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