A Time For Healing

[MC Just]

[url="http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=81&section=Featured+Today"]http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.p...=Featured+Today[/url]

Im gonna print this our and hand it out at church....

A Time for Healing

Anne Marie McDonnell, Ph. D.

When Pope Paul VI presciently proclaimed that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church, little did most Catholics realize that the perfidious effect of embers smoldering for four decades would eventually explode with such an incendiary force. Once humanistic psychology and philosophy began to incrementally infiltrate our Catholic institutions of learning, Magisterial teaching essentially became sabotaged and ultimately replaced by ideologies in complete contradistinction to Church doctrine. The infiltration of secular humanism into Catholic education at all levels has become increasingly common since Vatican II because so many of the Second Vatican's teachings have been misconstrued, misinterpreted, and misrepresented by those who would like to deconstruct and reconstruct Church teaching.

After decades of allowing this sinful syncretism to perpetuate, the deleterious and reprehensible effects are finally starting to become acknowledged, recognized, and addressed by the shepherds of the Catholic Church in America.

This integration of secularism with Catholicism is exemplified by the harmful influences exerted by two well-known psychologists, Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, who initially gained particular prominence within certain Catholic circles during the sixties. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is of paramount importance for an individual's sense of fulfillment. Among certain sectors of the purportedly Catholic academia, this type of ideology has often assumed more significance, acceptance, and credibility than Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The teachings of Christ focus on self-denial as the primary means of fulfilling one's ultimate destiny, which is eternal salvation. Roger's nondirective therapy emphasizes self-empowerment by encouraging individuals to center exclusively on their own inner desires, which often means rebelling against any type of authority figure, frequently resulting in a genuine disobedience to all legitimate forms of authority. Of course, with respect to the Catholic Church, authority refers to papal primacy and Magisterial teaching.

It is interesting to note that both Maslow and Rogers repudiated their former teachings in the latter stages of their lives and distanced themselves from educational programs based on their theories and practices. Yet, these ideologies often continue to subtly pervade the classrooms of Catholic institutions at all educational levels, even including certain seminaries. William Coulson, a former associate of Carl Rogers, also now refers to himself as a repentant psychologist who has reformed his ways of thinking and continues to inform others about the dangers of secular humanist psychology. After initiating Rogerian nondirective therapy sessions with groups of nuns in the Immaculate Heart of Mary Order back in the late sixties, Coulson, a Catholic, witnessed the literal obliteration of the order within a year. Other orders of priests and nuns became infected with the same ideologies, and a mass exodus instantaneously ensued.

It is also interesting to observe the rebellious reactions of certain dissident bishops during the past decade as the Holy Father, John Paul II, asserts a very logical and reasonable principle in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, simply stating that authentic Catholic teaching should prevail in all Catholic colleges and universities. Meanwhile, thousands of young people are endangering the spiritual health of their souls by attending schools with Catholic names that promote anti-Catholic teachings. It is apparent that some so-called Catholic school administrators show more regard for political correctness than they do for truth in advertising laws.

It is therefore self-evident that the root of the problem concerning the immoral conduct among clergy members is not due to patriarchal oppression, celibacy, or rigid Church teaching, despite the mantra repeatedly spewed forth by the secular media. In fact, this scandalous behavior results from an acceptance of moral relativism and outright rejection of Catholic teaching within institutions that still outwardly claim to be Catholic. Learning to excuse and rationalize one's behavior in the interest of indulging one's own carnal desires requires that one also reject a healthy notion of guilt, shame, sin, and concupiscence. According to Michael Rose's new book, Goodbye! Good Men, this is exactly what has been happening in certain seminaries for the past few decades. Rose maintains that our vocations crisis has been artificially contrived by those who would like to change the very infrastructure of the Church by replacing it with some type of self-indulgent community that would primarily idolize itself.

