A friend of mine forwarded a Blog post link from last June and written by a woman named Mary Alexander who authors a Blog entitled "Against all Heresies." In this bizarre post, Ms. Alexander writes (in part): "Hi Anonymous and Brett (aka Paul Anthony Melanson)..Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake...Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you...Keep the comments coming. I'm just building up treasure in heaven. Cheers, Mary." (Full Blog post with comment here).
Now, I am not "Brett." But I suspect there is a motive for Ms. Alexander's false accusation. You see, Ms. Alexander has defended the late Father Leonard Feeney. And I am, of course, on record as opposing Father Feeney's interpretation of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This wouldn't be the first time Ms. Alexander has demonstrated some sort of problem with me or an animosity. In the comments section of a previous post here at La Salette Journey, Ms. Alexander left a comment implying that the Church's 1980 Instruction on Euthanasia was somehow "out-of-date." She was immediately corrected by others who reminded her that the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites this document as authoritative (see here).
And this wouldn't be the first time that Ms. Alexander has engaged in uncharitable rhetoric. In her Blog post defending Father Leonard Feeney, whose interpretation of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" was condemned by Pope Pius XII, she had some rather unkind words for the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a very-well respected priest who was loyal to the Church and her teaching. Ms. Alexander referred to this heroic priest and solid-Catholic thinker as being simple-minded and naive (see here).
I submit that Ms. Alexander would benefit from visiting this link to read up on calumny. This excellent entry says (in part): "..the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another's good name. He is obliged to retract his false statements."
Ms. Alexander is right about one thing though. We all need to pray for those who calumniate us. I will get right on that.
Related reading here.
Showing posts with label Blogger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogger. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The darkness spreads...
Mr. John Ansley, in the comments section of my previous post, has responded to a Catholic Blogger (and attorney) who wrote the following: "We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships." (See the comments section of this Blog post).
Mr. Ansley correctly noted that, "This sounds like nothing more than an attempt to justify same-sex 'marriage,' whether under this name or the euphemistically labelled 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' But the acceptance of any of these contentions will redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If this happens, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,' had this to say: 'The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.' (No. 8).
It would appear that Renee is dissenting from this authoritative teaching when she asserts, 'We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships.' How unfortunate."
Indeed. In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."
As I explained here, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological: "Especially important is to avoid conversations with the demon... The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen..." - Father Merrin - The Exorcist.
Mr. Ansley correctly noted that, "This sounds like nothing more than an attempt to justify same-sex 'marriage,' whether under this name or the euphemistically labelled 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' But the acceptance of any of these contentions will redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If this happens, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,' had this to say: 'The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.' (No. 8).
It would appear that Renee is dissenting from this authoritative teaching when she asserts, 'We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships.' How unfortunate."
Indeed. In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."
As I explained here, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological: "Especially important is to avoid conversations with the demon... The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen..." - Father Merrin - The Exorcist.
Related reading: Perfect possession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
