I’ll bet you thought Jesus died for our sins. HAH! NCR has a new angle.

It is hard to know what to do when you see a “catholic” site post something that is simultaneously heretical and thoroughly dopey.

Do you ignore it?  Do you post about it and therefore drive traffic to it?

This is my dilemma today in the case of Jamie Manson of the National Catholic Fishwrap.  Her piece today is both as weird and as heterodox as any NCR reader could ever wish.

Nutshell:

Jesus did not come into this world or endure His Cross and death to save us from our sins.  That’s just a guilt trip the Church laid on people.   Its Religious Power that killed Jesus.  He came – so far as I am able to glean from her article – to save us from the Roman Curia and the Republican Party.

An excerpt:

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.

I know that countless people throughout the centuries have found profound, life-changing and even comforting meaning in this understanding of the Cross. But I’ve often felt that if we immerse ourselves in the accounts of Jesus’ arrest, passion, and death as told by the four Gospels, these texts can broaden and deepen our understanding of the crucifixion. It can help us make meaning of so much of the anguish that we witness in our world and in our church.

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.

[...]

There’s a lot more like this.   She effectively offers an NCR Soteriology.

Jesus died to save us from the Roman Curia.

I am trying to imagine a version of the Stations of the Cross composed by Jamie Manson for the National Catholic Fishwrap.

  • The 1st Station – Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura Condemns Jesus to Death.
  • The 2nd Station – The President of the Pontifical Council for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts Gives Jesus His Cross
  • The 3rd Station – The Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy Trips Jesus the First Time
  • The 4th Station – Jesus Meets the Congregation for Religious
  • The 5th Station – The President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Helps Jesus Carry the Cross.
  • The 6th Station – The Sister President the Leadership Conference of Women Religious Wipes the Face of Jesus
  • The 7th Station – Jesus is Tripped for the Second Time by the Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops
  • The 8th Station – Jesus Meets the Women’s Ordination Conference
  • The 9th Station -  Jesus is Tripped for the Third Time by the Secretary of State
  • The 10th Station – The Vatican Bank Strips Jesus of His Garments
  • The 11th Station -  The Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith Nails Jesus to the Cross
  • The 12th Station -  Jesus Dies Not For Your Sins But Because Of “Religious Power”
  • The 13th Station -  The Pontifical Council “Cor Unum” Takes Jesus Down From the Cross.
  • The 14th Station – The Congregation For Divine Worship Lays Jesus in the Tomb, in Latin.
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to I’ll bet you thought Jesus died for our sins. HAH! NCR has a new angle.

  1. Diakonia says:

    She needs to watch this: http://www.palmsundayfilm.com/

  2. Father! You must warn us when you are going to post something as funny as the new and improved Stations of the politically correct, liberal, purposeless Cross, by which Jesus did not, apparently, redeem the world! I almost chocked on my oatmeal I was laughing so hard! “So and so TRIPS Jesus the first time!” LOL!

  3. Banjo pickin girl says:

    I am so sick of this. I, who was raised Unitarian/athieist and has had such a long journey. It is redemptive suffering and His propitiatory death that makes me want to continue living.

    Even on the global Catholic television network you hear similar stuff. A few months ago a famous personage insisted that Jesus’s death was God’s Plan B, Plan A was that Jesus was to live a long life, die of old age and teach us how to live in the meantime. I spent a month unpacking all the worms from that crate.

    I don’t get indignant any more. I have been crushed, grape-like and now emit whine.

  4. RichardT says:

    I love the revised Stations.

    But I am shocked that a Catholic paper can print this. And I didn’t think there was much left for the Catholic-lite to do that could shock me.

    Yes, I suspect that this sort of thing is common amongst Catholic-lite supporters, even in seminaries. But what shocks me is that they are so confident that they can print it in a public journal.

  5. Ralph says:

    “I hear the four evangelists very clearly say that Jesus’ suffering and death was the will of those who conspired against him ”

    So in the garden Jesus should have said, “Not my will, not Thy Will, but rather Their Will be done”

    Give me a break. This is the kind of thing that makes a father of five, like myself, shudder in horror. What if one of my little children was to read this trash? Kids seem to think anything written down in a newspaper or magazine must be true!

