Why Catholic Schools Need Faithful Faculty

Recently, as readers of Crisis may have heard, our administration at Providence College retracted an invitation to a Professor John Corvino, who afterwards said in disgruntlement that he’d been looking forward to speaking at a Catholic college like ours, to persuade young people that the homosexual life was good for the individual and for the society.  The specific topic was same-sex pseudogamy, mock-marriage for people whose unchosen inclinations or indulged compulsions or disdain or fear of the opposite sex may render them incapable of marrying and begetting children after the ordinary way of nature.

We’ll now host a debate in the spring between Mr. Corvino and the redoubtable Sherif Girgis, co-author with Robert George and Ryan Anderson of What Is Marriage?  The title of their book places the question where it ought to be.  Before we ask whether a man and a man may mate, we must notice that in fact a man and a man are incapable of mating.  There has never been such a thing as a man marrying a man, and there never will be.  There can only be the pretense, just as a man in drag can only pretend to be a woman.  At base, there is nothing at all to debate.  What is up for debate is whether we should pretend that something exists which not only does not exist but can never exist, and whether this act of make-believe will conduce to the common good—to stronger marriages, families richer in children, fewer divorces, fewer births out of wedlock, fewer abortions, a more wholesome public square, the withering of pornography, more harmony between men and women, more understanding between the generations, children who retain their innocence till the threshold of adulthood; fuller churches, men and women motivated less by pleasure than by what is good and noble; a world in which a young person would be ashamed for the shameless, and in which there need be no laws against public filth, because custom alone would more than suffice.

Put it that way, and the game’s up.  Put it that way, and you achieve complete separation.  The world which a Dan Savage chooses for a sleazy paradise, and which the cleaner-mouthed John Corvino is pleased to dwell in, is just this side of Hell, and the bright world I’ve described would fill them with loathing.  That doesn’t surprise me.  What does make me wonder a little is why homo academicus would choose the former and not the latter.

When our provost announced his decision, many secular professors cried foul.  “It’s an affront to academic freedom!” they shouted.  “The chill is in the air,” they shivered, sunning themselves on the beach at Nassau, sipping whisky on the rocks.  A chill in the air, is it?  Are you sure it’s not from your own ice machine?  I could tell them a few Tales from the Tundra and not leave Providence College for my material.  But homo academicus is not known for constancy.

What are we professors known for?  Not faith, but fideism; not constancy, but conformity; not courage, but comfort-seeking.  Having turned from the Lord whom alone we must love with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, we turn to “isms,” waste and void; if we cannot be saved by God, we must be saved by feminism or environmentalism or socialism or libertarianism or humanism or transhumanism.  And when those stark staring idols disappoint, when the kewpie dolls and stone demons fail to deliver, we accuse the ignorance of ordinary people.  It’s a weary and overcast life we lead, with never a real celebration, never a chance to find ourselves by forgetting ourselves in faith and hope and love.  Everything is political, and yet our own polity, over which we tenured faculty have almost complete control, is a sandbox filled with spoiled and squabbling children, or a kennel of small snarling terriers, with plenty of food and water but all baring their teeth to snatch one ragged rawhide toy.

Nevertheless, canis academicus looks in the mirror and sees a mastiff, or very much wants to see one, so we’re easy pickings for bigshot hucksters of bad ideas that could not possibly work in a world of farmers, carpenters, masons, miners, truckers, and others whose foolishness is checked by an immediate rebuff from reality.  Felis academicus makes a show of bravery when espousing ideas au courant at the wine and cheese bar, but the fur stands on end if anybody should subject those ideas to scrutiny or satire.

So it doesn’t surprise me, their antipathy to the same Catholic Church that has hired them, tenured them, promoted them, and honored them.  For the Church both invites and threatens, and she threatens because she invites.  The chapel is there for anyone to enter; the priests are there to talk to; and plenty of students wear the cross around their necks.  That’s the trouble.  It’s not that the Church considers sexual relations between unmarried people to be a grave evil, while they themselves are fearless fighters for the freedom to fornicate.  They’re not really any such thing—they are better than that.  The trouble is that there’s a Church at all, which assigns a necessarily subordinate place to us and what we do—to us teachers of science, philosophy, art, history, business, or poetry.

And here is the question which both parties must face honestly.  Catholic professors and administrators would like to believe that they can hire professors who are not Catholics specifically or people of strong religious faith more generally, while maintaining both academic excellence and their Catholic or Christian witness to their students, the other members of the college community, and the world.  Professors who are not Catholic or who do not practice any religious faith but who feel no particular hostility to the Church would like to believe that they can contribute to the college to the best of their abilities, without hindering or undermining its broader mission.

It is not clear to me that this is the case.  It might have been so, once, when almost everyone accepted the ordinary residually Christian view of the world.  Within living memory, after all, even those who did not grace the churches with their presence did not exactly think that intercourse between unmarried people was a great social good or a civil right to be defended or celebrated.  Even that was an unreliable foundation to build upon.  It was sand packed tight and feeling firm, but in the end it was just sand, and the tempests have come and washed the sand away.

It’s not comfortable for anybody to acknowledge that his employer has had to exercise some tolerance—some sufferance of a less than ideal condition—to hire him.  It’s perhaps less comfortable for the employer to make that exercise of tolerance known.  But I do not see how any accommodation can be arrived at without candor on the part of the employer and grateful tact on the part of the employee.  It’s no more than what I’d expect if a yeshiva were to hire me, a Catholic, to teach English literature.

But if candor and tact are wanting, and if, moreover, secular professors will not admit the legitimacy of the Catholic view of education—if secular professors believe it is their duty to undermine that view, then only two routes remain open.  The first is the broad high way, and many they are that have already traveled thereon.  On that way, the schools become secular in all but name; but in that case it is hard to see how more than the few and the wealthy will survive when the higher education train goes off the rails.  The second way is difficult and narrow, and few have taken it.  The schools must recruit Catholic (or other Christian or observant Jewish professors), and if the departments balk, the responsibility for hiring must be taken out of their hands.  If the Catholic mission is non-negotiable, and if secular professors cannot be relied on to refrain from undermining it, if they cannot accord it the respect it deserves, then the discussion is over, and we shake hands and part company.

Anthony Esolen


Professor Esolen is a teaching fellow and writer in residence at Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts, in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Dr. Esolen is a regular contributor to Crisis Magazine and the author of many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Regnery Press, 2008); Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Books, 2010) and Reflections on the Christian Life (Sophia Institute Press, 2013). His most recent books are Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching (Sophia Institute Press, 2014); Defending Marriage (Tan Books, 2014); Life Under Compulsion (ISI Books, 2015); and Out of the Ashes (Regnery, 2017).

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    Seems to me that there is only one solution to the problem posed and this would apply to ALL Catholics institutions – whether they be academic, social, parochial or diocesan. It would apply to ALL entities that enjoy the privilege of using the title “Catholic.” Using the example presented here, it would require that all faculty, as well as those who hold important offices at the university be approved by two boards/committees. The first would be an academic board which evaluates the applicant’s qualifications from a professional point of view. The second would be a University Board of Trustees/Directors – approved all by the local bishop – or a committee thereof which examines the person’s qualifications from a Catholic point of view i.e. the individual’s ability to exercise the mission of the Catholic Church which is to proclaim the Gospel and evangelize the culture.

    Then and only then will the “Catholic” in the institution’s name have any meaning at all.

    • Dick Prudlo

      Deacon Ed your suggestions for a bifurcation has merit and anything would be certainly better than what we have now. I am, however, unconvinced that any committee set up by a bishop, today, would not provide us with a “catholic” presence on campus’ across the fruited plain. May I suggest that all “catholic” institutions have that nomenclature removed and that they re-apply to a formal inquisitional authority run by Archbishop Burke. Any takers?

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        Another worthwhile review mechanism but at a much higher level. I am a big proponent of subsidiarity.

        • Dick Prudlo

          I too, deacon, support subsidiarity. However, our schools need a serious smack and a tribunal led by a “real” Catholic Bishop would provide it.

          • Deacon Ed Peitler

            No disagreement at all about what Cardinal Burke would do. He’d have the mess cleaned up in no time.

            • slainte

              Bishop Morlino is another possibility…a brave and faithful man.

