vatican Council in 1870. Vatican I did not invent this doctrine; the Council Fathers simply expounded upon it and gave us a fuller explanation. Furthermore, Vatican II continued the work of Vatican I in this regard when it taught about collegiality between the Bishops. Vatican I ended abruptly with the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War and was left incomplete; this is why Vatican II can be said to have finished the work of Vatican I.

I suggest you read your Catechism regarding this infallable doctrine of the Faith. You should be aware that Church teachings are not up for debate, and what the Church teaches should be seen as black and white. In fact, we are instructed to receive with docility what the Church teaches (Catechism of the Catholic Church).
 
Apocalypse_12 said:
I do not agree with you.

I have shown that the priest is propagating heresy. And I want to know what actions I can take to stop him.

So, since you disagree with me, no offense, you can’t offer me much help here. And since you disagree with me, you can’t really offer me advice on what next steps to take. I would say your job is done here.

If you want the last word, you can have it. If you think you’re right and I’m wrong because you’ve lived longer than I have, and if that makes you feel better, than go on and think that. But I will tell you, and it’s not my opinion, you are wrong when you say, “teachings and interpretations of the teachings are diverse. You have your own and your professor has his. Neither is wrong.” In fact, I will tell you, that line of thinking is condemned in PASCENDI.

My interpretation of the teachings are not my own. They are the Church’s interpretation of Her OWN teachings, and those teachings are infallible. Like it says in I Peter, it is not up to private interpretation.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this priest is “teaching heresy.” If he says the Church teaches X, but I don’t believe X, I don’t think that is teaching heresy. You might think this is a bad way to teach, or wrong for other reasons, but you are not children and as long as he is making clear what the Church really teaches I think you could argue he personally holds to a heresy, but not that he is teaching heresy.

I agree with some of the other comments about the role of University. Any high school child can learn the doctrines and dogmas from a book. You can learn much more deeply in the University setting. You can bring it to his superiors’ attention if you care to, but do you seriously think they don’t know what he does in his classroom? I understand that you do not agree with allowing someone whose beliefs do not match the Church’s to teach, but the vast majority of humanity does not agree with the Church. My advise is argue with him, learn from that experience, and move on to the next class. That’s what you are there to do. Four years of sitting around nodding in agreement is not going to prepare you to do much.
 
I don’t see how this priest is “teaching heresy.” If he says the Church teaches X, but I don’t believe X, I don’t think that is teaching heresy. You might think this is a bad way to teach, or wrong for other reasons, but you are not children and as long as he is making clear what the Church really teaches I think you could argue he personally holds to a heresy, but not that he is teaching heresy.
Click to expand...
TMC, I can see the truth in your argument. The priest, however, is obviously a heretic. Which is worse, teaching heresy, or expressing, to the students in the classroom, your heretical views? To me, it is the same thing.

He is abusing his position. Even if he were not teaching in a Catholic college, he still has the obligation, as a teacher, to say “Here are the arguments both for and against Church teaching.” From what the OP has said, he is only presenting one-sided arguments. Shame on him. The OP is right to protest.

God bless us all,

Ruthie
 
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CCC 2089, underline and emphasis added)

The OP said this priest: 2) he does not believe in the traditional doctrine of Original Sin. Rather, he has said that original sin is not inherited from birth; we teach each other to sin.

This is not, not, not what the Church teaches about Original Sin.

She teaches:

All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners": “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . .” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” (CCC 402, emphasis added)

Seems like this priest is a heretic by the above definition from the catechism 2089. 🤷
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Have you ever thought of your time in University as a time to grow and explore? You should know that the Jesuit order is known for broad open thinking. What I see this professor doing is challenging his students. This is not a bad thing, much less anything with “heterodoxy” or should he be “excommunicated” you are really harsh on him. In real life, the Church does change, like your professor says, it has never been and never been rigid.

You appear to want a rote Catechism approach, which this class is not. It is expected for you to think outside the box, out of your comfort zone. There is nothing to fear with looking and analyzing different ideas. As you will learn as you go through life that life is not black and white, but infinite shades of grey.

I put this challenge to you, listen to what the professor is saying with this class. Challenge yourself and do not fear the differences in opinion. You will learn much through the experience and this will follow you as you grow through life. University is a time of exploration of different ideas, it is why you came to get (I hope), so embrace this approach.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with you.

Firstly our Faith is not a matter of opinion.

Secondly, young students may be vulnerable and we know how they can be influenced. No, you cannot expect the students to compromise their Faith and treat this priest with kid gloves. I agree with Post #2. The student should engage the priest in the classroom as this could also encourage others to also do likewise. It doesn’t have to be aggressive but it must be done.

I think that the students should ask the priest to offer biblical proof of his “opinions”. They do not go to university to learn somebody else’s opinions. They are there to learn TRUTH.

🙂
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
This is University. 🤷

University is supposed to be a time of exploring new ideas and to be challenged at times. All accredited institutions of higher learning has a broad liberal arts base to grow ideas in students.
Click to expand...
Ideas are ideas and Faith is Truth.

I do not believe tht you can equate “broad liberal arts” with the truth.

Your ideas need to be revisited I think.:o
 
Good for you. Though I don’t think he has any obligation to present reasons against as well as for Church teaching. In any case, they will always encounter reasons against it, both after they graduate and at school from their friends, particularly when it comes to morals, if this is desirable for some reason.
Ruthie said:
TMC, I can see the truth in your argument. The priest, however, is obviously a heretic. Which is worse, teaching heresy, or expressing, to the students in the classroom, your heretical views? To me, it is the same thing.

He is abusing his position. Even if he were not teaching in a Catholic college, he still has the obligation, as a teacher, to say “Here are the arguments both for and against Church teaching.” From what the OP has said, he is only presenting one-sided arguments. Shame on him. The OP is right to protest.

God bless us all,

Ruthie
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top