Chuck Colson: Like It or Not: Cardinal Arinze at Georgetown

Townhall.com ^ | June 4, 2003 | Chuck Colson

[lawdude]

"Very few people have the courage to speak the truth anymore."

A trait totally lacking in the scumball, lying, perverted Bishop Thomas O'Brien in Phoenix.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Bump for Cardinal Arinze! A pity that so many Catholic Colleges are CINO.

[evets]

During a group discussion of religious leaders from around the world, held at the Thanksgiving World Assembly in Dallas, Texas, in March of 1999, Cardinal Francis Arinze, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is quoted as follows:

"(A document from the Second Vatican Council) says that God's grant of salvation includes not only Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus and people of good will. That is, a person can be saved, can attain salvation, but on condition that the person is open to God's action. ..." ...

Robert Ashley, news director at Dallas radio station KHVN-AM, asked Cardinal Arinze: "So you can still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?"

Cardinal Arinze answered: "Expressly, yes (he laughs with the audience)."

also:
Let me quote from African Cardinal Francis Arinze, the president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican.
"There isn't only one religion in the world, . . . ." "As we get set to step into the third millennium, the followers of the various religions have no choice but to come closer to one another, to listen to one another, to try to understand one another better and to try to collaborate more for a better world." (The San Diego Union-Tribune, Thursday, June 25, 1998, page A-14, by Sandi Dolbee.)

[dd5339]

Chuck Colson Ping!

Semper Fi

[joesnuffy]

guess it depends on what your definition of "center" would be?

[Defiant]

At my Georgetown graduation, we got Mother Theresa as the commencement speaker. We expected her to speak of her work with the poor, and to remind us to always remember the less fortunate as we advanced through our careers. We got a very long anti-abortion speech. I am anti-abortion, but the speech on commencement day was kind of a downer. Now I look back on it and think that I was lucky to hear from Mother Theresa in person while she was alive. Back then, I was wishing we got Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Ronald Reagan.

Georgetown is a school that lets in students from all religions. Catholics are no longer a vast majority of the students as they once were, and may even be a minority. A school that has that demographic should probably not have a Catholic theologian as the speaker, because it disrespects the tradition of those who are not Catholic. If Georgetown were still a Catholic institution, I would have no problem with this guy speaking. But it's not--it's an institution run by Jesuits but the Catholic influence is minimal, a couple theology courses and that's it.

[1stFreedom]

>>I believe Catholics and Protestants can 'cross party lines' on most things.

Well, on many things. We seem to be be divided on social policies though (health care, etc).

>>fight for the family and decency in the media.

I look at it this way. Lets group together to fight a common fight. Once victory is accomplished, then we can resume the great debate about Catholicism.

I am an orthodox Catholic and I have serious disagreements with my protestant brothers. I think the differences in the faiths are grave, not small. It's true we share some fundamentals -- Christ is Lord, etc.

However, I think there are bigger battles than theological ones. Since we live in a post-Christian (post-protestant) nation, it's more important to restore the nation to some semblance of Christianity than it is to hammer out the differences in faith.

If we fight each other publicly, the nation will just see the Church for what it is -- a factionalized group of squabbling, self rightous people. How will they ever listen to us?

Most of us who are active are not convertable -- ie, we have had the deep theological debates with each other and remain unconvinced of the other side. So we don't need to try and convert one another. I'm as absolutely convinced about my faith as you are about yours.

What we need to do is to convert the hearts of the rest of the nation. And I'm not talking about the literal Gospel -- they won't even listen. I'm talking about changing their hearts to a point where they can hear it without writing it off. Right now, they simply write it off.

IMO, the battle lies in abortion, sex, the family, marriage, and charity. If we can change the heart of the nation on these, they will have very little resistance to the Gospel.

Finally, we need to DEFEND ONE ANOTHER publicly. I'd defend Billy Graham or Pat Robertson publicly. In my defense of them, I won't spell out my disagreements either. Rather, I laud them for living their faith.

