Ever watch a magic show? Sure you have. Have you figured out how they do it? Not that most of us actually figure out the mechanics of it, but we generally know the tricks of the trade. Diversion. The reason why they use good-looking women as assistants is to help divert your eyes so you don't look too closely at the trick. They also use lights, flash paper, etc. to divert your eyes from looking too closely. Knowing this doesn't take away from the entertainment of it, as long as that's all it is….entertainment.
But we know of some who use these same techniques to make things out be something else. Uri Geller was once thought to be a great mystic because he could move pencils, apparently with his mind, and bend forks the same way. But then, the cat was out of the bag. If he could, he'd use a thin fishing line to move things, or, lacking that and not enough time to set it up, use his breath to move the pencil. A trick.
"Simon Magus, according to St. Irenaeus (A. H., 1, 23), was father of all Gnostic systems. Repulsed by St. Peter (Acts 8: 9-24), be proceeded to fashion his own cult in which he was not only prophet and priest, but god as well. on his tours he exhibited Helena, a slave prostitute, as his divine consort. Legend relates that Simon Magus perished in the failure of an acrobatic feat before Nero." (Catholic Church History by Msgr. Eberhardt; Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) III. Growth of the Church (107-248) 14. Growth of "Superior Knowledge": Gnosticism)
Modernists (liberals on the order of Call To Action, Dignity, etc.) rely heavily on Gnostic writings. They elaborate and speculate with terms and ideas which sound great, but which, instead, are designed to divert our attention so not to look to closely at them.
"Learned speculation in religion and philosophy did not always have happy results. In religion there was the danger that morbid emotionalism would degenerate into a mere sexual cult. Philosophic conceit in lofty speculation, on the other band, could beget a contempt for the masses, and pedants were tempted to construct an esoteric gnosis, a supposedly "superior knowledge" not communicated to the common herd. Christianity, with its restrained religious sentiment and lofty yet simple dogmas, would not long satisfy such dabblers in the occult. They refused to admit that Christian revelation had settled once and for all questions of the divine nature, of the origin of the universe, of the meaning of evil. Not content with orthodox Christianity, they proceeded to elaborate on it. But Christianity had given them new terms and opened vistas which had already achieved popularity. Gnostics, like later "Modernists," did not scruple to employ traditional Catholic terminology in a secret, perverted sense that threatened to trap the unwary pious soul." (IBID)
They were, and are, keen to couch their words in Catholic sounding terms, to attach the name Catholic to their group, etc, in order to make them 'appear' legitimate. Divert attention to what they're really saying. This creates Catholics who are, at best, nominally Catholic, and others who have, essentially, left the Church, excommunicated themselves.
How, for example, could we say a Catholic theologian is Catholic when they write:
"…the mythology about Jesus as Messiah or divine Logos, with its traditional masculine imagery…be discarded… [women] must emancipate themselves from Jesus as Redeemer and seek a new redemptive disclosure of God and of human possibility in female form." (God-Talk; Rosemary Ruether, pgs 137 & 135) How could a Catholic theologian say that they have greater devotion to the goddess Isis and Artemis than the Blessed Virgin?
Yet Ruether is is not only a favorite speaker at various Call To Action conferences and those of it's sister organizations. She's also a noted columnist for the "National Catholic Reporter" and has received awards from "US Catholic" for advancing the cause of women in the Church. But even a cursory examination of her 'theology' shows a heavy does of Gnosticism (which she states is more reliable than the Christian Scriptures) coupled with New Age and Wiccan practices, and just a touch of Catholicism to make it appear Catholic.
She even, on occasion, has recommended women worship pagan goddesses rather Christ. "A lot of evil had been done in the name of Christ…no crusades or pogroms had been sent in the name of Ba'al, Isis, or Apollo." (Beginnings: An Intellectual Autobiography; Ruether)
So, we see groups who are openly opposed to 'anything' Catholic, putting the label Catholic on their organizations and placing just enough Catholic sounding terms in their rhetoric, to "trap the unwary pious soul."
Sadly, many have come to believe what they preach, unknowingly taking a path which leads to their and the Church's destruction. (At least, that's the idea) They push this thought as being enlightened, tolerant, and kind. In reality, it's unenlightened, intolerant, and hateful.
If one gets into a debate with these 'disciples' of the 'new' Catholicism, one may reach a point where they will say, "Let's agree to disagree." That's a false agreement since it's only intended not to look deeper into their 'theology'. It works off the idea that truth is relative. But truth isn't relative, there is a truth to be found. If truth is relative, weren't we then wrong to try the Nazi hierarchy after WW II? After all, the basis for the trial was that they had to answer to higher, universal truth. But if there is no higher universal truth, then who are we to say they were wrong? If there are no universal morals, and we can say homosexuality and pre and extra marital sex is ok, then can't we then have to say that pedophilia is ok? Don't we have to say that murder and theft are ok if we can say that, for us, it isn't really murder or theft? If truth is relative, then they can't really say that the Church is wrong. After all, the Church's truth is the truth for her (according to their reasoning). But the Church doesn't believe in relative truth, but a real, objective truth. So, the Church, and those loyal to Her, CAN say that they are wrong.
Now, there is nothing wrong with having diverse opinions and views, as long as they are used to come to the truth. In schools we discussed history, math, etc. Questions are answered and reviewed, and in this way, we hope to come to the truth. But would a teacher let a student say, "I don't believe that 2+2=4. Not and allow him receive a good grade. What would a teacher say to a student who didn't believe the pilgrims settled at Pilgrim's Rock? They can point to evidence that suggests that Vikings were here long before Columbus, but they couldn't, for example, say that the Romans were here first.
Here's a possible discussion with this premise.
"I think the Romans were here first. Look at our architecture, a lot of old buildings are built on the Roman model. This proves that they were here first." Of course it's nonsense when viewed with history, but essentially the same thing occurs when 'modernists' use history, or even revisionist history, to justify their false notions. But, they don't want to get into a serious discussion, they don't want people to look to closely. Like the Emperor's new clothes, they're afraid you'll see they're naked.
But this isn't just a tactic of error, but one of hate as well. It isn't that they actually believe in tolerance for other ideas, views, and theologies. Rather, they feel, that they are right, and in this case, the Church is wrong. They continue this idea by actually fostering hatred toward the Church.
Call To Action and WomanChurch (to name two) don't want people to look too closely at the Church's real history on women. No, they push the notion that the Church is anti-woman, that it promotes and supports the oppression and death of women. Their 'proof' is that the Church can't ordain women, or in their words, won't.
Dignity doesn't want people to look too closely at what the Church really teaches toward homosexuals. No, they push that the Church, again, promotes and supports the oppression and death of gays. Their 'proof' is that the Church won't sanction, bless, their lifestyle and allow same sex marriages.
But neither of these cases are true. The Church has always supported the dignity of women and it has taught that to discriminate against gays, to harm them in any way based solely on their orientation, is wrong. But, until the Church caves, or is taken over by them, they will claim that the Church holding to the truth is anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-Christ.
But, if we look past the diversions of fairness, revisionism, and relativism, we will see the Gnostic, neo-pagan, anti-Christ basis behind it.
As St. Paul said, "Don't be decieved".
"I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
"And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds" (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6-9).
Pax Christi,