    Father, doesn’t a newspaper claiming to be “Catholic” have to have a bishop as a sponsor/censor?

  6. anna 6 says:

    As for your Stations…are we supposed to laugh this hard during the Triduum?

  7. tealady24 says:

    I never realized how bad this ‘catholic’ rag called NCR really is. I actually knew a priest who read the thing religiously!
    Yes, Jesus died for our sins; those of his generation, and of the past, and of all generations to come. Plain and simple. Why there is such discord in the world today, is due to the fact that the Gospel is not practiced as it should be. We even live in a country that wishes us to leave our religions at home on the shelf, and only practice them again when we are safe and snug in our little abodes. What the heck is that?!
    ” 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. ” One rendering? It was the only rendering; the only reason God came among us as one of us.
    “It follows, then, that whenever God’s creation — whether it be human lives or the ecosystems of the earth — is unjustly harmed, God is harmed. ” Our Lord was many things on earth; was he green?
    “And it reminds us that while our bodies are on earth, we are called to bring more abundant life, whether in the form of healing, community-building, or justice-seeking, to the places in our world, our church, and ourselves — wherever we see the Light and Life of God at risk of dying. ” The New-age Catholicism at its best.
    And for this you need a degree in divinity? Just check her off as another “heretic of Holy Week”.

  8. Random Friar says:

    NO ONE takes the life of Christ, unless He Himself lay it down, and He did so according to the Father’s will.

    I thought our Lord made that point perfectly clear, myself.

  9. Choirmaster says:

    This is very insidious. Of course, there are analogies that can be drawn between the Sanhedron and the Roman Curia (or the Church in general), even insofar as to make a list of saints that have stood trial before the Holy Office as heretics for political reasons. Our Lord himself had a few choice words for his contemporary religious leaders that could well apply to the Church.

    However, whether the Crucifixion or later martyrdom and confession, both point to the redemptive suffering and death of the Lamb of God as the end-game for our sake; Christ, the Lamb at the Crucifixion, and the martyrs and confessors suffering in union with the Same and for the same intention.

    She seems to be using a half-truth (that the Sanhedron wanted Jesus crucified, and that the Church Militant suffers from similar corruption) to deny a whole-truth (that the plan all along was for the Lamb of God, the only sufficient and perfect Victim, would suffer and die expressly for the redemption of fallen Man). What would be the use of being Christian if this were not the case?

  10. lucy says:

    It’s simply ineffable.

  11. Ezra says:

    I learned from the article that ours is apparently

    a church beleaguered by self-alienation, intolerance, and excommunications

    Should we take from this line that the author was pleased by the Holy Father’s decree of remission dated 21st January 2009? I guess so. I was also struck by this:

    whenever God’s creation — whether it be human lives or the ecosystems of the earth — is unjustly harmed, God is harmed

    Only human lives? Only the ecosystems of the Earth? Is Ms Manson trying to make us cry with this crass display of arrogant Western speciesism?

  12. benedetta says:

    But she isn’t a Catholic and not formed as one, yes? She is someone with theological school degree who also writes and in this case she writes for a publication that is purportedly about Catholicism and attempts to market to Catholics. It’s a lot of standard stuff, from the point of view of Catholics, particularly where I am situated right now, as well as anti-Catholics…people who think Catholicism is a very bad thing…

    To read it it’s like taking a law school exam “spot the issues”, bing, bing, bing, alarm, red flags, buzzers, ding ding…there are so many.

    Notice she grounds the piece in Scripture yet does not cite anything in support. But her reading is held as the correct one, why because Yale says so? So Yale theological powers are good religious establishment but Curia is bad? OK. So they are holier than thou…

    Caveat emptor to local NCR enthusiasts in my neck of the woods (and I know you’re out there…):
    She is apparently a fundamentalist, yes, sola scriptura by way of theological seminary? As Catholics though Scripture is amplified by tradition which even includes the statements of such notorious figures such as Curia…or whomever she wishes to place her hatred and intolerance at any particular moment. She does not read Scripture as a Catholic nor is she formed as one. Like I said I could talk to my neighbors of all denominations about matters of faith and they won’t send me home with my tail between my legs ashamed of my Catholicism and won’t lay that guilt trip on me that somehow as non-Catholics they are first and foremost more enlightened and evolved and etc etc etc. and I could learn a lot more about life and faith and Jesus’ hopes for us…

  13. TNCath says:

    Perhaps each station could begin with the following:

    V: We affirm you O Christ, and we support you.
    R: Because by taking a stand you have validated our convictions.

