Readers having difficulty when clicking on the link provided below may also find the article on Francis Cardinal George and homosexuals in the seminary at: http://www.spiritdaily.com
Paul
Friday, June 17, 2005
Francis Cardinal George and homosexuals in the seminary
For almost 15 years, I have been saying that homosexual men do not belong in a seminary and that such persons should not be ordained. In fact, in a piece written for The Wanderer some four years ago and entitled "A possibility wrought with dire implications," I wrote: "On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an Instruction entitled 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
I was ridiculed for saying this. In fact, I have been referred to as "mentally ill" and as being somehow "unstable" for saying this. Now Francis Cardinal George is saying that homosexual men do not belong in the seminary, see this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506170149jun17,1,3686079,story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true
I wonder if His Eminence will be referred to as "mentally ill" or "unstable" for asserting what I have been saying for so very many years? I wonder if he will receive death threats as I have? I wonder if he will receive a warning from a police department (as I have) informing him that someone has threatened to shoot him with a high-powered rifle?
I commend His Eminence Francis Cardinal George for confirming what I have been saying for so long now. And I commend my good friends at www.faithfulvoice.com for reprinting the piece which I had written for The Wanderer several years back. The Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it.
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
I was ridiculed for saying this. In fact, I have been referred to as "mentally ill" and as being somehow "unstable" for saying this. Now Francis Cardinal George is saying that homosexual men do not belong in the seminary, see this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506170149jun17,1,3686079,story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true
I wonder if His Eminence will be referred to as "mentally ill" or "unstable" for asserting what I have been saying for so very many years? I wonder if he will receive death threats as I have? I wonder if he will receive a warning from a police department (as I have) informing him that someone has threatened to shoot him with a high-powered rifle?
I commend His Eminence Francis Cardinal George for confirming what I have been saying for so long now. And I commend my good friends at www.faithfulvoice.com for reprinting the piece which I had written for The Wanderer several years back. The Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it.
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Interficere errorem, diligere errantem
This basic principle, taught by St. Augustine in his classic work entitled "The City of God" (Book 14, ch.6), translates thusly into English: "kill the error, love the one who errs." Unfortunately, there are many Catholics today who believe that one cannot accomplish both of these actions at the same time. Such people fail to understand that love actually requires the killing of error.
Why do these individuals remain silent when faced with the grave evils of our day? And why are they critical of those Catholics who actually do condemn these evils? The answer is simple, they wrongly interpret Sacred Scripture as teaching that it is never permissible to judge. Yes, our Lord tells us, "Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7: 1-2).
And we also read in James 4: 12-13, "There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver. But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?"
Vatican II, specifically Gaudium et Spes, No. 28, also reminds us of this prohibition against judging others: "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone." But this norm does not preclude us from rendering judgments on words, ideas and actions. On the contrary, the words of the great St. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo and Father and Doctor of the Church) "kill the error, love the one who errs," says it all.
We have a responsibility as Catholics to admonish others at times. And this responsibility is grounded in love of neighbor. When we truly love our neighbor, we will for them to abide in God's love and not to be separated from His love by sin. Recall the Church's definition of charity as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1822. The responsibility we have as Catholics to admonish others at times and to engage in fraternal correction is clearly taught in Sacred Scripture: Luke 17:3, 1 Corinthians 6: 1-6, Galatians 6:1, 1 Thessalonians 5: 14, 2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15, James 5: 19-20.
There are two different meanings to the word "judge" in Sacred Scripture then. God alone may judge a person's interior dispositions. God alone may judge a person's soul. Scripture is clear on this. However, the same Scripture is clear when it teaches us that we may judge actions, words and ideas which fail to live up to Gospel demands. Recall what the Holy Spirit tells us through St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5: 12, "..Do not you judge them that are within?"
It is possible to judge that what others are doing (or saying) is wrong and to accomplish this without judging the person's internal guilt. While killing the error, we continue to love the one who errs. And our love is shown by the very fact that we admonish the person because we don't want them to be separated from God's love by sin.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
Why do these individuals remain silent when faced with the grave evils of our day? And why are they critical of those Catholics who actually do condemn these evils? The answer is simple, they wrongly interpret Sacred Scripture as teaching that it is never permissible to judge. Yes, our Lord tells us, "Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7: 1-2).
And we also read in James 4: 12-13, "There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver. But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?"
Vatican II, specifically Gaudium et Spes, No. 28, also reminds us of this prohibition against judging others: "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone." But this norm does not preclude us from rendering judgments on words, ideas and actions. On the contrary, the words of the great St. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo and Father and Doctor of the Church) "kill the error, love the one who errs," says it all.
We have a responsibility as Catholics to admonish others at times. And this responsibility is grounded in love of neighbor. When we truly love our neighbor, we will for them to abide in God's love and not to be separated from His love by sin. Recall the Church's definition of charity as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1822. The responsibility we have as Catholics to admonish others at times and to engage in fraternal correction is clearly taught in Sacred Scripture: Luke 17:3, 1 Corinthians 6: 1-6, Galatians 6:1, 1 Thessalonians 5: 14, 2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15, James 5: 19-20.
There are two different meanings to the word "judge" in Sacred Scripture then. God alone may judge a person's interior dispositions. God alone may judge a person's soul. Scripture is clear on this. However, the same Scripture is clear when it teaches us that we may judge actions, words and ideas which fail to live up to Gospel demands. Recall what the Holy Spirit tells us through St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5: 12, "..Do not you judge them that are within?"
It is possible to judge that what others are doing (or saying) is wrong and to accomplish this without judging the person's internal guilt. While killing the error, we continue to love the one who errs. And our love is shown by the very fact that we admonish the person because we don't want them to be separated from God's love by sin.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Mr. Russell Pond: Pro-Life Champion
It takes real moral courage to oppose what Pope John Paul II coined the "culture of death." We already know God's judgment on the abomination of abortion. From Mt. Sinai, the Lord God thundered amidst the smoke and fire and commanded, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). And this same Almighty God warned the Chosen People through His servant Moses: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you. I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life that you and your descendants may live by loving the Lord...If, however, you turn away your hearts and will not listen, but are led astray and adore other gods, I tell you now you will certainly perish" (Deuteronomy 29:15-29).
These words of Almighty God were spoken to a people who would fall into idolatry and who would sacrifice their innocent children to the idol Moloch. In our own time, children are sacrificed in abortion mills to the idols of Libido, Materialism and Convenience. Thanks be to God, there are prophets among us who possess the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude and who courageously remind us all that abortion is an abomination which cries to Heaven for vengeance and that those who perform abortions, those who cooperate in carrying them out, and those who, while being in positions of authority, fail to oppose this satanic plague, will all be held accountable to the Eternal Lawgiver.
This last group, politicians who say that they are "personally opposed" to the killing of unborn children but who also insist that they must follow the law that legalizes them, are modern-day imitators of Pontius Pilate. In the same way that Pilate declared Jesus innocent and washed his hands of His condemnation and then proceeded to order His crucifixion as though He was a convicted criminal, so to these modern-day Pilates attempt to wash their hands of the blood of the unborn through their specious reasoning. The poet Dante expressed his contempt for individuals who engage in this sort of dishonesty in his Inferno: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, having the power and responsibility to oppose evil, did nothing to extinguish it."
But back to prophets. One such prophet, a humble and unpretentious man from Nashua, New Hampshire, goes by the name of Russell Pond. Mr. Pond is a member of the New Hampshire Pro-Life Council and produces both a newsletter and regular e-mail updates regarding pro-life issues both in the Granite State and throughout the country. Although he wouldn't consider himself a prophet, that's precisely what he is. And on the Day of Judgment, this humble soul will be embraced by the Lord Jesus Who will say to him: "Well done good and faithful servant, come into the Mansion I have prepared for you."
God bless you Mr. Pond.
For those who would like to contact Mr. Pond, he may be reached via e-mail at: melkite4@pngusa.net
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
These words of Almighty God were spoken to a people who would fall into idolatry and who would sacrifice their innocent children to the idol Moloch. In our own time, children are sacrificed in abortion mills to the idols of Libido, Materialism and Convenience. Thanks be to God, there are prophets among us who possess the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude and who courageously remind us all that abortion is an abomination which cries to Heaven for vengeance and that those who perform abortions, those who cooperate in carrying them out, and those who, while being in positions of authority, fail to oppose this satanic plague, will all be held accountable to the Eternal Lawgiver.
This last group, politicians who say that they are "personally opposed" to the killing of unborn children but who also insist that they must follow the law that legalizes them, are modern-day imitators of Pontius Pilate. In the same way that Pilate declared Jesus innocent and washed his hands of His condemnation and then proceeded to order His crucifixion as though He was a convicted criminal, so to these modern-day Pilates attempt to wash their hands of the blood of the unborn through their specious reasoning. The poet Dante expressed his contempt for individuals who engage in this sort of dishonesty in his Inferno: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, having the power and responsibility to oppose evil, did nothing to extinguish it."
But back to prophets. One such prophet, a humble and unpretentious man from Nashua, New Hampshire, goes by the name of Russell Pond. Mr. Pond is a member of the New Hampshire Pro-Life Council and produces both a newsletter and regular e-mail updates regarding pro-life issues both in the Granite State and throughout the country. Although he wouldn't consider himself a prophet, that's precisely what he is. And on the Day of Judgment, this humble soul will be embraced by the Lord Jesus Who will say to him: "Well done good and faithful servant, come into the Mansion I have prepared for you."
God bless you Mr. Pond.
For those who would like to contact Mr. Pond, he may be reached via e-mail at: melkite4@pngusa.net
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
Representative Maurice Pilotte: Quo Vadis?
State Representative Maurice Pilotte of Manchester (Ward 9, District 16), according to an article at the Faithfulvoice website, has twice voted for SB 30, the so-called 'Emergency Contraception" Bill. Mr. Pilotte, a Catholic who was heavily involved at St. Therese's Parish in Manchester, New Hampshire before that parish closed (one of its pastors was the Rev. Gerald F. Chalifour, a priest who abused children) was also a supporter of Senator Joseph Lieberman in his presidential bid. And, as any faithful Catholic knows, Senator Lieberman's pro-abortion stance may hardly be reconciled with Catholic teaching on the grave evil of abortion.
I knew the Pilotte family throughout the 1980's. I never would have guessed that Maurice Pilotte would support the culture of death and legislation which undermines parental rights. And so I ask, Mr. Pilotte: Quo vadis?
Paul
I knew the Pilotte family throughout the 1980's. I never would have guessed that Maurice Pilotte would support the culture of death and legislation which undermines parental rights. And so I ask, Mr. Pilotte: Quo vadis?
Paul
New Hampshire's War on parental rights
Dear Friends,
Rev. Marc Montminy, the pastor of Sainte Marie's Parish in Manchester, New Hampshire, spoke to parishioners regarding a bill which was passed by the NH House on May 25th by a vote of 195-169. This bill would allow over-the-counter dispensing of "emergency contraception" (also known as the morning-after pill) and which is a high dosage of the birth control pill, to underage females without parental notification.
Fr. Montminy is also distributing a flyer at weekend Masses which explains to parishioners that the morning-after pill "..is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing (or ending) pregnancy depending on the stage of the woman's menstrual cycle. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. These are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill."
In the words of this flyer, while "schools cannot dispense an aspirin without parental consent" the Governor of New Hampshire "is ready to sign a bill allowing underage children easy access to an abortive drug without parental notification."
Rev. Montminy has called upon his parishioners to take action and to contact Governor John Lynch. This because he takes his responsibility as a pastor seriously. I would invite readers of this website to also respond to Fr. Montminy's call to action by contacting Governor John Lynch at his office: (603) 271-2121.
Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio, No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."
Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances." And Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."