  • Father of Seven

    I love the article, but would politely suggest that Professor Esolen is still unwilling to admit the problem. He spends the entire first part of the article describing the very problem he then, quite abruptly, says “is not clear” to him is the case. He very well knows that the hiring of non Catholic and non believing “Catholic” professors at “Catholic” colleges is a huge problem. So, speaking the truth about “Catholic ” institutions is necessary and those on the inside, like Professor Esolen, have a difficult, but necessary, job to do. I can only hope the next article on this site is from an employee of the USCCB who has the courage to similarly tell the truth about that politically liberal group.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      You nailed it. Far too many pronouncements that come from bishops have, in fact, been authored for them by various persons at the USCCB whose religious agenda is often secondary to their political agenda. If there is any sector of the Church today where more oversight and diligence in hiring is warranted it is at the USCCB which still has Bernadin written all over it. There is no one who should be working at the USCCB who has not signed an oath of fidelity to ALL that the Catholic Church professes and believes (and I mean ALL).

      • Tradmeister

        As well intentioned as I’m sure you are, I think your proposal may be problematic for some Catholics and learning institutions that, in fact, are quite admirable in their fidelity to the eternal fullness of the faith.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          why would it be problematic?

          • Tradmeister

            It depends upon how one frames and defines the faith.

        • Adam__Baum

          You mean like the one I obtained my graduate degree from-where they invited Abbie Hoffman to speak (before he punctuated his fetid life with the ultimate act of futility) and erected a mosque, principally for one member of the faculty?
          Too many “Catholic” colleges, are “catholic” only on their recruiting literature and I’m still trying to understand what purpose the USCCB serves, because it seems to have an agenda of effetism.

          • Tradmeister

            Not sure where you went to school, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the ones I have in mind.

            • Adam__Baum

              I don’t think it’s one of those you have in mind, but it could be any of the vast majority as opposed to the all-to precious few that have maintained fidelity.

            • Art Deco

              In my neck of the woods (Upstate New York), there were 10 institutions founded as Catholic colleges. The two in Rochester are now so far gone that Bp. Matthew Clark (of all people) took them out of the Catholic directory. I think St. Bonaventure and Niagara University might qualify as ‘residually Catholic’ or having Catholic redoubts. As for the rest, it is a marketing scam if they recall it at all.

              Catholic colleges in Upstate New York are not (by and large) venerable institutions. Marist was founded in 1928, LeMoyne in 1946, St. John Fisher in 1952. Their secularization was rapid (in comparison with that of protestant colleges). The demographic collapse of the religious orders would be the most salient factor, but the decay in the intramural culture of those orders is also important.

              You also have the dilution and decay of Catholic life in general. Some time ago, one of our portfolio of small magazines (First Things, perhaps) offered a bit of reportage on the efforts of a true loyalist on the board of the College of the Holy Cross. The other patricians and professional-managerial types on the board would not (to a man) even bother to answer his letters. He was not some gadfly. Eight first and second degree relations of his had attended Holy Cross and he had invested generously of his own time and resources for the school.

              The failure of fiduciary duty on the part of those occupying the position of trustee has been a scandal all over higher education. Our ruling class stinks. It did not used to, but it does now.

          • Art Deco

            As a rule, organizations not dependent on the custom of people exercising their own discretion and applying their own resources and also lacking in operational measures of competence come to serve one purpose: the convenience of those employed in the organization. There is only one thing to do with the USCCB: blow it up.

  • Tradmeister

    The professor raises critical questions and concerns regarding secular professors and their fitness or lack thereof to teach in a Catholic college. But apparently, in order to pursue a narrow and difficult non-negotiable Catholic mission, bringing in schismatics, heretics, and Christ-rejecting religious Jews is generally fine. Catholic formation is seen to be in perfectly good working order so long as nobody is supporting fornication or homosexual behavior.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour


      That is easy to understand. The religious eduction most parents want is similar to that on offer in Anglican schools in Mgr Ronald Knox’s day, when “schoolboys were taught a religion that their mothers believed in and their fathers would like to. A religion without ” enthusiasm ” in the old sense, reserved in its self-expression, calculated to reinforce morality, chivalry, and the sense of truth, providing comfort in times of distress and a glow of contentment in declining years; supernatural in its nominal doctrines, yet on the whole rationalistic in its mode of approaching God: tolerant of other people’s tenets, yet sincere about its own, regular in church-going, generous to charities, ready to put up with the defects of the local clergyman.” Christian morality would have horrified them “to renounce the world, and differ in every temper and way of life, from the spirit and the way of the world: to renounce all its goods, to fear none of its evils, to reject its joys, and have no value for its happiness: to be as new-born babes, that are born into a new state of things: to live as pilgrims in spiritual watching, in holy fear, and heavenly aspiring after another life: to take up our daily cross, to deny ourselves, to profess the blessedness of mourning, to seek the blessedness of poverty of spirit: to forsake the pride and vanity of riches, to take no thought for the morrow, to live in the profoundest state of humility, to rejoice in worldly sufferings: to reject the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life: to bear injuries, to forgive and bless our enemies, and to love mankind as God loves them: to give up our whole hearts and affections to God, and strive to enter through the strait gate into a life of eternal glory.”