    Barf.

  14. disco says:

    What a day… First I find out that the Red Sox didn’t really win the series in 1918 and now I find out that Jesus didn’t even die for my sins? What’s next? Grizzly Adams didn’t have a beard?

  15. So let’s carry this through to its logical conclusion. If we did not all crucify Jesus by our sins, does that mean that there was after all a basis for persecuting the Jews as Christ-killers and deicides?

  16. Geremia says:

    If it is not because of our sins that He died, then the NCR must certainly believe He died because of the Jews?

  17. davidjhickey says:

    Hooo Lee Cow! I can’t believe this person would even consider himself to be Catholic.

  18. Choirmaster says:

    @TNCath, Miss Anita Moore, O.P., and Geremia: Your analyses are both utterly hilarious and completely irrefutable.

  19. Dirichlet says:

    Strong 4/20 material. Smoke weed and write heresies errrryday.

  20. THREEHEARTS says:

    Miss Anita Moore O.P. ???? Not ordained as such I hope.
    Is it no wonder that the Sacrament of Penance and reconciliation has no meaning??
    Although a thought for you all. If the Rite of Exorcism declares that the devil will not go near the Sacraments, what does that mean, what can we think about the numbers of Catholics, who do not use the Confessional? Numbers that are often published.

  21. HyacinthClare says:

    TNCath: laughed out loud! Thank you!

  22. benedetta says:

    I kind of set out to go through this, understanding that Fr. Z likely hasn’t a lot of time on his hands today to go through it line by line, but it is just so filled with misunderstandings, great and small that I couldn’t really even begin. It’s just very sad, I feel sad for her and for her readers — I hope for all of them that their worlds open up.

    I could only say two very brief things. Since she starts from the perspective of the pre-Vatican II stereotypical Catholic education “horror stories” as she calls them, I will reply with a post-Vatican II good Catholic education story which has nothing to do with the immediate political questions which obsess her (or me for that matter). When my son was younger, maybe around age 6, at Easter I read to him from the DK Illustrated Bible at Easter. Worrying about the old horror stories, and intending to present to him the good and not dwell on hatred, torture and death, and “the guilt”, I chose to read to him the section about the Resurrection. I thought, I will present to him the beautiful, glorious hope. The Resurrection, what Easter is all about. I will not mention what those bad men did who engineered his death because of their political/religious regime and rule bound fixations. I accepted all of Ms. Manson’s assumptions which by the way are the very same assumptions of anti-Catholic bigotry in the msm at work for quite some time now and which often enough people buy into without thinking it through. Granted, we all have our struggles with a Church composed of imperfect human beings. I guess that is why the Church in her wisdom has the sacrament and gift of confession which all from priests to lay from kids to the elderly make use of…But I digress…So after I read of the Resurrection from the Children’s Bible my little 6 year old said, “Now read it again, but the whole story.” Puzzled, I asked, “The whole story, like, what?” And, he reached out with his little hand and, turned the pages of the Bible back, one, two pages. “There” And the page was the Crucifixion. I was taken aback but then I thought, I can’t not honor this which is his own sense of it, and he is right, that is the truth.

    So I would say to Ms. Manson, as a fellow believer, that the way I see it is that the Crucifixion, with its betrayals, intrigue, fear, intolerance, hatred, political systems, religious practices was not the sum total of Jesus’ life. And we know also that it was not the end either. It was an end and it was the beginning, wasn’t it. As I was taught by my 6 year old, since I was never saddled with the horror stories of pre-Vatican II, though I would only say that nor was Catholic education in the world of post-Vatican II perfect, either, but I was shown, through the eyes of a child’s very unschooled faith, that we don’t have the Crucifixion, blessedly, alone, and the Resurrection necessarily happens through and after the cross.