This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation which would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that legislation and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Should Governor Lynch sign the bill already passed by the New Hampshire House, in effect he will be saying that "The child is the mere creature of the state" and that the rights of parents, recognized by Holy Mother Church and the United States Supreme Court, are of no consequence.
Let's take up Fr. Montminy's call and protest this arrogance and usurpation of parental rights.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Rev. Marc Montminy, the pastor of Sainte Marie's Parish in Manchester, New Hampshire, spoke to parishioners regarding a bill which was passed by the NH House on May 25th by a vote of 195-169. This bill would allow over-the-counter dispensing of "emergency contraception" (also known as the morning-after pill) and which is a high dosage of the birth control pill, to underage females without parental notification.
Fr. Montminy is also distributing a flyer at weekend Masses which explains to parishioners that the morning-after pill "..is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing (or ending) pregnancy depending on the stage of the woman's menstrual cycle. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. These are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill."
In the words of this flyer, while "schools cannot dispense an aspirin without parental consent" the Governor of New Hampshire "is ready to sign a bill allowing underage children easy access to an abortive drug without parental notification."
Rev. Montminy has called upon his parishioners to take action and to contact Governor John Lynch. This because he takes his responsibility as a pastor seriously. I would invite readers of this website to also respond to Fr. Montminy's call to action by contacting Governor John Lynch at his office: (603) 271-2121.
Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio, No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."
Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances." And Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."
This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation which would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that legislation and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Should Governor Lynch sign the bill already passed by the New Hampshire House, in effect he will be saying that "The child is the mere creature of the state" and that the rights of parents, recognized by Holy Mother Church and the United States Supreme Court, are of no consequence.
Let's take up Fr. Montminy's call and protest this arrogance and usurpation of parental rights.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, June 03, 2005
Notice
I will be away until Sunday as I visit with friends. Any thoughts or comments may be addressed to: frappe19751975@yahoo.com
I would encourage readers of this blog to visit: www.faithfulvoice.com and to read the many important articles there. While there, please read the article on the Little Black Book written by a friend of mine.
God love you,
Paul
I would encourage readers of this blog to visit: www.faithfulvoice.com and to read the many important articles there. While there, please read the article on the Little Black Book written by a friend of mine.
God love you,
Paul
Who interprets the Word of God?
For the Catholic, this question has been answered already. Vatican II teaches us clearly that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on (Tradition), has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed" (Dei Verbum, No. 10).
There is no way around this. And when we consider that this same "living teaching office of the Church" has said definitively that "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" and that "this judgment is to be held definitively by all the faithful," there can be no further question regarding this matter if one is authentically Catholic.
You see, in order to be a Catholic, one must satisfy himself or herself that the answers to all questions pertaining to faith or morals are contained in a Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith) which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian (the Magisterium) and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.
The only reason for believing any of it is God's solemn promise that it is all infallibly true. Therefore, it is all or none. When a Catholic doubts to the point of real disbelief, or dissents outright from just one item that God has placed in this Deposit of Faith, he or she is saying that the basis - or reason - for his/her faith is his or her own private judgment rather than that of the infallible teaching authority established by God and which alone (as Vatican II states clearly) has the "task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on."
Do we accept the teaching of Vatican II or do we reject this clear and unambiguous teaching? Are we Catholic or no?
Paul Anthony Melanson
There is no way around this. And when we consider that this same "living teaching office of the Church" has said definitively that "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" and that "this judgment is to be held definitively by all the faithful," there can be no further question regarding this matter if one is authentically Catholic.
You see, in order to be a Catholic, one must satisfy himself or herself that the answers to all questions pertaining to faith or morals are contained in a Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith) which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian (the Magisterium) and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.
The only reason for believing any of it is God's solemn promise that it is all infallibly true. Therefore, it is all or none. When a Catholic doubts to the point of real disbelief, or dissents outright from just one item that God has placed in this Deposit of Faith, he or she is saying that the basis - or reason - for his/her faith is his or her own private judgment rather than that of the infallible teaching authority established by God and which alone (as Vatican II states clearly) has the "task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on."
Do we accept the teaching of Vatican II or do we reject this clear and unambiguous teaching? Are we Catholic or no?
Paul Anthony Melanson
More on the ordination of women...
An argument has been advanced by an individual who frequents the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website in favor of ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood. This argument comes as a response to my article on the question as well as my invitation to respond to the points which I addressed. I want to thank this person for articulating his (or her) thoughts on the subject and I would like to address what I see as the major points of the argument advanced.
First of all, this writer says that, "The undeniable reality of Christ's manhood seems to indicate that God favored a masculine form. However, this is based on a particular assumption on the importance of sex and gender."
This argument is flawed. Why? Because when we compare the priesthood of Christ with the ancient priesthoods we discover some profound truths concerning God's salvific plan for mankind. Adam, priest by primacy of creation, is the figure of Christ who is to come and become priest by incarnation and re-creation. Through Adam, the first priest, sin entered the world and death passed upon all men. All ancient priests offered victims for their own sins and the sins of the people. These priests were distinct from the victims they sacrificed. But the new Adam, Christ the Son of Man, as a priest is sinless; holiness itself is His essence. In His priesthood alone the priest and the victim are identified.
Christ, the high priest, offers Himself in sacrifice to His Father to redeem all men from their own sins. The new head of the human family, this unique priest, in a sense, becomes sin itself, destroying thus iniquity in Himself upon the Cross. In dying as personified sin, so to speak, Christ restores to man that superabundance of grace which achieves man's justification in renewed sonship and friendship with God. In the economy of salvation the first Adam and priest, as head of the human family, destroyed divine life in the souls of his children. His priestly sacrifices were incapable of restoring this life; they had to be superseded by the priesthood of Christ.
The Holy Trinity, beholding fallen Adam, again decreed: "It is not good for man to be alone. Indeed this time it is tragic for him if he remains isolated from us, fallen, supernaturally dead, the slave of Satan destined for hell. Let us make man a new New Son, a new loving companion, a new head and Savior." So the Son of God volunteered to become the Son of Man. He took a body from a woman (Gal 4:4), Mary, so as to redeem the human family of which He was now the new Head.
