Friday, December 21, 2007
AN ALL-FEMALE committee representing the Anglican Church's Melbourne diocese has recommended that abortion be decriminalised, in what is believed to be the first official approval of abortion by Australian Anglicans.
The diocese was one of 40 church, medical and community groups who made confidential submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which is reviewing state abortion laws. According to the commission, there were also more than 500 written submissions.
And my favorite part:
"If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, paradoxically we shouldn't make it more difficult legally because we will go back to the days where poorer women resorted to underground means and corruption was rife through the police, medical practitioners and hospitals," she said.
"The knee-jerk reaction is to make the legislation very restrictive, [which is usually what a goverment doess to limit or stop something...] but the way you reduce abortions is with contraception and sex education. [God-forbid anyone teach abstinence, the only 100% effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's] The other thing is to support families — we need to be a pro-child society with a pro-child government."
Notice the double-speak?
"If we want to reduce abortions we should decriminalize it."
When has the legalization and govermental regulation of anything resulted in its reduction? After the prohibition of alcohol was lifted and regulated, did alcohol consumtion go down or up? After protitution was legalized and regulated in Nevada, did prostitution go down or up? After abortion was legalized in the states, did the number of abortions go down or up? When there was a big push by liberals to hand out condoms in school, the banning of teaching abstinence, and teaching of homosexual lifestyles to grade-schoolers, did teenage pregnancies go down or up?
And more doublespeak here: "The other thing is to support families — we need to be a pro-child society with a pro-child government."
How can government and society be "pro-child" and "pro-family" while legalizing abortion and pushing contraception? How does that work? How is pushing the message that we have the 'right' to a 'consequence-free sex-life' and the right to kill family members "pro-family"? And always with the fear-mongering of returning to back-alley coat-hanger abortions.
The only way to get us to drink their poison is mixing it with pleasant-tasting platitutdes. I think it's obvious liberals are somewhat mentally defficient. That's why they're liberals. So all those who aren't sharp enough to see through their doubletalk will fall for their deceit.
It boils down to "If you're pro-family then you'll side with us and legalize abortion." What hooey! What an insult to our intelligence that they'd try to pull a fast one like that. Do they think we're stupid? Yes, because liberals think our nanny-state should take care of us, that we're too inept to take care pf ourselves. Are we that stupid? Many of us are, because we keep falling for it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
One of the Vatican's most senior cardinals has dismissed the idea that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse - despite Benedict XVI's personal support for such a move. Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome."
The cardinal's comments refer to the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a rebel group which claims to represent 400,000 people. Its bishops sent a letter to Rome last month requesting "full, corporate and sacramental union". But the bishops did not send their letter to Cardinal Kasper. Instead they addressed it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), where, it is understood, they expected a warmer reception.
It has been claimed that 60 Anglican parishes have joined the rebel group since their request became public.
The cardinal said on Monday: "We are on good terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury and as much as we can we are helping him to keep the Anglican community together."
When asked whether he felt encouraged by the TAC's request, the cardinal replied: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome and I am not sure there are so many as you are speaking about."
He added: "Of course, as a Catholic I am happy if one person joins our Catholic Church but I doubt such a big group is coming - I think there are still many questions to solve first."
And here I thought that we were called to evangelize the world and bring all people into the Church, ouside of which there is no salvation.
I didn't know that it was our duty to keep other protestants faiths together.
This guy is a disgrace to his office; he's working directly against why his congregation exists. He doesn't want unity, he wants indifferentism. VII has really screwed up the notion of ecumenism, which used to stress teh ecumenism of return. It used to preach the importance of evangelization. Now it just stresses the hippie notions of I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok.
If it's not for the sake of reuniting people with the one trut Church of Christ then it is a waste of time. I guess Kasper cares more about happy-clappy circle-jerks than saving souls.
I'm sorry Cardinal, you may not want 400,000 souls to rejoin the true Church. But there are over 400,000 souls that disagree with you.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Dec. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican will release a new document on evangelization next week, with officials in Rome indicating that it will be an important statement on the duty to spread the Catholic faith.
The subject of the new document, which is being released under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is evangelization. The document will be released on December 14.
In July of this year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released, a document entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, reaffirming the central role of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church in the plan of salvation. That document, released without fanfare, revived a controversy that had been ignited in 2000 by Dominus Iesus (doc), a powerful statement released by the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed at that time by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), which affirmed the traditional Catholic teaching that the Christ and his Church provide the only means of salvation.
The new Vatican document is expected to carry the argument of Dominus Iesus a step further, explaining that because of the unique role played by the Church in the plan of redemption, Catholics have an obligation to spread the faith, thus offering others the best means of attaining salvation.
I hope the shepherds will not be too scared of the wolves and that this document has no-nonsense wording free of Vatican II-speak. We need hard and fast language with zero room for (mis)interpretation. We need the truth to be told no matter how unpopular it is. The more controversy such a statement threatens the more it obviously needs to be said.
To paraphrase Bp. Fulton Sheen,
"We need a Church that is right not when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong."
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Reindeer Ralph - the new Nativity
The traditional nativity play is on the wane, suggests a survey. One alternative is Ralph the Reindeer, says a leading children's playwright.
The excitement of being Third Shepherd, Inn Keeper or Little Donkey is a staple part of a schoolchild's Christmas experience.
For generations, the season is forever associated with tea-towels and tinsel, as parents rummage to make costumes for traditional Nativity performances.
Yet a Sunday Telegraph survey of 100 schools has found only one in five opting to stage the traditional Christmas story. One in three will stage a religion-free Christmas play or have no event at all.
The apparent trend for non-traditional plays has been welcomed by the National Secular Society's director Keith Porteous Wood.
"This is a reflection of society: Seventy straight years of continuous decline in Church attendance," he says.
"We should celebrate it. It shows a greater sensitivity to our more multicultural society, those of all faiths and none."
Multiculturalism, the new political dogma, will destroy western culture. Silly religious zealots we are, thinking that not all cultures and religions are morally equivalent. We're merely throwbacks from a bygone era marked by persecution and bigotry, right? If you don't support multiculturalism then you must be racist. Or if you don't accept all religions as equal you must be an ignorant fanatic.
Removing God only panders to the slim minority of atheists. There is nothing there that supports faith by removing the reason for that faith.
That's ok. Remove it out of sight, stuff it away, pretend it doesn't exist, ignore it and it will just go away.
Once you make people forget where their country came from they will forget what their country means. If you have no history, no traditions, no foundation, then you don't have very much of a reason for patriotism. Leave a country's values and foundation to the waxing and waning of public opinion and fancy, you won't have anything worth protecting but a bunch of opinions.
If you want to know where we're headed, just look to the UK.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
This is an excerpt from the response to Summorum Pontificum by Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja SJ, Archbishop of Jakarta:
4. As a bishops which authority is also recognized in "motu proprio data", I affirm that what is currently practiced now is the only [one] (meaning the ordinary form) officialy practiced for the Arch Diocese of Jakarta. Until there are special condition which force this ruling to be reviewed.
5. I made the ruling because of consideration that the reason for the [re]establishement of the 1962 Missale Romanum is not relevant for the Arch diocese of Jakarta. There are no Pius X group, the lefebvrist group. There is no reason for reconciliation in the Church in the Arch diocese of Jakarta, which has become the reason for "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. With the currently practice Missale Romanum, still opens the possibility of Gregorian songs being sung. Therefore I decided for the whole ArchDiocese of Jakarta to follow the ordinary [which is] the newest form of Missale Romanum, in order to follow the latest development, [a development] which was made after the second Vatican council.
First off, he doesn't have the authority to ban the mass of Pius V.
Second, there are a whole lot of non-SSPX parishioners that desire the TLM, Summorum Pontificum is not just a concession to the SSPX.
Third, it has the authority of the Pope who has authority over you, you twit!
Who the hell does he think he is? This is open rebellion. Why would a man of God ban a mass? Perhaps he's not working for God, but himself; and by proxy, someone else...
Of course, he is a Jesuit and such defiance isn't all that surprising from that society.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
'Twas the month before Christmas when all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings', the teachers would say.
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod S
omething was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets are hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'DreamTree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday !
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.
First, it was if you were white, you should feel guilty about oppressing blacks.
Then it was if you were male, you should feel guilty about oppressing women.
Then it was if you were christian, you should feel guilty about oppressing other religions.
Then it was if you living in a western culture, you should feel guilty about oppressing eastern cultures.
Now it's all reached it's final conclusion; if you're human, you should feel guilty about oppressing the entire planet. And if you bear a child, gaia help you!
And here I thought the popular joke was guilt was a Catholic thing.
Now there's proof the nutty-left enviro-kooks and contraception and abortion go hand-in-hand.
Notice the double-talk: "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Oh, ok, so having an abortion, choosing for the child whether or not it would like an existence, somehow isn't selfish?
These aren't activists, nor are they eco-conscious. They're nihilists, pure and simple. My best friend in highschool was one of them I know how they are. Humanity is a plague upon the earth that needs to be purged. Humanity is evil, the less human beings the better. There is no reason for goodness because humanity is intrinsically evil and will just corrupt the goodness eventually. Life is simply waiting to die, and the sooner the better.
I would call these people self-afflicted martyrs but they don't hold up their 'sacrifice' to move people's pity. They're proud of it. Self-hate has been consumed in such queantities that it has now perverted even human instinct.
An interesting comparison is that 95% of all abortions are done out of convenience. The focus of these people are themselves. In this instance, the abortion was for the planet. In the first case, you have ultimate pride, their god is themselves. In the second, you have the Greenhouse Gestapo as their god.
Both the selfish and the 'selfless' are enchanted with satan's spell.
How about all of these people just off themselves? Seriously. The only way to remove a person's carbon footprint, let alone putting it in the negative is to stop breathing. The more you breathe, the more carbon you create. Gaia would be happier with less carbon and everyone else on earth would be happier without the Greenhouse Gestapo's finger-wagging.
If humanity is such a burden on the planet, and procreating is only a selfish expression of one's impulse to continue their genetic line, then why don't the eco-elite enviro-illuminati lead by example and stop breathing?
What the earth needs is a purging of all the enviro-fundamentalists.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The former pastor at a Mesa Catholic church who faces seven misdemeanor charges of sexual misconduct has started a new worship center and conducted his first services.
More than 500 worshippers gathered to hear Dale Fushek conduct a service at a Mesa hotel Thursday.Known as "Monsignor Dale" during his 20 years at St. Timothy's, Fushek co-founded the national Life Teen program and served as vicar general of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix
But all that came tumbling down in late 2005, when he was arrested on one count of assault, five counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and one count of indecent exposure. He is accused of engaging in sexually related discussions with teenagers during confessions and exposing himself to teens as he got into his hot tub.
Fushek was suspended by the diocese (God bless Bishop Olmsted) and is now resigning from the priesthood. He is tying to win the right to a jury trial on the charges and a hearing is pending on that issue before the Arizona Supreme Court.
On Thanksgiving Day, he said he was happy to be back before a group of worshippers.
Well I guess we know what he really wants. Aside from flashing minors that is. The want for an audience takes precedence over the True Presence of Jesus Christ. Seems to be a growing trend over the past, oh, 40 or so years.
Is it really any big surprise that the founder of a quasi-Catholic protestant-esque youth ministry would turn protestant when the going got tough? The founder of a Catholic youth ministry to teach Catholicism to teens leaves the Church to start a protestant denomination. Anyone else see the irony?
I think it's obvious he really didn't care about teaching the truth (seeing as he doesn't believe it himself) as much as he just wanted to get near kids. Which is really quite fitting seeing as Life Teen doesn't teach anything.
I live in teh Phoenix diocese and Life Teen was over a decade old when I went through it. And I can honestly say to you that it is worthless. 'Hip' songs and charismatic hand-waving does not teach Catholic doctrine. I was confirmed after the program's close and I had no idea what a dogma even was, let alone what any of them were. I came away from Life Teen in the same state as when I entered it, only more embarassed.
If you want to reach kids, don't make them sing cheesy songs, perform stupid skits, or ask stupid questions like "How does this express Jesus' love for us?"
If there's one thing teens fear more than the devil that is embarassment in front of their peers. All of those things accomplish that. Lame attempts at 'reaching' teens only turns into patronization.
Of course, I think Flashing Fushek had a different idea about 'reaching' teens...
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Dale.
Enjoy the barbeque.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I apologize to my gratious readers for my absence. Did ya miss me? Yeah, I know, not much to miss, haha. To be honest I think I just needed a break. Not just from blogging, but the whole traditional cause. Not that it's not a noble one, only very taxing sometimes. You work to spread the truth yet you see so many obstacles and others working against you. And you feel like what can your little blog do? You're only one voice out of thousands. But if everyone took that point of view there would be no one left. So I congratulate those who had the strength to continue when I did not.
Now that my batteries are recharged, there are pressing issues to discuss, my fellow faith warriors:
Lately, I've been debating on a Catholic forum about the moral licitness of a bishop in the UK approving legal regulation on prostitution and a priest in Venice allowing muslims use of his church for friday prayers.
