Tuesday, September 11, 2007

For All You Cafeteria Catholics Out There



From Dominus Iesus:

"This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”.

Benedict XVI:

The successors of the Apostles, together with the Pope, are responsible for the truth of the Gospel, and all Christians are called to share in this responsibility, accepting its authoritative indications. Every Christian is bound to confront his own convictions continually with the teachings of the Gospel and of the Church’s Tradition in the effort to remain faithful to the word of Christ, even when it is demanding and, humanly speaking, hard to understand. We must not yield to the temptation of relativism or of a subjectivist and selective interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Only the whole truth can open us to adherence to Christ, dead and risen for our salvation.

From the Catechism:

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267


2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains:

"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

From Humanae Vitae:

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

From Evangelium Vitae:

"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".5

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

From: The relevance of priestly celibacy today, Congregation for the Clergy

Celibacy is a charism which the Holy Spirit bestows on some in function of a good that redounds to the good of the whole Church. As a charism, celibacy is one of those divine favours which no one can ever dispute, any more than anyone is entitled to dispute the choice made by the Son of God of having an ever virgin Mother and a virgin for his putative father too.

Demanding a total and exclusive love, the Church chooses those who, having received the charism of perfect chastity, freely intend to follow the call to continue the mission of salvation bequeathed to them as their heritage by the divine Spouse...

Hence, ecclesiastical authority will certainly not try to impose a charism on anyone to which he has not been called; but it does have every right to lay its hands exclusively on those who have received the free gift of chastity in the celibate life from the Holy Spirit. The priestly vocation, therefore, is not simply a subjective self-giving on the part of the individual, but requires clear signs of ‘vocability’ which only the bishop is deputed to ascertain and confirm.

From Unam Sanctum:

"...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Face it, heretics...

It's never gonna happen.

Even post-conciliar documents have you pegged.

25 comments:

Winnipeg Catholic said...

Thanks Unitas. Which ones of those have been infallibly pronounced again?

Oh yes. None of them. And HV was soundly rejected as reflecting the sense fidelis before the ink was even dry.

You're like a lawyer, like a pharisee, sifting through the documents for the rules to build your case against your perceived enemy. You don't seem to spend a lot of time with your heart.

Unitas said...

Neither was VII (which you quote so often), yet it is required for us to give it our assent. This is no different.

The teachings of the Magisterium are there for all to see, WC.

It's too bad liberal Catholics have no such evidence to substantiate their point, so they resort to ad hominem attacks.

Marty said...

Liberal Catholics dont need evidence, if they did they wouldn't exist.

Winnipeg Catholic said...

Let me know when the Vatican issues a public policy that can tackle the issue of Haiti's ovepopulation. What was your solution again? Abstinence for an entire nation of people?

Well, I don't buy that. The minute HV came out Cardinals and Bishops, Theologians and Priests, from all over the world came out against it. HV has always been a document that the faithful have never agreed upon. It is so far from infallible, it is just plain flawed.

And setting up NFP (using the variable of time)... that is totally illogical. To the point where conservatives challenge the gravity of any spacing of children at all.

Well, I'm sorry. It may be wrong to use contraception in Italy or the USA, but it's not wrong in overpopulated, war torn, and impoverished Haiti. It's as ethically obvious as the sun rising in the East.

There must be a few pithy documents about obedience and sacred assent you could bring out as well. That would be good for me, and for those 'Rad Traddies' who want to dictate the liturgy to their priests, bishops, and the Vatican.

Karin said...

Unitas..

It really is a shame that people like W.C. (anothers of his mind set) refuse to listen to the Church.
Keep them in your prayers, they are in great need of them!

Karin said...

Unitas...

Sorry I looked for an email for you but could not find one :(

Anyway wanted to let you know that I have moved my blog to:
http://wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/

Hope to see you over there..God Bless

Karin said...

It is funny how some people hold a "mass media" book in higher regard/value etc. than actual church documents!

Winnipeg Catholic said...

What's funny is how Unitas takes out his little highlighter and adds his own emphasis to church doctrine, removing all of the charitable bits and leaving behind a sort of dark Pharisee like world.

I'm sure Mr. Unitas is far brighter than John Paul II and will leave me a comment on my blog in short order that completely demolishes the Pope's point and diminishes my statements about our path being the fullest/best of many to boil-you-in-oil heresy where he thinks it belongs.

paramedicgirl said...

WC said...You're like a lawyer, like a pharisee, sifting through the documents for the rules to build your case against your perceived enemy.

And you, my friend are a cafeteria catholic. You want to manipulate the faith so you can mold it to your liking. Please just serve WC what feels good to him. None of the hard hitting truths on faith and morals that make a person actually have to think about living their faith.

paramedicgirl said...

WC said...HV has always been a document that the faithful have never agreed upon. It is so far from infallible, it is just plain flawed.

You are blaspheming the Holy Spirit with that statement.

paramedicgirl said...

WC said...What's funny is how Unitas takes out his little highlighter and adds his own emphasis to church doctrine, removing all of the charitable bits and leaving behind a sort of dark Pharisee like world.

"Pot, pot, this the kettle calling!"
For heaven's sake WC, you are such a hypocrite. Unitas is showing, by these quotes, that the Church has never changed her teachings on homosexuality, abstinence, contraception, abortion etc.

You love to trot out scriptural passages that you distort to support your twisted agenda on these same topics. You, above all people, can be accused of "adding your own emphasis to Church doctrine." Please - take your blinders off. What is it the Bible says about the log in your own eye?

Unitas said...

"What was your solution again? Abstinence for an entire nation of people?"

If one person can do it why not more? You act as though these people *MUST* have sex. That's just plain wrong. The notion of a consequece-free sex life is a myth. If you don't want to get hit by a car, don't play in traffic. If you don't want an STD or more children than you can care for, don't ahve sex. It's quite simple.

"Well, I don't buy that. The minute HV came out Cardinals and Bishops, Theologians and Priests, from all over the world came out against it. HV has always been a document that the faithful have never agreed upon. It is so far from infallible, it is just plain flawed."

This is why I quoted Benedict's Warsaw homily.

You seem to think that truth is relative. That since everyone doesn't agree it's not infallible or requires the assent of the faithful.

Truth is not subject to the waxing and waning of popular opinion.

"It's as ethically obvious as the sun rising in the East."

Yes, obviously ethically wrong as two popes have decreed. (The authority of which you reject)

"What's funny is how Unitas takes out his little highlighter and adds his own emphasis to church doctrine, removing all of the charitable bits and leaving behind a sort of dark Pharisee like world."

Well the documents I cited are rather lengthy so in order to ahve a reasonably-sized post I had to get to the meat & potatoes of their teachings.

You seem to imply that since I "left out the charitabe bits" that these bits somehow refute my argument?

That'd be interesting to see since if they did, these documents would contradict itself. If these bits do not refute my argument then your claim isn't a rebuttal at all.

"I'm sure Mr. Unitas is far brighter than John Paul II and will leave me a comment on my blog in short order that completely demolishes the Pope's point and diminishes my statements about our path being the fullest/best of many to boil-you-in-oil heresy where he thinks it belongs."

/sigh

Again with the strawmen.

I never said I was brighter than Pope John Paul II. Nor do I wish to boil him in oil.

Five out of the eight documents I cited were either written by him or were issued during his pontificate.

Since you're the one dissenting from his moral decrees, perhaps it is you who is brighter, and obviously knows better, than John Paul.

Again, there is one path to salvation. All revealed Truth is Catholic. See my preceding entries.

Your religious relativism was condemned as a heresy by John Paul II in Dominus Iesus.

Unitas said...

Karin,

All updated, thanks!

Unitas said...

"Let me know when the Vatican issues a public policy that can tackle the issue of Haiti's ovepopulation. What was your solution again? Abstinence for an entire nation of people?"

Or they could adopt the same policy like they do in China and just dump their kids into the Yangtze River.

But that's just too cruel.

Dumping your kids into the Gulf of Gonave is much more humane.

Regarding condom use see the sin of Onan. (Gen 38:6-10)

Winnipeg Catholic said...

You seem to want to declare that the whole notion of sense fidelis is 'relativism'.

Tradition and the deposit of faith were formed over time by the sense fidelis.

The relativism the pope is speaking of is reducing everything to a negotiable or rationalized status. I do subscribe to some absolute truths, like the resurrection of Christ. Just because I do not accept the same truths as you does not make me a relativist. It may indeed make me a bad Catholic, but it does not make me a relativist.

I do feel that the people of Haiti are called to express unitive sexuality in their unions, but that collectively they have a grave reason to space children very far apart. I do not think it is reasonable, fair, or correct social policy to ask a nation of people to abstain from sex. I do, however, think it might be fair to ask that a Nation of people space births to an extreme degree, perhaps by NFP.

I humbly submit to you that the grave reason to space births there might well warrant both condoms and NFP. And until the church speaks with one voice, or infallibly on the matter I really don't buy the notion that condoms are wrong because a pope 'said so'. Or even if three popes said so. Or even if there is a weird reference to Onan in the Old Testament, or if the Didache can be construed to be talking about latex condoms.

All of this seems quite beside the point. There are millions of people in a horrific state of violent civil war, strife, and starvation and better birth spacing would help. You put a document that was immediately contested before that people's needs, and I believe THAT is unfeeling and morally relative.

Unitas volunteering in Haiti:

"Sorry the neighbor's neglected, orphaned child joined a militia and threw a grenade through the window and killed your husband Ms. Haitian, but at least his mother didn't use condoms before she died of tuberculosis. Let's go to Tridentine Latin mass, it's really neat!"