And so, it is incorrect to assert, as the individual at the HCCNS website does, that: "Christ's sex played only a minor role in his ministry compared to his Semitism.." The original Adam came directly from the hand of God through creation, while Eve, created for love of him, came directly from the body of Adam. The new Adam Christ reversed the process. He came by the power of God alone from the body of Mary Immaculate. He came for the love of Mary and of all men. The first priest depended for his existence on the love of God alone. The perfect priest Christ depended not only on the love of God but also on the love, humility and obedience of the new Eve Mary for His existence as Man, Priest and Divine Savior. In the economy of divine mercy Christ, the new Head of man and always Head of all creation, restored divine life to His brethren through the death He offered once for all on the Cross and the life He now lives forever unto God. By means of a woman, a priest and man destroyed divine life in men. By means of another woman, a priest and the Son of Man restored this life to men. The priesthood, therefore, from the beginning was irrevocably affixed to man who, as son of God, had been officially called from the beginning to give glory to the Holy Trinity through creation, incarnation and re-creation. The holiness the first Adam failed to preserve for his children through a priesthood of obedience, just such a holiness, raised to divine perfection, was won for all men by the natural Son of God made Man through a priesthood of obedience unto death, even death upon a Cross.
Secondly, the individual posting at the HCCNS website asserts that, in the early Church, "Women were deacons" and had "many different roles as spiritual leaders." This argument is flawed because the terms diakonos, diakonein, and and diakonia were applied to very different sorts of functions and activities. Both the servants at the wedding feast in Cana and Christ Himself, the apostles as well as their coworkers and the Christians who performed any sort of ancillary services whatsoever in the community all were called "servants" (diakonos) on account of their service, without this being understood, of course, as the designation for an office or ministry within the one Sacrament of Holy Orders.
The institutionalization of charitable services performed by widows in the Christian community, of the assistance rendered by women during baptismal ceremonies, and of liturgical functions in a convent of consecrated virgins is apparent from the beginning of the third century in the ecclesiastical neologism: diaconissa/diacona. For Koine Greek, unlike Latin, could not construct the female form of "servant" by a change of ending, but could only indicate it with the feminine article (cf. Rom 16:1). Aside from that, we also encounter the title diaconissa (and similarly, presbyterissa and episcopissa) as a designation for the wives of deacons - for example, in papal instructions or conciliar canons that admonish higher clerics to practice celibacy, in the sense of continence.
Although there are records of the liturgical installation of deaconesses dating back to the fourth century, one must not overlook the fact that the selfsame authors who testify to this practice also make clear that the consecration of deaconesses was not the ordination of women to the diaconal ministry; on the contrary, it was a question of a different ecclesiastical office. To te early Church, it was clear that without prejudice to the various degrees of bishop, presbyter and deacon, which assumed a definitive form in the transition to the postapostolic age, these ministres owe their existence to the historical initiative of the apostles and to the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the foundational phase of the Church; whereas the latter, so-called nonsacramental consecrations were introduced by ecclesiastical authorities and thus are not matters of divine law but only of Church law.
Lastly, our friend at the HCCNS forum writes that, "It does not seem that appealing to Tradition can prove that God did not intend women to become priests in the future or even the present."
This betrays an inadequate understanding of what Tradition really is. The word "tradition" is derived from the Latin tradere - "to hand on." Tradition is literally a "handing on, a passing down of God's revealed word. The Second Vatican Council, referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, says that: "It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, II, 7).
Fr. John Hardon, in his excellent work entitled "The Catholic Catechism - A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church," explains that: "..the Church is no mere custodian of the Gospel. No doubt, her divinely appointed function is periodically to determine in precise and even technical language what God has revealed, and what his revelation means. But the word of God is also a living voice, ever active and 'alive within the Church.' Let us remember that the same Christ who revealed himself to the Church as Truth is also the Life who animates the Church he founded and the Way who leads to his heavenly Father" (p. 43).
It is this same Christ who leads our Church today. Christ is Truth. The Church is His Mystical Body. To assert that Christ would lead us into error (through His Church, the Church He continues to animate) is to attack His very Person.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
First of all, this writer says that, "The undeniable reality of Christ's manhood seems to indicate that God favored a masculine form. However, this is based on a particular assumption on the importance of sex and gender."
This argument is flawed. Why? Because when we compare the priesthood of Christ with the ancient priesthoods we discover some profound truths concerning God's salvific plan for mankind. Adam, priest by primacy of creation, is the figure of Christ who is to come and become priest by incarnation and re-creation. Through Adam, the first priest, sin entered the world and death passed upon all men. All ancient priests offered victims for their own sins and the sins of the people. These priests were distinct from the victims they sacrificed. But the new Adam, Christ the Son of Man, as a priest is sinless; holiness itself is His essence. In His priesthood alone the priest and the victim are identified.
Christ, the high priest, offers Himself in sacrifice to His Father to redeem all men from their own sins. The new head of the human family, this unique priest, in a sense, becomes sin itself, destroying thus iniquity in Himself upon the Cross. In dying as personified sin, so to speak, Christ restores to man that superabundance of grace which achieves man's justification in renewed sonship and friendship with God. In the economy of salvation the first Adam and priest, as head of the human family, destroyed divine life in the souls of his children. His priestly sacrifices were incapable of restoring this life; they had to be superseded by the priesthood of Christ.
The Holy Trinity, beholding fallen Adam, again decreed: "It is not good for man to be alone. Indeed this time it is tragic for him if he remains isolated from us, fallen, supernaturally dead, the slave of Satan destined for hell. Let us make man a new New Son, a new loving companion, a new head and Savior." So the Son of God volunteered to become the Son of Man. He took a body from a woman (Gal 4:4), Mary, so as to redeem the human family of which He was now the new Head.