    As to all of her allusions to the “traditional religious practices” , “obeying laws” and “empty rituals”, these all can occur whether one’s slant is liberal or conservative. I could say to her, why is it that we celebrate these empty rituals and obey these unjust laws that slaughter innocents, just for the sake of our tradition? Fr. Z is right that she takes aim at our present Church and totally buys into all the msm anti-Catholic bigotry. But it’s true that it wasn’t the Catholic hierarchy which sentenced Jesus to death.

    But of course since she has read Scripture she knows full well that many law-abiding, righteous Jews, who believed fully in the Ten Commandments followed Jesus during the time when He walked the earth. Jesus even sought them out. Jesus did not exclude them from His teaching or healing, for the reason that they practiced and believed in the law. That’s a myth and a distortion. When certain leaders attempted to “entrap” Him, He spoke truth to power, and, also made it known to all listening that He came to “fulfill the law”, entirely. Would Ms. Manson say that those religious leaders were the sum total of Judaism of Jesus’ time and therefore they were all corrupt, all rule-obsessed, all out for political and financial gain and power? It’s just not so. What about John the Baptist and his upbringing? What about the two turtle doves that were presented at the temple (was this an empty ritual?) when the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph presented Him as an infant, because that was all they could afford? Yet they were righteous Jews, believed totally in the laws, followed the practices and “rituals” of the time, entirely.

    I don’t agree with her rhetoric that Jesus excludes people even who worked for the Romans…or whose politics someone in her position deems “evil”. Jesus sought those out as well as the lepers, the lame, the blind, the dead…And when they sought Him out in faith He did not turn His back to them for being members of the Jewish aristocracy or incite others to this. And her thesis that He came to institute a new political state, well, I read through the very same Scriptures and from what I read whenever crowds or groups attempt to make Him the King or a political ruler, He resists, He flees that in fact, never assented to this.

    I would challenge the open-mindedness, the professed tolerance of Ms. Manson and all ncr readers. I like you at one time read things along a similar train of thought. It never brought about peace, or justice, in and of itself though I pursued it in mission…If we are really open-minded, I would say, read Pope Benedict. On these very issues in fact. Or on anything. Give it a try. If you in your mind respond to my suggestion with all sorts of strange emotions, well, why should that be…that in and of itself smacks of close-mindedness. After all I was willing to read what you say and consider it in good faith though I pretty quickly had some faith-based experiences and responses to share…Pope Benedict in his long career, has read everything out there, and considered all sides, unquestionably. Not only that but his writing so often incorporates experiences of early Christians, saints, doctors of the Church, women and men, all authentic voices of faith. If after reading you still decide that your way is best that is certainly your choice. But as a lay Catholic woman I would just ask ncr to not present something as “Catholic” which is not formed through Catholic tradition, or, if you must, then have the open-mindedness, integrity, and trust in your own ideas enough to present what the Church truly teaches by such a voice as Pope Benedict. For credibility’s sake.

  23. archambt says:

    Why get up in arms over an article written by someone purporting to have received a Catholic theological education from a liberal Protestant school? She is obviously Catholic only insofar as the term is appropriated by other Christian denominations to make some sort of political grand-standing statement against the Roman Catholic Church.

  24. Linus says:

    Blows my mind. I thought NCR had become respectible. I admit I haven’t read it since the seventies, guess I was lulled to sleep by John Allen. He seems safe enough, though I only read what makes it to New Advent.

  25. Clinton says:

    I second the observations of Miss Anita Moore OP and Geremia– and so I’ve got to wonder if
    the NCR has changed its spittle-flecked nutty re: Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
    As I recall, the film was attacked by that rag for supposedly advancing that very idea. I’m sure
    Mr. Gibson will be receiving his apology from the NCR in the mail any day now…

  26. Miss Anita Moore O.P. ???? Not ordained as such I hope.

    Heaven forfend. But the Order has decreed that we may no longer use T.O.P. or O.P.L. and must now identify ourselves as Dominican laity per above. I don’t like it, but there it is.