      • Tradmeister

        I’m a bit unclear as to what position(s) you are supporting and what position(s) you are opposing.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          I was attemptng to explain why some might consider “bringing in schismatics, heretics, and Christ-rejecting religious Jews is generally fine. Catholic formation is seen to be in perfectly good working order so long as nobody is supporting fornication or homosexual behavior” This would be to support the kind of religion parents actually want taught, not the kind that would shock them

          • tamsin

            Arguably, the “schoolboy religion” that parents want taught opens the cage door for the child to escape into the light of the “shocking religion”, rather than opening a trap door for the child to fall into the darkness of “no religion”.

            • lifeknight

              I really don’t know if I totally understand the exchange above, but I am glad I have had the distinct privilege of homeschooling my children. I learned my Faith when teaching them. I received almost NOTHING of the Faith in 12 years of post Vatican II religious education. At least I can understand the truths put forth in the Baltimore catechism as I review them with my family.

              As an aside, I have my 40th “Catholic” high school reunion in a couple of weeks. At the 25th reunion, less than 10% were still calling themselves Catholic. We shall see if it can get worse…..like that trap door of no religion you mention.

              • Beth

                We, too, homeschool and our oldest attends the solidly Catholic Benedictine College in Atchison, KS. My husband and I have started to teach the 8th Grade/Confirmation PSR. Now, I really feel we are doing something to make a real, palpable change; to reach souls with the truth of the faith. Privilege is a great word to use when talking about passing on the Catholic Faith.

    • Adam__Baum

      Question: Would you rather have Albert Einstein teaching physics or Kathleen Sebelius teaching law, government or public policy.

      • Tradmeister

        I would opt for the first, but that is largely besides the point. I’m simply spotlighting problems with the author’s conception of the issue.

  • lifeknight

    Adhering to true Catholicism would close down MANY universities and colleges who claim the Catholic title……which would be fine. The handful of colleges that would be left standing have already claimed their place in academia and have had all their professors swear an oath to the Magisterium.

    • PewSitter

      Here! Here! A few Catholic rather than multitudes heretical!

  • Gail Finke

    Very interesting. I don’t see why Catholic colleges couldn’t hire non-Catholic faculty that respected the institutions and their mission… but I do see that non-Catholic faculty at Catholic colleges don’t respect the institutions and their mission. Is that necessarily so? I don’t know, but it does appear to be so.

    • WSquared

      It is also equally true that compounding the problem is a lack of confidence in Catholic orthodoxy– not the kind that has a bunker mentality, but the kind that evangelizes, because it knows that orthodoxy CAN.

      Only an institution that is confident in how “Ex Corde Ecclesiae” does not truly hamper academic freedom will know how to evangelize the culture while insisting that non-Catholic faculty respect the Church’s mission.

      • Gail Finke

        Good point.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Dr. Esolen, what a fantastic article! I am nearly stunned into silence, I cannot comment, except to say that Corvino is elegantly depraved and a homosexual force to be reckoned with. The academic dogs? That is a bigger question. Christ’s peace to you and all men of good will!

  • Howard Kainz

    On search committees that I have been on for hiring professors in our Catholic university, we were instructed that according to “affirmative action” mandates we could not ask anything about the candidate’s religion, or religious preferences. It would take a miracle to maintain anything like a “faithfully Catholic” faculty with such regulations.

    • Art Deco

      Is affirmative action for private institutions now mandatory, or are your own deans putting one over on you?

      • Howard Kainz

        I’m retired, but I haven’t heard of any change of policy, especially for research universities that receive a lot of government funding.

        • Art Deco

          Reason # 237 to shut the spigot off.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      I was told the same thing about hiring for jobs at the diocesan level. I say: “Sue us” You cannot serve both God and Mammon. I know where my allegiance lies.

      • John David

        Deacon, I think it may be of benefit to consider that your allegiance may be with your concept of God, which may or may not be what God is.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          Thanks for clarifying for me what my conception of God is.