With ample and substantive documentation, Rose chronicles how seminarians who are prayerful and loyal to the Magisterium have been considered "too rigid" in seminaries where heterodoxy prevails. Often, many of these potential candidates for the priesthood have been systematically subjected to psychological manipulation and sexual harassment, eventually being rejected as unworthy for consideration. Meanwhile, in far too many instances, those who have questioned or rejected the moral teaching of the Church have been retained and ultimately ordained as priests. Rose also strongly asserts that there are still some wonderful seminaries that provide a truly Catholic education to those who seek a holy life of service to God and others. Interestingly, the dioceses in which these seminaries are located traditionally have no shortage of vocations to the priesthood.

Now, we must remember that we are referring to less than 1% of priests who have been involved in the scandalous conduct that has been recently reported. Nonetheless, we expect priests to be exceptional models of moral rectitude and even one occurrence of impropriety is unacceptable. We must truly pray for all priests and for all the victims of these horrific circumstances. Furthermore, we must pray for a restoration of authentic, orthodox teaching in our Catholic schools, parishes, seminaries, colleges, universities, and dioceses through our nation and world. Most importantly, we need to ask for God's mercy.

Finally, we must remember that we have God's promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. Since it is divinely ordained, it is the only institution in the world that has survived for two thousand years. During those two thousand years, it has coped with every type of heresy and apostasy imaginable; with the help of the Lord, it will survive this crisis, too, and eventually emerge as a more unified, Spirit-filled Church.

Contact: Regent University Center for Leadership Studies
[url="http://www.regent.edu"]http://www.regent.edu[/url] RI, US
Anne Marie McDonnell - Adjunct Professor, 401-353-1627
Keywords: Healing

[MC Just]

bump

[jasJis]

A great article that should be pinned. All those liberal and conservative doomsayers should read this and accept the courage and hope that is in the Catholic Church. "This too shall pass" as Christ, through the Holy Spirit, corrects and guides His Church through, past, and despite all the stupid sinful errors humanity drags into it. Our sins and faults are but feathers assaulting a mountain. Even if we bring tons of it to the Church, it only makes the trees look funny and hasn't budged the mountain one iota.

[MC Just]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 18 2004, 10:25 AM'] A great article that should be pinned. All those liberal and conservative doomsayers should read this and accept the courage and hope that is in the Catholic Church. "This too shall pass" as Christ, through the Holy Spirit, corrects and guides His Church through, past, and despite all the stupid sinful errors humanity drags into it. Our sins and faults are but feathers assaulting a mountain. Even if we bring tons of it to the Church, it only makes the trees look funny and hasn't budged the mountain one iota. [/quote]
Tell me about it.......Man and I see the humanist idea's everywhere I go. Priests telling people that certain sins are "normal" and "natural".and things like "if it doesnt make you feel guilty, then it is not a sin".....

[MC Just]

i plan on passing the article out at church, I wonder if the Priests would disagree...hmmmm... I'll just have to go and find out...

[God Conquers]

Hardcore.

I like it.

It's also true.... orthodox and magesterially faithful seminaries continue to flourish. Others continue to decline.

[Ricky2]

This is the garbage that has polluted our entire society. Our schools teach it, our news media bless it, our entertainment industry glorifies it, and our courts impose its principles on all of us. Our Supreme Court has categorized it as a Religion, yet you hear absolutely no cry of separation of Church and State from the courts, the media or academia.
Rick

The Religious Face of Humanism

Robert L. Waggoner[1]

As the saying goes, if a bird looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it must be a duck. Likewise, if modern humanism claims to be a religion, has characteristics of a religion, acts like a religion, and also has been declared, legally, to be a religion, then it must be a religion, notwithstanding denials now coming from some humanists who previously said that humanism is a religion.[2] There is too much evidence to refute such claims.

Humanism Claims To Be A Religion

That the signers of Humanist Manifesto I believed humanism to be a religion is evident by language used within that document. They thought that the circumstances of their world had created a situation “which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion.”[3] They believed that “to establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”[4] They declared “In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.”[5]

Humanist Manifesto I affirmed fifteen principles. Eight of these use language which requires recognition that humanism is a religion.[6] The last paragraph of that document begins with the words, “So stands the theses of religions humanism.”[7]

