Cardinal Says Liberals and Islamists are 'Beasts of the Apocalypse'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seamus_L said:
In an intervention at an ongoing synod of bishops on the future of Catholic teaching on the family, Guinean cardinal Robert Sarah reportedly described Islamist militants and western thinking on abortion and homosexuality as sharing “the same demonic origin.”
naharnet.com/stories/en/191994-cardinal-says-liberals-and-islamists-are-beasts-of-the-apocalypse
Click to expand...
First of all, this article has no named source except the “Naharnet Newsdesk” that turns out to come from “the leading Lebanese news destination.” I don’t get out of the U.S. much, but I’ve never heard of Naharnet Newsdesk, With no identifiable source or even a named author, the article smacks of rumor. And then there is the ad that accompanies the article for a dating service that offers “Russian Senior Dating for Men” - with a link to “Join Now.” (I would advise anyone to think twice before following that link.)

However, in the off chance that there is any truth to the quotes in this article, Cardinal Sarah uses a phenomenally broad brush to make some very political statements. For example, the jihadists in the Middle East who are attempting to establish a caliphate want to merge their religion with the politics of nation building, and they demand that everyone under their control convert or die. For the sake of contrast I’ll submit my own feelings. As a Catholic I believe that a child is a gift from God and that God is offended by abortion. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Yet, generally speaking, I don’t want people who do not behave according to my religious beliefs criminalized because I don’t want my behavior criminalized should it not conform to someone else’s religious beliefs. If that makes me a “liberal,” so be it. However, in my humble opinion, when anyone equates the jihadist ultimatum to convert or die with the belief that the practice of religion is separate from the practice of government, that person is at the very least mistaken.
 
What I saw as key was the following quotation in the article: “We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood.”
 
This is so true! If someone posted it here on CAF, oh no the moderators are going after ya. :rolleyes:

God bless Cardinal Sarah!
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
It is true, but ironically, he’d probably be suspended if he was posting here and said that.

He is a fantastic leader.
Click to expand...
 
fin said:
This is so true! If someone posted it here on CAF, oh no the moderators are going after ya. :rolleyes:

God bless Cardinal Sarah!
Click to expand...
Ever notice when a faithful prelate like Cardinal Sarah speaks the liberals come on to “interpret” his words for us. When Kasper makes his latest “proposals” they never come near criticizing him? That “might” be deliberate :eek:
 
LongingSoul said:
:eek: That’s an insult to moderators.
Click to expand...
Oh please, stop accusing people of things that aren’t true.

The fact is if someone came on here and was uncharitable in a wholesale manner towards entire groups of people, they would probably suspended or at leasted warned, and rightly so. That is in fact a credit to the mods for doing their job well. I just think it is ironic that we can post other people’s words and say “here here!” or that we agree, but we can be the originator of those words. But it has always been this way.

Read the TOS if you have a problem with it.
 
Again, what I saw as key was the following quotation in the article: “We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood.”

If we are contending against each other, we creatures of flesh and blood, rather than the evil in the world, perhaps we ought to give it up.
 
Thomas_White said:
Again, what I saw as key was the following quotation in the article: “We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood.”

If we are contending against each other, we creatures of flesh and blood, rather than the evil in the world, perhaps we ought to give it up.
Click to expand...
No to giving up. I think liberalism has a very definite form which is intentionally confusing and I point it out on forums like this. I agree that every human being is a sinner and flawed but it’s the duty of all to point out falsehoods, lies and obfuscations as charitably as possible but not so quietly that the Truth is ignored. The Evil in the World is channeled through mankind and we either accept or reject it. When we reject it we need to help others to see the lies and if they refuse to reject lies, then we have to give up but not without a great and charitable fight
 
Well, first things first. Is the meaning of ‘liberalism’ as defined by the Church understood?
 
I think one thing that is being overlooked in this speech is the following:

“Bearing in mind the historical situation just recalled, it is urgent that the Church, at its summit, definitively declare the will of the Creator for marriage.”