First a short snippet:
LONDON (Reuters) - A Roman Catholic bishop in the city of Portsmouth is backing a campaign to legalise brothels without in any way condoning them.
The Right Reverend Crispian Hollis supported the local branch of the Women's Institute which wants to licence brothels.
"If you are going to take a pragmatic view and say prostitution happens, I think there is a need to make sure it's as well regulated as possible for the health of people involved and for the safety of the ladies themselves," Hollis said.
"That's not to say I approve of prostitution in any way. I would be very much happier if there was no prostitution in Portsmouth," he told The Portsmouth News.
"But it's going to be there whatever we do and it has been from time immemorial. So I think that is something we have to be realistic about."
Does his reasoning sound familiar? People who back 'safe' abortion, giving out condoms in schools, school nurses giving the pill to 13 year old girls, euthanasia, a 'safe' environment for their kids to abuse alcohol and drugs, etc. all use the "they're gonna do it anyway, let's make it 'safe' " argument. Which everyone can see is absurd.
One person even went so far as to apply the double-effect doctrine to justify it. The key thing about doube-effect is that the undesired side-effect is just that: undesired. It's not the aim of the action.
This, on the other hand, does nothing but facilitate the sin, it's not double-effect at all. There is no way to legalize and regulate a sinful behavior and at the same time stop that behavior.
Now about the muslims using the church:
Believe it or not! A parish Church turns into a mosque every Friday, for the Muslims brothers and to offer their customary prayers. This isn't a sequence from any Bollywood film, but a reality in the parish of Our Lady of Assumption of Ponzano near Venice, the romantic city of Italy. The pastor of the parish, Don Aldo Danieli, 69, affirms, "It's useless to speak of religious dialogue and then bang the door on their face. Pope John Paul II addressed them as, 'dear Muslim brothers'. How can we close our church doors to them?"
At Ponzano, in the province of Treviso, live some 11,500 people of whom 232 families are immigrants, making their number roughly 650. These are mainly immigrants from North African countries and Eastern Europe. Two years ago, Don Aldo decided to open the doors of the church to these Muslim immigrants and keep a portion of his own parochial house including a kitchen and a little at their disposal. On Fridays an average of 200 Muslim believers gather in the church and offer prayers. But in the month of Ramadan, the number swells to 1000-1200. "They requested me and I said yes, moreover, the kitchen and hall were a home for spiders".
The decision of Don Aldo has disturbed the peace of mind of more than a few parishioners. The protests of even the local bishop and priests have reached his ears. "I haven't asked the express permission of the bishop, because it's an act of charity. No permission is needed to do charity. For the rest, I am older than the bishop and been his professor in the seminary too.
Oh, ok. Since he was his professor I guess that gives him a higher authority than the bishop. I wonder why, if this professor-priest knows so much better than the bishop does, why is he only a priest? Shouldn't a man of his intellectual excellence be rewarded with a crook of his own? I guess the Vatican doesn't recognize the intellectual powerhouse they're wasting.
Mean old Vatican.
Or perhaps they want to keep him in a place where he can't do much damage, as this example shows. That, or they see in him only hot air and ego. Perhaps both.
The debate on this issue surrounded the topic of is his actions an example of christian charity?
Back on October I covered Pius IX's moral declarations on modern democratic freedoms. I think every true Catholic that's worth his or her catechetical salt can agree that mankind does not have the moral right to false worship, and that any worship contrary to the Catholic faith is false. Granted, ignorance can mitigate or even remove a person's culpability of sin, but the priest isn't ignorant of what is true and what is false worship.
Christian charity obligates us to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned, etc. Providing shelter means giving the homeless a place to sleep, rest, and eat that keeps the cold and the rain out. But that's where it ends.
Is facilitating false worship an act of christian charity? According to the nine ways of being accessory to another's sin, wouldn't we be complicit in the sin of false worship by allowing it to occur in our own churches without a peep of protest? The muslims may not know better, but we as well as the priest do know better. There's no claim to ignorance here.
Should we provide a place for them to practice their sin of false worship just because they desire it?
Should we provide needles for a junkie for their sin of drug abuse becuase they desire it?
Should we provide contraception for a person because they desire it?
Remember, none of the parties involved think their acts of sin are wrong. Knowing better, should we facilitate their sins?
The debate then turned into how this makes steps forward in 'ecumenism' aka indifferentism and how it is a good thing. I say bull-oney. Christ wouldn't even let jewish moneychangers hang out outside the temple let alone inside of it, He chased them off with a whip. There's no reason why a Catholic should allow false worship in the House of God with the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle as a witness.
This act forsakes the respect of God for the respect of men.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Are those cassocks I see?
Why yes, I do believe they are.Photo credit:
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Ahmed talked with steady self-assurance about his plans to follow in his brother's footsteps, who blew himself up at a drinks stall in Iraq where American soldiers were nearby.
The young man helped his brother get ready for his mission, packing TNT into pouches with some nails and strapping the bomb to his 19-year-old brother's waist. He also slipped wire rings onto his brother's fingers and attached them to a fourth detonator in the palm of his hand, with directions to head towards the American soldiers.
“Go sell them some Pepsi,” Ahmed told him gently. “We will meet in heaven, you and I, and that’s a promise.”
Ahmed says his brother kissed him, turned and walked away without a moment’s hesitation.
Ahmed has a different mission than his brother. He plans to pass through Syria on his way to die in Iraq to kill CIA officers."
So let me get this straight:
This reporter had foreknowledge of an act of terrorism that would kill many people and he did nothing?
How many lives did he just sell out so he could sell newspapers?
In my country, we call that treason. I don't care if he's a brit; we're supposed to be on the same side.
If my son was killed in Iraq by this guy and this reporter just sat and did nothing with people's lives in danger, I would sue the dog $#!+ out of him and the London Times.
Would this same reporter have interviewed Nazi's during WWII before going out to kill british soldiers? Oh, I forgot, the jihadists said they wanted kill evil Americans, not brits. That's ok, then.
This is the same as when Satan's Bible--er, I mean the New York Times--printed classified information about how Homeland Security keeps Americans safe and when that CNN reporter hung out with those terrorists while they were killing American soldiers to get a story. Traitorous scumbags.
I'd love to hear his answer when God asks him why he did nothing to stop someone from murdering his children. Last time I checked, He didn't give a free pass to journalists.
Liberal propagansists (aka 'journalists') in the media are traitors.
Friday, October 5, 2007
"The Pope has again risked provoking the wrath of the Islamic world, by criticising its treatment of Christians.
Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.
He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries."