Forty years later, Paul Kurtz declared in the preface to Humanist Manifestos I and II that “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself”.[8] He also stated that “[i]n 1933 a group of thirty-four liberal humanists in the United States defined and enunciated the philosophical and religious principles that seemed to them fundamental. They drafted Humanist Manifesto I . . . It was concerned with expressing a general religious and philosophical outlook . . . ”[9]

He then noted that Humanist Manifesto II also addressed itself to the problems of religion[10] The first two of seventeen statements of belief in Humanist Manifesto II are discussed under the category of religion. Although the language of religious humanism is not used in the second manifesto as extensively as in the first, there can be no doubt that the beliefs of the second document may also be categorized as religious humanism. [11]

Moreover, the Bylaws of the American Humanist Association, declares that “[t]he American Humanist Association was incorporated under the not for profit act of the State of Illinois as a non-profit organization, as certified by the Articles of Incorporation dated 13 February, 1943, which Articles were amended 20 March, 1968, to reflect that the Association has a legal status as a religious organization.”[12]

Humanism Has Characteristics Of A Religion

Humanism not only claims to be a religion, it also has religious characteristics. Among these are faith assumptions, attempts to answer basic and ultimate religious concerns, creedal statements, development out of a religious tradition, and demonstrations of missionary zeal.[13]

The faith assumptions of humanism are numerous. Humanists cannot prove that God does not exist, or that he does not intervene in human events. They assume that mankind has no spiritual nature, that humans are self-existing, and that all things evolve. They assume that no absolute moral values exist, that ethics is autonomous, and that humanity is not accountable to God after this life. Humanism assumes that there is no sin, and therefore that there is no need for eternal salvation. Humanism assumes that there is no life after death, and that there is no heaven or hell. All these are faith assumptions.

Like all other religions, humanism seeks to answer basic and ultimate questions regarding reality. To the question, “Who am I?” humanists answer that “man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.”[14] To the question, “Where did I come from?” they respond that “the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”[15] To the question, “Why am I here?” humanism declares, “The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality - not for the favored few, but for all of humankind”[16] “ . . . commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality.”[17] To the question, “Where am I going?” humanists answer, “[r]eligious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of mans life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.”[18] To the question, “How do I get there?” they respond . . . “[b]elieving that religion must work increasingly for joy in human living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfaction of life.”[19]

Humanism Acts Like A Religion

Humanism not only claims to be a religion and it not only has all the characteristics of religion, but it also acts consistent with its claims and characteristics. A publication of the American Humanist Association states that “[t]he American Humanist Association is a non-profit organization, funded in the early 1940s to provide an alternative religious philosophy . . . ”[20] “The association seeks people interested in becoming certified Humanist Leaders, Counselors, or ordained Ministers.”[21] “A Humanist Counselor, AHA, is the legal equivalent of minister, priest, rabbi . . . Humanist counselors, AHA, may act as chaplains on campuses and in prisons, hospitals, and other institutions where the presence of a non-traditional or non-theistic minister is often a need.”[22] “To extend its principles and operate educationally, the Association publishes books, magazines, and pamphlets; engages lecturers; selects, trains and accredits Humanist Counselors as its ordained ministry of the movement. . . . ”[23]

One of the goals of the American Humanist Association is to place a humanist counselor in every public school in America.[24] If successful, humanist counselors will then be able to give guidance freely, according to principles of humanism, to children of Christian parents, in public schools, without Christian parents ever being aware of it.

Humanism Is A Legally Declared Religion

Humanism has also been declared, legally, to be a religion. In the traditional Christian sense, religion has to do with God-centeredness. Atheism, being opposed to God, is man-centered and therefore, until recently, has not been considered as a religion. However, “[b]eginning in the 1940s, Christian theism came under increasing attack. The federal courts began to broaden and diversify the definition of religion until by the end of the 1960s the judicial definition of religion was altered from sustenance of belief (belief in and obligation owed to the Creator) to the impact of the belief on the life of the person expressing and holding it. . . . The basis of truth was shifting from Christian theism’s emphasis on God-centeredness to humanism’s emphasis on man-centeredness.”[25]

The courts’ alteration of the definition of religion resulted in religion finally being defined as ultimate concern.[26] That is, whatever is of ultimate concern to an individual is his religion. This, in turn, led to the courts’ definition of humanism as religion. In the landmark case of Torcasco v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “[a]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others . . . ”[27] Other court decisions have also declared that humanism is a religion.[28]

The denial, by modern humanists, that humanism is a religion may be because humanists have begun to realize that if humanism is generally considered to be a religion, then it, like Christianity, is also subject to the First Amendments prohibition of the establishment of religion, and therefore may not be taught in the nation’s public schools.

