Boston College Professor and author Peter Kreeft told a group of 500 at the Bishop O’Connor Center in Madison that pro-abortion Catholics have done more damage to the Church than the sex abuse scandal, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. Kreeft’s speech was focused on whether Catholics could be liberals and quickly turned to the issue of abortion where he said, “A Catholic cannot be today what is called a liberal about abortion. That’s obvious. That’s a ‘duh.’” But a question from an audience member had Kreeft elaborating further:
During the Q&A, an audience member brought up the Kennedy political dynasty and how a group of leading theologians and Catholic college professors had met with Kennedy family members in the mid-1960s and came up with a way for Catholic politicians to support a pro-abortion rights platform with clear consciences. Kreeft said these Catholic advisers “told the Kennedys how they could get away with murder.” Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening, suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic Church than pedophile priests. “These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God,” Kreeft said. “Sorry, that’s just the way it is. In fact, I’d say these were even worse than the child molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because they did it deliberately, it wasn’t a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that’s straight from the devil.” A few minutes later, the talk over, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.Link (here) to the Cardinal Newman Society
Who is Peter Kreeft referring to?
5 comments:
In all the years that I've spent in this existence I haven't yet met a single person who understands "love your neighbor".
Instead, Catholics spend time arguing about things like abortion, politics, and Church rituals. All those things reflect specific "positions" in specific situations that reflect judgment. Those specific judgments requires a deep understanding of "love your neighbor".
I know that I'm repeating myself, but I'll say again that humility is requested of Catholics for pragmatic reasons.
these Catholic advisers ?
The Society of Jesus Abortion Hit Parade:
Robert Drinan SJ, now has a chair named in his honor at Georgetown
former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen,
John Courney Murray SJ
Jospeh Fuchs SJ
Richard McCormick SJ
These men spawned a whole new generation of men who invent new lies and now tell the faithful that sodomy is no longer a sin.
Pray, pray, pray for these lost men.
Former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen describes the meeting in "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). Those attending were:
Rev. Joseph Fuchs, SJ
Rev. Robert Drinan, SJ
Rev. Giles Milhaven, SJ
Rev. Richard McCormick, SJ
Rev. Charles Curran (Diocese of Rochester)
There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Catholic. But there is also no true mass going on in a post Vatican II "catholic" church, so how are they to even recognize their auto-excommunication from something that is already un-Catholic in substance.
Anonymous 11:54,
Yes, there is no such thing as a pro-abortion Catholic, and there is no such thing as a pro-abortion priest. At the same time, there is no such thing as an anti-abortion Catholic, and there is no such thing as an anti-abortion priest.
Both these positions reflect poor judgment. Judgment would include other values and the associated trade-offs – trade offs that must consider the individual, community, larger community, and God. In order to reflect God’s values and judgments some effort must be made to actually reflect them, rather than rely on memorized rules and emotional arguments.
So what position should a priest take? For many it will be an anti-abortion position. But for others it will be a pro-abortion position. And for many others it will be some mix of those positions, with an emphasis on humility and the associated understanding that the Church and individuals may be mistaken. Simply choosing one of these positions as correct without consideration of your particular context would be a mistake. And, I should point out, often such mistakes have harsh consequences that cannot be conceived of from this existence – the enduring “myth” of hell is not without foundation – even if misunderstood. (And to be candid, the “myth” does not do it sufficient justice, it is far worse than any description that I have ever seen, read, or heard.)
These are advanced lessons, representing a movement away from “milk” and toward “meat”. They are not supposed to be easy. Be careful.
Post a Comment