In accordance with the Bukhari collection of Hadith (Hadith being collections of sayings and actions of Mohammed), the most authoritative hadith collection among all flavors of Islam, from Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 84, Num. 57 which says:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
This seems to contradict Quran Sura 2:256 which spokesmen for CAIR often quote, "there is no compulsion in religion" Going on:
"In a clear reference to Islam, he said: "The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice."
Addressing the problem of Islamic extremism, he added: "Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God's name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life."
The supposed contradiction is for them to figure out. I'd just like the sanctity of life, in accordance with the Natural Law, to be embraced by all people's everywhere. In Saudi Arabia this is especially poignant, where just bringing a bible into the country can land you in jail or worse.
There's also another interesting snippet from the article:
"His latest comments, however, come just days after one of the Church of England's-senior bishops warned that Muslim leaders here must speak out in defence of the right to change faith.
The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, told Channel 4's Dispatches programme of his fears for the safety of the estimated 3,000 Muslims who have converted to other faiths in this country.
A poll earlier this year of more than 1,000 young adult British Muslims found that 36 per cent believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death."
Excuse my language but "tiny minority of extremists" my ass.
I know I just went over how a person has no moral right to false worship. Call me an islamophobe, but isn't the death penalty a little steep for apostasy? I don't like it when people leave the Church but in no way do I desire their execution.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say this poll is somehow skewed and extremists account for only 1% of all muslims. 1% of the popular quote of 1.2 billion is still 12 million people. It only took 10 extremists to kill 3,000 people on 9/11.
All I wish is that the other 64% of muslims who actually believe there is no compulsion in religion stand up and publicly denounce such violations of human life. So far, their silence has been deafening.
The assistant manager then handed the phone to her fiancee for him to perform the strip-search. The prank-caller then told the fiancee to perform sexual acts upon the woman, which he did.
The whole thing was caught on surveillence video.
The prank-caller was aquitted of the charges brought against him. The assistant manager was fired and was convicted of a misdemeanor. Her fiancee is now serving 5 1/2 years in prison for the incident. The "victim" sued McDonals'd for $200m and recieved a victory and $6.1m.
Did she run out of the room screaming rape? No, she went along with the whole thing, it's on the video. Did the thought ever cross her mind that a perfect stranger is not allowed to strip-search her? I guess not. How about the absurdity of a cop telling said stranger to have sex with her? Nope. Is she mentally retarded or handicapped in any way? No, the article would have said so. Is she a young impressionable girl? No, she's 21 years old, fully responsible for her actions.
Now, I'm not saying that the prank-call, nor the actions of the guy who strip searched her was an upright moral decision; The guy was obviously taking advantage of the situation.
But the fact of the matter is, there is basically two kinds of sex as far as the law is concerned; consentual and rape. This woman was definitely not raped, she went along with the whole thing. And it's hard to say she's not smart enough to see the absurdity in the whole thing.
Here's what it boils down to: an opportunistic pig of a man had consensual sex with a willing woman. The media gets a hold of it, embarasses the crap out of her, she feels stupid and wants to get back at people. She doesn't sue the guy who she had sex with, she doesn't sue the assistant manager, nor does she sue the prank-caller. No, she sues the person with the deepest pockets; McDonald's.
A pervert gets 5 1/2 years in prison and the 21yo woman he had consensual sex with skips away with $6.1m paid to her by a company who had no fault in the incident. All because she felt stupid. That's obviously sexist. I won't defend what he did, but having consensual sex and one person getting 5 1/2 years in prison with the other walking away with $6.1m is rediculous and sexist of the worst kind.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The current policy from the USCCB is thus:
"A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum [n. 36]."
But what about Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae?
According to Jimmy Akin, contraception is condemned in those documents during conjugal intercourse. There is no provision for rape. That's the loophole.
The pertinent part of the bishops' statement is this:
"Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened. "
As far as I know, and I'm no doctor, Plan B functions by preventing an egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. No egg present, no pregnancy. The debate comes in whether or not Plan B causes the same effect on a fertilized egg. At this point no one knows.
I would assume so, but a fertilized egg is very chemically different than an unfertilized egg, so I don't know.
As we read above, the USCCB mandates that before administering a potential abortifacient that an ovulation test must be performed to determine the possibility of pregnancy.
The Connecticut bishops maintain that since the abortifacient potential of Plan B is unknown, that an ovulation test is unnecessary. They say an FDA-approved pregnancy test is sufficient.
Again, I'm no doctor, but it is my understanding that a pregnancy test can only detect a pregnancy after eight or so weeks. If a woman is in the hospital immediately following a rape the test will obviously not show a pregnancy.
Second, those bishops are being very irresponsible here; they forego the ovulation test due to the uncertainty of the abortifacient potential of Plan B. The responsible thing to do would at least continue to test for ovulation precisely because of that uncertainty. Better safe than sorry.
Third, just because the USCCB found a loophole doesn't mean it's morally licit. If a woman can get contraceptive medication from a violent act that is missing the component of love, then any women can do the same after a non-violent act equally without the component of love.
One act was done out of violence and hate, the other out of lust and indifference. Either way it lacks the integral component of love. Same thing.
The most glaring point of all this is that if there is no evidence of ovulation, meaning there is no threat of pregnancy, why bother administer the contraceptive medication at all?
And lastly, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a woman's right to not be sexually assaulted was violated doesn't mean we can go ahead and violate a potential human's right to exist. (I say potential because I'm talking about ovulation and that it could possibly be an embryo.)
Onan was struck dead by God for spilling his seed upon the ground to avoid pregnancy. Here, this drug causes a woman to spill her seed on the ground to avoid pregnancy. How is it different?
This situation isn't as complicated as people make it out to seem. There is a definite moral answer to this.
This is the first step on a slippery slope. I hope Rome deals with this soon.
Info taken from:
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Blurb from today's entry on www.catholicculture.org:
The name of the archangel Michael means, in Hebrew, who is like unto God? and he is also known as "the prince of the heavenly host." He is usually pictured as a strong warrior, dressed in armor and wearing sandals. His name appears in Scripture four times, twice in the Book of Daniel, and once each in the Epistle of St. Jude and the Book of Revelation. From Revelation we learn of the battle in heaven, with St. Michael and his angels combatting Lucifer and the other fallen angels (or devils). We invoke St. Michael to help us in our fight against Satan; to rescue souls from Satan, especially at the hour of death; to be the champion of the Jews in the Old Testament and now Christians; and to bring souls to judgment.