As Religion, Humanism Worships Humanity

Christians are rightly concerned that humanism be recognized as a religion, and that as a religion humanism is currently being taught in public schools. However, the primary concern of Christians regarding humanism is not whether it is labeled as a religion. Rather, it is because of what humanism is. Humanism is a form of self-worship. It is anti-Christian. And it is anti-family.

Although the term humanism has only recently become popularized, the concepts of humanism have existed as long as mankind. Eve was the first Humanist. She wanted to become like God by eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:5-6). Those who started to build the Tower of Babel wanted to make a great name for themselves. Their intent was to build a tower with its top in the heavens (Genesis 11:4-7). This was probably an assertion of their independence from God.

Throughout history, people have often considered themselves gods. Tyre was destroyed because its heart was proud and it said, “I am God” (Ezekiel 28:2). The paramount worship of mankind throughout human history has been that of self- worship.[29]

Modern humanism differs from Renaissance humanism. Renaissance humanists were students of the humanities. In reading ancient non-Christian documents of humanity, humanists absorbed many pagan assumptions regarding the nature of humanity. Subsequently they began rejecting Christian perspectives. Humanism gradually changed from being primarily a study of the humanities to become the worship of humanity.

In the nineteenth century August Comte, a French philosopher, established a formal Religion of Humanity for the worship of all mankind - past, present, and future. “This religion had a catechism, sacraments, a sacred calendar, a priesthood, prayers and something imitative of the Trinity. It also had a social system of which Comte was the chief planner. The Religion of Humanity, as a visible institution, for a time had great vitality. Comteans formed positivist societies for the worship of great people, and their churches spread even to South Africa.”[30]

In the 1860s the formal designation of the Religion of Humanity was changed to humanism. Since then, the informal worship of humanity has continued to grow. In modern America humanism produces self-worship in many forms. Even our vocabulary emphasizes self. Self-esteem, self-actualization, self-realization, self-integration, self-determination, self-centeredness, self-experience, and similar expressions of the self are symptomatic of a very selfish society. Selfishness seeks hedonistic lifestyles through homosexuality, pornography, gambling, drug abuse, etc. It produces divorce and it is the primary motivation for abortion. In our society, this selfishness becomes a virtue. Many books are written and sold about the wisdom of looking out for number one. Selfishness is the logical result of a religion that promotes a person being his own god.

Although humanists generally do not designate humanity by titles of deity, their language ascribes to humanity the roles and attributes of God. Humanism implies that mankind is omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign (i.e., autonomous), and one’s own savior. For humanists, mankind is the only lawgiver. Humanism must therefore reject any law or moral code such as the Bible, which is not derived from human wisdom.

Humanism Is Anti-Christian

As religion, humanism is anti-Christian. It not only rejects the relevancy of God, the deity of Jesus, the authority of the Bible, the sin of man, his need for salvation, and his eternal destiny, but it also rejects, by its insistence upon individual autonomy and self-worship, Christian teaching regarding self-denial and the bearing of one another’s burdens. Whenever Christians live, as we do now, in a world whose values are predominantly those of humanism, then Christians must remember that Jesus emphasized self-denial, not self-esteem or self-worship (Mark 8:34-38; Matthew 16:24-28; Luke 9:23-27). Christians must also remember that Christianity is a religion which requires the bearing of one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2; Romans 5:1; Galatians 5:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:14).

Humanism Is Anti-Family

As religion, humanism is also anti-family. Humanism stresses individual human rights, individual autonomy, and the equality of all humankind. In humanism, the individual, not the family is the basic unit of society. The declarations of humanists are not so worded as to portray an anti-family bias, yet that is their logical and ultimate consequence. Notice that following typical humanists declarations, which, when viewed from the perspective of individual rights, seem positive, yet when viewed from the perspective of the family, are really negative.

