J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t disagree with Apoc’s motives or concerns. I am simply trying to be the voice of reason and remind Apoc that he may not get the desired outcome. As I have repeated over and over again, the Benedictines are an exempt religious order. One would have to prove, to their satisfaction, that the professor is doing harm to their college. Even then, if the legal system is not on their side, there may not be much they can do, as was the case at Catholic University. That case ended well because the priest was really a good guy and very honest about his positions. He was not out to challenge the Church. He agreed that he would resign rather than see the Church, the University and the courts in a tug of war that would be damaging to the Church and the University.This is exactly what I warned Apocalypse about (if you didn’t catch it earlier in the thread, we’re pretty much brothers, as close as you can get without DNA resemblance). I have absolutely no problem with what he’s doing. However, the way he went about it, so gung-ho Rambo on this guy, I feared that Apoc wouldn’t be taken seriously.
I told him to check his motives, to ensure that he can present his side of the argument appropriately and effectively. He assured me that everything was okay. And they are.
Apoc loves the Church. He loves God. His motives are pure and just, even though he erred at times in his preparation. Other than that, he’s doing the right thing, doing it the right way and with the right motives.
Surely, though, there is something that can be done about this professor. He is blatantly teaching against the Church. It is a heresy and the punishment for heresy is grave. It is unfortunate that a legal issue such as charter wordage could come in the way of protecting the Church and God, but this is a task that needs to be undertaken nonetheless. Hopefully something can be done, so that the venomous lies of this priest will no longer poison impressionable students (students who, for the most part, don’t know a thing about the Church as it is <–got that part from Apoc).
Like I said, I fully support what Apoc is doing. He’s doing the right thing. He’s ensuring that the spreading of this heresy stops as quickly as possible, and he’s doing it the right way (or, at least, I’m trying to make sure he does), even if it may, at times, seem otherwise.
It turned out to be a win-win situation, because the Church allowed him to continue to teach, as long as he did not teach moral theology and allowed him to function as a priest, because he demonstrated, by his actions, that he really loved the Church, but had some fundamental differences in matters of conscience. The Church imposed only one sanction, not to teach theology in a Catholic college and that he alway write a disclaimer in his books that states that these ideas are opinion, not the teaching of the Church.
The same thing happened with Father Hans Kung. His is a priest in good standing as long as he does not teach theology. In fact, he is a very close friend of Pope Benedict XVI and was once Father Ratzinger’s boss at the university. The Pope has recently named him director of the ecumenical movement in his home country and has had him visit him while on vacation.
I hope this turns out just as well as the CUA and Father Kung situation did.
Fraternally,
JR