This day is referred to as "Michaelmas" in many countries and is also one of the harvest feast days. In England this is one of the "quarter days", which was marked by hiring servants, electing magistrates, and beginning of legal and university terms. This day also marks the opening of the deer and other large game hunting season. In some parts of Europe, especially Germany, Denmark, and Austria, a special wine called "Saint Michael's Love" (Michelsminne) is drunk on this day. The foods for this day vary depending on nationality. In the British Isles, for example, goose was the traditional meal for Michaelmas, eaten for prosperity, France has waffles or Gaufres and the traditional fare in Scotland used to be St. Michael's Bannock (Struan Micheil) — a large, scone-like cake. In Italy, gnocchi is the traditional fare.
Patron: Against temptations; against powers of evil; artists; bakers; bankers; battle; boatmen; cemeteries; coopers; endangered children; dying; Emergency Medical Technicians; fencing; grocers; hatmakers; holy death; knights; mariners; mountaineers; paramedics; paratroopers; police officers; radiologists; sailors; the sick; security forces; soldiers; against storms at sea; swordsmiths; those in need of protection; Brussels, Belgium; Caltanissett, Sicily; Cornwall, England; Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee Florida; England; Germany; Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama; Papua, New Guinea; Puebla, Mexico; San Miguel de Allende, Mexico; Sibenik, Croatia; Archdiocese of Seattle, Washington; Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts.
Symbols: Angel with wings; dressed in armour; lance and shield; scales; shown weighing souls; millstone; piercing dragon or devil; banner charged with a dove; symbolic colors orange or gold.
That Michelsminne wine sounds tasty.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
I don't think I need to remind us about this kind of thing, but I will just feel a little better:
The Congregation of Divine Worship
"The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worhship of the Latin Church.
If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services.
Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorders.
[. . .]
However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.
Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.
Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation."
From Cardinal Arinze
"Why make the people of God suffer so much? Haven't we enough problems already? Only Sunday, one hour, they come to adore God. And you bring a dance! Are you so poor you have nothing else to bring us? Shame on you! That's how I feel about it.
Somebody can say, "but the pope visited this county and the people danced". A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father -- he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny -- is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine
Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go."
From Benedict XVI
Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. . . . Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes - incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy - none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy as the "reasonable sacrifice". It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy "attractive" by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals' point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation."
1. Do you attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo?
I attend the TLM as much as I can. I attend the NO if I miss the TLM or when my mother asks me to attend mass with her.
2. If you attend the TLM, how far do you drive to get there?
Google says I go about 17 miles.
3. If you had to apply a Catholic label to yourself, what would it be?
Taking PMG's advice and looking at Terry's labels I feel I fit in the Traditonal Catholic group. Though I've been called many other names as well, haha. I guess I could be called a Catholic Nerd too, by how much I have my nose in some Church document or bit of history from Newadvent.
4. Are you a comment junkie?
Being an addict of online bulletin boards, of course I am!
5. Do you go back to read the comments on the blogs you’ve commented on?
Always! I want to see if anyone brought up another good point or takes issue with what I or anyone else says to make a good defense.
6. Have you ever left an anonymous comment on another blog?
Nope. I stand by my words and take responsibility for what I say, and am always willing to make a defense for my statements. I can't stand "hit-and-run" comments, so I don't make the same mistake.
7. Which blogroll would you most like to be on?
Any of em! I think I've aready been added to all of my favorites except Rorate Caeli. I remember When I was first added to Salve Regina (first add I had) it really made my day. It felt very special. The same as when the cannonball added me to her blog too. I could go on and on!
8. Which blog is the first one you check?
I usually just run down my list on the sidebar. But if I'm in a hurry I hit Lair of the Catholic Caveman, Salve Regina, The Cafeteria is Closed, The Crescat, usually in that order. If there's a particularly involved discussion on one of the comboxes I usually check that one first to see if there's anything new.
9. Have you met any other bloggers in person?
10. What are you reading?
Other than Warhammer novels from Black Library, I don't read that much non-fiction. Like I said it's usually some Church document or Newadvent article. The last few titles I've read are "Duty Calls" (Warhammer 40K), "Without Roots" Ratzinger / Perra, Dante's Inferno, and "City of God" by Augustine. Next up is "Jesus of Nazareth" by Benedict XVI, and to begin the Horus Heresy series with "Horus Rising" (Warhammer 40k).
I pass this quiz to:
The Cannonball at The Crescat/
The Caveman at Lair of the Catholic Cavemen/
Marty at Marty's
Fr. Richsteig at Orthometer/
Gerald Augustinus at The Cafeteria is Closed/
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
"I just thought that the song was not conducive to the meditative nature that should be cultivated during Communion...but I guess I am wrong."
To which another poster replied,
"You are, in fact, wrong. A meditative nature should not be cultivated during communion. Find a perpetual adoration chapel if you want to meditate on the Eucharist."
When another poster agreed with the one who made the above comment they replied,
"Notice a trend here? Those of us who work full time in administering the liturgy seem to agree that communion is not a time for adoration. Maybe we know something you don't!"
(. . .said the Spirit of Vatican II.)
When asked for evidence that after communon is no time for meditating this was provided from Music in Catholic Worship from the USCCB website:
"62. The communion song should foster a sense of unity. It should be simple and not demand great effort. It gives expression to the joy of unity in the body of Christ and the fulfillment of the mystery being celebrated. Because they emphasize adoration rather than communion, most benediction hymns are not suitable."
Call me a schismatic SSPX'er, but I have a huge problem with that.
When doesn't God deserve adoration? Are we supposed to just turn our adoration switches off during communion because it's "People Time"? We have just recieved the Body, Blood soul and divinit of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, which is GOD into ourselves and this is somehow not the time to meditate on it, or give God worship for that we have recieved Him into ourselves?
I understand that even St. Ignatius of Antioch stessed the importance of being one and celebrating one Eucharist in union with the bishop. But even he understood that communion is God first, people second, not vise versa.
This is from a document written by the Committee on the Liturgy in the USCCB. Who's the head of that committee?
I'll conclude with my favorite prayer after communion from the 1962 missal:
Behold, I am in the possession of the Sovereign Good. The first thought, O God, with which Thy presence inspires me, is a sentiment of adoration and respect. Yes, under these sacred veils, where Thy love for me hath concealed the splendor of Thy Majesty, I most humbly adore Thee. I acknowledge Thee as my Master, my Creator, and the Supreme Arbiter of my eternal destiny. But these thoughts are absorbed in the greatness of my confidence. Thou art glorious in heaven, all-powerfull on earth and terrible in hell; But in the Blessed Eucharist Thou art mild, consoling, sweet, and liberal. Ah, what canst Thou refuse me, when Thou hast given me Thyself?
I assume this prayer's no good since it's about God and worship and not about people?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
I've heard all of the arguments, both citing canon law.