    Why get up in arms over an article written by someone purporting to have received a Catholic theological education from a liberal Protestant school?

    Drivel requires a response, lest some fail to recognize it for what it is.

  27. cameloligist says:

    But Father, shouldn’t the 11th Station be “The Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith formerly known as the Inquisition Nails Jesus to the Cross”? ;)

  28. benedetta says:

    Her bio says that she has an M Div from Yale (studying Catholic theology and sexual ethics) and that she is a homilist. It does not say that she is a Catholic and I thought that I had read (someplace) that she is not Catholic. Her columns are like “The Catholic Critic”. If she likes anything about Catholicism at all really including Catholic social teaching, so far as I can see, she is not admitting it. She certainly in looking over her columns does not seem to want to acknowledge that social justice is founded upon human dignity in the eyes of God which includes the pre-born. I am not sure how Yale Divinity presents sexual ethics but having attended secular schools I can guess within a margin of 95% certainty…that they are not premising their sexual ethics on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on the penumbra of emanations…or emanations from penumbras…Apparently an organization called the Catholic Press Assocation loves her work and gave her a best columnist award, so much so that this was awarded in the very first year of her writing for ncr so I guess they are enthusiasts no matter how her work actually plays out over time?

    I wonder will ncr take me up on the Pope Benedict Challenge? Why couldn’t they post the weekly audience for starters, see how it goes. They do have John Allen.

  29. I think St. Thomas says somewhere that Christ wasn’t “killed” per se – yes, he was scourged and crucified and he died, but he didn’t die until the time was perfect to die. He died when he chose to die. His life was not taken, but given. I think St. John’s Gospel has Jesus saying something to that effect, “No one takes my life from me, I lay it down and take it up again.” Or something like that.

    So, what does this nuance do to the article? Christ was not “killed for our sins” – rather he “died for our sins.” He is not only the Perfect Victim, he is also the Priest.

    And thank God, too.

  30. Jayna says:

    Wait, wait, Father! If you want complete NCR Stations, you have to add a 15th! Jesus’ Resurrection and appearance to Mary Magdalene, thus proving that women are better than men and should be priests. Amirite?

  31. Gail F says:

    TNCath: HAHAHAHA, that was the funniest thing I’ve read all day!

  32. Gail F says:

    I just checked the home page of NCR, it is like an Onion parody. The top story is something like, “Good Friday, Day of Civil Disobedience.” Because that’s what I think about when I think Good Friday…

  33. benedetta says:

    Unfortunately lately if I think of ncr, which is not a lot but, on occasions such as this, I also think of that video Fr. Z posted of the frolicking sprite liturgical dancer beckoning Giant Puppet Preestyss Heads to concelebrate…I am not consciously intending to mock them by conjuring up Monty Python, but this is their own material promoted.

  34. benedetta says:

    Jayna, Yes and the fact that the Church already recognizes Mary Magdalene notwithstanding, if it is all about and only about the powerful corruption and the corrupted power of the rule bound empty rituals, why on earth then would women want that. Much better to hang out with Mary Magdalene, the other Mary(s) and the Blessed Mother…not to mention numerous saints, Doctors of the Church, martyrs…who all happened to be women and, miraculously, their hands were completely free and unstained of all the corruption she heaps upon the ordained.

    It’s totally illogical isn’t it. Completely irrational. That’s what happens when you try to follow where it leads. I am not one of her “pre-Vatican II horror stories”…I am a product of post-Vatican II entirely and I have been guided my many, let’s say, classical liberals, of all faiths and denominations, including Catholics. Liberalism used to mean an openness to discovering the truth. This is more of a paranoia.

    One thing I will say about the fact that many as she says “pre-Vatican II” and Catholic educated recount “horror stories” as she describes, and now there are “post-Vatican II” who can indeed recount their own “horror stories” — the way to deal with questions rooted in misunderstanding is not to undermine the entire faith altogether, but to look to what the Church really and actually teaches and should teach because, it is, good, we can trust the sources of the faith even if human beings are imperfect and failing, these are good and want our good. Even if you are a product of one horror story or another, it’s never too late. So much of that is easily cleared up by strong pastoral leadership and guidance, solid religious education, and people should be encouraged to look into it. It does bring peace and the (properly celebrated) sacraments bring healing.

