The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already addressed - at length - the whole subject of same sex "marriage." Archbishop Sean O' Malley needs to address the dissent of Rev. Walter Cuenin. And soon. Fr. Cuenin's views are causing scandal in and around the Archdiocese of Boston.
Paul
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
INTRODUCTION
1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGEAND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEMOF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGALRECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From the social order
8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. 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 that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) 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.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
From the legal order
9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANSWITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUROF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. RatzingerPrefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.Titular Archbishop of SilaSecretary
NOTES
(1) Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and “de facto” unions (July 26, 2000), 23.
(2) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4.
(3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.
(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.
(5) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8.
(6) Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.
(7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.
(8) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12.
(9) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358.
(10) Ibid., No. 2396.
(11) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.
(12) Cf. ibid., 72.
(13) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.
(14) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.
(15) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.
(16) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.
(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
(18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Fr. Walter Cuenin and "gay rights."
Carol M. McKinley over at Magisterial fidelity: http://carolmckinley.blogspot.com/ just posted this:
"Fr. Walter Cuenin is pastor of Our Lady Help of Christians in the Archdiocese of Boston and one of the most visible priests in the archdiocese. At a public hearing for the Defense of Marriage Amendment, he testified that the amendment seemed to violate the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Why? Because homosexual marriage was a human rights issue, Fr. Cuenin argued. Fr. Cuenin quoted the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, testifying that all forms of social or cultural discrimination of personal rights must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design. "
But would the Defense of Marriage Amendment really "violate" the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? In a word, no. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..." (2358).
The qualifier in this passage from the Catechism is the word "unjust." Not every from of discrimination with regard to homosexual persons is "unjust." It must be remembered that, strictly speaking, human beings only possess contingent rights. That is to say, rights which have been accorded to us by God. As a consequence, we only have a right to do that which is pleasing to God. God has given us the free will to choose that which is good or evil. If we choose to do a certain evil, we cannot say that we have a "right" to do that thing. Only God has rights which belong to Him of His very nature. Only He possesses intrinsic rights.
The teaching of the Catechism is clear regarding marriage: "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed with its own proper laws. God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution.." (CCC, 1603). And again, "Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: 'It is not good that the man should be alone.' The woman, 'flesh of his flesh,' his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a 'helpmate'; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. 'Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.' The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been 'in the beginning': 'So they are no longer two, but one flesh.'" (CCC, 1605).
Since marriage is an institution which has God as its Author, we are not free to "forget its common and permanent characteristics" (CCC, 1603). Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Such is God's Will. Such is God's plan.
And what of Fr. Cuenin's attempt to use Gaudium et Spes, No. 29 to promote the idea of sodomite marriage? Let's read what this passage says:
"True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored. Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men."
This passage is actually quite clear. Unless you're a liberal cleric with the cognotive functioning of a snail. This passage is dealing with "fundamental rights." But no one has a "right" to engage in homosexual acts any more than they possess a right to rob banks or commit adultery. And marriage implies sexual activity. Dr. Germain Grisez explains that:
"Different people have different weaknesses and experience different temptations. Whether caused by natural factors or by culture, morally burdensome characteristics for which individuals are not responsible should not be used as an excuse for discriminating against them, and doing so would be similar to discriminating on the basis of race, religion, and so on. In this sense, sexual orientation should be included in the list of bases of unjust discrimination. However, in speaking of sexual orientation, many people actually mean readiness to engage in homosexual activity, and in this sense sexual orientation should not be listed among the bases of unjust discrimination. For homosexual activity is gravely wrong and so, like any other kind of grave wrong, provides a reasonable basis for DEALING DIFFERENTLY with those who voluntarily engage in it, both for their own good, the protection of other individuals, and the well-being of society as a whole."
Bottom line: Father Walter Cuenin doesn't understand the Church's teaching on marriage, her teaching as to what constitutes a right and, consequently, her interpretation of Gaudium et Spes, No. 29.
One has to hope (and pray) that Archbishop Sean O' Malley will address these issues with him...and soon.
Paul Anthony Melanson
"Fr. Walter Cuenin is pastor of Our Lady Help of Christians in the Archdiocese of Boston and one of the most visible priests in the archdiocese. At a public hearing for the Defense of Marriage Amendment, he testified that the amendment seemed to violate the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Why? Because homosexual marriage was a human rights issue, Fr. Cuenin argued. Fr. Cuenin quoted the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, testifying that all forms of social or cultural discrimination of personal rights must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design. "
But would the Defense of Marriage Amendment really "violate" the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? In a word, no. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..." (2358).
The qualifier in this passage from the Catechism is the word "unjust." Not every from of discrimination with regard to homosexual persons is "unjust." It must be remembered that, strictly speaking, human beings only possess contingent rights. That is to say, rights which have been accorded to us by God. As a consequence, we only have a right to do that which is pleasing to God. God has given us the free will to choose that which is good or evil. If we choose to do a certain evil, we cannot say that we have a "right" to do that thing. Only God has rights which belong to Him of His very nature. Only He possesses intrinsic rights.
The teaching of the Catechism is clear regarding marriage: "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed with its own proper laws. God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution.." (CCC, 1603). And again, "Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: 'It is not good that the man should be alone.' The woman, 'flesh of his flesh,' his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a 'helpmate'; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. 'Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.' The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been 'in the beginning': 'So they are no longer two, but one flesh.'" (CCC, 1605).
Since marriage is an institution which has God as its Author, we are not free to "forget its common and permanent characteristics" (CCC, 1603). Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Such is God's Will. Such is God's plan.
And what of Fr. Cuenin's attempt to use Gaudium et Spes, No. 29 to promote the idea of sodomite marriage? Let's read what this passage says:
"True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored. Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men."
This passage is actually quite clear. Unless you're a liberal cleric with the cognotive functioning of a snail. This passage is dealing with "fundamental rights." But no one has a "right" to engage in homosexual acts any more than they possess a right to rob banks or commit adultery. And marriage implies sexual activity. Dr. Germain Grisez explains that:
"Different people have different weaknesses and experience different temptations. Whether caused by natural factors or by culture, morally burdensome characteristics for which individuals are not responsible should not be used as an excuse for discriminating against them, and doing so would be similar to discriminating on the basis of race, religion, and so on. In this sense, sexual orientation should be included in the list of bases of unjust discrimination. However, in speaking of sexual orientation, many people actually mean readiness to engage in homosexual activity, and in this sense sexual orientation should not be listed among the bases of unjust discrimination. For homosexual activity is gravely wrong and so, like any other kind of grave wrong, provides a reasonable basis for DEALING DIFFERENTLY with those who voluntarily engage in it, both for their own good, the protection of other individuals, and the well-being of society as a whole."
Bottom line: Father Walter Cuenin doesn't understand the Church's teaching on marriage, her teaching as to what constitutes a right and, consequently, her interpretation of Gaudium et Spes, No. 29.
One has to hope (and pray) that Archbishop Sean O' Malley will address these issues with him...and soon.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Our Lady: Coredemptrix
Please read this excellent article from: www.marymediatrix.com
Behold Your Mother: The Fifth Marian Dogma by Fr. Peter Damian M. Fehlner, FI, STD
When our Lord just before dying and consummating His redemptive sacrifice on the Cross addressed these words (cf. Jn 19, 25-27) to the beloved disciple John (and through him to all of us) and told John (and through him also every one of us) to take her into our homes-hearts, He was also telling us to behold, contemplate her as His compassionate Mother and ours, viz., as the WOMAN, the IMMACULATE COREDEMPTRIX.
A great deal has been said and written in recent years concerning the possibility and need to define dogmatically the Marian titles of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate, a “fifth” Marian dogma: divine Maternity, perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption being the first four, with that of the Coredemption, etc., said by some to be the “final” Marian dogma in the sense that such a definition would, with the preceding four Marian dogmas, round out and render definitive the Marian synthesis in part sketched in chapter 8 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.
In many academic circles, including the theological, such proposals have not met with favor, indeed often enough with rather decided and occasionally violent opposition. Such proposals are seen in those circles, not as an integration of the doctrine of Vatican II, but as a reversion to an outmoded way of theologizing about the Mother of God with unmistakable signs of a devotionalism or Marian maximalism incompatible with and embarrassing to the ecumenism sponsored by Vatican II and promoted by the present Holy Father.
Were the issue only one of devotional practice (a type of orthopraxis), the critics of the movement might have a case. Devotion qua actus humanus admits of too much and of too little. As even the critics implicitly admit, however, rather than moderation in the exercise of Marian devotion, the primary issue is the nature of orthopraxis itself as guided by dogmatic faith, indeed as encapsulating that faith at its heart. To the person who does not believe in the divine, virginal maternity any form of hyperdulia is too much by definition. Whereas for someone who does accept and believe in the dogma of Ephesus any devotion of his in practice seems too little in contrast with the devotion God’s own Son in fact has given and continues to give to His Mother in observing the fourth commandment.
The point might be put in the form of a question thus: what is the measure of too much (maximalism) or of too little (minimalism) devotion to Our Lady? De Maria numquam satis! From a purely pragmatic standpoint the old axiom guiding the Marian piety so many Saints east and west is simply indefensible. From a dogmatic standpoint it may well be the only acceptable guideline. St. Bonaventure says (Sermo I de purificatione) that he had never heard of a Saint without devotion to Mary or a great Saint without great, viz., maximal, devotion to the Virgin Mother.
What in principle defines maximal Marian devotion? Obviously the title Theotokos – Dei Genitrix. But like the NAME Jesus – Jahweh or He Who Is -, the actual honor due those NAMES is proximately defined in virtue of their roles in the great sacrificial work on Calvary, continued in the mystery of the Eucharist in the Church. St. Paul writes to the Philippians, ch. 2, v. 9: “For which reason – namely Jesus’ sacrificial obedience – God (viz., the Father) has given Him a NAME above every other name, before which every knee in heaven, on earth and under the earth (the trina mundi machina) must bend and every tongue proclaim Jesus is in the glory of God the Father.” Rendering such honor has always been recognized in the liturgy to include in some way the Mother of the Savior before and above all others. The Communicantes et memoriam venerantes in primis beatae et semper gloriosae Virginis Mariae Matris Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi… of the Roman Canon puts it concisely. The ancient Marian hymn Quem terra, pontus, aetera alludes to this in referring to Mary as the one who bore the trinam regentem machinam.
Granted, a rejoinder might be: how important is such a doctrinal consideration? After all do not questions of mariology occupy a rather decidedly subordinate and lower rung of the veritatum hierarchia, on the margin rather than at the core of theological discussion, particularly today?
To this the supporters of a definition reply in the negative. Questions of mariology, particularly that of the coredemption and its corollaries: the universal maternal mediation and advocacy of Mary in the Church unique to her, directly touch upon the central question of our theology and spirituality, the wisdom of the Cross and the meaning of the Pauline phrase: one God (the Father) and one Mediator of all the man-God Jesus, sole Redeemer (cf. I Tim. 2, 5-6). Is the famous dictum Christus solus Redemptor based on this passage of St. Paul exclusive or inclusive of Mary?
This is in the final analysis what the debate over the title Coredemptress is about and why it is the central debate of contemporary theology – as indeed it was clearly that on the eve of Vatican II. Those tending to accent the importance of Marian devotion in the life of the Church and of its members, indeed of all men, were known as “christotypologists”, viz., those who stressed the uniqueness of Mary in pertaining to “the order of the hypostatic union” and so her unique place in the Church as “preeminent” member of the Church; whereas those who tended to downplay such devotion and not differentiate it specifically from the veneration or dulia paid the other saints and from their intercessory role were known as “ecclesiotypologists”.
The first group insisted on the active, though subordinate role of the Virgin in the great sacrificial act whereby the Redeemer effected our ransom. The second group would not concede to Mary on Calvary more than a mere “passive” exemplarity vis-à-vis the Church. As in every other great christological controversy of the past two millennia the resolution of the Marian issue determines how in theory and practice the christological issue is resolved.
And in the past, without exception, affirming the Marian not only as close to but as inseparable from the core of Christian theology: no Christ without Mary, no Christian theology without also being Marian theology, has been the condition for a maximal recognition of the NAME; denying that has been the prelude to banalizing the NAME. A priori we may logically expect in virtue of this principle Card. Newman formulated so concisely (cf. the sermon entitled “The Glories of Mary for the Sake of Her Son” in Discourse to Mixed Congregations (London 1899) pp. 342-359) that the “christotypical” approach to the question of the Coredemption rather than the ecclesiotypical is the one calculated to give the maximal glory to the NAME of Redeemer, and that such glory will be given by every tongue by merging with Mary’s: Et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo Salvatori meo (or salutari meo). This is what the NAME Jesus means as translated by St. Jerome – God is my Savior (or my Salvation). Only by venerating Mary under the title COREDEMPTRESS can we harmonize our praise of the Savior for the redemption which He has wrought for us.
Dogmatic definitions do indeed impact on theology and theologians, but they do so because first of all they are doxological acts of the entire Church, acts which have always involved the Mother of the Church, Mater et Magistra Apostolorum (St. Bonaventure).
Now it is true that Vatican II did not choose to employ the title Coredemptress, and only sparingly used that of Mediatrix. But neither did the Council forbid their use as critics of the proposed definition never cease to repeat. The Council for pastoral reasons abstained from deciding the doctrinal question then debated and still debated. But the Council did not forbid the study of this question, indeed the Church encourages such study. And any fair reading of chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium indicates that promotion of those titles matches exactly the thrust both of tradition and of Vatican II.
Another way of formulating the central issue of modern theology is this: joint predestination of Jesus and Mary as the centerpiece of the economy of salvation, or Christ alone. The genius of Luther, apart from whether one likes or dislikes him, agrees or disagrees with him, was to have formulated the question in that way: a spirituality whose primary mode is either Marian or not, a theology of the cross whose primary mode is defined with or without the Coredemptress. Luther unfortunately chose the “without Coredemptress” option, despite himself thereby underscoring the Marian dimension of “our theology” (Bl. John Duns Scotus) and every major theological question to be the key to its resolution.
The Catholic reply has always been: by the eternal counsels of God the “Christ alone” includes Mary without confusion of persons, indeed as a means to identifying and worshiping her Son as God and Savior. For her inclusion thus is the divinely appointed instrument of His Incarnation, of His redemptive work and of its application. Whence Marian devotion, as St. Bonaventure insists in commenting the purification-presentation of Jesus and Mary, is the primary, fundamental, distinctive feature of all Christian life, thought, sanctity, joy. It is not possible in virtue of the only divine salvific dispensation to be Christ-like without being Mary-like (Paul VI, at the sanctuary of Bonaria in Sardinia, 1970), for the simple reason that God became like us in becoming like Mary, viz., her Son.
Extensive research, in the past and currently, has amply demonstrated that the doctrine now known in theology as the coredemption is no mere theological opinion, whose content at least has been explicitly asserted by the Magisterium, on occasion with the use of this title as with Pope Pius XI and Pope John Paul II. Hence there can be no question of its truth, only of the opportuneness of a definition, either because of insufficiently precise articulation, and/or because the best moment for such a definition to be maximally beneficial for the Church and the salvation of souls has not arrived.
In the light of this the major objections to the doctrine: whether these be taken to refer to its truth or to the opportuneness of its dogmatic definition, take on quite a different color. Rather than demonstrate the promotors of the definition to be “maximalists”, they serve quite effectively to rivet attention on the central place of the mystery of Mary at the foot of the cross and aside the altar in the life and thought of the Church.
The objections are many, but in great part reducible to three types or categories. The first might be dubbed the generic, in the sense that support of a definition of the coredemption rests on a concept of theology rendered obsolete by Vatican II. But how could such an assumption tirelessly repeated by the critics be true? It would invalidate Vatican II. And the complementary proposition, that Vatican II in lauching a “new style” in theology “more biblically, ecumenically, pastorally sensitive” forbade the use of terminology and methods characteristic of the preconciliar mariology and indispensable to a defense of the coredemptive thesis, appears nowhere in the documents of Vatican II. The “preconciliar” mariology was not “unbiblical, anti-ecumenical, pastorally insensitive”. Dogmatic mariology as traditionally practiced in the Church, nowhere more so than when focusing on the coredemption, is the only kind of theology which can aspire to being profoundly biblical, ecumenical and pastorally sensitive.
The second type of objection might be dubbed the ecumenical because the objectors claim coredemption poses an insurmountable obstacle to ecumenism to which the Church is now committed. Objections of this type from non-Catholics are made to demonstrate the impossibility of the doctrine; by Catholics to prove why a definition is inopportune. One version of the objection will claim that affirming the coredemption detracts from the unique, distinctive role of Jesus as Redeemer. The simplest, most telling exposure of what is wrong with the argument is to retort it: if this is so, then the title Mother of God is even more a detraction. The fact is the affirmation of the divine, virginal Maternity affirms and reveals the distinct divine person of the Child of Mary. The affirmation of the maternal Coredemption affirms and reveals the distinct character of her Child’s redemptive work.
The other version touches on the pneumatological. To proclaim Mary as Coredemptress is to put her in the place of the Holy Spirit. In reply: not to proclaim Mary as Coredemptress is to revive the old Joachimism, to divorce in practice the mission of the Holy Spirit from that of the Son, the canonical or institutional aspects of the Church from the charismatic, and in the end to permit the evil spirit to occupy the place of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. Both theoretically and practically resolution of key issues touching the bases of a Christian spirituality revolves about the relation of the Virgin to the Holy Spirit: is she in the words of St. Francis Spouse of the Holy Spirit and therefore Mother of God? Is she in the words of St. Maximilian the created Immaculate Conception because the Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception, therefore Coredemptress and Mediatrix of all graces?
The traditional Catholic affirmative in response to such questions helps us to deal with the third type of objection: cultural irrelevance of the traditional approach in mariology which converges on the mystery of the Coredemption today. It is just this affirmative which enables us to grasp the mythical character of the generation gap and cultural gulf. No such gap-gulf exists requiring a radical departure from the traditional dogmatic mariology, precisely and above all because of the IMMACULATE WOMAN of Genesis 3: 15, who is the Virgin Mother and victorious Coredemptress.
The third International Symposium on Marian Coredemption was held at Downside Abbey, August 20-26, 2002. The conferences presented at the first two symposia, both held in England, in 2000 and 2001, have been published in two volumes: Mary at the Foot of the Cross (New Bedford, MA, Academy of the Immaculate). For those who participated in the past symposia, these volumes will provide ample illustration of how the doctrine can be studied in depth and presented in a way at once traditional and contemporary, while taking account of the various cultural dimensions of this mystery touching the very center of a theology and spirituality of the cross. You can order these volumes from our online bookstore Immaculate Heart Bookstore
Paul
Monday, July 18, 2005
Antichrist ready to reveal himself?
