This guy is chairman of theology at Fordham??
Posted on 07/08/2015 6:40:36 AM PDT by NYer
Ping!
A slippery slope kiddies. A slippery slope.
This guy is chairman of theology at Fordham??
Academia in a microcosm.
Like many protestant denominations, the RCC needs to clean house. The official church organizations of all denominations have become very cozy with the world, taking funding and submitting to the dictats of the secular culture in order to keep the money flowing. Georgetown, Notre Dame, Fordham, as RCC institutions are absolutely indistinguishable in their organizational operations from secular universities beyond the availability of chapel/mass for students and a theology department. Outside the chapel doors, however, most religious-affiliated educational institutions seem to be just fine with abortion, homosexual acts, divorce, premarital sex, cohabitation, a sensual lifestyle, etc. With few exceptions, I am talking about the church as a whole, not just the RCC. Christians let their message get diluted and controlled by the world in order to attract more of the world and its money.
Newly found artifact reveals that Jesus married both Mary Madaglene and John! (comming soon to a anti-christian website near you.
Why don’t these “institutions” have moral turpitude clauses in their contracts that supersede tenure
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910
[To be sworn to annually by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.]
I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.
And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated:
Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.
Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality—that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact—one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history—the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.
[Abrogated by Pope Paul VI in 1967]
It's not just Catholic universities, not by any means.
The organized and semipublic dissent by clergy, religious, and many bishops in the US has been documented for many years.
In 1964, a group of Catholic priests met secretly with the Kennedys at Hyannisport to devise a strategy whereby Catholic politicians could support abortion.
In 1968, organized dissent from the ban on contraception was tolerated.
The American Catholic leadership is in schism, and has been for fifty years.
.its the saying what ever we want its not and error it not a sin.. to simply change the rule so your never in the wrong..so we can do what we.please and always be perfect and never need forgiveness.. because was ever we want is always right...that playing god
The caption on the pic should be: “I have a van that says ‘free candy’ on it.”
Someone whose intellect I respect is Mark Steyn. He’s just done a piece comparing what’s going on here with events in Germany in 1933 — only THIS TIME it won’t JUST BE THE JEWS!
I’ve been trying to hammer this one home for over a year!
THIS IS A MUST READ!!!
http://www.steynonline.com/7036/the-stupidity-of-sophisticates
Yep and he is only 33 years old. Which means he just graduated from college within the last 6 years or so. I would like to know how the hell does that qualify him for the Chairmanship of the Theology department. He must have powerful relatives at Fordham.
I’d check on whoever hired him right away.
It may not be a case of qualifications or nepotism - it' might be a case of his being the only person who wanted the job. When I was in college, the department chair took an unscheduled sabbatical and then retired suddenly in the following semester. Despite the presence of other professors who had more tenure, the newest member of the department was appointed as department chair, where he remained for the duration of my college education.
The Interreligious Imperative: How Vatican II Destroyed the Jesuits
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0515-jesuits-kim.htm
Would that be relatives by blood or by marriage???
\sarc
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.