  35. Ugh. These NCR types. They’ll bend over backward to defend abortion, artificial contraception, and other assaults on children and family as “matters of conscience” and/or “women’s rights,” and yet they are shocked and appalled that the Church would scar poor innocent children for life by teaching them the gospel truth that they are sinners and Jesus gave His life to redeem them and become their Savior.

    I remember when I was a child, every year near Easter, “Jesus of Nazareth” (I think?) would come on TV. I always loved watching it–it was so amazing to see Jesus on TV! I always cried my eyes out during the Passion and death scenes. My parents initially thought it was because it was too disturbing, but I always told them I was crying because I was just so sorry that Jesus had to go through all of that because of sin. But then, when it showed Him resurrected and with his disciples again, I was so happy and excited!

    Children understand more than adults give them credit for–especially in matters relating to Jesus and God.

  36. amato430 says:

    This is the kind of stuff that appears in the book The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver. Not surprisingly, this book was read with approval in a class at Boston College. For some reason, people want to get rid of the concept of sin from our vocabulary. Try to have a Happy Easter, everyone!

  37. medievalist says:

    Wow. Even Protestants would disagree with her premise.

  38. The Cobbler says:

    “But I’ve often felt that if we immerse ourselves in the accounts of Jesus’ arrest, passion, and death as told by the four Gospels, these texts can broaden and deepen our understanding of the crucifixion.”
    You mean, like, tell us _why_ He died for our sins (because He loves us), as well as, some have noted above, affirm that He laid down His life for us of His own accord?

    Protestants. Yada yada read the Bible yada yada no I’m not going to notice that what you say/do was in the book I said to read yada yada basic logic is not expounded by the Bible therefore I do not have to apply basic logic to understand the Bible to tell whether the Bible would approve of using basic logic yada yada.

    Not trying to just take potshots here, but my full thoughts on the matter are still percolating and are a bit big for the combox.

  39. The Cobbler says:

    Ok, I will let slip a bit of my bigger thoughts on the matter:

    What’s with the idea that a victimised teddy-bear of a God is somehow more loving than a God who freakin’ _dies for us_???

    I can think of two reasons. A, failure or fear to assess the matter based on anything beyond being traumatized by the notion of His death for our sins. B, fear of the gravity and responsibility involved in being loved that much. C (did I say two? NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!), fear of the hurt that would be involved in that sort of love. Ok, maybe that’s not Spanish Inquisition Multiplication at all: It’s just fear, fear, fear and fear. (I didn’t keep going to find a fourth — *maniacal laughter* — reason, but I bet I could if I wanted to.)

    (Aaand now I’m about to go quoting Scripture again, ignorant, misled Catholic that I am…) What is it that those beings of Heavenly light are always saying? Oh yeah, it was, “Be not afraid!” and “Fear not!” Granted, Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but somehow I’m not thinking this is any more Fear of Him in that sense than fear of angels is Fear of The Lord. Come to think of it, the angels were probably saying “be not afraid!” all the time in part because they’d be appaled if they managed to attract to themselves the worship that belongs to God; but I still think they also said it because The Lord doesn’t want us afraid to Love, wants us to be with Him, Who overcomes every evil that we could fear in His place.

    I should leave off there; if I try to tie that into the rest of my thoughts right now I’ll become way too rambly (I mean, more so than I already have).

  40. Fr Martin Fox says:

    I took a few minutes earlier to dash off a reply, with some Scripture citations to refute the poor woman’s nonsense on the atonement. Who knows if the NC*R (*so-called) will use it; they usually do. Tom Roberts and Sean Michael Winters apparently don’t like criticism, because they won’t post anything I say to them. Even if they don’t post it, just writing it was stimulating.

  41. pjthom81 says:

    For some reason….this clip comes to mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBtDIVfhh8k

    The clip is from “Yes Prime Minister” and concerns Modernists (in this case, in the Church of England)

  42. muckemdanno says:

    Unfortunately, the highest authorities of the Church say the very same things, such as Abp Zollitsch, the head of the German episcopal conference:

    The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death in a recent interview with a German television station.