Christina Gallagher, a stigmatist from Ireland, claims to have been given this message recently. The text may also be found at:http://www.spiritdaily.com
Paul
FOR YOUR DISCERNMENT: MESSAGE FROM ALLEGED IRISH SEER
[Below is a message alleged to come from the Virgin Mary to a widely-known Irish seer, Christina Gallagher. We submit it in the spirit of the Bible, which tells us to weigh such claims and take from them what may be good, while realizing that controversies swirl around this particular situation and that fasting is necessary to discern]
"My Children, today I speak to your hearts. I plead with you to open your hearts to Me. I am the Mother of your Saviour. I desire to help you and save you in soul. So many of you live your lives as if tomorrow will last forever."You cannot recognize the signs of the times you live in. You cannot see how the evil one is stealing the youth of your country and the world, in seduction through suicide, drugs, alcohol, lust, lack of faith and confusion."My dear children, I desire you to wake up before it is too late. Many changes will have taken place one year from now. There will be many of you caught in the web of the evil one, more deeply than you realize. Others among you will be called unprepared from your earthly life. I call you, my children, into the Light and Life of My Son, Jesus."I plead with you to hear and live My call, and to open your hearts in love, to receive the message I give you. I beg you to respond to My call as never before. Your worldly existence as you know it to be, will soon come into a great crisis."The purification is upon you, and few of you are prepared. I weep for your safety. You will see many upheavals in the world. You will experience the climate changes more and more. There will be many abnormal calamities, throughout the world. The changes in the season’s behaviour have already begun, but will increase and intensify, floods in many parts of the world beyond normal capacity, mud slides, typhoons, earthquakes and many many other abnormal and strange happenings. You have been given the gift of Pope Benedict to fulfil the work needed to be completed, but pray, pray for him."The Church of My Son, Jesus, is experiencing the labour pains of its purification. Many will run. Others will hide, like scattered sheep and My poor lambs whom they have permitted to stray. But, Jesus will shepherd His poor little lambs that are lost. "My daughter, you have endured so deeply for souls. I weep for your pain and lack of protection. I love and thank My dear children who receive the call of My Son, Jesus, in surrender, to fulfil some of My urgent works which I have asked for. Be at peace, My daughter the light has been put between you and your adversary. Soon you will be led into the battle between Light and Darkness, more intensely. Be not afraid of him who is in the world, and is antichrist, leading many souls to destruction. You have nothing to fear from him. Neither have those who follow My call, through you in Truth, to safety of soul. "Those of My dear children who have responded to the call of My Son, I tell you, be joyous, you will have life eternal. Those who have stood in mockery and gossip and were unhelpful to fulfil My message will truly find their just reward, and will experience justice in the hour of their Lord. My children who find it difficult to uproot themselves from their worldly possessions will find it impossible to permit the inrootment of the life of God in their souls."They will fall like weeds that need to be plucked from your garden. There are many who are luke warm, running to and fro causing confusion in their own hearts and the hearts of others. "My daughter, I love and bless all my children, but especially those who have helped you in your pain and endurance, thus enabling you to continue your mission for souls. They will truly receive Life in My Son and will be saved from the adversity of the evil one."One day they will be with Me in their Father’s House."My daughter, I love you in My Motherly Heart. The worlds inhabitants will endure much. Control of the beast is at hand. Oh how your lives will change through being controlled. Be not afraid I beg you, open your hearts and respond with your lives to My call. There you will find Life."I bless you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
The authentic peace of the Church
There are many Catholics who have a distorted notion of what constitutes peace within the Church. For such Catholics, it is more important to "get along" and avoid any disagreements than to promote and defend Catholic truth. However, Pope John XXIII, in Ad Petri cathedram (AAS 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93) tells us that those of us who do not accept the views of dissidents within the Church must resist such views for the sake of an authentic peace, a peace which: "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith."
Those of us who defend the Church's authentic teaching (especially in the area of sexual morality) can always expect to receive criticism from others - even some priests. This is so because these individuals do not appreciate - or in some cases even understand - the seriousness of dissent and the impact it has upon true concord and communion within the Church.
For those of us who actually listen to the Magisterium, dissent is something which must be opposed in order to safeguard such concord and communion. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, teaches us that: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work."
The choice is ours: an authentic peace in which dissent is opposed for the sake of true concord and communion or a false irenicism in which every sort of dissent from Church teaching is tolerated and those who stand with the Magisterium are labelled as "troublemakers" and "reactionaries" and accused of being "rigid" and "inflexible."
We've had almost forty years of the latter. And let's be honest, the Rodney King school of thought just hasn't worked. Let's try the Church's way. In other words, let's try Jesus' Way.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Saturday, July 16, 2005
A mes amis au Canada
A mes amis au Canada,
Si vous avez toutes les questions satisfont les envoient a:
cleghornboy@juno.com ou
frappe19751975@yahoo.com
Merci,
Paul
Harry Potter: Undermining God
LifeSiteNews.com has an excellent article on the Harry Potter books and how they undermine God while introducing impressionable young children to the world of the demonic. There is a worldwide movement and marketing effort to introduce children to the occult and to prepare them for the reign of Antichrist by promoting these books. Noted Catholic author Michael Brown has alerted his readers to the fact that Walmart was offering the latest book in the Harry Potter series for $16.66. And, according to many news accounts, the book was being delivered to many children at "the witching hour" - 12 Midnight.
There is a real prayer need here. The LifeSite article may be found here: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071508.html
Paul
Antichrist: Real Individual or Symbol of Evil?
In a letter to me dated February 10, 1999, His Excellency The Most Rev. Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, wrote:
"Thank you for your long and scholarly letter on the biblical interpretation of the 'Antichrist.' Let me give you my own interpretation as to who is the 'Antichrist.' When you and I were baptized, we put on Christ or, as it were, we were Christed. You and I are called as baptized persons to represent Christ in our world today. We are to live Christ-like lives and proclaim the Gospel of Christ. It seems to me that when we fail to do so, we become, as it were, an Antichrist. Thankfully, we believe in forgiveness and all of us have our shortcomings..Thank you for taking the time to write...Yours sincerely" etc.
Before I address the points which His Excellency made in his letter, I want to say that I am grateful for his response some 6 years ago. Unlike some Bishops who treat the laity with little or no respect, Bishop Sullivan took the time to write me a kind letter and to share his views with me. I disagree with him that there was anything "scholarly" about my letter since I'm not that enamored with myself. And so I will chalk up his compliment to plain and simple kindness.
However, with all due respect for His Excellency, I must disagree with his interpretation (and he acknowledges that it is his interpretation) of who is Antichrist. This because the Fathers and Doctors of the Church universally teach that the Antichrist will be an individual human being. And this is significant because, as the Magisterium teaches, when the Fathers are universal in their interpretation of a passage of Scripture, that interpretation is of Faith. In his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII said that:
"The Holy Fathers, are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible,...for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith."
St. Paul says in Second Thessalonians 2:3-5: "For the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple and gives himself out as if he were God. Do you remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things."
The Didache expresses this teaching as well:
"In the last days there will multiply false prophets and corruptors and they shall be changed into wolves of their flocks. Charity will be converted into hatred. There will be an increase in iniquity; men will mutually hate each other, they will persecute and betray each other and then there will appear the deceiver of the world saying he is the son of God. He will make signs and do miracles. The earth will be given into his hands and he will do such iniquities as has never before been done throughout the centuries...Therefore, what men have created will be cleansed by fire and many will be scandalized and will perish, but those who persevere in their faith will be saved from the evil one.."
It is true that Sacred Scripture also teaches us that, "..every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world." (1 John 4:3, Douay-Rheims). However, the belief of the earliest Christians (many of whom were personally taught by the Apostles), was that the final Antichrist would be an individual human being. And this belief is supported by the Universal Teaching of the Church Fathers.
Paul Anthony Melanson
"Thank you for your long and scholarly letter on the biblical interpretation of the 'Antichrist.' Let me give you my own interpretation as to who is the 'Antichrist.' When you and I were baptized, we put on Christ or, as it were, we were Christed. You and I are called as baptized persons to represent Christ in our world today. We are to live Christ-like lives and proclaim the Gospel of Christ. It seems to me that when we fail to do so, we become, as it were, an Antichrist. Thankfully, we believe in forgiveness and all of us have our shortcomings..Thank you for taking the time to write...Yours sincerely" etc.
Before I address the points which His Excellency made in his letter, I want to say that I am grateful for his response some 6 years ago. Unlike some Bishops who treat the laity with little or no respect, Bishop Sullivan took the time to write me a kind letter and to share his views with me. I disagree with him that there was anything "scholarly" about my letter since I'm not that enamored with myself. And so I will chalk up his compliment to plain and simple kindness.
However, with all due respect for His Excellency, I must disagree with his interpretation (and he acknowledges that it is his interpretation) of who is Antichrist. This because the Fathers and Doctors of the Church universally teach that the Antichrist will be an individual human being. And this is significant because, as the Magisterium teaches, when the Fathers are universal in their interpretation of a passage of Scripture, that interpretation is of Faith. In his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII said that:
"The Holy Fathers, are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible,...for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith."
St. Paul says in Second Thessalonians 2:3-5: "For the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple and gives himself out as if he were God. Do you remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things."
