No wonder we’re in the shape we’re in – Notre Dame professor proclaims his fervent protestant belief in NYT February 17, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Interior Life, persecution, scandals.
Gary Gutting, self-proclaimed Catholic Chair of Philosophy at Notre Dame (meaning, he’s a major roller, he has an endowed chair, he is untouchable, but he also claims to be “Catholic”), writes in the New York Times that the authority of the Church to teach rests on……….wait for it!……..the popularity of a given belief! So, since most Catholics use contraception without moral compunction, the bishops have no right to claim that the Church believes that contraception is immoral:
But, even so, haven’t the members of the Catholic Church recognized their bishops as having full and sole authority to determine the teachings of the Church? By no means. There was, perhaps, a time when the vast majority of Catholics accepted the bishops as having an absolute right to define theological and ethical doctrines. Those days, if they ever existed, are long gone. Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept. This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them. Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops. [No, they aren't they have nothing to do with that authority. The authority in the Church was given by Christ, through repeated statements in the Gospels (Matt 16:15-20, many others), including the ability to bind and loose, to define Doctrine, the ability to forgive sins, etc. This authority was recognized from the earliest days of the Church, and we see exhortations to the faithful to obedience to that authority - to the Gospel they had received - in numerous books of the New Testament (St. John's letters, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, St. Peter's Letter's St. James' Letter, etc, etc.). This isn't something the bishops just made up in the last few decades. Obedience has always been one of the central pillars of the Faith.
The bishops and the minority of Catholics who support their full authority have tried to marginalize Catholics who do not accept the bishops as absolute arbiters of doctrine. [They should. It is De Fide that recognition and submission to Authority must be made. Rejection of that makes one protestant, at best] They speak of “cafeteria Catholics” or merely “cultural Catholics,” and imply that the only “real Catholics” are those who accept their teachings entirely. But this marginalization begs the question I’m raising about the proper source of the judgment that the bishops have divine authority. Since, as I’ve argued, members of the church are themselves this source,[no, they aren't, Jesus Christ is the Source, and if you don't get that, you never passed First Communion level catechesis. Thus the state of the academy today] it is not for the bishops but for the faithful to decide the nature and extent of episcopal authority. The bishops truly are, as they so often say, “servants of the servants of the Lord.” [Really? And how is this decided, you fool? By a vote? What if one region believes one thing, and one the exact opposite? What then - the Church believes according to region? How narrowly do we define those regions? Down to individual congregations? Such a thing exists - it's called protestantism. It's also completely, 100% modernism - "truth" is relative, it depends on time and place and circumstance, yada yada yada. This is a path to protestantism, agnosticism, and finally atheism, and it's a damn short, quick walk]
……The mistake of the Obama administration — and of almost everyone debating its decision — was to accept the bishops’ claim that their position on birth control expresses an authoritative “teaching of the church.” (Of course, the administration may be right in thinking that the bishops need placating because they can cause them considerable political trouble.) The bishops’ claim to authority in this matter has been undermined because Catholics have decisively rejected it. [Aided and abeted tremendously by apostates in the academy and in many chanceries and even rectories who have long rejected what the Church believes, and have advised millions of others to do the same] The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church. [Really! That's news to me, the Pope, and the Catechism! And note, once again, the modernistic view that Truth "changes."] Pope Paul VI meant his 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae,” to settle the issue in the manner of the famous tag, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.” In fact the issue has been settled by the voice of the Catholic people……..[No, you only wish it does, in order to salve your apostate conscience. Unfortunately, you have only hope - public repentance, confession, and penance]
The likelihood of this guy being a hypocrite is enormous. Since most Catholics in this country support the death penalty, should we defer to their opinion in the Church, too? I guarantee he’ll say no. He’s conveniently arguing that the conscience of the faithful – such as it is – should rule the Church because it happens to suit his preconceived preferences and beliefs. He’s attacking the authority of the bishops because it suits him on this issue. On other issues, where the laity differs from the Church but in a conservative direction, I guarantee in those cases he’ll trumpet the “authority” of the Church to the skies.
Secondly, he’s arguing for congregationalism, a state of affairs where the views of the faithful constitute the belief of the Church (and also voting on church leadership). It’s a condemned heresy. His beliefs are also completely, 100% modernist. So, he’s arguing for two condemend heresies right off the bat. In his view, “truth” is a never ending series of opinion polls, determing what the faithful believe, checking cultural zeitgeist, and changing from there – the very essence of modernism. Can you imagine the chaos this would cause? Or not - the faithful would be so enervated by the constant change in “truth,” by the reduction of the Church to a vehicle for left wing politics (for, that is Gutting’s ultimate goal), that “faith” would be pointless, fruitless, useless. This guy makes a great companion to Rick Gaillardetz.
By all rights, this man has absolutely no place on a Catholic campus, let alone at the self-proclaimed “flagship” Catholic university, which really hasn’t been Catholic since 1967.
And, yes, Professor, we the faithful DO get to decide who is outside the bounds of the Church, who is a heretic. That is why the Church has things like Dogmas and catechisms and all the rest. That’s why many people who have loved the Church with all their heart and soul have suffered more than your narrow intellectualism can ever contemplate. I don’t believe that your “popular Catholicism,” which is really congregationalism, would inspire similar love and fervor. Centuries of experience shows that it doesn’t.
A friend sent me the link to this story, asking why this guy is still Catholic? Because it’s easier to have the Notre Dame Chair in Philosophy as a Catholyc, than as a protestant. And, his arrogance is astounding.
BTW, this guy’s career is built around the study of Michael Foucault, a radical (extraordinarily radical – he embraced the Khomenei regime in Iran) French theoritician and notorious libertine, who engaged in such incredibly dangerous and perverse sexuality his death from AIDS is considered by some to be an act of suicide. Why on earth would a self-professed Catholic university (it has not been such in actuality for decades) employ a professor whose interests lie in such radicalism, and who expressed such undying antipathy towards traditional morality and forms of authority?