In other words, he’s calling for a solemn papal definition concerning marriage–given all the confusion concerning this matter, it seems appropriate to me.
Thomas_White said:
Well, first things first. Is the meaning of ‘liberalism’ as defined by the Church understood?
Click to expand...
The Cardinal did not use the term “liberalism” like the headline says, but listed a group of of particular issues (which, admittedly, are usually associated with US political liberals).
 
Thomas_White said:
Well, first things first. Is the meaning of ‘liberalism’ as defined by the Church understood?
Click to expand...
The way the word is used here (if it was used) is not a traditional Catholic definition. I think however what was actually used was “western liberal culture” defined as "quickie divorces, abortion, homosexual unions: look at gender theory, Femen (a feminist group known for topless protests), the LBGT lobby. " So how a word is defined is very important, especially crossing cultural boundaries, to avoid misunderstanding.
 
Genesis315 said:
I think one thing that is being overlooked in this speech is the following:The Cardinal did not use the term “liberalism” like the headline says, but listed a group of of particular issues (which, admittedly, are usually associated with US political liberals).
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. The Cardinal used the term ‘libertarian’. The question was meant as a reply to a specific comment by another person where the term ‘liberalism’ was the issue. The term ‘liberalism’, as understood by the Church for at least the past hundred and fifty years concerns modernity. In that respect, I think the encyclical Laudato Si is relevant.
 
I do not like finger-pointing! It’s anti religious in the long run. Our 1st duty as Catholics is to bring more light into this darkened world. It’s only with this light that we can truly cause people to grow in virtue. Finger-pointing only leads to more finger-pointing, and keeps everyone in the dark.
 
Genesis315 said:
The Cardinal did not use the term “liberalism” like the headline says, but listed a group of of particular issues (which, admittedly, are usually associated with US political liberals).
Click to expand...
I’d venture that the Cardinal’s definition of liberalism probably encompasses a wide range of stuff done in the Western world regardless of the political definitions used in the US. After all, we’ve got big L and little l liberals. And the whole place is way more “liberal” than, say, a Catholic theocratic monarchy would be.

Probably boils down to the whole “rights of man” versus the “rights of God” stuff.
 
Prodigal_40s said:
No to giving up. I think liberalism has a very definite form which is intentionally confusing and I point it out on forums like this. I agree that every human being is a sinner and flawed but it’s the duty of all to point out falsehoods, lies and obfuscations as charitably as possible but not so quietly that the Truth is ignored. The Evil in the World is channeled through mankind and we either accept or reject it. When we reject it we need to help others to see the lies and if they refuse to reject lies, then we have to give up but not without a great and charitable fight
Click to expand...
I agree that liberalism has a definite form which is intentionally confusing. It can also be ambiguous. And, it seems that it’s easier for those of a liberal mindset to be or seem charitable. It’s more difficult for those who stand strong and firm in perennial Church teaching to be or seem charitable, because the Truth will offend many.

If our Catholic hierarchy would be better in speaking the Truths of the Catholic Faith as Cardinal Sarah has been doing, then maybe we laypersons wouldn’t be forced to do so. Many of us aren’t very good at it, and it’s often just plain difficult for a layperson to do effectively. And that we love our Church and our Faith makes it difficult when we see others trying to change the Church and her perennial teachings. I understand that there are reasons why the hierarchy doesn’t speak out for Truths of the Catholic Faith more than they do. I have sympathy for them. But if we laypersons are going to be the one’s trying to stand up for Church teaching, we aren’t necessarily going to be able to do it in a sweet and charitable manner. We don’t have the benefit of theological formation, as priests do. We’re just trying to do the best we can.

God bless Cardinal Sarah for speaking in a frank and forthright manner.
 
Thomas_White said:
The term ‘liberalism’, as understood by the Church for at least the past hundred and fifty years concerns modernity. In that respect, I think the encyclical Laudato Si is relevant.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how that encyclical is relevant. Liberalism as the Church has condemned it over the last 150 years does not deal with ecological stewardship, but with the idea that natural reason alone should be the governing principle of all human behavior and interactions, especially public ones, and that even with regards to God and religious there is no obligation of supernatural faith (religious indifferentism). It leads to an inordinate freedom and moral and religious license. Of course, the failure to produce any concord based on reason led to the abandonment of reason as a governing principle to be replaced by a general relativism based on collective experience only.