The Didache expresses this teaching as well:
"In the last days there will multiply false prophets and corruptors and they shall be changed into wolves of their flocks. Charity will be converted into hatred. There will be an increase in iniquity; men will mutually hate each other, they will persecute and betray each other and then there will appear the deceiver of the world saying he is the son of God. He will make signs and do miracles. The earth will be given into his hands and he will do such iniquities as has never before been done throughout the centuries...Therefore, what men have created will be cleansed by fire and many will be scandalized and will perish, but those who persevere in their faith will be saved from the evil one.."
It is true that Sacred Scripture also teaches us that, "..every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world." (1 John 4:3, Douay-Rheims). However, the belief of the earliest Christians (many of whom were personally taught by the Apostles), was that the final Antichrist would be an individual human being. And this belief is supported by the Universal Teaching of the Church Fathers.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Paving the way for Antichrist: Harry Potter
There is a global movement to promote witchcraft and sorcery and to introduce children to the world of the demonic. Please read this excellent article on the Harry Potter books which may be found at Lifesitenews.com:
Ten Arguments Against Harry Potter - By Woman Who Corresponded with Cardinal Ratzinger
Gabriele Kuby author of Harry Potter: Good or Evil
1. Harry Potter is a global long term project to change the culture. In the young generation inhibitions against magic and the occult are being destroyed. Thus, forces re-enter society which Christianity had overcome.
2. Hogwarts, the school of magic and witchcraft, is a closed world of violence and horror, of cursing and bewitching, of racist ideology, of blood sacrifice, disgust and obsession. There is an atmosphere of continuous threat, which the young reader cannot escape.
3. While Harry Potter appears in the beginning to fight against evil, in fact the similarities between him and Voldemort, the arch-evil adversary in the tale, become more and more obvious. In volume five, Harry is being obsessed by Voldemort, which leads to symptoms of personality disintegration.
4. The human world becomes degraded, the world of witches and sorcerers becomes glorified.
5. There is no positive transcendent dimension. The supernatural is entirely demonic. Devine symbols are perverted.
6. Harry Potter is no modern fairy tale. In fairy tales sorcerers and witches are unambiguous figures of evil. The hero escapes their power through the exercise of virtue. In the Harry Potter universe there is no character that endeavours consistently to achieve good. For seemingly good ends evil means are being used.
7. A (young!) reader's power of discernment of good and evil is blocked out through emotional manipulation and intellectual confusion.
8. It is an assault upon the young generation, seducing it playfully into a world of witchcraft and sorcery, filling the imagination of the young with images of a world in which evil reigns, from which there is no escape, on the contrary, it is portrayed as highly desirable.
9. Those who value plurality of opinion should resist the nearly overwhelming power of this peer pressure, which is being accomplished through a gigantic corporate and multimedia blitz--one which displays elements of totalitarian brainwashing.
10. Since through the Potter books faith in a loving God is systematically undermined, even destroyed in many young people, through false "values" and mockery of Judeo-Christian truth, the introduction of these books in schools is intolerant. Parents should refuse permission for their children to take part in Potter indoctrination for reasons of faith and conscience.See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels - Signed Letters from Cardinal Ratzinger Now Onlinehttp://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html
Paul
Friday, July 15, 2005
Newman on the laity
John Henry Cardinal Newman's idea of a sound laity:
I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputacious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well, that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity;......
- John Henry Newman
Paul
Announcement
Things have been really busy over at the Spiritual Children of Saint Rita and that's why things have been so slow at this Blog. Will return tomorrow with some more on Antichrist from the Church Fathers.
Paul
Paul
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
More on Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, back in the 1600's, foresaw that many of the Church's oldest and most venerable teachings would be challenged prior to a great chastisement:
'These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything." (Apocalypsis, Bartholomew Holzhauser, 1850).
They will seek excuses....read the following in that light:
December 24, 2002
Bishop: Sex less serious if not with a parishioner
Associated Press
CONCORD, N.H. — Questioned under oath about the church abuse scandal, New Hampshire's bishop suggested that it is less serious for a priest to have sex with someone from outside the parish than with a parishioner.
In depositions this fall, Bishop John B. McCormack said he knew the Rev. Roland Cote had had sex with a teen-age boy but noted that the boy was not a parishioner.
"You know, one is an activity where you have a trusted relationship with
a parishioner. The other is an activity where you're away from the parish and
you're off on your own," McCormack said in depositions obtained by the
Associated Press on Monday. "I'm very concerned about that; he was a young
person. But it's quite different from being with a parishioner. Questioned in
connection with lawsuits filed in Massachusetts, McCormack also acknowledged
Cote paid for the sex.
Cote has acknowledged a five- or six-year affair with the boy during the
1980s. In June, McCormack assigned Cote to a parish without informing the church
about Cote's history, later saying it was a private matter.
After the AP reported details of the investigation, Cote acknowledged the
affair and resigned last month.
Cote has said the boy was 18 when the relationship began.
Sherman gave no details of the payment and did not say how he learned about
it. Calls to Cote were not immediately returned.
McCormack, who became bishop of New Hampshire in 1998, has been dogged for
nearly a year by criticism of how he handled allegations of abuse while he was a
top aide to Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston. Law's resignation on Dec. 13
intensified calls for McCormack to step down.
"Was it brought to your attention that Father Cote had paid for sex with
this adolescent?" lawyer Robert Sherman asked McCormack in a deposition
Oct. 1.
"It was not brought to my attention at the time. I think I learned this
later, probably even last week," McCormack said.
Also this month, McCormack averted unprecented criminal charges against the
New Hampshire diocese in a settlement with the state. As part of the agreement,
he acknowledged the church's handing of abuse allegations had harmed children
Paul
'These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything." (Apocalypsis, Bartholomew Holzhauser, 1850).
They will seek excuses....read the following in that light:
December 24, 2002
Bishop: Sex less serious if not with a parishioner
Associated Press
CONCORD, N.H. — Questioned under oath about the church abuse scandal, New Hampshire's bishop suggested that it is less serious for a priest to have sex with someone from outside the parish than with a parishioner.
In depositions this fall, Bishop John B. McCormack said he knew the Rev. Roland Cote had had sex with a teen-age boy but noted that the boy was not a parishioner.
"You know, one is an activity where you have a trusted relationship with
a parishioner. The other is an activity where you're away from the parish and
you're off on your own," McCormack said in depositions obtained by the
Associated Press on Monday. "I'm very concerned about that; he was a young
person. But it's quite different from being with a parishioner. Questioned in
connection with lawsuits filed in Massachusetts, McCormack also acknowledged
Cote paid for the sex.
Cote has acknowledged a five- or six-year affair with the boy during the
1980s. In June, McCormack assigned Cote to a parish without informing the church
about Cote's history, later saying it was a private matter.
After the AP reported details of the investigation, Cote acknowledged the
affair and resigned last month.
Cote has said the boy was 18 when the relationship began.
Sherman gave no details of the payment and did not say how he learned about
it. Calls to Cote were not immediately returned.
McCormack, who became bishop of New Hampshire in 1998, has been dogged for
nearly a year by criticism of how he handled allegations of abuse while he was a
top aide to Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston. Law's resignation on Dec. 13
intensified calls for McCormack to step down.
"Was it brought to your attention that Father Cote had paid for sex with
this adolescent?" lawyer Robert Sherman asked McCormack in a deposition
Oct. 1.
"It was not brought to my attention at the time. I think I learned this
later, probably even last week," McCormack said.
Also this month, McCormack averted unprecented criminal charges against the
New Hampshire diocese in a settlement with the state. As part of the agreement,
he acknowledged the church's handing of abuse allegations had harmed children
Paul
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Partial-Birth Abortion: Medically Necessary?
On March 17, 2004, NARAL issued a press release after HB1220 was defeated (this bill would have banned partial-birth abortions in New Hampshire) in which NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire Executive Director Laura Thibault applauded the vote saying, "New Hampshire legislators clearly recognized the threat that such a ban would have posed to women's health and lives." Ms. Thibault also said that those who had supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, "continue to ignore the United States Supreme Court requirements that restrictions on abortion must include exceptions to protect the health and lives of women" and that "the true intent of this legislation was 'to restrict abortion regardless of the costs to women's health and lives."
However, as the American Life League reports in one of their articles, "In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that 'partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility.'"
On March 17, 2004, HB1220 was defeated by a vote of 189-129. One of those who voted nay (opposing this legislation to ban partial-birth abortion) was State Representative Maurice Pilotte. Does he believe, as Ms. Laura Thibault does, that partial-birth abortions are somehow medically necessary or that a ban would have posed a "threat" to women's health? If so, is he more knowledgeable than former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on this matter?
And how does one reconcile voting against a ban on partial-birth abortion (which is actually infanticide) with receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist?
I wonder if Fr. Arsenault would find this problematic?
Paul
However, as the American Life League reports in one of their articles, "In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that 'partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility.'"
On March 17, 2004, HB1220 was defeated by a vote of 189-129. One of those who voted nay (opposing this legislation to ban partial-birth abortion) was State Representative Maurice Pilotte. Does he believe, as Ms. Laura Thibault does, that partial-birth abortions are somehow medically necessary or that a ban would have posed a "threat" to women's health? If so, is he more knowledgeable than former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on this matter?
And how does one reconcile voting against a ban on partial-birth abortion (which is actually infanticide) with receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist?
I wonder if Fr. Arsenault would find this problematic?