And so, it is incorrect to assert, as the individual at the HCCNS website does, that: "Christ's sex played only a minor role in his ministry compared to his Semitism.." The original Adam came directly from the hand of God through creation, while Eve, created for love of him, came directly from the body of Adam. The new Adam Christ reversed the process. He came by the power of God alone from the body of Mary Immaculate. He came for the love of Mary and of all men. The first priest depended for his existence on the love of God alone. The perfect priest Christ depended not only on the love of God but also on the love, humility and obedience of the new Eve Mary for His existence as Man, Priest and Divine Savior. In the economy of divine mercy Christ, the new Head of man and always Head of all creation, restored divine life to His brethren through the death He offered once for all on the Cross and the life He now lives forever unto God. By means of a woman, a priest and man destroyed divine life in men. By means of another woman, a priest and the Son of Man restored this life to men. The priesthood, therefore, from the beginning was irrevocably affixed to man who, as son of God, had been officially called from the beginning to give glory to the Holy Trinity through creation, incarnation and re-creation. The holiness the first Adam failed to preserve for his children through a priesthood of obedience, just such a holiness, raised to divine perfection, was won for all men by the natural Son of God made Man through a priesthood of obedience unto death, even death upon a Cross.
Secondly, the individual posting at the HCCNS website asserts that, in the early Church, "Women were deacons" and had "many different roles as spiritual leaders." This argument is flawed because the terms diakonos, diakonein, and and diakonia were applied to very different sorts of functions and activities. Both the servants at the wedding feast in Cana and Christ Himself, the apostles as well as their coworkers and the Christians who performed any sort of ancillary services whatsoever in the community all were called "servants" (diakonos) on account of their service, without this being understood, of course, as the designation for an office or ministry within the one Sacrament of Holy Orders.
The institutionalization of charitable services performed by widows in the Christian community, of the assistance rendered by women during baptismal ceremonies, and of liturgical functions in a convent of consecrated virgins is apparent from the beginning of the third century in the ecclesiastical neologism: diaconissa/diacona. For Koine Greek, unlike Latin, could not construct the female form of "servant" by a change of ending, but could only indicate it with the feminine article (cf. Rom 16:1). Aside from that, we also encounter the title diaconissa (and similarly, presbyterissa and episcopissa) as a designation for the wives of deacons - for example, in papal instructions or conciliar canons that admonish higher clerics to practice celibacy, in the sense of continence.
Although there are records of the liturgical installation of deaconesses dating back to the fourth century, one must not overlook the fact that the selfsame authors who testify to this practice also make clear that the consecration of deaconesses was not the ordination of women to the diaconal ministry; on the contrary, it was a question of a different ecclesiastical office. To te early Church, it was clear that without prejudice to the various degrees of bishop, presbyter and deacon, which assumed a definitive form in the transition to the postapostolic age, these ministres owe their existence to the historical initiative of the apostles and to the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the foundational phase of the Church; whereas the latter, so-called nonsacramental consecrations were introduced by ecclesiastical authorities and thus are not matters of divine law but only of Church law.
Lastly, our friend at the HCCNS forum writes that, "It does not seem that appealing to Tradition can prove that God did not intend women to become priests in the future or even the present."
This betrays an inadequate understanding of what Tradition really is. The word "tradition" is derived from the Latin tradere - "to hand on." Tradition is literally a "handing on, a passing down of God's revealed word. The Second Vatican Council, referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, says that: "It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, II, 7).
Fr. John Hardon, in his excellent work entitled "The Catholic Catechism - A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church," explains that: "..the Church is no mere custodian of the Gospel. No doubt, her divinely appointed function is periodically to determine in precise and even technical language what God has revealed, and what his revelation means. But the word of God is also a living voice, ever active and 'alive within the Church.' Let us remember that the same Christ who revealed himself to the Church as Truth is also the Life who animates the Church he founded and the Way who leads to his heavenly Father" (p. 43).
It is this same Christ who leads our Church today. Christ is Truth. The Church is His Mystical Body. To assert that Christ would lead us into error (through His Church, the Church He continues to animate) is to attack His very Person.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Faith, Science and the origin of life
An individual who posts at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website recently made this claim: "Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts. For example, religion tells us that God snapped his fingers and man sprang into existence. Science tells us otherwise. If you make your decisions based on faith, you can believe religion. If you make them based on facts, you have to believe science."
For the moment, let's ignore the fact that a growing number of highly respected scientists have some serious problems with "evolution" as it is understood by many today - in the classical Darwinian sense. This individual's assertion that science is "based on facts" is problematic from the standpoint of natural philosophy.
What this individual is saying is that he rejects the whole concept of a Creator and thereby proposes that chance is the fundamental explanation of things such as the existence of life in the universe. But immediately we run into a problem. For those who propose chance as the fundamental explanation of things intend that we understand chance as a first cause - as the event that precipitates all subsequent events.
Why is this a problem? It is a problem because proposing chance as a first cause is like proposing a child as the explanation for its parents. It is simply impossible, given what a child is and given what parents are, that a child should be the explanation for its parents. You cannot propose Q as the cause of P when the very meaning of Q is that it is utterly dependent upon P and simply would not be Q were it not for P.
Confused? Let me try another way of explaining this. To propose chance as an initial cause is to place impossible demands upon it, requiring it to deliver what, of its very nature, it does not have the capacity to deliver. A chance event cannot be an originating event because it can exist in the first place only if there are other, non-chance events which precede it. Those confused souls who insist upon giving an originating role to chance simply do not understand what chance is.
By definition, chance is an irregularity, a departure from the norm. And you cannot have an irregularity if there is no regularity by which it can be identified. You cannot have a departure from the norm until there is first a norm to be departed from.
Therefore, those who propose chance as a first cause are not being honest.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
For the moment, let's ignore the fact that a growing number of highly respected scientists have some serious problems with "evolution" as it is understood by many today - in the classical Darwinian sense. This individual's assertion that science is "based on facts" is problematic from the standpoint of natural philosophy.
What this individual is saying is that he rejects the whole concept of a Creator and thereby proposes that chance is the fundamental explanation of things such as the existence of life in the universe. But immediately we run into a problem. For those who propose chance as the fundamental explanation of things intend that we understand chance as a first cause - as the event that precipitates all subsequent events.