God save us all.

paramedicgirl said...

WC said...I humbly submit to you that the grave reason to space births there might well warrant both condoms and NFP. And until the church speaks with one voice, or infallibly on the matter I really don't buy the notion that condoms are wrong because a pope 'said so'.

Knock, knock, is anybody home? Hellooo! The Church HAS spoken with one voice. The ones who deny her authority are called heretics.

Karin said...

All of this seems quite beside the point. There are millions of people in a horrific state of violent civil war, strife, and starvation and better birth spacing would help. You put a document that was immediately contested before that people's needs, and I believe THAT is unfeeling and morally relative.


You see a birth rate as Haiti's problem, I suggest you look at its corrput goverment as the root of its problems!
Perhaps you as a "rich" American should help to support the less fortuante in Haiti, I do vaguely recall something about that in the Bible :)

Karin,

All updated, thanks!



Thank you :)

Karin said...

W.C.-

Am I correct, in reading your posts, that you feel man (in general) has no control over their sex drive?
I ask you, do we not all have the ability to use self-control? If we do (which we do)then abstinice is not an issue, but you seem to think that we do not, that we are a bunch of animals, and if that is the case then please let me tell you, you are sadly mistaken!

Unitas said...

"You seem to want to declare that the whole notion of sense fidelis is 'relativism'."

You seem to think that sensus fidei is a blank check to dissent if your opinion differs with Church teaching.

ROMA LOCUTA EST.

Get used to it.

"The relativism the pope is speaking of is reducing everything to a negotiable or rationalized status."

Is that not what you do when you dissent against moral pronouncments of the Magisterium?

Why yes, I believe it is.

"You put a document that was immediately contested before that people's needs, and I believe THAT is unfeeling and morally relative."

So the Church should just drop its teachings against abortion, contraception, etc. Just because there are "bigger thigs to worry about"?

Is that your argument?

Several popes believed it was a big enough issue to worry about.

This belief that with these things one can have as much sex as they want and escape the natural consequences of their actions only reinforces their lack of accountability and responsibility.

Plus it's morally wrong.

This is just as much a plague on mankind as hunger and war.

You relativize it against war because it conflicts with your opinions.

Instead of making a reasoned and educated rebuttal you just tell us "It's not worthy of our attention, so just ignore it."

That's not a rebuttal. That's a deflection.

"Well, I'm sorry. It may be wrong to use contraception in Italy or the USA, but it's not wrong in overpopulated, war torn, and impoverished Haiti."

Behold the heresy of relativism.

If it's wrong, then it's wrong for all. "For there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom 2:11)

This comment of yours relativizes morality. If contraception is morally wrong then it is always and everywhere morally wrong.

Morality, based on absolute Truth, does not change depending on someone's lifestyle. Morality is not subjective as you'd like it to be.

You want to relativize morality so you don't have to be held accountable for your dissident and heretical views.

We are all held to the same standard. Please abandon this heresy and repent for the well-being of your soul.

Unitas said...

Well it seems WC has deleted a response of mine defending myself against comments made by a "jackjoe" on his blog. Since I believe it's pertinent and I have the right to defend myself, I'll just repost it here.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2305268057689556797&postID=459008457722303675

"Unitas, for heavens sake figure out what you want to say. Didn't you say one place you wanted to be an apologists for the church.But what are you saying? You say anyone who has heard of catholicism and is not a catholic cannot be saved? Then you say you don't know about that.Then you suggest that there is a total comprehensive catholic teaching; then this indicated no dissent; then you are on a blog dissenting like crazy. Do we need a pope? apparently not. YOU have all the answers--then you say you don't. Listen my head is swimming."

HAHA! It seems I hit a nerve!

Good.

If you look to my post it says,

"What's the minimum amount of truth a person needs to be saved?

I don't know.

How is a non-card-carrying Catholic saved?

I don't know.

Can a non-card-carrying Catholic even be saved?

I don't know."

The case is made that someone who is invincibly ignorant *may* be saved.

Invincible ignorance is not a free pass to heaven.

Nowhere in any of my responses did I later say I knew what the minimum amount of truth needed to be saved was. So my comment still stands.

Nowhere did I say exactly how a non-card-carrying Catholic is saved. I said that *IF* they are saved it is through the Truth given to the Church alone by God. So my comment still stands.

Given invincible ignorance where a person *may* be saved, I don't know if a non-Catholic can be saved. I definitely know that willful ignorance doesn't save. Whether or not a particular non-Catholic falls into that category, again, I don't know. Not every non-Catholic is invincibly ignorant, nor is every non-Catholic willfully ignorant. That's why I don't know if non-Catholics are saved.

My comment still stands.

