 |
| What exactly is offensive about this? |
First they came for Professor Anthony Esolen... See The Wolves are Howling.
And now the barbarians at Providence College are threatening a Resident Assistant, senior Michael Smalanskas, with anal rape for daring to put up a bulletin board defending the Catholic doctrine that marriage is between one man and one woman!
And what's the school's response? No safe space for Smalanskas who dared to defend Church teaching when the school won't. Instead, according to LifeSite News, "Vice President of Student Affairs Kristine Goodwin sent student leaders an email encouraging them to attend the pro-LGBT march being organized in response to the Catholic bulletin board." The Women's Studies Department also put up a slick Facebook post complete with the rainbow flag calling all students to "March against homophobia and transphobia." Goodwin's letter was sent out the same day a cartoon appeared on the dorm's community bathroom mirror depicting the sodomite rape of Smalanskas. And still nary a word from the university whose administration, on top of their silence about the harassment, refuse to speak to Smalanskas' parents.
At a meeting with school administrators, Dr. James Keating, Smalanskas' faculty adviser made these point:
“The example that I gave to Kristine Goodwin is, let’s say a young Mexican-American student had put up a poster that said, ‘God loves the dreamers,’ that poster had been torn down, and [the student who created it] felt unsafe in her own dormitory because kids who tore it down were milling outside her door,” said Dr. Keating. “Then, a poster is put up of her being raped. How would the college react?”
“For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Michael doesn’t even get a little bit” of sympathy from the administration. Keating said Providence College’s foremost responsibility is to protect its students’ right to express their opinions, especially when those opinions are in line with the Roman Catholic Church.
The college has “failed” to do this, Keating told LifeSiteNews.
“This kid has had to move to another dorm for safety and the president of the college won’t speak to his parents,” said the anonymous faculty member quoted earlier in this story. If the student was “gay or black,” the college’s response would have been totally different.So let's get this straight. At a Catholic college, defending Catholic doctrine is "homophobic." By logical extension that means Catholics who accept Catholic doctrine on marriage and defend it are, by definition, " homophobic" and "transphobic." In other words, we are filled with fear and hate for homosexuals because we dare to stand for the truth!
The silence of the university and even actions of certain administrators affirming the harassment of Michael Smalanskas by organizing a demonstration implies consent. Since Goodwin won't respond to inquiries about whether she knew of the cartoon depicting Smalanskas' rape it's unclear whether she consents to that as well. Many commenters on stories about the event champion the barbarians' persecution. (Telling the truth about Church teaching is a firing offense!)
Not only is Michael Smalanskas being persecuted for defending Catholic truth, his fiance, another Providence student, is also under fire because of her relationship with him. After the pro-sexual assault cartoon emerged on March 14th, Providence College has maintained their silence and not addressed the way other students are treating Smalanskas and his fiance. It is apparently okay with them. Even the Catholic chaplain urged Smalanskas to just be quiet and graduate. (Shut up and get out!)
When a lesbian put up a poster affirming same-sex marriage nobody told her to shut up. Nary a ripple to trouble the campus. No march was suggested to protest. No orthodox Catholics threatened her with rape. So clearly, free speech for sexual perversion is protected at Providence, but no such free speech rights accrue to faithful Catholics.
Can you smell the stench of the demon in this affair? What real Catholic parent would contribute one red cent to this evil institution or put their children in harm's way?
 |
| No evidence of persecution over this bulletin board celebrating perversion! |
Michael Smalanskas is a hero and so are the handful of courageous faculty who came out defending him in a signed letter calling on the university to proclaim Catholic truth:
We call upon Providence College to state clearly and publicly that both the content of the bulletin board that Michael Smalanskas posted and his posting of it are consistent with the Catholic mission of the college. We further call upon the college to state clearly and publicly that faithful, thoughtful expressions of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality are welcome on campus and are integral to a mission-animated approach to diversity and inclusion. The words of Pope John Paul II are fitting: “If need be, a Catholic University must have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society” (Ex corde ecclesiae). [Let's watch for retaliation against these faculty members. Will they get the Anthony Esolen treatment?]I'll let Michael have the last word as reported in the LifeSiteNews article:
Smalanskas said the hardest part of this ordeal is that his, fiancée, also a Providence student, has “been punished for it” and mistreated for her affiliation with him.