Paul
Two Quotes
"..the U.S. Bishops Conference has numerous documents regarding the primacy of pro-life issues.." (Mary Worhington, Correspondence Assistant, Priests for Life).
"I do not consider the Senator's position on abortion to be the correct one. I cannot however allow it to become the breaking issue in deciding to support a man who I believe to be electable and who is more adequately attuned to other social issues that I consider equally important." (State Representative Maurice Pilotte).
In other words, the U.S. Bishops have said - on numerous occasions - that the pro-life issue has primacy. But Mr. Pilotte supported radical pro-abortion Senator Joseph Lieberman because he considers "other social issues" to be "equally important." In other words, Mr. Pilotte is ignoring what the U.S. Bishops are saying in this matter and prefers to follow his own agenda.
I wonder if Fr. Arsenault sees this as problematic?
Paul
"I do not consider the Senator's position on abortion to be the correct one. I cannot however allow it to become the breaking issue in deciding to support a man who I believe to be electable and who is more adequately attuned to other social issues that I consider equally important." (State Representative Maurice Pilotte).
In other words, the U.S. Bishops have said - on numerous occasions - that the pro-life issue has primacy. But Mr. Pilotte supported radical pro-abortion Senator Joseph Lieberman because he considers "other social issues" to be "equally important." In other words, Mr. Pilotte is ignoring what the U.S. Bishops are saying in this matter and prefers to follow his own agenda.
I wonder if Fr. Arsenault sees this as problematic?
Paul
More on the Bettencourt Amendment
For readers interested in learning more about the Bettencourt Amendment to SB30, I would urge you to visit this link: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20050526&Category=NEWS0202&Art... to read an article which was published on May 26, 2005.
According to this article, "Rep. David Bettencourt, R-Salem, introduced an amendment requiring teens under 18 to have a parent's permission before they could get the pill from a pharmacist." In other words, the Bettencourt Amendment would have left SB30 pretty much intact. It simply would have introduced a provision requiring underage females to first obtain a parent's permission before being able to obtain an abortifacient drug. It would have done nothing to prevent an underage female from obtaining such abortifacient drugs as long as they had parental permission.
Therefore, it is dishonest for anyone (and particularly troubling when it is a priest) to suggest that State Representative Maurice Pilotte "voted against SB30" and that the other votes he cast regarding the Bill "were an effort to defeat it." The Bettencourt Amendment was not designed to "defeat" SB30, but merely to add the above-mentioned provision. Again, this proposed amendment failed by a vote of 225-141. And SB30, as the above- mentioned article makes clear, passed by a "comfortable margin" (195-169).
Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians around, has said that: "There are two reasons why Catholics should believe that contraception is always wrong. First, the Church teaches it. Indeed, because the Church has proposed this teaching constantly and most firmly, her infallibility in day-to-day teaching on matters of faith and morals appears to guarantee it (see CMP, 35. D-E). Second, in his work on the theology of the body, John Paul II has provided careful analyses of the relevant scriptural data and drawn the conclusion that the moral norm excluding contraception 'belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God: also from this point of view, it could not be different, but solely what is handed down by Tradition and the Magisterium.'"
It must be remembered that the so-called "morning-after pill" - which SB30 dealt with - is an abortifacient drug besides being considered a "contraceptive." Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2270, teaches us that: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life" (citing CDF, Donum vitae 1,1.).
The Bettencourt Amendment would not have altered SB30 in any significant way. The question remains: should a Catholic politician compromise with the culture of death? Or should he or she vote against any piece of legislation and any amendment which leaves intact language which provides for direct abortion or abortifacient drugs?
Do we really respect human life? Or are we willing to compromise with the culture of death?
Paul Anthony Melanson
According to this article, "Rep. David Bettencourt, R-Salem, introduced an amendment requiring teens under 18 to have a parent's permission before they could get the pill from a pharmacist." In other words, the Bettencourt Amendment would have left SB30 pretty much intact. It simply would have introduced a provision requiring underage females to first obtain a parent's permission before being able to obtain an abortifacient drug. It would have done nothing to prevent an underage female from obtaining such abortifacient drugs as long as they had parental permission.
Therefore, it is dishonest for anyone (and particularly troubling when it is a priest) to suggest that State Representative Maurice Pilotte "voted against SB30" and that the other votes he cast regarding the Bill "were an effort to defeat it." The Bettencourt Amendment was not designed to "defeat" SB30, but merely to add the above-mentioned provision. Again, this proposed amendment failed by a vote of 225-141. And SB30, as the above- mentioned article makes clear, passed by a "comfortable margin" (195-169).
Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians around, has said that: "There are two reasons why Catholics should believe that contraception is always wrong. First, the Church teaches it. Indeed, because the Church has proposed this teaching constantly and most firmly, her infallibility in day-to-day teaching on matters of faith and morals appears to guarantee it (see CMP, 35. D-E). Second, in his work on the theology of the body, John Paul II has provided careful analyses of the relevant scriptural data and drawn the conclusion that the moral norm excluding contraception 'belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God: also from this point of view, it could not be different, but solely what is handed down by Tradition and the Magisterium.'"
It must be remembered that the so-called "morning-after pill" - which SB30 dealt with - is an abortifacient drug besides being considered a "contraceptive." Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2270, teaches us that: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life" (citing CDF, Donum vitae 1,1.).
The Bettencourt Amendment would not have altered SB30 in any significant way. The question remains: should a Catholic politician compromise with the culture of death? Or should he or she vote against any piece of legislation and any amendment which leaves intact language which provides for direct abortion or abortifacient drugs?
Do we really respect human life? Or are we willing to compromise with the culture of death?
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, July 08, 2005
State Representative Maurice Pilotte and SB30
In an e-mail written to a Catholic laywoman regarding the voting record of State Representative Maurice Pilotte of Manchester, New Hampshire, Fr. Edward Arsenault of the Diocese of Manchester wrote that: "Rep. Pilotte voted against SB30. The other procedural votes were an effort to defeat it.."
Fr. Arsenault was referring to the fact that Mr. Pilotte voted yea on vote number 119 (the Bettencourt Amendment) as well as vote number 120 and vote number 123 on SB30 and that he voted nay on vote number 121.
But the Bettencourt Amendment was just what it claimed to be - an amendment. An amendment is defined as "a statement that is added to or revises or improves a proposal or document (a bill or constitution etc). The Bettencourt Amendment was not an attempt to "defeat" SB30, it was an attempt rather to revise SB30 in someway. In what way? Representative David Bettencourt, a Republican from Salem, New Hampshire, introduced this amendment which would have (it was defeated 225-141) required teenage girls under the age of 18 to have a parents permission before they could get the pill from a pharmacist. This amendment would not have prohibited underage females from obtaining access to so-called "emergency contraception," it simply would have required them to get their parent's permission first.
State Representative Maurice Pilotte voted yea on the Bettencourt Amendment (vote 119) but voted nay on vote 121. What can we deduce from this? It would appear that Mr. Pilotte's only problem with SB30 is the fact that it allows underage females to obtain access to abortifacient drugs without parental notification. This is why he voted yea on the Bettencourt Amendment and nay on vote number 121.
Fr. Arsenault also accused the laywoman in question of "calumny" because she firmly believes (and has said so) that Mr. Pilotte is not pro-life and shouldn't be receiving Holy Eucharist and that this situation constitutes a scandal. But doesn't it? Isn't contraception always morally wrong? Why would State Representative Maurice Pilotte vote yea for the Bettencourt Amendment? After all, this Amendment would not have barred underage females (or any female for that matter) from getting their hands on abortifacient drugs. It would have merely prohibited underage females who didn't first obtain a parents permission from getting them.
The laywoman who wrote Fr. Arsenault also made mention of how Representative Pilotte voted against HB1220 in 2004 - which would have banned partial-birth abortion (infanticide) and how he publicly supported the Presidential candidacy of Senator Joseph Lieberman during the last presidential elections. Readers will recall the Senator's total advocacy of what he says is a "woman's right to choose" and his deeply disturbing voting record.
What are we to make of all of this? Readers might also recall how horrified many Catholics were when they discovered that a priest from Jaffrey, New Hampshire had been having sexual relations with a male in his teens and the Diocese of Manchester attempted to downplay this by asserting that the sex was "consensual."
Dear Jesus, have mercy on this troubled diocese.
Paul
Fr. Arsenault was referring to the fact that Mr. Pilotte voted yea on vote number 119 (the Bettencourt Amendment) as well as vote number 120 and vote number 123 on SB30 and that he voted nay on vote number 121.
But the Bettencourt Amendment was just what it claimed to be - an amendment. An amendment is defined as "a statement that is added to or revises or improves a proposal or document (a bill or constitution etc). The Bettencourt Amendment was not an attempt to "defeat" SB30, it was an attempt rather to revise SB30 in someway. In what way? Representative David Bettencourt, a Republican from Salem, New Hampshire, introduced this amendment which would have (it was defeated 225-141) required teenage girls under the age of 18 to have a parents permission before they could get the pill from a pharmacist. This amendment would not have prohibited underage females from obtaining access to so-called "emergency contraception," it simply would have required them to get their parent's permission first.
State Representative Maurice Pilotte voted yea on the Bettencourt Amendment (vote 119) but voted nay on vote 121. What can we deduce from this? It would appear that Mr. Pilotte's only problem with SB30 is the fact that it allows underage females to obtain access to abortifacient drugs without parental notification. This is why he voted yea on the Bettencourt Amendment and nay on vote number 121.
