|
D r a g n e t
INTERNECINE SQUABBLES
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 8
 September 1993 
|
|
|
When anti-Catholics aren't speaking against
the Church, their invective is oftentimes turned on one another. An
example of this more-anti-Catholic-than-thou posing can be found in
a recent issue of BBH Perspective, a four-page newsletter
distributed by Baptist Biblical Heritage and edited and written
by Bob L. Ross.
Referring to the Christian Research Institute, Ross says,
"CRI is a 'para-church' organization in Irvine, California founded
by the late Walter Martin [a picture of Martin accompanies
the article]; it enjoys parasitical support from 'Evangelicals' who
need 'help' on the Russellites, Mormons, Hare Krishnas, Moonies, Chick
Publications, 'Alberto,' and other assorted ding-bats, teachings,
and groups. Some think CRI is 'soft' on Romanism, fence-straddling,
pussy-footing, and milky-toast." CRI has thrown in its lot with
the Papists, and--surprise!--the Jesuits are to blame.
"Since Martin's death, some think CRI has adopted a bent to Romanism.
The old Jesuit ploy of convoluted writing permeates CRI writings.
For example, the statement that Romanism is 'unlike' and 'different
from' Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc., is
typical Jesuit convolution, as the same thing may be said
of Islam, the Jim Jones cult, the Robert Tilton cult, Scientology,
and all the other modern cults."
The plot thickens. It seems CRI and Catholic Answers are conniving
with one another--or at least they follow the same game plan.
After all, says Ross, keep in mind that Karl Keating engaged in a
"staged" debate with Peter Ruckman, the Pensacola-based
anti-Catholic whose oddities "[make] the CRI and Keating representations
of Romanism appear plausible, relegating to obscurity the classic
foundations of the Protestant Reformation's opposition to Romanist
doctrine and practice. . . . Keating, by the way, does not name CRI
as an adversary of Romanism, despite CRI's claim about being 'outspoken'
on Rome's abuses. Keating probably appreciates the 'positive,' conciliatory
approach which CRI takes toward Romanism." Which gospel is CRI
preaching, Ross wonders, "the gospel preached by such Baptists
as C. H. Spurgeon [1834-1892] or the 'gospel according to Karl Keating,'
as presented in his book and 'imprimatured' by Archbishop [Roger]
Mahony of Los Angeles."
Ross complains that "CRI refers to ongoing 'dialogue between
Protestants and Catholics,' but it doesn't name any Protestant 'leaders'
and doesn't refer to the fact that Rome has been 'dialoguing' ever
since the Protestant Reformation, trying to facilitate the 'return'
of her 'estranged children' to the protective arms of the great shepherd
of the flock, the Pope."
It should go without saying--but we'll say it anyway--that
the only "leaders" Ross would accept are precisely those
Protestants opposed to any talks, on any topic, at any time with "Romanists."
Now Peter Ruckman would seem to fit into this camp. He is adamantly
anti-Catholic. At the end of his debate with Karl Keating in 1987,
Ruckman refused to shake his opponent's hand--in fact, he stalked
off the stage while Keating was winding up his remarks. Ruckman is
such a firm backer of the King James Version that he believes its
production, like the production of the Greek autographs, has been
inspired. He excommunicates Fundamentalists who use any translation
other than the King James, and for this attitude he has had named
for himself a subset of arch-Fundamentalism known as "Ruckmanism."
This man has no interest in talking with Catholics (especially not
since the debate), yet he is considered a Catholic stooge by Bob L.
Ross--which shows you where Ross is on the spectrum.
AGLO, the Archdiocesan Gay/Lesbian
Outreach of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, recently published a
lengthy report on ministering to homosexuals. Called "Homosexuality,
a Positive Catholic Perspective," in quasi-scholarly style the
report uses a "backwards" interpretation of Scripture, moving
from conclusion to evidence. "Lot's uncensored offer of his virgin
daughters to the lecherous and violent men of Sodom (Gen. 19:8) makes
the Genesis story rather suspect for the development of sexual ethics."
"The Hebrew requirement of the death penalty for actions such
as homosexual offenses (Lev. 20:13) casts similar doubt on the book
of Leviticus as a guide for Christian morality." (The reasoning
is air-tight: God requires harsh punishment for a certain act, therefore
the act can't be wrong.)
The numerous condemnations of homosexual practice by Paul are not
to be taken seriously, since "Paul also condemns certain other
practices which are widely accepted or even sanctioned today,"
such as women speaking in church, acting as teachers, and attending
services with their heads uncovered.
No emphasis is put on other acts Paul condemns, such as murder, adultery,
drunkenness, lying, idolatry, sorcery, kidnapping, perjury, and profanity.
Do we pick and choose among this list, and chalk it up to "cultural
bias"?
At the end of one chapter appears this note: "While modern scriptural
studies provide a positive basis for gay/lesbian ministry (far different
from past condemnations), official Catholic teaching still affirms
the objective immorality of homogential behavior." The disclaimer
made, the report continues in its task of dismantling Catholic sexual
morality.
Two things to remember when defending the moral teachings of the Church:
1. Always approach a moral issue directly; look at the thing in itself,
not under a euphemistic covering. Make it clear that acts are not
to be judged by consequences, popular opinion, or unproven assumptions.
2. Never fail to distinguish between action and actor. Don't stand
for accusations of "homophobia," "misogyny," "racism"
or other "holier-than-thou" labels. Remember, "Hate
the sin and love the sinner."'
The Los Angeles Times sent
a poll to a random selection of American priests. We received a copy
from one of our clerical friends.
When will the media get it straight? The survey poses dozens of questions
concerning the Church's moral and social teachings, asking the priests
to indicate if they agree or disagree, as if it were acceptable to
be a priest and be in favor of abortion (question 44), contraception
(46), or an independent "American Catholic Church," recognizing
"the pope only as its symbolic head" (26).
That's not to say one shouldn't follow one's conscience. A priest,
though, in order not to be a hypocrite, must believe in the authority
by which he was consecrated and of which he has been made a representative.
If his conscience prevents him from this belief, he must inform his
conscience further or cease to be a priest (or even a Catholic, if
his doubts are deep enough).
Most questions in the survey are multiple choice; some are dubious
in that they don't offer the right answer among the choices, and many
questions seem worded to elicit dissenting responses.
Question 14: "What's the greatest danger for the Church these
days?" Aside from "neither" and "not sure,"
the priest gets just two choices: (1) "Excessive resistance to
reform of moral doctrines" (as if it were a foregone conclusion
that moral doctrines needed "reform") and (2) "Excessive
desire to please secular and humanistic forces in society." We
would suggest adding an alternative that many priest might prefer:
(3) "Loaded questions from unsympathetic secular media."
The very last question (77) is sneaky and betrays the world's fundamental
misunderstanding of the Church: "What are the chances that, in
the next few years, you might leave the priesthood?" The five
possible answers are "very likely," "somewhat likely,"
"somewhat unlikely," "very unlikely," and "not
sure." Missing is the best answer: "no chance at all."
A new organization called Brothers and
Sisters in Christian Service is offering its
services to Catholics who are afraid that they are being taught less
than the fullness of the truth in their parishes. Write to BASICS
Evangelization Ministry and you will receive a free list of weekly
newspapers and monthly magazines "that will enable you to discern
whether orthodox Catholicism in your parish is alive and well, seriously
diseased, or already dead." We can't vouch for all the publications
on BASICS's list, but the curious may write to BASICS,
P.O. Box 762, College Park, MD 20740.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