[1stFreedom]

>>Expressly, yes (he laughs with the audience

The Church teaches that they are saved because of Christ. It's not a salvation outside of Him. It's through Him and his Death and ressurection. They may not know that truth, but God knows their hearts and God will judge them accordingly. If they are saved, it is because of Christ.

[evets]

"we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. " 1Tim 4:10

Amen

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

2 Kings 2:11

11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Elijah is in heaven.

I don't agree with the idea that those who have beliefs contrary to the teachings of Jesus are eligible for heaven, but to say that no one who died before the resurrection of Jesus or died without having the opportunity to hear the Gospel presented have no chance at salvation is wrong.

Paul says in Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Verses 14 and 15 make it clear that those who have not heard the law will be judged for their actions since the law is written on their hearts.

their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

The mercy that God grants to mankind by sending his Son to die for all sins does not stop, it is continuing still. Those who do not hear the Gospel still have knowledge of good and evil and make those choices. Those choices will be weighed in the end, and according to the Bible, will provide the evidence to whether they will enter into heaven.

[evets]

"No one has ever gone into heaven" John 3:13

(But then that's just Jesus talkin'.)

[Remole]

I agree that the needs of the Church exceed the boundaries of Europe. I lived in West Africa for some years and in Rome for some years and I can appreciate what you say about the shock value of an African Pope. I am sure that whoever is chosen the Bishop of Rome will have a world-wide vision. In fact, that is one of the main reasons I am betting (not formally, but I am sure that there is a line on it somewhere) on Poupard. He has been a key figure in the discussions and implementation of "Inculturation" for the past 15 years. The problem with him, though, is that he has spent most of the past 20 years in the Roman Curia; plus he is already 72 years old.

I just don't see the Cardinals choosing an African--too revolutionary. I think they want to stick with Europe for a while.

And forget about an American, even one with a stellar pedigree and mind such as Archbp. George of Chicago: there is simply no way, considering present geo-political circumstances, that the Cardinals will choose an American.

[RAT Patrol]

I understand what you're saying, but don't you think it is valuable for people graduating and going out into the world to learn to be respectful to speakers even when they do not share their views?

Also, don't you imagine some Democrats graduated with you and might not have enjoyed a speach from Ronald Reagan? There is an opposite to everyone. At some point, those in charge just have to make a choice, and those in subordinate positions just need to be respectful.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Nice to see that Colson has added the word Catholic to his vocabulary. It wasn't part of it when he described the funeral Mass of Catholic David Bloom.

[RAT Patrol]

I agree 100% with your post 27 except that I'm not Catholic. Well said.

[RAT Patrol]

Your post 23 is interesting and I'd have to strongly disagree with him on Salvation. But the thing is, I really only care about his views on politics. Now, if that were one of my church leaders talking about salvation, I'd take major issue with it. In the political arena, the issue is irrelevant. Don't you think?

[RAT Patrol]

I do know how to spell speech (lol). I just don't know how to type.

[Defiant]

Of course the people sitting there and listening must be respectful to the speaker--unless he outright insults the audience or attacks them, as the NYT reporter did.

Reagan and Kirkpatrick were the administration at the time, and would not have used the occasion to harangue democrats, but to state some type of vision or to just advise the graduates. It's the price democrats would have to endure for losing the election, just as conservatives had to endure Clinton speaking at Georgetown while he was President. Conservatives might have disagreed with what he said, but they did not disrespect him, and he did not attack them.

What I'm saying is there is a time and place for everything. A commencement is to be an uplifting time for the graduates, a chance to see a successful person and have him urge the grads on to great things. It is not a time for meanness, or for theological discussions with non-believers. I went to see the Pope speak when he came to DC. But I wouldn't try to force Jews to sit through a mass or a discussion about Christ's divinity just to graduate. Time and place.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

So 2 Kings is wrong? Jesus was speaking of those who were hearing. He was teaching on salvation and Nicodemus was asking questions. Jesus said

John 3:10-14
10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?
11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man.

He wasn't saying that no one was in heaven, he was saying that he was the only person present who had been to heaven.

Luke 23:42-43

42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Was Jesus lying? I know "heaven" and "paradise" are probably different things, I was speaking in general terms of a soul in torment or a soul in peace with God.