The argument supporting it is optional can be read Here:
The argument supporting veiling is still in force can be read here:
A rebuttal by Robert Sungenis to Jimmy Akin and Colin Donovan in favor of veiling can be read here:
The argument generally centers around whether or not the abrogation of the 1917 law by the 1983, with the '83's omission of the issue of veiling actually removed the force of law behind this custom.
For me, at least in my opinion, the issue is quite simple:
The 1983 code abrogated the 1917.
The 1983 code doesn't mention veiling as having the force of law.
BUT, veiling didn't get its force of law form the 1917 code alone. It recieved its force of law from the fact that it is an immemorial custom.
The 1983 code may have removed any force of law veiling recieved from the 1917 code, but it did not, and cannot, remove it as an immemorial custom, unless specifically saying so (which it doesn't). And it's from that, not the code, veiling recieves the force of law.
Plus, it's in the bible. (1Cor 11:3-15)
But what I feel this whole argument is missing is that women should wear the veil because it's good to do so, not because they're told to. To make a comparison, the ideal reason you desire that children will behave is because they understand parental guidance and willfully desire good behavior, not out of fear of punishment if they don't.
You can apply the same thing to obedience of the faithful. I'd rather a person veil themself because they want to, not because they have to. It means much more when they understand the importance and virtue behind the practice.
Would I support a revision that would make it law again? I think so. I'm almost jealous that women have such a pious devotion open to them. (I'd veil myself all the time at mass except it's against scripture and just plain wierd.) But if a person's heart isn't veiled then veiling only their head won't do much. I think that the devotion must first come internally and then externalize. Otherwise it's merely going through the motions.
"... you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness...first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean."
Monday, September 24, 2007
"The California State Senate passed legislation requiring students from kindergarten through twelfth grade to support instruction on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
The bill, known as SB 777, requires textbooks and other instructional resources to cast a positive light on homosexual "marriages," cross-dressing, sex-change operations and every other facet of homosexual and bisexual lifestyles.
Parental consent will not be needed for students to receive this instruction.
School-sponsored activities such as the prom, sports activities and cheerleading must also uphold these guidelines on alternative sexuality."
This stuff is ok yet teaching abstinence (aka "common sense") is banned because it's labeled a "religious practice". (Nice excuse. It's banned becaue it's merely contrary to their agenda.)
It's no wonder someday California will fall into the ocean. The city with the highest murder rate in the country was destroyed by a hurricane. Coincidence?
As theists, do we really believe in mere coincidence?
How much longer before laws are passed that makes criticism of "LBGT" lifestyles hate speach?
It happened in Scotland.
It happened in Canada.
It almost happened here.
Now it's happeneing in our schools.
Reports have emerged that Mel 'Madmax' Gibson has been approached to play King Jan Sobieski in an epic movie about the 1683 Siege of Vienna.
Wroclaw-based producer Mariusz Bielak would like Gibson to both star in and direct the picture, and he is optimistic that the Australian maverick will come on board: Bielak was quoted as saying in Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza. "It's his cup of tea.'
'Jan III Sobieski was a charismatic figure' Harasimowicz told GW .' He was a great strategist, a phenomenal knight, and to cap it all, head over heels in love with his wife. This is the kind of figure that Mel Gibson played in 'Braveheart'. But this is a less tragic role - Sobieski triumphed
The Siege of Vienna is regarded by historians as a turning point in European History. The Catholic Alliance - led by the Polish King - saw off the Turkish threat to Central Europe.
Perhaps this will wake up Europe and realize they were almost Eurabia over 300 years ago.
Friday, September 21, 2007
I just noticed that Mahony, Brown, and Trautman (Who is firmly against the new translation of the missal and just hapens to be the head of the commission on the liturgy in the USCCB.) will reach retirement age in four years, Brown being the last in Nov. 2011.
Just a little more than a month after that it will be 2012, the year, iirc, the Mayan calendar stops and the end of the world is predicted. Or, at least, the world as we know it.
(Note: No, I don't put stock in pagan prophecies, I'm just having a bit of fun, that's all. ;) )
Thursday, September 20, 2007
"After meeting at the Vatican Sept. 2-6, the Vox Clara Committee said it hoped the English translation of the Roman Missal would be completed and approved by the end of 2009.
"The members found the texts to be excellent, although suggestions were made for ways in which the choice of alternate words or phrases could render a few sections more faithful to the Latin original or easier to proclaim and comprehend," (PRO MULTIS = FOR MANY! BAH!) the statement said.
It said the final draft translation for the missal should be published by next spring. Then ICEL will complete a second draft, taking into account the reactions of English-language bishops' conferences (I dunno if I like that...) and the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. (That's not so bad. Although I disagree with Arinze's resistence to Summorum Pontificum, I highly favor his Redeptionis Sacramentum and Liturgiam Authenticam, and feel they are spot-on and very needed. Not to mention his thorough criticism of liturgical dance.)
After that, the bishops' conferences vote on the second draft. The Vatican's worship and sacraments congregation then takes final action, considering any eventual amendments that are proposed by bishops' conferences." (And let's hope Arinze gives Trautman the proverbial finger.)
Let's also hope Trautman is absent on those voting days.
Even though I'm rather dedicated to the TLM, I'd still love to see reforms to the new mass. Arinze has outlined grave abuses and Summorum Pontificum is set to have the TLM "infect" the new mass, and there's hopefully a better missal on the way. Now all that has to be done is to enforce it all. (Of course, that's the hardest part.)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"Q: Your Eminence, this document was accompanied by fear and polemics. What is not true about what has been said or read?
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: It is not true, for example, that power was taken away from bishops over the liturgy, because the Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate, but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate.
If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right -- which is a right that is clear to the faithful by now -- is respected."
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippies!
Rorate Caeli reports that the Bishop of Caserta, Raffaele Nogaro, on Sunday evening called Father Giovanni Battista Gionti, the rector of the Shrine of Saint Anne of Casertam, "and ordered him to suspend the celebration" (TLM).
Apparently, this guy lets muslims and schismatics use his facilities for their worship:
"Who grants the diocesan structure of the Tent of Abraham to Muslims for the Friday prayers and the chapel adjacent to the Cathedral of Caserta to the Ukrainian and Moldavian Orthodox."
So it's ok for non-Catholics to use it for their non-Catholic worship, but heaven forbid if a treasure of Catholic heritage is celebrated there. . . Here's what he had to say for himself:
"Right - he says - because to help people pray is an honorable effort. While to grumble in Latin does not serve any purpose whatsoever.
"The faithful must be offered something which is valuable and educational, not occasions of disorientation. And I maintain that numbing them with sacred images is only choreography and roleplaying. A useless aesthetic object which does not convey anything."