Why is this a problem? It is a problem because proposing chance as a first cause is like proposing a child as the explanation for its parents. It is simply impossible, given what a child is and given what parents are, that a child should be the explanation for its parents. You cannot propose Q as the cause of P when the very meaning of Q is that it is utterly dependent upon P and simply would not be Q were it not for P.
Confused? Let me try another way of explaining this. To propose chance as an initial cause is to place impossible demands upon it, requiring it to deliver what, of its very nature, it does not have the capacity to deliver. A chance event cannot be an originating event because it can exist in the first place only if there are other, non-chance events which precede it. Those confused souls who insist upon giving an originating role to chance simply do not understand what chance is.
By definition, chance is an irregularity, a departure from the norm. And you cannot have an irregularity if there is no regularity by which it can be identified. You cannot have a departure from the norm until there is first a norm to be departed from.
Therefore, those who propose chance as a first cause are not being honest.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
Saturday, May 28, 2005
An important petition
Please take the time to visit: http://www.spiritdaily.com and fill out the petition to the Holy Father for the Beatification of Pope Pius XII. This great Pope is much maligned by some in the media who attempt to portray him as having been "Hitler's Pope" or who accuse him of having been "silent" during the Nazi regime's satanic attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. This lie has been exposed by many important scholars and is contradicted by the facts of history. For example, The New York Times, which has been slandering this great Pontiff in recent years, ran an editorial back in 1941 which called him a "lone voice" speaking out against Hitler, his regime, and the persecution of the Jewish people.
My father met with Pope Pius XII back in March of 1958 and the experience left an indelible mark on him. He was struck by the heroic sanctity of this truly great wartime Pope and by his loving example. When my father died (in September of 2000 - the great Jubilee year), he left me a Rosary blessed by Pope Pius XII. And our family has a papal blessing from this Pope who, I am convinced, will be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church someday.
Not soon enough as far as I am convinced.
Paul Anthony Melanson
My father met with Pope Pius XII back in March of 1958 and the experience left an indelible mark on him. He was struck by the heroic sanctity of this truly great wartime Pope and by his loving example. When my father died (in September of 2000 - the great Jubilee year), he left me a Rosary blessed by Pope Pius XII. And our family has a papal blessing from this Pope who, I am convinced, will be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church someday.
Not soon enough as far as I am convinced.
Paul Anthony Melanson
The development of doctrine
Once again, an individual agitating for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website, has posed a challenge. He writes, "The Church, as an institution, moves slowly toward any change, probably as it should in most instances....By suggesting that women could be priests, one is not suggesting that Jesus got it wrong; rather, it is suggesting that Jesus and the Holy Spirit may have thought it was not the right time to have women priests, but that we've now advanced to the point where we can handle it."
The problem with this line of thinking is that while doctrine does indeed develop, it does not do so in the same way as knowledge in other fields. Divine Revelation and faith are unique. They do not originate in human observation and reasoning, and their truth transcends the cultural forms in which it was first expressed.
The linguistic expressions used by the Church in her dogmatic formulations do not exhaustively encapsulate the revealed truth. Therefore, while individuals on their own authority may not set aside the language the Church uses, the Church from time to time improves on such language. And such improvements can even become necessary to defend the faith against errors and to expound it in fresh social and cultural contexts.
And, to be sure, Christians today are in a position to articulate revealed truths in ways which were not available to the Apostles and this because the Church not only faithfully safeguards and hands on all that God revealed, but infallibly interprets it. So, as Vatican I and Vatican II teach, the Church grows in her understanding of the realities and words which have been handed down (see DS 3020/1800; Dei Verbum, No. 8).
But the Church may not contradict the truth which she has received from God. So, as Vatican I definitively teaches, the Church's dogmatic formulae should never be taken in a meaning different from the one the Church understood and understands in using them (see DS 3043/1818; Gaudium et Spes, No. 62). It follows therefore that legitimate and necessary development and reformulation of doctrine can never call into question anything which Catholics as a whole once have held with faith.
For a further explanation of the criteria of authentic development of doctrine, I would point readers of this blog to a work written by John Henry Newman (for whom the website mentioned above is named) and entitled "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" and published by Westminster, Md Christian Classics, 1968.
And what of this individual's assertion that "we've now advanced to the point where we can handle it" (meaning women priests)? Is this not the conceit of Famulus Wagner in Faust, who exclaimed joyfully "how marvelously far we have come"? This is not the attitude of Pope John XXIII, who said that the Church must leave her mark on every epoch and every land - and not vice versa. This is the perverse interpretation of Aggiornamento, an interpretation which means that the Church must be reformed in order to do justice to the "great progress" of our times, and to speak the "right language" to modern man, who has "come of age."
There are Bishops, priests and laymen who, blinded and overrun by various heresies, want to swim with the times and who fear the judgment of the world more than they fear God. For such people, all the current and modern tendencies and developments (in science, medicine etc) are progress and each and every change demanded by "progressives" who wish to build a church in their own image and likeness also constitutes "progress." These confused souls have forgotten (or choose to ignore) that truth is essentially unchangeable.
Lastly, the individual agitating for women priests at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website told another visitor to that forum that, "I don't think that you can say that no women are called to be priests because you don't know what the Holy Spirit is calling them to do." This is an obvious falsehood. We know that the Holy Spirit is not calling women to the Priesthood because the Magisterium, led by that same Holy Spirit, says that they are not.
But notice that whereas this individual asserts that the other visitor to the HCCNS forum doesn't know what the Holy Spirit is saying to women (a patent falsehood since the Magisterium speaks the truth in that same Spirit), he nevertheless feels confident in suggesting that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit "may have thought" that 33 AD "was not the right time" for women's ordination but that now (because Catholics are supposedly more "advanced") these two Divine Persons may now feel the time is right since we're at the "point where we can handle it."
God preserve us from such nonsense.