          • John David

            I think you missed the point. I was not trying to clarify for you what your conception of God is. I was trying, for the benefit of discussion, to point out that your alegiance is to that concept and that concept may not, actually, be what God is. This is something, I believe, all of us need to consider, especially, if one is interested in having a dialogue with other whose concept is different.

            • Deacon Ed Peitler

              I am not all that intelligent but it seems to me that having discussions about who God is would be a bit presumptuous on my part. I do think that the current culture has its hands full with trying to figure out just who man is. And when that’s definitively nailed down, those much smarter than I can begin to determine who God is. For now, i will allow Jesus to show me the Father.

              • John David

                Can you not see that there are those who also “allow Jesus to show them the father” come to a different conclusion than you of who that is? Are your conclusions, therefore, right and other’s wrong?

                • Craig

                  And that is why God/Christ/the Holy Ghost gave us the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture, as well as reason. We can reasonably see that of all the concepts of “God”, Christ sacrificing himself for us (vs. petty Greek gods or no God) shows us the ultimate concept of a Father.

                  The Church is the only Church created by God. It all starts from God and why we are here: to know, love, and serve Him.

                  • John David

                    Craig, I can’t tell you how much I wish the history of the Church supported blind faith in the magisterium, but I don’t believe it does.

                    God bless,

                    John David

    • Tradmeister

      Perhaps a good start would be not accepting any federal money.

  • TeaPot562

    Parents and older alumni & alumnae of many of these colleges are disappointed when the colleges invite abortion supporters to address graduations – Why are the administrations asking us to give money to maintain the colleges if the colleges no longer teach Catholic values to their undergraduates?

    Continuing our civilization for another century requires that the birth rate per adult woman over her lifetime exceed 2.1 children. Adoption of pagan values leads to multiple abortions, selfishness and a decline of the number of children hence young adults, followed by collapse when the number of workers shrinks to too few to support the number of retirees. Those preaching “Green” values are in effect promoting group suicide to those who buy their message.

  • James_Kabala

    What really angers me is how pro-gay-marriage advocates still see themselves as a persecuted minority when they in fact basically control the national discourse. Twenty-five years ago, the idea of “Let’s hear this eccentric and his strange views out in the name of academic freedom” might have made sense; today, when students can get the same views by reading 99% of newspaper articles (if they know what a newspaper is) or watching 99% of TV shows, what exactly is the point?

    Also, if you can speak about this in public, where was Fr. Shanley in all this? Why was Dr. Lena made into the media fall guy? What about (timely in view of last weekend’s speaker) “the buck stops here?”

  • Tom

    Obviously, the “Catholic in name only professors” are just as if not more damaging to the Catholic identity of any Catholic school.

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    The freedom of speech, as understood by conservatives, is the suicide of the nation. Strictly speaking, there is no freedom of speech outside the bounds set by the national moral consensus. Thus, there is no right to agitate for communism in a commercial republic.
    But conservative fanatic legalism has doomed precisely themselves. They have out-Voltaired Voltair himself.

    • Tradmeister

      Correction, there is no natural right to be free from restriction to propagate any idea that is contrary to authoritative Catholic doctrine and morals.

      • Bedarz Iliaci

        “natural right”

        Does natural theology imply Catholic doctrine?

        Why do you say “natural right” and not simply “right”?.

        I think that “natural right” go together with “natural law” and not with specifically Catholic doctrine.

  • Bernonensis

    Corvino admits that he wishes to speak at PC to persuade students of the moral goodness of sodomy. This is not academic discussion, it’s proselytism. A dispassionate examination of the effects of homosexual marriage on society now and its likely effects in the future would be a different matter, but since Corvino has been honest about his motives, let the college be equally honest: there can be no exchange of ideas because his position has not an idea worthy of consideration. What he proposes is the rationalization of unnatural lust, and this is of no more intellectual value than a defense of alchemy as true science, or Holocaust-denial as serious history.

  • WRBaker

    Everything begins in elementary school – the very basics of our Faith should be taught there, but usually amount to only pabulum that students quickly forget. Entering high school, most everything is “social action” with no idea its relationship to being Catholic, taught by young teachers who have little life experiences and no idea of what the Magisterium is, but they have that degree in religion from a supposed Catholic school.
    Many of the students merely echo their parents’ thoughts when homosexuality and SSM is brought up in student discussions (even principals don’t want any discussions in the classroom and not necessarily because they also agree with the parents). When you explain what the Church teaches, it’s like an awakening – students will almost always state that they had never heard this before and it makes sense.
    Everyone who teaches needs to sign a mandatum in every type of Catholic school – those who don’t teach religion in their classes are role models and are thought to be pervading Catholicism in their classrooms, aren’t they? The leadership in every school should be required to do likewise. If not, you have schools like LMU that attempts to hedge their bets in the name of academic freedom, a Jesuit high school with pro-abortion members on its board or an elementary school that deliberately rid itself of being Catholic and then closed.