Ok, so how does Arabic, Slavonic, or Romanian help the Italians in Italy, if Latin does not? Where does he get off saying, "...is only choreography and roleplaying"? Say the black, do the red. That is your job. What is he so affraid of?
Monday, September 17, 2007
A rather interesting story from Catholic News Service:
"LONDON (CNS) -- British musicians recorded the classic Irish hymn, "Sweet Heart of Jesus," in a calypso, disco style and sent it to Pope Benedict XVI on an iPod nano.
The musicians' intention, however, was to soften the pope's attitude toward modern church music. The gift is from contemporary Catholic songwriters Jo Boyce and Mike Stanley, and it features a new album of classic hymns reworked in modern forms of music. The duo has used instruments such as pianos, saxophones, guitars, drums and synthesizers to recreate centuries-old works in laid-back gospel, folk, funk, soul and lounge-music styles.
The album, "Age to Age," was downloaded onto an iPod and sent to Pope Benedict in the hope of gaining a "papal seal of approval,"
The move is something of a gamble given that Pope Benedict, an aficionado of classical music, said in 1996 that rock music was not very uplifting for the soul and certainly did not belong in church. "
Apparently, liberal Catholics, like rapists, don't know that NO means NO.
Somehow they think the more they chant their demands and the louder they chant that the Pope will all of a sudden give in. Jesus said to be like children, not act like them.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
People have been wondering why exactly, after the pope has shown himself to favor the more traditional expressions of our spirituality, why in the world would he be wearing hippie vestments?
At first I thought it was like some project from a local elementary school where kids tye-dyed stuff and the pope, not wanting to offend, agreed to wear them. Y'know, for the kids.
But then I saw everyone was wearing them and figured nothing short of mexican sweat-shop style production could've put out such a copious amount liturgical eyesores.
Well Fr. Z over at WDTPRS has found that even the ultra liberal Viennese (Just check out the Catholic Church COnservation blog to see what I mean) wanted him to wear baroque vestments. Then why didn't he?
The MC, Rev. Piero Marini, overrode them and made the Pope wear the hippie-pancho.
Well at least we know that the Pope is sticking to his traditional guns, that it wasn't his choice.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
"Although it may sound like a strange thing for a theologian to say, as the final means of effecting a better awareness of God’s saving presence in all religions, theological dialogue is less important than the other three forms of dialogue. It is by necessity limited to a narrow circle of experts and often deals with subjects too recondite for the average believer. More crucially, theological exchange presupposes the other three dialogues, and ideally is deeply rooted in them. As is clear from the history of theology, dogmas and doctrines are almost always framed in controversies and frozen in texts that are intelligible only in their historical contexts. It is only within the dialogues of life, action, and religious experience that one can obtain an accurate gauge of the relative importance-or, to use an expression of Vatican II, the “hierarchy of truths”-of these doctrines."
No, it's not who you think.
This is an excerpt from an article written by one Fr. Peter Phan (not a joke), who is now under investigation by the CDF (Or as I like to call it, "The Congregation Formerly Know as the Inquisition") for theological discrepencies found in a book he wrote, which supports elements of indifferentism and religious pluralism, while downplaying the uniqueness of Christ and the role of His Church. Fr. Phan has also been a strong critic of Dominus Iesus. Hat tip to Gerald over at the Closed Cafeteria. (Linked on the sidebar)
Friday, September 14, 2007
For information on the history and significance of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Fisheaters has a wonderful article on it:
UPDATE: The televised TLM on EWTN was absolutely beautiful, but experienced technical difficulties from just after the consecration of the bread to about the people's communion. Bad time to have such difficulties, given the importance of this broadcast, but other than that it was fine.
The homily was superb, very comprehensive; He highlighted the importance of the Extraordinary Form, the Importance of the Exaltation of the Cross, and above all the importance of today's gospel, and a focus on actual participation means, and the importance of latin; Each topic intertwining with the next.
I'll be sure to post it here if EWTN puts it in their archive.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Since this isn't the first time these issues have come up I feel it worthy to explain it here.
First, let's look at what freedom actually is:
CCC #1739 "...Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom."
CCC #1740 ". . . The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods." ... By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth."
CCC #1742 ". . . The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials"
CCC #1744 "Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good."
So from reading this we see that true freedom is acting in accordance with God's will. That is, when acting in a moral fashion. We have free will to choose evil but not the God-given moral right to do so. By acting immorally, we have violated our freedom. Only by acting along the moral law are we trully free, immorality imprisons us. Our free will is unlimited, but our freedom is not. We may will ourselves to do evil but we have no freedom or right to do so.
These arguments are mostly derived from Pius IX's syllabus of errors, and his encyclical, Quanta Cura.
First, let's deal with freedom of conscience:
From Quanta Cura:
". . . thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right."
From the Syllabus of Errors:
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.
4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
To understand this fully, we must ask ourselves: Do we have the God-given right to think and do things that are outside of God's will? Do we have a moral right to dissent with that, as long as it's reasonable?
No, for morality is God's will. Anything contrary to that is immoral. We do not have a moral right to immorality.
We have free-will, with which we can accept or reject God's will. But we know that if we reject it, even though it is with our God-given free will, we will be damned. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it's always permissable and just. That's the beauty of free will; God wants us to choose to do His will, not be forced to do His will. That uncoerced choice is what God wants.
These passages are dealing with moral relativism. As long as the human mind can rationalize it, it must be OK.
What Pius IX is condemning here is placing the human reason above that of God; that human reason alone determines what is right. Objective truth has been destroyed by popular vote. If the majority thinks it's right then it is. If it can be rationalized then it's ok. Well sometimes the majority can be objectively wrong. This is what is condemned; the usurping of God from right and wrong and replacing him with our own imperfect reason.
There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. We do not have the right (a right being a choice or entitlement where either decision will have no ill consequences) to choose evil. Evil is not acceptable to God. Anything Contrary to God's will is unacceptable to Him. Our free will allows us to choose it, but we have no right to it.
Next, let's deal with Freedom of Religion:
From Quanta Cura:
". . . called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
From the Syllabus of Errors:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
Relating to my earlier commentary, if we do not have the right to relativize morality, do we have the right to falsely worship? All Catholics can agree, at least I hope, that non-Catholic worship is false worship, and is sinful. Is there a time where God allows, or gives us a right to sin?
Like I stated before, just because we can that doesn't mean we should. If a religion is sacrilegous and blasphemous and is an obvious affront to God, do we have the God-given right to practice it?
