Upcoming Sacrilege At Shrine of Immaculate Conception In DC

From the Interfaith Conference I received an email detailing The 31st Annual Interfaith Concert.  I attended one several years ago - at the Shrine.  It truly was a disgusting spectacle to behold: scantily-clad Hindu dancing girls prancing across the altar, Muslims chanting to "allah".

To the right is the mosaic of Christ under which the blasphemies occurred then, and will occur in two months.  This is an image of Christ coming in final judgment.  I cannot help but believe His countenance is just as stern when He looks upon such follies occurring within His Church.  Does He love those who blaspheme?  Of course He does.  When will we learn, though, that it is no act of love whatsoever to allow His lost sheep to continue in their errors?  We must preach His saving truth to them - not allow them to continue to trifle with their eternal destinies.

By the way - I took a little tour of the Interfaith Conference website.  Talk about a trip through indifferentism!  On the main page, we see that there will be an "interfaith dialog" between the Archdiocese of Washington and the Islamic Society of North America.  Hey!  Before when did we hear that name?  Now go to the "bridge builders" page to see how the John Paul II Cultural Center was recently misused.

Now we get to have a lesson in patent dishonesty.  Go to "learn about member religions" and you'll see their logo, enlarged.  Each of the symbols therein is "clickable", with the links taking you to a blurb about its respective creed.  Click on the "crescent and star" to be redirected to an explanation of Islam - well, kinda.  It's been sanitized to an extent.  The Islamic declaration of faith quoted therein is "There is no god but God and Muhammad is God’s messenger."  The words in fuscha are the substituted, sanitized words for the actual originals.  What really belongs there, to render it the true Islamic declaration is the word "Allah".  Google the phrase "there is no god but allah" and you will bring up a gajillion Islamic sites that unambiguously proclaim that phrase.   So why, oh why, does the Interfaith Conference slop around with the terminology in such fashion?  I think we can all venture a guess.  They want to help perpetuate the illusion that the "god" of Islam and the Judeo/Christian God are the same.  They aren't - pure and simple.

The entire goal of the Interfaith Conference seems to be to quietly insinuate the heresy of indifferentism into our belief systems.  The fact that the rectors of the National Shrine are allowing the Shrine to be a part of this effort is despicable.  I can only hope they are truly ignorant of what they are doing.  However, if they had just the slightest amount of common sense, they would have to know that something is dreadfully wrong with allowing songs to false gods to be sung before the Blessed Sacrament.  As a refresher to all, I again link to Mirari Vos, written by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832.  Pay special attention to paragraph 13.

McCarrick Blooper - Embracing Indifferentism?

In a comment to my Sept 2nd post regarding the Standard article, I reminded one and all about an address Cardinal McCarrick gave in 2005 in which he invoked "allah" three times without so much as mentioning the name of Jesus Christ once.  Here is the text of that address.

Well, he did it again, so to speak.  He was a featured speaker at a press conference put on by the Islamic Society of North America, joining the parade of progressives who are denouncing opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as engaging in "derision" and "bigotry".

Those of us who have heard the Cardinal know that he is a master at the usage of double negatives in his verbal discourses.  From elementary school grammar lessons, we know that double negatives cancel out the "negative" meaning of the sentence in which they're embedded.  It's a way to say something while leaving enough verbal "wiggle room" to deny responsibility for the statement.  He gave an example of this rather devious technique at this press conference.  To wit:

Cardinal McCarrick: “As an American, I believe that we all have a right to practice what God tells us is his message to us and if therefore, if someone – if someone sees the Gospel as the truth of God’s presence in our world, that person should embrace the Gospel.  If a person sees the Qu’ran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘don’t embrace the Qu’ran’ so that I think we – we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”

Your Eminence, what do you mean with this "I cannot say don't embrace the Qu'ran"?  For you, by virtue of your Sacrament of Holy Orders and of being a Prince of the Church, you must  proclaim the Gospel and its supreme truth.  That is not optional, that is your solemn obligation!

What is also amazing is that this statement is made in response to a rather straight-forward question.  He was asked if he believed a Muslim born in Mecca should have the right to convert to Catholicism.  The Cardinal never gave a clear answer to that question.  Please visit the link to the press conference; on that page is a video of the interview with Cardinal McCarrick (I can't embed that here).

The New Advent website gives a concise definition of religious indifferentism.  I think we saw His Eminence openly proclaiming that at the press conference.  Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical Mirari Vos, condemned this indifferentism as a heresy (see section 13).

Do you think we'll see this in the next Catholic Standard?  We've seen more stupid things therein now, haven't we?

By the way - I thank Pewsitter for alerting me to this.