“We’ve lost friends. Our co-workers treat us terribly,” he said.
Smalanskas said ultimately, his persecution, despite being “uncomfortable and unpleasant,” has strengthened his faith and is just a witness for the truth about marriage.
“My final act at Providence College will be our wedding” in the campus chapel this summer, he said. “That will be our final witness to marriage for the school after all this is said and done.”
I just read Lifesite story on this and their headline appears to me to laud the bishop for defending this student. I beg to differ!
ReplyDeleteThe bishop didnt run to the student's defense, he merely sent a response to the student and in that letter he advised the student to exercise prudence and not be "in your face" and remember to have charity toward those who disagree with us.
The bishop also told the student he would continue to endorse the people running the school which is CLEARLY out of control, in my opinion.
The thing is apparently bound up in title 9, federal govt money. Disgusting!
Please, Pass this along to those who can help this harrassed Catholic... He needs to get some legal representation and take this to the EEOC. Also, there’s a new Office for Religious Freedom at HHS started under President Trump. Roger Servino, the man who heads it is an intelligent and very solid Catholic who is strong in his Catholic convictions. This solid Catholic Michael Smalanskas needs to contact this solid Catholic Roger Servino and the Office of Religious Freedom. In addition, he should seek legal counsel and sue that awful “school”! He needs to use the proper buzz words and legal jargon, such as discrimination, harassment, etc., so he needs to get good legal help. Also, please, pray hard for this young man who must be under a huge amount of pressure at this time. God bless him and his family. Please, fast and pray, offering Rosaries and Masses for this young man who is being persecuted for his strong faith in Christ and His Holy Catholic Church. He’s carrying his cross right now. Whatsoever we do for the least of Christ’s brethren, that we do unto Christ.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your informative article. God bless you. God bless Mike and his family. May God expose and confound all of the evil doers at this “school” and help the innocent young man and all of the solid Catholics.
This is all so typical of our "Church" today - the post V2 conciliar church. The rot goes deep. In a time when Millennials are routinely mocked (with some justification) how many of us ever had to suffer persecution the way Michael has? We helped create this monster by our own lack of Catholic zeal. Michael right now is truly suffering for Christ. He is being hated for His Sake, and for Michael that is a rare gift. During this time of Christ's Passion Michael can unite his Passion to Christ's. What an honor! I know I was always able to "slide by" my own Catholicism before any of the current madness had come to this point. Yet here we have a Millennial who is teaching us all about the reality of our Catholic Faith, about the reality of Christ's true love and sacrifice for us. "Know that the world hated Me before you, so the world will also hate you. But if you are hated for My sake, rejoice!" Michael has learned the reality of being hated for the sake of Christ and he can be grateful for it. He is being Smiled upon by our Lord. Can I say the same? He puts me to shame.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt we are entering a time of true persecution. How do I know? Because much of it is coming from our own Church! We are headed for our own Catacombs because of the coming persecution from the world. We can expect no help from a spiritually corrupt Church that has betrayed Christ Himself. The bishops have become shameless panderers to the politically correct, only caring about those federal dollars. I feel like a bulldozer is smashing and crashing through the Magisterium itself. As for Michael this time of trial is actually a priceless ordeal, a true example of the redemption of suffering. Christ will see to that. He and his fiancee are beginning their lives having already tasted the bittersweet martyrdom that is Easter, for "their reward will be truly great in Heaven".
I would like to observe that Bishop Tobin noted that Michael S deliberately poked a bee hive and that he should expect to be stung. Bishop Tobin mentions in passing the need for dialogue, but he gives no guidelines to Michael S as to how to put this wise advice might be put into practice.
ReplyDeleteWhat Bishop Tobin does not mention is that the US Catholic Bishops have openly declared that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 16 June 2015 did not change their minds and that God’s Law trumps human law. Nor does Bishop Tobin tell us anything about the vocal minority of bishops who are orchestrating a campaign to shame and dishonor Catholics who support or who enter into homosexual unions. These bishops are creating a dangerous bee hive by refusing to begin any serious open dialogue.
How so?
Teachers are fired in my archdiocese for supporting youths who come out as gays or lesbians. Lesbian couples in my parish who are actively engaged live in fear that their pastor will find out and that their ministries and/or their right to take communion at the Sunday worship might be withdrawn. A gay Catholic suffering from a heart attack was denied the last rites by a self-righteous hospital chaplain because he `refused to repent of his lifelong homosexuality.’