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
The problem with this line of thinking is that while doctrine does indeed develop, it does not do so in the same way as knowledge in other fields. Divine Revelation and faith are unique. They do not originate in human observation and reasoning, and their truth transcends the cultural forms in which it was first expressed.
The linguistic expressions used by the Church in her dogmatic formulations do not exhaustively encapsulate the revealed truth. Therefore, while individuals on their own authority may not set aside the language the Church uses, the Church from time to time improves on such language. And such improvements can even become necessary to defend the faith against errors and to expound it in fresh social and cultural contexts.
And, to be sure, Christians today are in a position to articulate revealed truths in ways which were not available to the Apostles and this because the Church not only faithfully safeguards and hands on all that God revealed, but infallibly interprets it. So, as Vatican I and Vatican II teach, the Church grows in her understanding of the realities and words which have been handed down (see DS 3020/1800; Dei Verbum, No. 8).
But the Church may not contradict the truth which she has received from God. So, as Vatican I definitively teaches, the Church's dogmatic formulae should never be taken in a meaning different from the one the Church understood and understands in using them (see DS 3043/1818; Gaudium et Spes, No. 62). It follows therefore that legitimate and necessary development and reformulation of doctrine can never call into question anything which Catholics as a whole once have held with faith.
For a further explanation of the criteria of authentic development of doctrine, I would point readers of this blog to a work written by John Henry Newman (for whom the website mentioned above is named) and entitled "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" and published by Westminster, Md Christian Classics, 1968.
And what of this individual's assertion that "we've now advanced to the point where we can handle it" (meaning women priests)? Is this not the conceit of Famulus Wagner in Faust, who exclaimed joyfully "how marvelously far we have come"? This is not the attitude of Pope John XXIII, who said that the Church must leave her mark on every epoch and every land - and not vice versa. This is the perverse interpretation of Aggiornamento, an interpretation which means that the Church must be reformed in order to do justice to the "great progress" of our times, and to speak the "right language" to modern man, who has "come of age."
There are Bishops, priests and laymen who, blinded and overrun by various heresies, want to swim with the times and who fear the judgment of the world more than they fear God. For such people, all the current and modern tendencies and developments (in science, medicine etc) are progress and each and every change demanded by "progressives" who wish to build a church in their own image and likeness also constitutes "progress." These confused souls have forgotten (or choose to ignore) that truth is essentially unchangeable.
Lastly, the individual agitating for women priests at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website told another visitor to that forum that, "I don't think that you can say that no women are called to be priests because you don't know what the Holy Spirit is calling them to do." This is an obvious falsehood. We know that the Holy Spirit is not calling women to the Priesthood because the Magisterium, led by that same Holy Spirit, says that they are not.
But notice that whereas this individual asserts that the other visitor to the HCCNS forum doesn't know what the Holy Spirit is saying to women (a patent falsehood since the Magisterium speaks the truth in that same Spirit), he nevertheless feels confident in suggesting that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit "may have thought" that 33 AD "was not the right time" for women's ordination but that now (because Catholics are supposedly more "advanced") these two Divine Persons may now feel the time is right since we're at the "point where we can handle it."
God preserve us from such nonsense.
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, May 27, 2005
Fulton John Sheen and Dogma
Way back in the 1970's, I purchased an excellent book written by my hero and good friend Fulton J. Sheen entitled "The Electronic Christian" and published by the Macmillan Publishing Company. In this important book (indeed every book written By Sheen could be labelled as important), the saintly Archbishop who thoroughly intrigued his audience throughout the 1950's as "Uncle Fultie" - a Catholic counterpart if you will to Milton Berle's "Uncle Miltie," explains the importance and indeed the necessity of a religion with Dogma. Here is his essay:
The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.
The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'
The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'
Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.
It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas. (pp. 74-74).
God love you Fulton J. Sheen....I couldn't have said it better.
Paul Anthony Melanson
The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.
The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'
The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'
Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.
It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas. (pp. 74-74).
God love you Fulton J. Sheen....I couldn't have said it better.
Paul Anthony Melanson
A Troubling Advertisement at the Union Leader's Website
It has come to my attention that the Manchester Union Leader's website is running an advertisement for an organization calling itself "7 lies.org." When one visits the Union Leader's website and clicks on the opinion link: http://www.theunionleader.com/opinion.html one may find the advertisement for this organization. Upon clicking on the ad link, one is taken to the following website: http://www.tannah.net/religion/churchhistory02.htm
There, one is invited to participate in an online course which will explain "How genuine spirituality gave way to rigid dogma" and the "fine line that separates the two." Readers are then told that "Spirituality can be the most empowering, most liberating, most life-giving force in all the world...or it can be a tool for greed, manipulation and control. And its been exactly that for millions of people over the centuries."
For those who choose to take the "course," Perry Marshall will explain "key milestones in Church history" and will "dissect the most common lies" and "illuminate the fault line that separates genuine spirituality from empty religious dogma."
Empty religious dogma? As Catholics, we understand that Dogmas are those Church doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. And nothing revealed by God may be said to be "empty."
I would encourage faithful Catholics to register their complaint with the Union Leader by visiting the link I have provided and clicking on the "contact us" link.
God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson
There, one is invited to participate in an online course which will explain "How genuine spirituality gave way to rigid dogma" and the "fine line that separates the two." Readers are then told that "Spirituality can be the most empowering, most liberating, most life-giving force in all the world...or it can be a tool for greed, manipulation and control. And its been exactly that for millions of people over the centuries."
For those who choose to take the "course," Perry Marshall will explain "key milestones in Church history" and will "dissect the most common lies" and "illuminate the fault line that separates genuine spirituality from empty religious dogma."
Empty religious dogma? As Catholics, we understand that Dogmas are those Church doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. And nothing revealed by God may be said to be "empty."
I would encourage faithful Catholics to register their complaint with the Union Leader by visiting the link I have provided and clicking on the "contact us" link.
God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
A brief explanation....
