Two Sundays ago (17JAN09) I was listening to the radio broadcast of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's TV program on EWTN. He had a Paulist priest as a guest. I caught the last five minutes of the show where a caller complained that the Paulist had praised Saul Alinsky. Fr. Groeschel said he didn't know who Saul Alisnky was, and the Paulist gave a non-answer, obfuscatory reply that was a prima facie example of circumlocution.
I've looked to see if anybody else caught the incongruity of praising Alinsky (pic above)on a Catholic TV show, and found the following posted at the Catholic Answers forum by a user named "Brooklyn."
"Priest on Fr. Groeschel's Show Praising (or at least not condemning) Saul Alinsky
"Did anyone see Fr. Groeschel's show on EWTN last night (1/17)? His guest was a Paulist priest, Fr. Bruce Nielie, who is very much into the social Gospel. At one point he mentioned Jacques Maritain, a very well respected Catholic philosopher, who corresponded at one time with Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Rules for Radicals", which is basically the Bible for liberals. There is even a book containing the correspondence between these 2 men. I was waiting for the priest to condemn the writings of Saul Alinsky, and was somewhat alarmed when he did not, but seemed to rather praise him. Fr. Groeschel did not say anything.
The last call of the show was a woman who said she was very alarmed by the mention of Saul Alinsky, and wondered if the priest knew that "Rules for Radicals" was dedicated to Satan. The priest said he didn't know anything about that, but defended Alinsky by saying that he correspondence with Jacques Maritain, so how could he be wrong? To me, that is like saying Judas was one of the apostles, so how could he be wrong. Fr. Groeschel said he did not know anything about Saul Alinsky, but maybe they would get into it at a later date.
BTW, the dedication for Alinsky's book is as follows:
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"
I talked with a Paulist priest, ordained 40 years ago, who told me that many of his colleagues got caught up in the social gospel and that it really led them away from the True Gospel of Christ, and that at one point he even had to catch himself from being swept up in it. Fr. Groeschel said he has known Fr. Nieli for over 30 years, but I wonder how well he really knows him. Fr. Nielie had nothing negative to say about Obama, even when talking about abortion, which he is against. Fr. Neilie was also very big on allowing illegal immigrants into the US.
Does anyone else know anything about Fr. Niele? I get a chance to see Fr. Groeshel every month or so, and was wondering if I should say anything to him. (I don't know Fr. Groeschel personally, but I go to his talks here in New York)."
Regrettably, the forum administrator at Catholic Answers closed the thread down as it was misposted under "news," and did not have its basis in a "news" story.
Alinsky's magnum opus, "Rules for Radicals," does contain the following "acknowledgement:"
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"
It is clear that Fr. Groeschel did not know the true import of what his Paulist guest, Fr. Bruce Nieli, pic below, was saying by praising Alinsky.
Fr. Nieli's defense was:
1.) Saul Alinsky was a good friend of Jacques Maritain
2.) Jacques Maritain was one of the most important, and faithful, Catholic philosophers of the 20th century
3.) ergo - Saul Alinsky is "kosher."
HUH?
I know that Aristotelian logic isn't taught in the seminaries anymore, but come on.
Second Problem
Fr. Nieli is an ardent OPPONENT of the death penalty. And he couches his anti-death penalty argument under the aegis of "PRO-LIFE." In fact that is how he was listed on the EWTN website as:
"Pro-Life: Fr. Bruce Nieli, CSP"
Warning, Warning, Warning.......................
ABORTION ≠ DEATH PENALTY
DEATH PENALTY ≠ ABORTION
Here's a great answer Carl E. Olson of the Ignatius Press blog, pic below, gave over at the Insight Scoop to this obfuscation of the truth.
_________________________
I sincerely hope that Fr. Groeschel "clarifies" Fr. Nieli's comments.
PS - At UCLA 25 years ago, when the University Newman Center was run by a cabal of liberation theology types, many of us scampered down to St. Paul's in Westwood, the nearest local parish. It was, and may be still, run by the Paulists.
Walking out of mass one Sunday, quite upset, after hearing a completely heretical sermon, an old lady came up to me an asked if I was "alright." I said yes, but went on to complain about the priest's comments.
She smiled and said "well there Paulists - you know what CSP stands for?"
I responded "no."
She impishly whispered "Congregation of Semi-Protestants."
Twenty five years later, I wonder if she knew Fr. Nieli.
"Stacey: Here is what the Catechism says about abortion:
"Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (par 2271)
"From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life." (par 2322)
And here is what it says about capital punishment:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." (par 2267)
Abortion, the murder of an innocent, is always gravely sinful and evil. Period. The death penalty is not inherently evil, but should be used only when necessary (and that, of course, is part of the debate: when is it necessary?). Big, big difference."