My hunch is that the Catholics who tore down Michael's display were lashing out in anger at the way that our Catholic bishops have misused their authority by publicly humiliating and bullying those who support or who enter into same-sex unions.
Many students have tasted the unbearable pain of learning first-hand what it is to live in fear that they might be queer. Many of them know that Cardinal Ratzinger’s doctrine of homosexuality is seriously flawed. One student complained, "God does not create junk, so what right does the Church have to brand gays and lesbians as 'intrinsically disordered'?" Others have told me detailed stories of how "heartless" it is for the Church to condemn all LGBTQ Catholics to an “unnatural celibate life filled with self-hatred, loneliness, and false guilt."
Students at PC are angry, and they have good reason to be!
Pope Francis warned the US bishops when he addressed them here in the USA that they must not take the "bread of life" that Jesus gave his disciples to feed the hungry and "fling them like stones against sinners."
I wish that Bishop Tobin had understood these words that the Pope addressed to him. If so, he would have written an entirely different letter to Michael S.
In the joy of our Easter hope,
(Dr.) Aaron Milavec, Catholic theologian
BLOG = https://aaronmilavec.wordpress.com/2018/01/29
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Milavec,
Didn't Jesus go to the cross for "poking a bee hive?"
And speaking of "poking a bee hive," I note that you were fired from teaching at a Catholic seminary for failing to uphold Catholic teaching. Perhaps you should have "expected to be stung?"
As for calling yourself a "Catholic theologian" I can only quote Corrie Ten Boom's father in The Hiding Place when she was angry over a minister who refused to take a Jewish infant into his home to protect the child from the Nazis. Her father replied, "Corrie, just because the mouse is in the cookie jar doesn't make him a cookie."
I will be praying for you at the Easter service. It is, indeed, a time of invitation and hope -- to repent from sin and embrace the difficult way of the cross so that we may one day rejoice with the One who said, "If you love me you will keep my Commandments."
Dear Mary Ann Kreitzer,
ReplyDeleteI sincerely wish we could have a dialogue. But, alas, dialogue is not possible here because you avoid discussing the letter of Bishop Tobin and ignore my response to that letter.
In place of discussing the issues, you descend to an ad hominum attack against me that involves a seminary rector who acted badly and a court case that roundly penalized him for having done so. . . . But my identity as a “Catholic theologian” is clearly not at issue here, and no one has authorized you to adjudicate between me and my rector.
Do not pray for me in the way you suggest. Your appeal for my conversion is insulting to me and can only serve to make God angry with you. Please examine Jesus’ take on this matter as found in Luke 18:10-14.
It pains me that you are the honored moderator of this site; yet, you allow yourself to give such a bad example to those who come here hoping to find some honest and humble insights regarding events that touch their life and their faith.
Fraternally,
(Dr.) Aaron Milavec
How is stating a fact about your background an "ad hominem attack?". If stating that fact was an ad hominem attack then you stating facts about the bishops' position was an ad hominem attack as well.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right, I can hardly have a dialogue with a self-professed "Catholic" theologian who doesn't believe what the Church teaches and uses as his profile picture a photo of two apparently nude lesbians with an ad hominem attack against Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict). Jesus said it most clearly, "By their fruits you shall know them."
I'm not picking from your tree.
Dear Mary Ann,
ReplyDeleteFrank Bruni writes as follows in the NYTimes:
REPEATEDLY over the last year and a half, I’ve written about teachers in Catholic schools and leaders in Catholic parishes who were dismissed from their posts because they were in same-sex relationships and — in many cases — had decided to marry.
Every time, more than a few readers weighed in to tell me that these people had it coming. If you join a club, they argued, you play by its rules or you suffer the consequences.
Oh really?
The rules of this particular club prohibit divorce, yet the pews of many of the Catholic churches I’ve visited are populous with worshipers on their second and even third marriages. They walk merrily to the altar to receive communion, not a peep of protest from a soul around them. They participate fully in the rituals of the church, their membership in the club uncontested. QUESTION #1: IS THIS THE KIND OF CHURCH THAT JESUS INTENDED? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
The rules prohibit artificial birth control, and yet most of the Catholic families I know have no more than three children, which is either a miracle of naturally capped fecundity or a sign that someone’s been at the pharmacy. I’m not aware of any church office that monitors such matters, poring over drugstore receipts. And I haven’t heard of any teachers fired or parishioners denied communion on the grounds of insufficiently brimming broods.