Note, because “Liberalism” exalted natural reason over and to the exclusion of supernatural faith, it is often also called “naturalism,” so that may be why you’re confusing it with the topic in Laudato Si.
 
Genesis315 said:
I don’t see how that encyclical is relevant. Liberalism as the Church has condemned it over the last 150 years does not deal with ecological stewardship, but with the idea that natural reason alone should be the governing principle of all human behavior and interactions, especially public ones, and that even with regards to God and religious there is no obligation of supernatural faith (religious indifferentism). It leads to an inordinate freedom and moral and religious license. Of course, the failure to produce any concord based on reason led to the abandonment of reason as a governing principle to be replaced by a general relativism based on collective experience only.

Note, because “Liberalism” exalted natural reason over and to the exclusion of supernatural faith, it is often also called “naturalism,” so that may be why you’re confusing it with the topic in Laudato Si.
Click to expand...
I understand you “don’t see how that encyclical is relevant”. Many do not. Briefly stated, it is that the Church opposes ‘liberalism’ when it is the Enlightenment concept that man has the freedom and independence to do as he pleases. This involves not just abortion and SSM. The Church similarly opposes the idea that man is free to do as he pleases in the economic sphere and with respect to humanity and the environment while acknowledging a preferential option for the poor, as is taught by the papal encyclical Laudato Si. The Church opposes a system of capitalism, specifically a global system of capitalism, that is exploitative and does not serve the people, and this is nothing new. It seems there are those of a certain political persuasion that reject this and other teachings of the encyclical, but it should be understood that what the Church opposes here is liberalism.

What the Church opposes has nothing to do with ‘natural’ reason, whatever that might mean. What is opposed is the concept of Reason as the Providence of man. Is all of this what the Cardinal opposes if he is understood? I would think so. It is Catholic teaching.
 
Denise1957 said:
I agree that liberalism has a definite form which is intentionally confusing. It can also be ambiguous. And, it seems that it’s easier for those of a liberal mindset to be or seem charitable. It’s more difficult for those who stand strong and firm in perennial Church teaching to be or seem charitable, because the Truth will offend many.

If our Catholic hierarchy would be better in speaking the Truths of the Catholic Faith as Cardinal Sarah has been doing, then maybe we laypersons wouldn’t be forced to do so. Many of us aren’t very good at it, and it’s often just plain difficult for a layperson to do effectively. And that we love our Church and our Faith makes it difficult when we see others trying to change the Church and her perennial teachings. I understand that there are reasons why the hierarchy doesn’t speak out for Truths of the Catholic Faith more than they do. I have sympathy for them. But if we laypersons are going to be the one’s trying to stand up for Church teaching, we aren’t necessarily going to be able to do it in a sweet and charitable manner. We don’t have the benefit of theological formation, as priests do. We’re just trying to do the best we can.

God bless Cardinal Sarah for speaking in a frank and forthright manner.
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, this is one of the best discussions that I have read on this forum because there is some consideration expressed about the emotional content of communication. I believe that the purpose of communication should be increased understanding and that increasing understanding requires mutual respect as well as an appreciation of the authenticity of the differencing beliefs and emotions of others.

I understand that Bishop Sarah’s audience for his remarks that we are discussing was the Synod fathers and in that venue were appropriate. However, I find them lacking in discretion, nuance, and understanding. If the cardinal were to use the same broad-brush characterizations in his pastoral communications, I would feel disrespected, devalued, and not understood - and I might not welcome his company on my spiritual journey. I understand that others clearly would welcome his very emotional equivalencies because he validates their closely held beliefs and fears. I think that we could probably agree that communications like Cardinal Sarah’s are substantially divisive - even for people who love and profess the same Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top