For those who would say that I am being "uncharitable" in referring to those who clamor for women's ordination as being "mental and moral midgets," I would remind you that such people are really asserting that they are wiser than the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Such people are also arguing that Our Lord, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, chose only men as priests because of cultural conditioning or that He committed an injustice for the sake of cultural expediency. This is nothing short of blasphemy.
In the words of the Rev. Dr. E.L. Mascall, "If the supporters of women priests are right, then Our Lord in instituting an exclusively male apostolate, was doing something which has deprived half the members of the Church from their legitimate rights for nearly 2,000 years. And it would be difficult in that case to feel very confident of either his moral or his intellectual integrity. And then it is difficult to see why we should attribute any authority to Him at all."
Again, who do we say Jesus is? Is He the Incarnate Word, the Eternal Logos, the Son of God - Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? Or is He simply a man who promoted erroneous ideas; ideas which have deprived women of their legitimate rights?
Paul
More zeal than knowledge
In his own day, the great philosopher Socrates warned seekers of truth to beware of those who possess "more zeal than knowledge." In our own time, an age which is marked by irrational pride and a tendency to reject anything which has the character of coming from above, there are individuals and groups who simply refuse to embrace episteme (knowledge) and who consequently fall into the idolatry of doxa (opinion).
For example, some years ago, certain women groups gave warning that they would not be argued out of becoming priests: "We reject out of hand any arguments or efforts on theological or historical grounds" (Sexuality, Theology, Priesthood, A Scholarly symposium on the ordination of women to the priesthood. Published by Concerned Fellow Episcopalians. San Gabriel, California, p.3).
This statement was the result of a Task Force chosen to study the status of women in a diocese in Pennsylvania. And one can find this same attitude at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. There, several individuals have challenged the Church's clear and constant teaching for some 2,000 years that women are not called to the ministerial priesthood.
Now, agitating or screaming for change is not a Christian lifestyle. And the intelligent Catholic will answer the specious "theological" arguments which are founded on propaganda and slogans and which are appealing to those who find it too much of a mental effort to engage in any real thought. It is necessary that the intelligent Catholic should respond to the arguments of the uncritical and intellectually impoverished mind of the confused person who believes himself or herself to be wiser than the Holy Spirit who guides Holy Mother Church. It was St. Peter who exhorted Christians "to be always ready to give a reason for the faith that is in you."
Thankfully, there are serious and intelligent Catholics who are responding to this challenge. These defenders of the Faith understand that St. Peter's challenge imposes a duty, a responsibility, to correct the flawed thinking of mental and moral midgets who believe that polls, vote-taking, and lazy propaganda emanating from the mass-media or various other sources, can change salvation facts already decided by Almighty God. Polls may be interesting to look at, but such statistics have absolutely no theological decisional value whatsoever. The only real benefit such polls have for Catholics is to demonstrate the extent of the profound disorder in faith among Catholics (or other Christians) in a certain geographical area.
To date, not one of the agitators for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website has accepted my challenge to provide a sound theological argument from sacramental theology as to why women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Again, as Socrates reminded us so long ago, beware of those who have "more zeal than knowledge."
Amen.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
For example, some years ago, certain women groups gave warning that they would not be argued out of becoming priests: "We reject out of hand any arguments or efforts on theological or historical grounds" (Sexuality, Theology, Priesthood, A Scholarly symposium on the ordination of women to the priesthood. Published by Concerned Fellow Episcopalians. San Gabriel, California, p.3).
This statement was the result of a Task Force chosen to study the status of women in a diocese in Pennsylvania. And one can find this same attitude at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. There, several individuals have challenged the Church's clear and constant teaching for some 2,000 years that women are not called to the ministerial priesthood.
Now, agitating or screaming for change is not a Christian lifestyle. And the intelligent Catholic will answer the specious "theological" arguments which are founded on propaganda and slogans and which are appealing to those who find it too much of a mental effort to engage in any real thought. It is necessary that the intelligent Catholic should respond to the arguments of the uncritical and intellectually impoverished mind of the confused person who believes himself or herself to be wiser than the Holy Spirit who guides Holy Mother Church. It was St. Peter who exhorted Christians "to be always ready to give a reason for the faith that is in you."
Thankfully, there are serious and intelligent Catholics who are responding to this challenge. These defenders of the Faith understand that St. Peter's challenge imposes a duty, a responsibility, to correct the flawed thinking of mental and moral midgets who believe that polls, vote-taking, and lazy propaganda emanating from the mass-media or various other sources, can change salvation facts already decided by Almighty God. Polls may be interesting to look at, but such statistics have absolutely no theological decisional value whatsoever. The only real benefit such polls have for Catholics is to demonstrate the extent of the profound disorder in faith among Catholics (or other Christians) in a certain geographical area.
To date, not one of the agitators for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website has accepted my challenge to provide a sound theological argument from sacramental theology as to why women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Again, as Socrates reminded us so long ago, beware of those who have "more zeal than knowledge."
Amen.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Pope John Paul II on formation of conscience
In his encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II tells us that, "Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: 'In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. Forthe Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself.' (DH, 14). It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom 'from' the truth but always and only freedom 'in' the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith." (No. 64.2).
Paul
Paul
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The difference between a certain and a correct conscience
There is a difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term "correct" describes the objective truth of the person's judgment, that in fact his conscience represents the real state of things. The term "certain" describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent and how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite. The kind of certitude which is meant here is a subjective certitude, which may easily exist along with objective error. It follows then that we have two possibilities here:
1. A certain and correct conscience.
2. A certain but erroneous conscience.
Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."
In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.
What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.
If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.
Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.
I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
1. A certain and correct conscience.
2. A certain but erroneous conscience.
Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."
In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.
What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.
If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.
Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.
I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, May 13, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
New Website
Dear Friends,
As many of you already know, I haven't been writing articles for this website for over a month now. I have been very busy with several writing projects and will be writing a "Theological Reflections" column for http://www.saintritachildren.com I will be writing pieces for this website as well now that I have finished with the projects in question.
I encourage you to visit this new website and to e-mail me with any thoughts you might have.
Thank you and God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
cleghornboy@juno.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)