Fr. Arsenault also accused the laywoman in question of "calumny" because she firmly believes (and has said so) that Mr. Pilotte is not pro-life and shouldn't be receiving Holy Eucharist and that this situation constitutes a scandal. But doesn't it? Isn't contraception always morally wrong? Why would State Representative Maurice Pilotte vote yea for the Bettencourt Amendment? After all, this Amendment would not have barred underage females (or any female for that matter) from getting their hands on abortifacient drugs. It would have merely prohibited underage females who didn't first obtain a parents permission from getting them.
The laywoman who wrote Fr. Arsenault also made mention of how Representative Pilotte voted against HB1220 in 2004 - which would have banned partial-birth abortion (infanticide) and how he publicly supported the Presidential candidacy of Senator Joseph Lieberman during the last presidential elections. Readers will recall the Senator's total advocacy of what he says is a "woman's right to choose" and his deeply disturbing voting record.
What are we to make of all of this? Readers might also recall how horrified many Catholics were when they discovered that a priest from Jaffrey, New Hampshire had been having sexual relations with a male in his teens and the Diocese of Manchester attempted to downplay this by asserting that the sex was "consensual."
Dear Jesus, have mercy on this troubled diocese.
Paul
Catholic politicians and the culture of death
Please read the following exchange between a layman and State Representative Maurice Pilotte which may be found at: www.faithfulvoice.com:
Please read the response of State Representative Maurice Pilotte at the bottom of page
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
From Roger V
To maurice.pilotte@leg.state.nh.us
Subject Your support of Senator Joseph Liebeman
Dear Mr. Pilotte,
Shame on you for supporting Senator Joseph Lieberman, a senator with a troubling record of promoting abortion on demand. As one who professes to be Catholic, I don't see how you can reconcile your support of the senator with your Catholic Faith.
It may interest you to know that your support of the senator hasn't gone unnoticed by Roman Catholics in New Hampshire. In fact, you are featured at a very popular Catholic web site: www.faithfulvoice.com
It is my hope and prayer that you will at least have the integrity to remove yourself from the office you hold at St. Therese's Parish in Manchester.
Respectfully,
Roger V , NH
Date Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
From John
Subject The Pilotte Family of Manchester
Dear Sirs,
Mr. Melanson is right on target as usual when he say that Gloria Pilotte (a supporter of Senator Joseph Lieberman) is on the wrong track since the Senator is extremist in his pro-abortion positions.
What is even more disturbing is that her husband, Maurice Pilotte, is a State Representative from the Queen City who is lending his support to the Lieberman Campaign while serving as Finance Chair for St. Therese's Parish in the city. This is simply scandalous.
Moreover, Mr. Pilotte has voted against a pro-life amendment here in the Granite State.
Where is Bishop McCormack in all of this?
John , Manchetsrer , NH
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
From Roger V
Once again, a politician who says "Personally I'm opposed to abortion but..."
It is obvious from his response that Mr. Pilotte is not serious about protecting the unborn. The abortion issue is the most serious issue in any campaign. But this State Representative refuses to acknowledge this fact.
His attitude is no different than that of Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts. For politicians like Senator Kennedy and State Representative Maurice Pilotte, economics takes precedent over human life. But what does it profit a man to gain the whole world....you know the rest.
Roger
Dear Mr. Vaste,
Thank your for your message regarding my support for Sen. Lieberman.
Yes I am a catholic. Yes I am pro-life as you may ascertain from checking
my voting record in this first year of my first term in the Legislature.
Yes I am a supporter of Sen. Lieberman. Yes I do acknowledge that his
position on the sanctity of life is different from mine.
I have chosen to support Sen Lieberman on the basis of his overall
commitment to issues that are also important to all of us: education,
social services for the old and the weak, a willingness to recognize that
the tax cuts that have been initiated under the current administration have
become a burden to all because of the tremendous needs for credit that will
have to be taken to support the increasing national debt and which will make
it all but impossible to consider making changes necessary to the medicare
system if it is to be responsive not only to the current beneficiaries but
to all upcoming generations.
I do not consider the Senator's position on abortion to be the correct one.
I cannot however allow it to become the breaking issue in deciding to
support a man who I believe to be electable and who is more adequately
attuned to other social issues that I consider equally important to the
quality of life for elderly, families and people in the adult population.
M. Pilotte
Rogerπs response :
Dear , Mr. Pilotte,
Your attitude is not unlike that of the citizenry of Germany under Adolph Hitler. Hitler did much to improve the German economy and the "quality of life" for Germans when he first came to power. Unfortunately, while "quality of life" improved for some, Jews were being rounded up and packed into concentration camps to suffer as slaves of the Third Reich until they were no longer "useful" and would be tortured and exterminated.
As one who professes to be Catholic, you must have heard the phrase "consistent life ethic." I would suggest a thorough read of Evangelium Vitae, the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Your attitude of "personally I'm opposed to abortion but..." just doesn't wash. Is this what you will tell Jesus? I wonder if He will understand your philosophy?
In Christ,
Roger Vaste
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:01:02 EDT
From Ann L I NY
To Roger@FaithfulVoice.com
Subject PILOTTE'S SUPPORT OF LIEBERMAN
Roger, your clear and concise analogy of Mr. Pilotte's support of Senator Lieberman
to that of the citizen's of Germany endorsement of Adolf Hitler is excellent!
God Bless you....Ann, LI,NY
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:45:08 EDT
From Paul
To maid@faithfulvoice.com
Subject Ethical Relativism
There are Catholics who, while maintaining that they are personally opposed to the practice of abortion, believe that it would be morally wrong for them to attempt to prohibit its practice. These Catholics insist that it would be wrong if they allowed their personal religious convictions to influence their political decisions.
However, this ethical relativism has been clearly rejected by Pope John Paul II: "..it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties, the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere...At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance." (Evangelium Vitae, Nos 69, 70).
Relying on this flawed ethical relativism, some politicians attempt to wash their hands of the blood of the unborn and to justify their compromise with the culture of death. To such hardened hearts, the words of Pope John Paul II cry out: "The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement...Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil....Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12)." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 74).
Paul Anthony Melanson
FaithfulVoice NH
Comments to Roger@FaithfulVoice.com
Paul
Please read the response of State Representative Maurice Pilotte at the bottom of page
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
From Roger V
To maurice.pilotte@leg.state.nh.us
Subject Your support of Senator Joseph Liebeman
Dear Mr. Pilotte,
Shame on you for supporting Senator Joseph Lieberman, a senator with a troubling record of promoting abortion on demand. As one who professes to be Catholic, I don't see how you can reconcile your support of the senator with your Catholic Faith.
It may interest you to know that your support of the senator hasn't gone unnoticed by Roman Catholics in New Hampshire. In fact, you are featured at a very popular Catholic web site: www.faithfulvoice.com
It is my hope and prayer that you will at least have the integrity to remove yourself from the office you hold at St. Therese's Parish in Manchester.
Respectfully,
Roger V , NH
Date Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
From John
Subject The Pilotte Family of Manchester
Dear Sirs,
Mr. Melanson is right on target as usual when he say that Gloria Pilotte (a supporter of Senator Joseph Lieberman) is on the wrong track since the Senator is extremist in his pro-abortion positions.
What is even more disturbing is that her husband, Maurice Pilotte, is a State Representative from the Queen City who is lending his support to the Lieberman Campaign while serving as Finance Chair for St. Therese's Parish in the city. This is simply scandalous.
Moreover, Mr. Pilotte has voted against a pro-life amendment here in the Granite State.
Where is Bishop McCormack in all of this?
John , Manchetsrer , NH
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
From Roger V
Once again, a politician who says "Personally I'm opposed to abortion but..."
It is obvious from his response that Mr. Pilotte is not serious about protecting the unborn. The abortion issue is the most serious issue in any campaign. But this State Representative refuses to acknowledge this fact.
His attitude is no different than that of Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts. For politicians like Senator Kennedy and State Representative Maurice Pilotte, economics takes precedent over human life. But what does it profit a man to gain the whole world....you know the rest.
Roger
Dear Mr. Vaste,
Thank your for your message regarding my support for Sen. Lieberman.
Yes I am a catholic. Yes I am pro-life as you may ascertain from checking
my voting record in this first year of my first term in the Legislature.
Yes I am a supporter of Sen. Lieberman. Yes I do acknowledge that his
position on the sanctity of life is different from mine.
I have chosen to support Sen Lieberman on the basis of his overall
commitment to issues that are also important to all of us: education,
social services for the old and the weak, a willingness to recognize that
the tax cuts that have been initiated under the current administration have
become a burden to all because of the tremendous needs for credit that will
have to be taken to support the increasing national debt and which will make
it all but impossible to consider making changes necessary to the medicare
system if it is to be responsive not only to the current beneficiaries but
to all upcoming generations.
I do not consider the Senator's position on abortion to be the correct one.
I cannot however allow it to become the breaking issue in deciding to
support a man who I believe to be electable and who is more adequately
attuned to other social issues that I consider equally important to the
quality of life for elderly, families and people in the adult population.
M. Pilotte
Rogerπs response :
Dear , Mr. Pilotte,
Your attitude is not unlike that of the citizenry of Germany under Adolph Hitler. Hitler did much to improve the German economy and the "quality of life" for Germans when he first came to power. Unfortunately, while "quality of life" improved for some, Jews were being rounded up and packed into concentration camps to suffer as slaves of the Third Reich until they were no longer "useful" and would be tortured and exterminated.