No we do not. For the same reason we have no moral right to dissent and disobey God's will, we have no moral right to false worship. All religions are not morally equivalent. That is the heresy of idifferentism. There is true worship and there is false worship. Being intellectually honest to our faith there is no reason why we should support the practice of false worship.
Being Catholic we know the truth which puts more responsibility on us. We know that God abhors false worship, even from the ignorant. Culpable or not, a sin is still sin. There is never a time, ignorant or not, that we have a God-given right to sin.
Since the state recieves it's authority from God, the state cannot accept all religions as morally equivalent because God does not accept all religions as morally equivalent. Which leads us to the next part:
Separation of Church and State:
From Quanta Cura:
"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones."
"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, "
"Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education."
"For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation,"
From the Syllabus of Errors:
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. . . . Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852
The authority of the State is God-given, and has a divine origin, as seen in the Catechism:
CCC #2234 "God's fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it."
CCC #2235 "Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law."
As we do not have the moral right to dissent against God's will, neither does the State (whose authority is God-given) have the right to enact laws or act in such a way that is contrary to God's will. The state has no right to separate itself from objective truth from which it derives its authority. Just as we do not have a moral right to immorality, neither does the state.
What is condemned here is the idea that the state can separate itself from God and set itself up as the author of truth. God no longer determines what is right and wrong, the state does. But most states determine this by popular vote. Again, we're back to moral relativism. If the state has recieved it's authority to rule from God, and the state then separates itself from God, then the state no longer has any authority. It has disconnected itself from the very source of it's authority. That authority is objective truth. Without that we have our feet planted firmly in the air.
So I hope this helps to clear up some things about Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. Especially in this world, we can indulge our free wills almost as much as we wish, doing any number of immoral things, all within the law of the State. But the law of God is higher than the law of man. It is the law of God that gives the state it's authority. We, nor the State, have the moral right to do anything immoral. That is, to do evil.
"As you know i am not catholic. probably invincibly ignorant. so I feel safe."
Is this the message this new ecumenism is sending?
It really says something when someone feels safe in their ignorance. Even WC has admitted, although having a heretical view of salvation, that Catholicism is the best path. How can one be complacent and "feel safe" when not on the best path?
This person will no doubt hear of this post. I'm telling them right here and now that invincible ignorance is not a free-pass to salvation. Your ignorance can help you or it can damn you. (Rom 2:15) There is no reason to feel safe. Outside visible union with the Church your soul is in grave danger. I urge you come into the bosom of the Church for the sake of your soul.
Winnipeg Catholic over at Reformed Catholic wrote an entire post about little ol' me. I'm rather flattered (seriously) that someone would take the time to think about me long enough to inspire an entire post, be it good or bad. I thought I'd return the favor.
In this newest post, he refers to our debates regarding EENS. He goes so far as to say Pope John Paul II accepted other religions as other paths to salvation, just that ours is the best. He opens with:
"Well, I have received a lot of traffic lately from a Mr. Unitas who claims I am a heretic for statements along the lines of:'There are lots of paths to God but ours is the best one.'"
Like I've said before, this particular view he holds, among others, is in direct variance with Catholic teaching. All conotations aside, that is by definition, heresy.
He then goes on to quote from JP's "'Crossing the Threshold of Hope"to try to prove his point. I must admit, none of the quoted piece substantiates his claim that JP held other religions as other paths to salvation. (Go ahead and check the post) But there is an interesting sentence which I think is worth bringing up here:
"The church has a high regard for their conduct and way of life, for those precepts and doctrines which, although differing on many points from that which the Church believes and propounds, often reflect a ray of truth that enlightens all men."
Quite pastoral and warm and fuzzy. The last sentence there is what I'm getting at, "for those precepts and doctrines . . . often reflect a ray of truth..."
If they are other legitimate paths to salvation why do they only reflect truth instead of radiating the truth? If these other faiths merely reflect some truth, what is truth's source?
1Ti 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. " (There's that hi-lighter again!)
So it is not that they are legitimate paths to salvation, but are merely reflecting parts of the one path to salvation; The Catholic faith.
Which I'm affraid proves his statement:
"The grand point here is that one can attain salvation according to John Paul II through other faiths. These include Hinduism, Buddhism, et cetera."
He also seems to have a thing against my "hi-lighter" (read the comments).
"Everything John Paul II discusses in that chapter comes straight from the documents that Unitas cites. Thing is, Unitas loves to use bold print to emphasize the things HE wants you to take away from the text."
My only response is, if those documents, parts of which I emphasize, don't say what they say, then why do they say it?
"Insisting on emphasizing only the exclusive bits, now that's what I call cafeteria conservativism. And you will notice Unitas has his own bold face all over any document he cites. His little cafeterianist highlighter comes out so he can squash the church's liberal/tolerant/loving side."
More like I'm using a flashlight to find the good stuff in a pile of pastoral vagueness. The truth is there, you just gotta look for it. Plus, it would be unreasonable for me to paste entire documents on here; It's far easier to just get to the point and quote the pertinent parts and move on. If any of my readers feels I have left out important context that refutes any of my claims feel free to post them.
Coming from a person who derives their identity by adhering to the Winnipeg Statement who uses "Cafeterianist" as a perjorative in reference to me is a bit like the plank pointing out the speck, isn't it?
The Truth is much more important than "squashing", don't you think? It's just that when espousing the truth of the Catholic faith, liberal cafeteria Catholics end up squashed in the process. It's not the aim but merely the double-effect. I'm sure you understand. ;)
Be sure to note the differences between what I have said on this blog and what he claims I think:
"Think deeply about what Unitas is trying to derive from the documents he cites. He seems to be tempted far more in the direction of 'All non-catholics and liberal catholics are going to hell.' Is that charitable? Is that really what the church says? "
No, WC, you're right; That's not what the Church, nor I, say. I've just finished a lengthy but comprehensive treatment on my understanding of EENS just below this post, cited with selections from sacred scripture as well as pre and post-conciliar documents. In a comment to which post you allege John Paul II didn't adhere to the Catholic dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. That's quite an accusation. And at a Pope, no less.
"Everything John Paul II discusses in that chapter comes straight from the documents that Unitas cites. Thing is, Unitas loves to use bold print to emphasize the things HE wants you to take away from the text."
At least I emphasize what's actually written.
Your interpretation that JPII accepted other religions as paths to salvation isn't supported anywhere in your excerpt or in any of the documents I have ever cited. That's your injection into the text. That's what you wish everyone takes away from reading this, but it's just not there. Don't pee on your audience and tell them it's rain.
But WC shows that he's at least capable of behaving like a gentleman:
". . . but I can set that aside since from the looks of Unitas's blog he seems like a fairly decent fellow for a Rad-Trad."
See? He can be polite when he wants to be.