    Zollitsch said that Christ “did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat.”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/apr/09042107

    …we have a multitude of churches in the Church

  43. jpkvmi says:

    Jaime L Manson subscribes to a heretical form of “enlightened” Catholicism, no doubt. Her bio says she’s on the board of the Women’s Ordination Conference, an organization working for the ordination of women as priests. This is all true, however you are reading her article with a slanted viewpoint because of your preconceived notion of this woman.

    She never denies that Jesus denied because of our sins. She is, however, pointing out that there is more to it than that.

    After all, was to conspirators of Jesus’ death not a result of “deep-human intolerance, jealousy, resentment, hatred, and … fear.”

    Was Jesus’ death not, “…the will of God…”.

    Because of a preconceived character you hold for Ms. Manson, you are missing the greater flaw and the more insidious in her article. She does not recognize that God and Jesus are One. Let me count the ways.

    She says,

    “…Jesus is — the betrayed, suffering incarnation of God.”

    ” Jesus was the embodiment of all those things we should equate with God … ”

    “Jesus was the embodiment of all good and healing things that we experience in this life on this earth … ”

    “Jesus — God-incarnate — said…”

    I can continue but she has a flawed sense of who Jesus actually was. She has a “New-Age”y definition of Christ. She doesn’t actually believe that Jesus WAS GOD, she believes Jesus was a example of God or an expression of God.

    If she had a true understanding of who Christ was, she would understand why women should not and can not be ordained. Unless of course gay marriage is actually within God’s will, then you could have a female bride of the church but that’s another rabbit hole.

  44. Melody says:

    Now now, before we judge, can we hire someone to check the water over at NCR headquarters?

  45. jflare says:

    OK, so..I went over to the National Catholic Reporter, though it took awhile because I’d forgot that it was that, not the National Catholic Register. Whoops.

    I read the whole article.

    OW!!

    She has so many facts completely correct (I think), but so desperately misinterprets and miscasts everything. If the article itself took a page or so, I swear I’d need three pages or more simply to re-dress all the errors!

    Hey, pjthom81, when does that clip come from? I’ve never heard of that show, but I’d be interested in finding it. That was HILARIOUS! As good as “Keeping Up Appearances”, which I regret, I haven’t seen in some time. Any idea where either can be found? (Without cable?)

  46. Jim Dorchak says:

    Sometimes I wonder if you make this stuff up! Then I realize that it is so stupid that it is only possible to have come from NCR.

    Jim Dorchak

    http://www.painlessperformance.com

  47. catholicmidwest says:

    Richard, you said, “But I am shocked that a Catholic paper can print this.” What makes you think it’s a Catholic paper?

    Ralph, you said, “……doesn’t a newspaper claiming to be “Catholic” have to have a bishop as a sponsor/censor?” The answer is no. Moreover, what makes you think that would help? (given the bishops many US dioceses have)

    Fr Z, your stations are so funny. I loved them as well. (Nod to Anna, but I don’t know why we can’t laugh during the Triduum.)

    TN Catholic, you said,
    “Perhaps each station could begin with the following:
    V: We affirm you O Christ, and we support you.
    R: Because by taking a stand you have validated our convictions.
    1970 style. I’ve heard stations of the cross not far from this, not because of these words but because of the “meditations” used with them, courtesy of our local clergy. Because, you know, it’s all about our precious feelings. Barf, indeed.

  48. catholicmidwest says:

    muckemdanno, about your quote, “Zollitsch said that Christ “did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat.”

    Makes you wonder how he ever got through school without reading the OT, doesn’t it? He must have used the Cliff’s Notes version, I guess.

  49. irishgirl says:

    Someone should tell that writer at the Fishwrap that ‘the 1960s and 1970s are OVER!’
    Can’t stand politically correct Stations of the Cross-why do the liberals have to politicize everything spiritual? “We have not here a lasting city’, saith St. Paul.

  50. Centristian says:

    “The 14th Station – The Congregation For Divine Worship Lays Jesus in the Tomb, in Latin.”

    In Latin! I’m all but in tears. Hysterical.