As one who professes to be Catholic, you must have heard the phrase "consistent life ethic." I would suggest a thorough read of Evangelium Vitae, the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Your attitude of "personally I'm opposed to abortion but..." just doesn't wash. Is this what you will tell Jesus? I wonder if He will understand your philosophy?
In Christ,
Roger Vaste
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:01:02 EDT
From Ann L I NY
To Roger@FaithfulVoice.com
Subject PILOTTE'S SUPPORT OF LIEBERMAN
Roger, your clear and concise analogy of Mr. Pilotte's support of Senator Lieberman
to that of the citizen's of Germany endorsement of Adolf Hitler is excellent!
God Bless you....Ann, LI,NY
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:45:08 EDT
From Paul
To maid@faithfulvoice.com
Subject Ethical Relativism
There are Catholics who, while maintaining that they are personally opposed to the practice of abortion, believe that it would be morally wrong for them to attempt to prohibit its practice. These Catholics insist that it would be wrong if they allowed their personal religious convictions to influence their political decisions.
However, this ethical relativism has been clearly rejected by Pope John Paul II: "..it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties, the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere...At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance." (Evangelium Vitae, Nos 69, 70).
Relying on this flawed ethical relativism, some politicians attempt to wash their hands of the blood of the unborn and to justify their compromise with the culture of death. To such hardened hearts, the words of Pope John Paul II cry out: "The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement...Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil....Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12)." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 74).
Paul Anthony Melanson
FaithfulVoice NH
Comments to Roger@FaithfulVoice.com
Paul
Vatican reminds Catholics to confess regularly to receive worthily
The question remains: When will priests such as Rev. Edward Arsenault begin to take this seriously? How much longer will they make excuses for Catholic politicians who promote and support the culture of death?
Vatican criticizes Catholics who receive Communion without confessionNICOLE WINFIELDAssociated Press
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican singled out divorcees who remarry and Catholic politicians who support abortion on Thursday in criticizing the faithful who continue to receive Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin.
The lament came in a new document on the Eucharist that details abuses of the sacrament and the need for better instruction to ensure it remains sacred. The 85-page text is the working draft of a final document that will be developed during the global synod, or meeting, of bishops Oct. 2-23 in Rome.
The paper covers a range of issues related to the Eucharist: It suggests, for example, that Latin be used during international liturgical gatherings so all priests involved can understand the proceedings, and it suggests that parishes consider using more Gregorian chants to prevent more "profane" types of music from being played.
It calls for priests not to be "showmen" who draw attention to themselves and says lay people can have an important but "minimal" presence in Masses. It says the tabernacle - which holds the bread and wine held by Catholics to be the body and blood of Christ - should have a prominent place in the church and not be shunted off to a corner.
Most significantly, though, the document laments the fact that fewer and fewer Catholics are going to Mass on Sundays - in some countries, only 5 percent of the faithful attend - and that fewer Catholics are going to confession.
As a result, many Catholics are living in a state of mortal sin when they receive Communion, it said. The Church defines sin as a free and deliberate violation of God's law; a mortal sin is one that involves a "grave violation of God's law" and "deliberate consent." Catholics can repent their sins by confessing them to a priest.
"The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion without even thinking that they might be in a state of mortal sin," the document said. "As a result, the receiving of Holy Communion by those who are divorced and civilly remarried is a common occurrence in various countries."
It noted that confession isn't always available to the faithful because of the acute shortage of priests in parts of the globe, but said the sacrament nevertheless was necessary. It cited statistics showing there was one priest for every 1,797 Catholics in 1978 compared to one priest for every 2,677 Catholics in 2003.
The document, "The Eucharist: source and summit of the life and mission of the church," was written starting in 2004 based on responses received by bishops from around the world reporting on their own experiences. It stresses that it is not a theological treatise on the Eucharist and in fact it restates church teaching on most key issues.
In one section, for example, the document criticized the faithful who support Catholic politicians who themselves back abortion and other policies contrary to church teaching.
"Some receive Communion while denying the teachings of the church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," it said.
"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace."
The issue was highlighted during the U.S. presidential election campaign after St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said he would deny the Eucharist to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights.
Vatican criticizes Catholics who receive Communion without confessionNICOLE WINFIELDAssociated Press
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican singled out divorcees who remarry and Catholic politicians who support abortion on Thursday in criticizing the faithful who continue to receive Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin.
The lament came in a new document on the Eucharist that details abuses of the sacrament and the need for better instruction to ensure it remains sacred. The 85-page text is the working draft of a final document that will be developed during the global synod, or meeting, of bishops Oct. 2-23 in Rome.
The paper covers a range of issues related to the Eucharist: It suggests, for example, that Latin be used during international liturgical gatherings so all priests involved can understand the proceedings, and it suggests that parishes consider using more Gregorian chants to prevent more "profane" types of music from being played.
It calls for priests not to be "showmen" who draw attention to themselves and says lay people can have an important but "minimal" presence in Masses. It says the tabernacle - which holds the bread and wine held by Catholics to be the body and blood of Christ - should have a prominent place in the church and not be shunted off to a corner.
Most significantly, though, the document laments the fact that fewer and fewer Catholics are going to Mass on Sundays - in some countries, only 5 percent of the faithful attend - and that fewer Catholics are going to confession.
As a result, many Catholics are living in a state of mortal sin when they receive Communion, it said. The Church defines sin as a free and deliberate violation of God's law; a mortal sin is one that involves a "grave violation of God's law" and "deliberate consent." Catholics can repent their sins by confessing them to a priest.
"The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion without even thinking that they might be in a state of mortal sin," the document said. "As a result, the receiving of Holy Communion by those who are divorced and civilly remarried is a common occurrence in various countries."
It noted that confession isn't always available to the faithful because of the acute shortage of priests in parts of the globe, but said the sacrament nevertheless was necessary. It cited statistics showing there was one priest for every 1,797 Catholics in 1978 compared to one priest for every 2,677 Catholics in 2003.
The document, "The Eucharist: source and summit of the life and mission of the church," was written starting in 2004 based on responses received by bishops from around the world reporting on their own experiences. It stresses that it is not a theological treatise on the Eucharist and in fact it restates church teaching on most key issues.
In one section, for example, the document criticized the faithful who support Catholic politicians who themselves back abortion and other policies contrary to church teaching.
"Some receive Communion while denying the teachings of the church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," it said.
"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace."
The issue was highlighted during the U.S. presidential election campaign after St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said he would deny the Eucharist to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Pope Benedict XVI and "Cafeteria Catholicism."
Pope Benedict XVI speaks out against "pick-and-choose-Catholicism"
Pope Benedict decries “cafeteria Catholicism”
Vatican City, Jul. 06, 2005 (CNA) - Speaking on the newly released Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI stressed the need for Catholics to lovingly embrace the whole of the faith.
"Dear brothers and sisters”, he said, “how necessary it is today at the dawn of the third millennium for the entire Catholic community to proclaim, teach and witness to the entire truth of Catholic faith, doctrine and morals in a unanimous and harmonious manner!"
The Holy Father added that the Compendium’s completion happened to fall in conjunction with the announcement of John Paul II’s beatification process “by divine providence.”
The late pontiff commissioned the Compendium in …to complement the dense, but groundbreaking Catechism of the Catholic Church, compiled in large part by Benedict XVI, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
In 1987, John Paul told a gathering of the U.S. bishops that, "It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage.”
“It is sometimes claimed”, he said, “that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic,' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere. "
The Pope's words are clear - very clear. But those who prefer to dissent from Church teaching, those who prefer their own will over God's Holy Will, will no doubt continue to ignore Christ's Vicar. Pray for them!
Paul
Pope Benedict decries “cafeteria Catholicism”
Vatican City, Jul. 06, 2005 (CNA) - Speaking on the newly released Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI stressed the need for Catholics to lovingly embrace the whole of the faith.
"Dear brothers and sisters”, he said, “how necessary it is today at the dawn of the third millennium for the entire Catholic community to proclaim, teach and witness to the entire truth of Catholic faith, doctrine and morals in a unanimous and harmonious manner!"
The Holy Father added that the Compendium’s completion happened to fall in conjunction with the announcement of John Paul II’s beatification process “by divine providence.”
The late pontiff commissioned the Compendium in …to complement the dense, but groundbreaking Catechism of the Catholic Church, compiled in large part by Benedict XVI, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
In 1987, John Paul told a gathering of the U.S. bishops that, "It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage.”
“It is sometimes claimed”, he said, “that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic,' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere. "
The Pope's words are clear - very clear. But those who prefer to dissent from Church teaching, those who prefer their own will over God's Holy Will, will no doubt continue to ignore Christ's Vicar. Pray for them!
Paul
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Dans le temple de mon Coeur...
Dans le temple de mon Coeur Immacule, je vous forme de plus en plus a un profond silence. En ces temps ou mon adversaire reussit a seduire l'humanite par les paroles et ou le fracas de voix et d'images fait du monde une nouvelle tour de Babel, vous etes appeles a donner un temoignage de profond silence. Silence pour accueillir la seule parole de Dieu; silence pour la mediter dans votre coeur et la garder evec amour; silence pour la vivre et pour la donnera tous dans la lumiere de son integrite. Parlez donc par la vie. La vie devient votre parole. Et les ames assoiffees la recoivent comme une rosee celeste qui descend pour donner lumiere et vie dans l'immense desert d'une si grande aridite. (Aux Pretres, les fils de predilection de la Vierge).