“Humanists believe that the right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.”[31] They say that “short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire.”[32] They believe that “the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes a recognition of an individuals right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.”[33] “Humanists believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility . . . the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.”[34]

Humanistic emphasis upon individual autonomy and rights, rather than responsibilities, plays havoc with the family. No longer is obedience, duty, fidelity, humility, or commitment and loyalty emphasized in our culture. “With monotonous regularity, the selfist literature sides with those values that encourage divorce, breaking up, dissolution of marital or family ties. All of this is done in the name of growth, autonomy, and ‘continuing the flux.’”[35]

Conclusion:

The selfish man-centered nature of humanism with its anti-Christian and anti-family consequences is only a small part of the religion of humanism. Its religious nature is also manifested in other humanistic beliefs better recognized in allied philosophies of naturalism, materialism, statism, feminism, hedonism, and romanticism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Copyright © Robert L. Waggoner, 1988, Revised, 2000. Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this material for non-commercial and educational purposes, if unaltered and if copyright and author’s name is given. All other rights reserved.

[2]For example, Paul Kurtz, “The New Inquisition In The Schools,” Free Inquiry. Winter, 1986/87, 5.

[3]Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifestos I and II. Buffalo, NY: Promotheus Books. 1973, 8.

[4]Same as above.

[5]Same source, 7.

[6]These are numbered First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth.

[7]Same source, 10.

[8]Same source, 3. Opening statement in Preface.

[9]Same source, 3.

[10]Same as above.

[11]For a good evaluation and comparison of basic humanists writings, I recommend Norman L. Geisler. Is Man The Measure: An Evaluation Of Contemporary Humanism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1983, especially chapter 9, “Secular Humanism,” 111-122.

[12]Bylaws Of The American Humanist Association, enacted 1971; revise d 1977; amended 1978, 1980. Update compilation, July, 1981 by the subcommittee on American Humanist Association Bylaws: Harvey Lebrum, Ward Tabler, Howard Consalves, “Historical Note,” 1.

[13]For further discussion of the religious nature of humanism, read John Eidsmoe. The Christian Legal Advisor, Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1984, chapter 12, “Humanism as an Establishment of Religion,” 179-199, and Homer Duncan, “The Religion of Secular Humanism and The Public Schools,” 2425-34th St., Lubbock, TX 79411-1689, 1983, Part I, “Secular Humanism Is A Religion,” 5-37.

[14]Humanist Manifesto I, Second.

[15]Humanist Manifesto II, Second.

[16]Humanist Manifesto II, Preface.

[17]Humanist Manifesto II, In closing.

[18]Humanist Manifesto I, Eighth.

[19]Humanist Manifesto II, Twelfth.

[20]As quoted by Lottie Beth Hobbs, “Humanists Ministers and Counselors,” Pro-Family Forum Alert, Ft. Worth, TX: September, 1984, 3.

[21]Same as above.

[22]Same as above.

[23]Bylaws Of The American Humanist Association, “Preamble,” 2.

[24]Lottie Beth Hobbs. Same as above.

[25]John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, Elgin, IL: David C. Cook publishers, 1982, 104.

[26]For a more thorough discussion of legal changes to the definition of religion, read John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, 104-108.

[27]367 U.S. 488 (1961) footnote 11.

[28]Among them are Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. Appellate D. C. 371, 249 F 2nd 127 (1957); Fellowship of Humanity V. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd 673, 315 P. 2nd 394 (1957); Jaffree v. Board of School comrs of Mobile County, 554 F. Supp. 1104, 1129 n. 41 (1983); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952).

[29]Arnold Toynbee, “Reconsiderations,” vol. 12 of A Study of History, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, 488 via Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation With American Society. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, 40.

[30]Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation With American Society, 41.

[31]Humanist Manifesto II, Sixth.

[32]Humanist Manifesto II, Sixth.

[33]Humanist Manifesto II, Seventh.

[34]Humanist Manifesto II, Fifth.

[35]Paul C. Vitz, Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self- Worship. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdams Publishing Company. 1977. p. 83.