It’s crucial to remember that in many cases in which the church has punished same-sex couples, their homosexuality and even their same-sex partnerships were widely known and tacitly condoned for some time beforehand. What changed was their interest in a civil marriage, suddenly made possible by laws that are evolving more humanely than the church is. The couples in question stepped up and made loving commitments of a kind that the church celebrates in other circumstances. For this they were spurned.
And it contradicts Catholic principles apart from those governing same-sex relations, as Martin observed in a column in the Catholic magazine America earlier this year. Catholic teaching, he wrote, “also says that gay and lesbian people must be treated with ‘respect, sensitivity and compassion.’ ” QUESTION #2: IS THIS THE KIND OF CHURCH THAT JESUS INTENDED? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Some American church leaders indeed question what’s going on. Asked by a reporter recently about the banishment of gay workers, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston said that the situation “needs to be rectified.” QUESTION #3:HOW SO RECTIFIED? WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE CARDINAL?
If you would like to discuss these two questions privately, please let me know.
Blessed Easter Tuesday,
Aaron
No one should be allowed to teach in a Catholic school or function in a ministry in the Church if they are in an invalid marriage or cohabiting (heterosexual OR homosexual) or in any way publicly advocating for abortion or contraception or same sex marriage or cohabitation. Those in "manifest grave sin" should also be banned from Holy Communion in accordance with Canon Law 915. Obviously hidden sins are another matter.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't to say that those in manifest grave sin have no place in the Church. They should be welcomed and allowed to participate in other activities and treated with love and respect. A young woman in my parish who came to daily Mass for years was living with a boyfriend. She never went to Communion. I respected her for listening to Holy Mother Church. She also worked at our parish thrift store and is a valued member of our community. There are difficult situations, but that doesn't justify throwing Church doctrine out the window.
And inconsistency in applying Church doctrine doesn't justify allowing a same sex couple who call themselves "married" to retain their positions in a Catholic school. They are a source of scandal and confusion to the children. I personally think teachers in Catholic schools should take an oath of fidelity to the Church. But I somehow doubt you would support that.
As for your comments about families with smaller numbers of children, you may or may not be correct. I taught NFP for many years and there are numerous couples who are infertile or have secondary infertility. My own brother-in-law used to joke with my husband about shaking his hand for luck because they had only one child and wanted others. They never were able to conceive again. Another brother and his wife adopted after several years of infertility and then, out-of-the blue, conceived naturally several years later but never again. Judging parents based on the number of children they have is rash judgment. You also have no way of knowing whether they have serious physical, emotional, or mental health issues that impact their decisions to conceive. And how would you know whether they are using NFP which is a licit method when used for serious reasons
Fr. James Martin and Cardinal Sean O'Malley are not sources I would ever recommend. Fr. Martin is a propagandist for homosexuality and Cardinal O'Malley lost much credibility by his near canonization of Ted Kennedy at his funeral. If you want to discuss quotes from Bishop Athanasias Schneider or Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict, or any previous popes (Humanae Vitae perhaps?) I'll be happy to engage. Those who dissent from Church doctrine taught for millennia are hardly convincing witnesses to the truth.
Dear Mary Ann,
ReplyDeleteYou have a balanced judgment and, point by point, I would have been willing to agree with you entirely ten years ago. When it comes to a blanket condemnation of same-sex marriages; however, we must part company.
Given my own special interest in Jewish-Christian relations, I am especially sensitive to how anti-Jewish sentiments circulating among Catholics were used to interpret a few texts in the Gospels (especially, “his blood be upon us and upon our children” Matt. 27:25) in order to prove (a) that God held all Jews accountable for the killing of Jesus and (b) that God, as a result of this crime, had rejected all Jews in all times and in all places as his chosen people, and, in their place, God embraced Catholics with his love and protection and enduring covenant.
Not until after the Holocaust did the Christian churches finally come to their senses and begin to sort out what the Scriptures did and did not say about the Jews. As a result, biblical interpretations held for more than sixteen hundred years were uprooted over the course of a few decades (1948-1968). Meanwhile, biblical interpretations that had been ignored or obscured were brought forward, more especially, (a) that God’s election of the Jewish people was permanent and irrevocable and (b) that Jesus himself lived and died as a faithful Jew.