  • davend

    What awful, disorganized writing; valid points are simply lost in the the morass of this rant. I feel very, very sorry for Professor Esolen’s students.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      not only nasty but unnecessary. could you please let us know how your comment added to the discussion.

      • Art Deco

        Pretty much all his comments are for the purposes of baiting. The moderators need to ban him.

        • Crisiseditor

          I agree.

    • Tony

      Fascinating … Another personal attack. I am about to attend a department meeting, and one of the items for discussion will be a statement on academic freedom. It will involve the very contradictions I’ve outlined; the hypocrisy, the selectiveness, the posturing, and, when I say — mildly, because I want to get home as soon as I can — that the statement is absurd, personal attacks.

      • slainte

        Too bad Archbishop Fulton Sheen isn’t alive,
        He would have accompanied you to your meeting and enlightened your colleagues about their duties to the Catholic faith.

      • musicacre

        I can relate; I was just on a secular commenting board for a Canadian paper and was called a troll by at least 3 commentators for not agreeing with legalized assisted suicide. They all seemed to be greatly outraged and said I was a liar for suggesting that Holland’s euthanasia policies are less than perfect.

  • Proteios

    Speaking as a Catholic, a professor, a scientist…I would love to have a job at a Catholic University. THe problem is they need to hire Catholics. They dont screen or bias pro-Catholci due to EEOO compliance and a growing population of faculty and administrators who are NOT Catholci and who could care less about ones Catholicism. Well, guess what? Catholics dont get hired. So we Catholics work as much or more at secular universities and conversely, “Catholic” institutions hire non Catholics. THe result of both. Secular universities.

  • Tony

    To a few respondents below:
    The dilute Christianity of Father Knox’s time no longer exists. What we have now is, on the one side, an array of old heresies and paganisms that persuades nobody and is increasingly irrelevant, and on the other side, bands of Christian soldiers wearing different uniforms and pointing their rifles in the same direction. I’m not going to reject the assistance and the comradeship and, yes, the fellowship of my separated brethren in Christ, not now that the fight is on. Do they profess Christ, and Him crucified? Do they believe that the Word of God is the Word of God and not man? Do they believe that the eternal Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us? There are a couple of Baptist professors on my campus who are far more Catholic than, I daresay, many Catholic professors at some of our rival schools, not to mention our own school. We are fighting the same fight.

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    #1 The mission proper to ALL Catholic entities is to evangelize the culture. In the case of an academic entity, they do it through education. in the case of a charitable entity, they do it through works of mercy, and so on.

    #2 Given the fact of #1, the question to be asked – mainly by the heads of these entities, but primarily by the bishop who grants the privilege for an entity to be called “Catholic”, is this: “What is the evidence to suggest that you have been successful in the mission to evangelize?”.

    #3 I have yet to hear any Catholic entity pose that question to itself or for a bishop to pose that question and then for the entity to supply an answer. Have any of you?

    #4 And guess what…if that’s not happening, then the very purpose of the Church which Pope Paul VI said was to evangelize the culture, is not being fulfilled.

    This seems to be what Francis I is getting at when he says that the Church is not some NGO.

  • Craig

    The professor on a local Fox news show:


  • Craig

    The professor obviously does not understand “love” is a commandment, i.e., we choose to be charitable, and not something we feel and can be fully seen in unreal marriages.

    • Tony

      Yes, I understand what love is, and I would beg you to consider the horrible wreckage caused by the sexual revolution — which is the foundation of any pretense now that a man can marry another man. Don’t let your concern be so selective. Forty percent of American children are born out of wedlock. If you do not believe that that is disastrous, and cruel to those children, we have really nothing to discuss. I make no pretense to judge the heart of any particular person, whatever his confusion and his sins may be. But you have judged me. Personal attacks … I do not say that there can be no love in a sinful relationship. Fornicators too may love one another. Doesn’t change the moral status of fornication.

      • P

        I believe Craig was talking about Professor Corvino, Dr. Esolen.

  • Pingback: What is Sex? | The Porch()