Paul
Authentic Peace
Every now and again, I receive criticism from another Catholic who accuses me of "lacking peace" simply because I defend the Church's authentic teaching on a variety of issues and because I oppose dissent from the same. These confused Catholics have a distorted notion of what constitutes "peace" and are often motivated by guilt which stems from their own refusal to live up to their duty, their responsibility, to both defend and promote the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
I never lose any sleep over these asinine criticisms. However, for the sake of those faithful Catholics who take their responsibility to defend and promote the Church's authentic teaching seriously, I submit the following. While it can be constructive (and even necessary) for people to dissent from the official policies of a democratic society and even to resist such policies, because these policies are only grounded in a human consensus, within the Church it's a different story.
How so? The policies of the Church are not merely grounded in a human consensus. They are grounded on faith and directed toward salvation. Therefore, dissent is a tactic which is not appropriate within the Church. In fact, dissent within the Church is only divisive. Dissent from the constant and most firm of Church teaching is an attack on truth. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40, AAS, 82 (1990) 1568, OR, 2 July 1990, 4.).
Some will still object: "But even if people dissent from Church teaching, that's not our concern. Leave them to God. We shouldn't say anything for the sake of peace. They will come to the truth in God's time." What of this? Is this an authentic peace? Well, no. In the words of Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured and peacable Pontiff, a lover of peace, an authentic peace, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).
There you have it. The Church's understanding of peace. The next time a chicken Catholic levels an accusation against you of betraying peace simply because you defend and promote the Church's Magisterial teaching, remind them that they are in reality judging your interior dispositions. Remind them as well that perfect love casts out all fear and that the Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it. If this doesn't work, pray for them while letting their childish criticism roll off your back.
Mother Teresa used to say that people will always be around who will question your motives and, with an air of "superiority," castigate you for the good you do. Do good anyway. And on the Day of Judgment, these people can explain to Jesus not only why they refused to promote and defend Catholic teaching (which is their responsibility as a baptized Catholic), but why they even attempted to discourage faithful Catholics from their mission.
Paul Anthony Melanson
I never lose any sleep over these asinine criticisms. However, for the sake of those faithful Catholics who take their responsibility to defend and promote the Church's authentic teaching seriously, I submit the following. While it can be constructive (and even necessary) for people to dissent from the official policies of a democratic society and even to resist such policies, because these policies are only grounded in a human consensus, within the Church it's a different story.
How so? The policies of the Church are not merely grounded in a human consensus. They are grounded on faith and directed toward salvation. Therefore, dissent is a tactic which is not appropriate within the Church. In fact, dissent within the Church is only divisive. Dissent from the constant and most firm of Church teaching is an attack on truth. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40, AAS, 82 (1990) 1568, OR, 2 July 1990, 4.).
Some will still object: "But even if people dissent from Church teaching, that's not our concern. Leave them to God. We shouldn't say anything for the sake of peace. They will come to the truth in God's time." What of this? Is this an authentic peace? Well, no. In the words of Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured and peacable Pontiff, a lover of peace, an authentic peace, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).
There you have it. The Church's understanding of peace. The next time a chicken Catholic levels an accusation against you of betraying peace simply because you defend and promote the Church's Magisterial teaching, remind them that they are in reality judging your interior dispositions. Remind them as well that perfect love casts out all fear and that the Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it. If this doesn't work, pray for them while letting their childish criticism roll off your back.
Mother Teresa used to say that people will always be around who will question your motives and, with an air of "superiority," castigate you for the good you do. Do good anyway. And on the Day of Judgment, these people can explain to Jesus not only why they refused to promote and defend Catholic teaching (which is their responsibility as a baptized Catholic), but why they even attempted to discourage faithful Catholics from their mission.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Pope Benedict XVI and the Jewish People
Mr. Michael Brown is carrying this story at his website: www.spiritdaily.com :
By Associated PressJuly 5, 2005, 6:13 PM EDT
VATICAN CITY -- German-born Pope Benedict XVI will say prayers in Hebrew when he visits the synagogue in Cologne, Germany, that was destroyed by the Nazis, a cardinal organizing the trip said Tuesday. Jewish representatives invited the pope to visit while he is in Germany in August for the Roman Catholic Church's World Youth Day and Benedict replied, '"I will come,"' said Cologne Cardinal Joachim Meisner.
The visit will include a prayer service in which the psalms will be "prayed," the cardinal said. "We have learned them in Hebrew." Since his April 19 election as pope, the German-born Benedict has reached out to Jews while denouncing crimes by the Nazis. He served in the Hitler Youth organization as a teen and later deserted from the German army in the waning days of World War II. "We (the Germans) carry our wounds up to this day, and sometimes they are still bleeding wounds," Meisner said of World War II and the Holocaust. In that context, and that of the first German pope in 500 years, the cardinal said the visit becomes an "unequivocal symbol to our elder brothers and sisters" that the Holocaust "must never happen again." Jewish leaders have praised Benedict for his efforts to improve relations between Catholic and Jews during the many years Benedict worked in the Vatican before becoming pope. Benedict will visit Cologne from Aug. 18-21, a trip originally planned by the late John Paul II.
Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press
The Church continues to reach out to the Jewish People. Even while some who profess to be Catholic promote anti-Semitism. Our Lord told us that we would know a tree by its fruit. Amen.
Paul
By Associated PressJuly 5, 2005, 6:13 PM EDT
VATICAN CITY -- German-born Pope Benedict XVI will say prayers in Hebrew when he visits the synagogue in Cologne, Germany, that was destroyed by the Nazis, a cardinal organizing the trip said Tuesday. Jewish representatives invited the pope to visit while he is in Germany in August for the Roman Catholic Church's World Youth Day and Benedict replied, '"I will come,"' said Cologne Cardinal Joachim Meisner.
The visit will include a prayer service in which the psalms will be "prayed," the cardinal said. "We have learned them in Hebrew." Since his April 19 election as pope, the German-born Benedict has reached out to Jews while denouncing crimes by the Nazis. He served in the Hitler Youth organization as a teen and later deserted from the German army in the waning days of World War II. "We (the Germans) carry our wounds up to this day, and sometimes they are still bleeding wounds," Meisner said of World War II and the Holocaust. In that context, and that of the first German pope in 500 years, the cardinal said the visit becomes an "unequivocal symbol to our elder brothers and sisters" that the Holocaust "must never happen again." Jewish leaders have praised Benedict for his efforts to improve relations between Catholic and Jews during the many years Benedict worked in the Vatican before becoming pope. Benedict will visit Cologne from Aug. 18-21, a trip originally planned by the late John Paul II.
Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press
The Church continues to reach out to the Jewish People. Even while some who profess to be Catholic promote anti-Semitism. Our Lord told us that we would know a tree by its fruit. Amen.
Paul
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Kevin Symonds: Faithful Catholic
I would urge readers of this Blog to visit: www.spiritdaily.com and to click on the link which takes one to the website of Kevin Symonds, a graduate student at Franciscan University of Steubenville and a contributor to: www.faithfulvoice.com
Mr. Symonds is discerning a religious vocation. The Church needs young men like him who stand ready to defend Magisterial teaching and who do so unapologetically.
God bless him!
Paul
Mr. Symonds is discerning a religious vocation. The Church needs young men like him who stand ready to defend Magisterial teaching and who do so unapologetically.
God bless him!
Paul
The Catechism and the Jewish People
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 597, teaches us that: "The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept 'the ignorance' of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: 'His blood be on us and on our children!' a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
'...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture." (Citing Nostra Aetate, No. 4).
The Catechism goes on to remind us that all sinners (that's all of us) were the authors of Christ's Passion (CCC, 598).
This is why it is so disturbing that the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire continues to carry anti-Semitic articles at its website and still has not disassociated itself from another Feeneyite website: www.fatherfeeney.org which contains links to various anti-Semitic hate groups (one of which has a picture of what is reportedly a Jewish man who has just been lynched). This website also contains many links to pornography as well as articles which are highly vicious and extremely anti-Semitic.
Hatred has no place in the life of one who is authentically Catholic. Pope John Paul II codemned anti-Semitism on many occasions and likewise his successor Pope Benedict XVI has reached out to the Jewish People. As another Pope Benedict once said, "Spiritually we are Semites."
Karl Keating was right. The fact that this group in Richmond has not disassociated itself from the other Feeneyite website would indicate much about where these people are coming from.
Pray for them!
Paul
'...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture." (Citing Nostra Aetate, No. 4).
The Catechism goes on to remind us that all sinners (that's all of us) were the authors of Christ's Passion (CCC, 598).
This is why it is so disturbing that the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire continues to carry anti-Semitic articles at its website and still has not disassociated itself from another Feeneyite website: www.fatherfeeney.org which contains links to various anti-Semitic hate groups (one of which has a picture of what is reportedly a Jewish man who has just been lynched). This website also contains many links to pornography as well as articles which are highly vicious and extremely anti-Semitic.
Hatred has no place in the life of one who is authentically Catholic. Pope John Paul II codemned anti-Semitism on many occasions and likewise his successor Pope Benedict XVI has reached out to the Jewish People. As another Pope Benedict once said, "Spiritually we are Semites."
Karl Keating was right. The fact that this group in Richmond has not disassociated itself from the other Feeneyite website would indicate much about where these people are coming from.
Pray for them!
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
