Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chuck Colson: Like It or Not: Cardinal Arinze at Georgetown
Townhall.com ^ | June 4, 2003 | Chuck Colson

Posted on 06/04/2003 7:26:11 AM PDT by RAT Patrol

QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW

townhall.com

Like It or Not: Cardinal Arinze at Georgetown
Chuck Colson (back to web version)

June 4, 2003

Parents and students attending this year’s commencement at Georgetown University, a Catholic school, would surely expect to hear a commencement address that took Catholic teaching seriously. And that’s what they got. But many in the crowd were offended, even outraged.

The commencement speaker was Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. The dean who invited Arinze expected him to speak about the relationship between Christianity and Islam, especially in places like the Cardinal’s native Nigeria.

Instead, Cardinal Arinze told Georgetown’s class of 2003 that "happiness is found not in the pursuit of material wealth or pleasures of the flesh, but by fervently adhering to religious beliefs." Warming to his task, he then told graduates and guests about the importance of the family in Christian faith and life.

He said that "in many parts of the world, the family is under siege" as a result of what he called "an anti-life mentality [that can be seen] in contraception, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia." Instead of being honored, the family is "scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions, and cut in two by divorce."

Well, that’s a very Catholic message one might expect from a Catholic cardinal. But it proved too much for many in the audience. Teresa Sanders, a professor of theology, left the stage during Arinze’s remarks. Seventy other faculty members signed a letter to the dean protesting what one of them called Arinze’s "wildly inappropriate" remarks. Really? As a result, the dean apologized for the Cardinal’s remarks and the "hurt" they caused.

This incident speaks volumes about the spiritual and moral condition of the West. As historian Philip Jenkins has written, the numerical and geographical heart of Christianity has shifted from the West to the developing world. One result of this shift is that, as was predicted, Christians from Africa are now evangelizing Europe and America, instead of the other way around.

Thus, we see Anglican bishops from Africa standing against Western apostasy by ordaining American clergy who will uphold historic Christian teaching on faith and morals. And we see Cardinal Arinze pointing out the damage being wrought by the West’s forsaking of these teachings.

The response to the Cardinal shows just how phony all the rhetoric about "tolerance" really is. Tolerance originally meant allowing people whom you believed to be wrong to live according to their beliefs without fear of reprisal.

It then mutated into the idea that all beliefs are equally valid. While this was mistaken, at least it allowed for the possibility that Christians might publicly express their beliefs. Now "tolerance" means that no one—other than Christians—should ever hear anything that contradicts what they think, or otherwise upsets them. This is especially true if the subject is human sexuality.

This bogus definition of tolerance is why the dean felt the need to apologize for what the Cardinal said. Fortunately, our African brethren think otherwise. They take their faith seriously—seriously enough to tell the truth about the state of our souls, whether we like it or not.

There is hope in Africa, if not in Georgetown.


For further reading:

Read the text of Cardinal Arinze’s speech (scroll down to "Francis Cardinal Arinze: Arise, Rejoice, God Is Calling You").

Julia Duin, "Criticism of gays riles Georgetown," Washington Times, May 30, 2003.

Al Dobras, "Will the Real Bigots Please Stand Up?" BreakPoint Online, May 9, 2003

Chuck Colson is founder and chairman of BreakPoint Online, a TownHall.com member group.

©2003 BreakPoint Online

Read Colson's biography

townhall.com

QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; charlescolson; commencementspeech; francisarinze; georgetownu; homosexuality; intolerance; moralrelativity; tolerance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: RAT Patrol
"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.
21 posted on 06/04/2003 8:00:40 AM PDT by lawdude (Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol; BlackElk; Polycarp
Bump for Cardinal Arinze! A pity that so many Catholic Colleges are CINO.
22 posted on 06/04/2003 8:07:03 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
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.)


23 posted on 06/04/2003 8:10:41 AM PDT by evets (Elijha is not in heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Vic3O3
Chuck Colson Ping!

Semper Fi
24 posted on 06/04/2003 8:17:22 AM PDT by dd5339 (Lookout Texas, here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
guess it depends on what your definition of "center" would be?
25 posted on 06/04/2003 8:26:42 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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.

26 posted on 06/04/2003 8:28:10 AM PDT by Defiant (Bush as philosopher: "I-raq, therefore I-ran.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hardhead
>>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.


27 posted on 06/04/2003 8:28:54 AM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: evets
>>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.
28 posted on 06/04/2003 8:31:09 AM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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

Amen
29 posted on 06/04/2003 8:49:30 AM PDT by evets (Call no man 'father')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: evets
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.

30 posted on 06/04/2003 8:50:41 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
"No one has ever gone into heaven" John 3:13

(But then that's just Jesus talkin'.)
31 posted on 06/04/2003 9:02:39 AM PDT by evets (I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. He is my Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
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.

32 posted on 06/04/2003 9:12:43 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Defiant
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.

34 posted on 06/04/2003 9:21:54 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.
35 posted on 06/04/2003 9:25:22 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
I agree 100% with your post 27 except that I'm not Catholic. Well said.
36 posted on 06/04/2003 9:26:40 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: evets
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?
37 posted on 06/04/2003 9:32:05 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
I do know how to spell speech (lol). I just don't know how to type.
38 posted on 06/04/2003 9:33:30 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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.

39 posted on 06/04/2003 10:05:40 AM PDT by Defiant (Bush as philosopher: "I-raq, therefore I-ran.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: evets
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.

40 posted on 06/04/2003 10:29:31 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson