Taken from our favorite dissident school in the South, Euntes Mission Center
Jose M. de Mesa, Ph.D. a married Filipino Theologian, is a professor of Applied Systematic Theology at De La Salle University, Manila. He obtained his Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the Catholic University, Louvain, Belgium. He is a member of the Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs and is on the advisory board of Concilium. [the great dissident journal founded by some of the greatest dissidents of our time among them Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, and Edward Schillebeeckx] His publications included: In Solidarity with the Culture; Studies in Theological Re-rooting; Basic Realities and Processes and Doing Christology, the Re-appropriations of a Tradition. [even earthworms won't recycle these rubbish.]
The speaker started by introducing himself as a married person which established certain veracity in speaking about family life in the perspective of a non-celibate. [same as saying "I am married. You are a celibate priest and bishop. Don't teach me anything about morality in a married state."] He also presented the preferred approach in seeing marriage, which has undergone lots of humiliation throughout the history of the Church, that is, “blessing-centered” rather than “problem-centered”. [problem centered? since when did the Church teach that to us?] He traced back the vision of marriage from the time of the Church Fathers and the succeeding epoch as highly influenced by Hellenistic dualists’ philosophy. [Not what the Bible says? Right.] Such philosophy influenced a lot in the way of thinking of the church and the implementation of her practices, which has become a tradition that is carried from one century to another.
The Church has been living in the medieval way of thinking for which Dr. de Mesa proposed a re-visioning of the church’s view of marriage as well as our negative (subconscious) accusations of marital commitment. [This is the language of Modernists. Anything from the past is bad. Anything they think of and as long as it does not resemble anything from the past is not only good, but the best.] Dualism has become problematic and has been marginalizing a good number of the faithful. It has an enormous influence in Catholicism and the consequences of its paradigm have reflected so much in many of her doctrines, beliefs, and traditions. Missionaries and the clergy in this regard have become problem solvers and experts of marriage which they never experienced themselves. [Bingo! There it is folks! This theologian does not even try to draw the great teaching of St. Paul about the mystical marriage of Christ with the Church and how this relates to the Christian view of marriage. But no, he says its all influenced by Hellenistic philosophy.]
For centuries, the vision of marriage and everything that is related to sexuality have been looked down and considered second class or low class as it were. [Geez! It was that bad? Poor parents fo St. Therese of Liseux who are both Blessed. But I guess he does not even believe in canonizations anymore, too.] This made the Church hierarchical and put married couples below as inferior with emphasis on the fallenness of women and weakness of children. [Modernists will always paint a gloomy picture of pre-Vatican II. Because of this premise, you now accept that the Church has been in a quandary for centuries that we need to fix it. And the jolly old 60s fixed it with Vatican II. Church is always hierarchical, well it still is. Women are fallen, according to them but not to us. Guess he does not even know Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila. And children are weak, well physically they are, that is why they need adults. So if you talk to these Modernist, who abhor the Church hierarchy but would not dare you question their authority, do not accept their premise about the sorry state of the Church before Vatican II.]
The proposed approach, that is, the “blessing-centered” or “creation-centered” approach makes missionaries and the church hierarchy as human witness who are able to listen to the threshold of marital life. This was made possible in the implementation of the double thrust of Second Vatican Council which is aggiornamento in her doctrine and ad fontes as regards our traditions. [ Ah yes! Vatican II! The super council! The mother of all councils! The only council canonized by dissidents!] This basically is not innovative but rather a process reclaiming the lost piece of the original Christianity as Jesus envisioned. [remember folks! These dissident theologians would always paint a picture that the Church has been corrupted for hundreds of years and that Vatican II and their own brand of Christianity brought it back to its "pristine beauty". "Just as Jesus envisioned it", like homosexual marriage, women priests, divorced clergy, contraception and abortion, which these dissidents support.]
Marriage, which majority of the world population is engaged with, sparks a certain interest that demands a particular response from the church that neglects its importance for a long time. By the lecture on the mission of the family in the church, new paradigm has been opened for further reflection. As an epilogue for the lecture on this day, Dr. de Mesa showed us a movie about a married couple which serves as a prologue for tomorrow’s session. [Guess it is a copy of their home video, eh? Ha!]
You see, when it stinks, you know their is a rotting fish somewhere.
Dr. Jose de Mesa is one of them.
One of these days, you'll see, this guy would lose his license to teach theology. And that University in Belgium would lose its title as a Catholic university.
Well, I might be too late for this but the university is already contemplating dropping the adjective Catholic from its official name.
If you find that your theology professor studied there at Louvain, Belgium, dump your Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your professor would not use it.
You see, they are the authority in Church teaching, not the Pope nor the bishops in communion with him.
That my friends, was how Jesus envisioned the Church to be, like what Dr. de Mesa wanted it to be.
Or is it the other way around or is this the Church of De Mesa?