This case of anti-Jewish prejudice poisoning the true meaning of the Scriptures is important for a number of reasons. First, it demonstrates that, once an error inserts itself, it can persist from generation to generation undetected because the false interpretation itself feeds upon the anti-Jewish prejudice that stimulated its origination. Secondly, it demonstrates that, saints and sinners, bishops and scholars all were mutually supportive in maintaining and promoting these false biblical interpretations. Only the massive and unthinkable Holocaust had enough shock value to inspire a critical reassessment of those anti-Jewish interpretations that had become firmly entrenched within the Catholic tradition.
So what do you make of this?
#1 How could our Church that has the guarantee of being guided by the Holy Spirit promote such a poisonous doctrine for so many generations?
#2 "Those who dissent from Church doctrine taught for millennia are hardly convincing witnesses to the truth." Yet, did it not require that a small number of dissenters were necessary in 1948-1968 by way of persuading the bishops at Vatican II to completely change course regarding Catholic teaching on the Jews?
#3 Cardinal Ratzinger formulated his doctrine on homosexuality in the 80s. We know that he had bad experiences with gays and seemingly never had any contact with lesbian couples. Today, some 35 years later, we surely have a better understanding of gays and lesbians. Should not a Papal Commission be formed that would bring together experts on this subject (in the same way that John XXIII formed a Papal Commission on the Jewish Question and a Papal Commission on Birth Control)?
#3 Should not this Papal Commission consult with pastors, psychologists, and same-sex couples in order to rightly understand the true nature of their mutual love and their aspiration for life-long dedication?
#4 Think about this. A few generations ago, Catholics made love with the lights turned low. They were strictly advised to limit themselves to the "missionary position." A women's sexual satisfaction was never regarded as very important. Today, all of these earlier norms have been quietly dismissed. What changed here?
#5 In the Pacific Northwest, the native Americans there explained to me that their are four sexes: "a male spirit in a male body" and "a female spirit in a female body" plus "a male spirit in a female body" and "a female spirit in a male body." Do these Americans possibly know something that our experts have missed? How can one decide?
Fraternally,
Aaron
I'm no expert in Jewish/Christian relations, but I note that you don't give any concrete support for much of this. Can you point to a document, an encyclical, a doctrine, etc. that "promotes such a poisonous doctrine?"
ReplyDeleteA quick look at the early Church fathers shows that in the early Church, Christian leaders often turned to Jewish teachers. I went to Catholic schools all my life and never once heard any anti-Jewish talk. According to an article in The Jewish Quarterly Review (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1449915?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) St. Jerome was accused by Rufinus of spending too much time with the Jews. In response, he pointed to Origen, Clement, and Eusebius (Church Fathers) "none of whom disdained to receive instruction from teachers of the Hebrew race." St. Thomas Aquinas was very hard on the Jewish practice of usury which I think is the most ignored sin of our age and is commonly practiced today. (Just look at the proliferation of Payday Loan shops.) At any rate, you need to make a better case that the CHURCH formally taught a poisonous doctrine against the Jews rather than men IN THE CHURCH held false doctrines as men like Fr. James Martin and some of the bishops do today. There have always been heretics in Roman collars.
And to make a comparison between the Jews and those involved in homosexual relations is simply insulting to the Jews -- as is the comparison to their struggle to the Civil Rights movement. To use the color of skin to justify immoral BEHAVIOR is not reasonable.
The Bible and Church Teaching is very clear on the sin of sodomy. Trying to use indian spirituality to defend it is like using the temple prostitutes or pagan Greek pederasty to defend it. Your position on same-sex marriage can't stand scrutiny. And no one in my marriage preparation two generations ago ever discussed the position my husband and I should take. We were simply told that the act must be open to life.
And to extend that final sentence -- same sex acts clearly cannot be open to life since it is impossible for them to generate new life. If the couple "playing house" wants to have a child they must turn to the opposite sex or some kind of medical engineering (human cloning?) to achieve the desire for a child. The only positive thing I can say about that is the desire for a child emphasizes the natural law. It is, indeed, natural for people to desire offspring.
ReplyDelete