Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


More From Lucifer’s Parchment

April 21st, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Remember, this repugnant publication with an unabashed hostility toward the Catholic Church is sitting on a coffee table in our discernment house at Becket Hall.

From the National Catholic Reporter:

“I’ve had more than one Catholic who grew up either before or on the cusp of Vatican II tell me horror stories of how they were taught that Jesus died because of their sins.

This was a particularly heavy-handed way for priests and nuns to lay an even thicker coat of guilt on impressionable Catholic school children. Because they were sinners, Jesus had to suffer and die to redeem them. It was one rendering of the traditional theological interpretations of the crucifixion — that Jesus had to die to fulfill the Scriptures and that his death atoned for the sins of the world [Has this central belief of our faith, that Christ died for our sins so that we could have eternal life, changed since Vatican II? I don’t think so!].

When I read the passion narratives of the Gospels, I don’t hear simply that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Rather, I hear the four evangelists very clearly say that Jesus’ suffering and death was the will of those who conspired against him — those whose political systems he had undermined, those whose religious convictions he had offended.

Jesus’ passion and death is a result of deeply-human intolerance, jealousy, resentment, hatred, and, most of all, fear.

Jesus’ death may [“may” ?!] have been the will of God, but it was also the will of both powerful people and ordinary people who preferred unquestioning loyalty to rigid, oppressive political and religious regimes to the profound challenges of God incarnate.

Whenever we allow religious institutions to rob us of our dignity [Take a wild guess who the writer is talking about] as unconditionally beloved children of God, God is put into a prison and degraded .”

Can the NCR sink any lower?



14 Responses to “More From Lucifer’s Parchment”

  1. avatar Bruce says:

    Well, what should you expect from a non-Catholic, homosexual activist, women’s “ordination” honk at the Not Catholic Reporter? It is nothing but drivel.

  2. avatar MD says:

    This week in heretical buffoonery…

  3. avatar Thinkling says:

    Another “wholly weak” Holy Week travesty

  4. avatar annonymouse says:

    There are contemporary theologians who pooh-pooh the notion that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. This NCR writer would do well to crack open the scriptures (although it’s so “old-fashioned” to rely on scripture rather than contemporary theologians’ musings, I know). A quick google search reveals the following verses which appear to contradict the NCR writer:

    1 Cor 15:3
    1 John 2:2
    Heb 9: 11-15
    Mark 10:45
    1 Peter 2:24
    Rom 5:8

    I’m sure there are more. This presumes that we can rely on the Bible, of course.

  5. Although it probably won’t sway the NCR crowd, the Church teaches definitively that Jesus did indeed die for our sins and that His redemptive sacrifice was indeed part of the Father’s plan; from the Compendium:

    118. Why was the death of Jesus part of God’s plan?


    To reconcile to himself all who were destined to die because of sin God took the loving initiative of sending his Son that he might give himself up for sinners. Proclaimed in the Old Testament, especially as the sacrifice of the Suffering Servant, the death of Jesus came about “in accordance with the Scriptures”.

    119. In what way did Christ offer himself to the Father?


    The entire life of Christ was a free offering to the Father to carry out his plan of salvation. He gave “his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) and in this way he reconciled all of humanity with God. His suffering and death showed how his humanity was the free and perfect instrument of that divine love which desires the salvation of all people.

  6. avatar PhilQ says:

    Don’t forget that Jamie L. Manson is the type of catholic who would advertise her services (within your budget!) for weddings and “commitment services”: “[S]ince I have a thorough training in world religions, we can plan an interfaith service that respectfully integrates both of your traditions. Your needs will be our guide. I will happily work with same sex or opposite sex couples.”

  7. avatar Scott W. says:

    Why don’t the seminarians throw the paper away and make it known that they prefer not to have the NCR in their house?

    Perhaps they just need a prompting. Anyone know these guys?

  8. avatar BigE says:

    – Because maybe its good to be exposed to a broad range of ideas and perspectives even when they are at odds with our own. These guys will be heading out to minister in the world, not live in a cacoon.

  9. avatar Nerina says:

    Because maybe its good to be exposed to a broad range of ideas and perspectives even when they are at odds with our own.

    So, BigE, maybe I should just start exposing my 11 year old son to pornography now. Afterall, he’s not going to be living in the cocoon of my home forever. The point is that these seminarians are still in formation. Shouldn’t they be properly formed before discerning the chaff from the wheat?

  10. avatar Dr. K says:

    Because maybe its good to be exposed to a broad range of ideas and perspectives even when they are at odds with our own.

    It didn’t work too well for our seminarians in the 80s and 90s. They were exposed to so much progressive garbage in discernment and seminary. It indeed rubbed off on many of them.

    A good formation does matter, and that includes reading solid Catholic material.

  11. avatar Scott W. says:

    – Because maybe its good to be exposed to a broad range of ideas and perspectives even when they are at odds with our own. These guys will be heading out to minister in the world, not live in a cacoon.

    Perhaps you missed the earlier thread, but the issue is what those in charge of the seminarian’s instruction and formation formally and materially endorse. Now, if they were to say, “Yes, we provide this paper and use it as examples under our guidance, so that our seminarians get exposed to dissent and can be equipped to refute when they encounter it”, then there might be a case. I don’t believe this is the case her–It’s either carelessness, or actual formal support for NCR’s dissent. Bishop D’Arcy had a great statement about Catholic universities I think applies to seminaries as well:

    Catholic universities cannot present things that imply that Catholic teaching is one option competing among many……what makes a Catholic university distinctive is the conviction that in the search for truth, we do not start from scratch; we start from the truth that has been revealed to us in the Word of God, the person of Jesus Christ, and the teaching of his church. The notion that truth will emerge from a discussion in which many points of view are represented both disrespects revealed truth and separates the search for truth from the certainty of faith…

  12. avatar Gretchen says:

    I just asked my 11- and 9-year old Catholic-schooled daughters, “Why did Jesus die?” Their answer? “Because of our sins!” Were they horrified? Of course not; at least not in the way implied by the writer of the article in the NCR. They offered that when we think about Jesus dying on the cross, it reminds us to be better behaved. They think the article is ridiculous. “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

  13. avatar Louis E. says:

    Does the seminary teach its students to be able to read Acta Apostolicae Sedis without translation?…surely that is far more important reading material for a priest…

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-