I don't need to be Pope, I have the Magisterium behind me, which is more than I can say for you and your cronies.

I'm not the one disobeying Humanae Vitae. It seems you guys are your own popes, not I, and your protests are merely projection of that which you know you are guilty of.

We're the only ones who cite sources confirming the truth, while it's "refuted" here with ad hominems.

It's funny you say that I have no need for a pope while defending someone who picks and chooses which Catholic beliefs are suitable for him; recreating the rules as he goes along.

Pot meet kettle?

"The rest of you throw the word tradition around as if by saying something is old [1950 or before) that proves something. Could you be a little more careful with words and hit the books on christian theology a little more. Or maybe a little study of logic. God bless you all.(for Anna). Jack

September 11, 2007 8:19 PM"

I'd be careful defending WC and anna while throwing the words "logic" and "hit the books" around.

An interesting bit of Christian theology is the dogma EXTRA ECCLESSIAM NULLA SALUS. (Which is obviously misunderstood)

Another good bit of theology is that Truth is not relative. (Which is why behind picking and choosing what truth is does not truth make.)

Another good part about moral theology is contraception, homosexuality, willful dissent, and the view that having children is somehow sinful is defined as morally wrong. (All of which are espoused on this blog)

So please, before you and others tell us to research Christian theology please pull the log out of your eye. It's rather embarassing.

Vir Speluncae Orthodoxae said...

WC, the Odox Caveman here. Hati's problem is that it was consecrated to Lucifer through widespread pratice of voodoo when it was the richest colony whereas the USA was consecrated to God while it was the poorest. Coincidence?

Why should the Church be concerned with the job of the secular government? Where's this "separation of Church and State"?

Perhaps you should try the Episcopal coven while it's still around, or perhaps Wicca or the other liberal religions. Then you'd be free to make up things as you go.

As for Unitas being a pharisee, and the Sarge being "monstrosly bigoted" well you're certainly entitled to you opinion. But if you can tell me that you would take an important child in your life to a "gay pride" event, I have no gripe with you because you clearly don't know right from wrong.

Einstein paraphrased some philosopher that insanity is constantly doing the same while expecting a different result. You're not going to convince these folks so try something else to pass your time, and stop telling these folks how to practice their faith.

Winnipeg Catholic said...

But if you can tell me that you would take an important child in your life to a "gay pride" event, I have no gripe with you because you clearly don't know right from wrong.

Well then VSO, you'll have to still have a gripe with me. I would not take my child to a gay pride event because those folks are promiscuous and very far from demanding monogamy from one another.

I don't particularly support the gay agenda, that's just something that your 'sarge' projects on me. I support the Courage folks like David Morrison et al, who advocate celibacy for SSA people. But I also question the issue in that monogamy might be OK too. But that's about the extent of it. No gay pride parades.

In Kevin's eyes that's the same as being gay and attending a gay pride parade I guess, because he is constantly obsessing about all things gay, what gays do in bed, and posting grotesque pictures on his website of gays. I can tell you that those gays struggling to live an orthodox, celibate life have been pretty upset with Kevin in their blogs.

It's all just schismatic Rad Trad bigotry in total defiance of the cathechism's clear and distinct command to be charitable towards gays.

Unitas said...

The CCC also says that homosexual behavior is gravely depraved, intrinsically disorderd, and under no circumstance can it be approved.

We can accept them as fellow sinners. But under no circumstance can we accept the sin.

"But I also question the issue in that monogamy might be OK too."

And you say I read things with tunnel vision...

There is nothing wrong with admonishing those who are obstinate and vigorous in their sinful behavior. Sin is ugly. We may refer to it in such a way. Unrepentant sinners are even uglier. But we must love them.

Before I hear the popular "judge not" reference let's keep in mind Jesus' words following it that are always conveniently left out:

"...Go and sin no more."

Vir Speluncae Orthodoxae said...

WC

Again, try something different and leave their judgement to God. Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics; even if you win you're still a retard. Oh I can say that because I had a blood relative with downs syndrome. And since none of us are bishops we can't do anything anyway.

I personally have a gripe with the prohibition against stealing, with me between jobs and starting a new career it'd sure make things easier. But God says "NO!"

For something different, read the writings of the eraly Church Fathers, like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Isaac of Syria, the desert fathers and see if your progressive views belong in the same church as theirs.

And in the Roman view, I'M the schismatic, no cavey, Unitas et al. And I have publicly disagreed with Cavey, and I'm still there.

Unitas said...

"For something different, read the writings of the eraly Church Fathers, like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Isaac of Syria, the desert fathers and see if your progressive views belong in the same church as theirs."

That's just all "mean" stuff that he chooses to ignore in favor of the "nice" stuff.

He'll never read it because then he'd have to admit he's wrong about Catholic belief.

Our ignorance can help us or it can damn us. (Rom 2:15)