June 20th, 2007
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Tuesday issued a “Ten Commandments” for motorists to keep them on the road to salvation, warning drivers against the sins of road rage, abuse of alcohol or even simple rudeness. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_road_rage
I had a discussion with a friend of mine on the preceding article.
When I read the article I sent him a, little known, teaching from the Catechism of The Catholic Church (CCC), that speeding can be a mortal sin. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#II
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
Here is what he sent me, in reply.
“BUT to drive recklessly is a mortal sin??? that is sick! all my life i thought a mortal sin was an XTRTEMELY serious infraction like nothing short of murder. u know something that only the worst of the worst could ever possibly commit. But thanks to your quoting of the catlic chrch “rules” i feel “mortal” sins have been cheapened to the point of making them meaningless. i mean to put murder, & rape in the same category as reckless driving and adultry is to me just ridiculous and further degrades the chrches credibility in my book.
sorry but i had to say it after u said it was a mortal sin…… all i asked was if ya think the popes driver always obeys the limit and not speaking of emergencies,”
This is what I have to say to anyone who may think as my friend does. When mankind holds the lives, health and welfare of other humans in contempt that is a “grave” - “mortal” (as the Bible puts it, 1 John 5:16-17; James 1:15), sin. If I through my own lack of respect for another person’s dignity and welfare, use that person’s body in a sinful contemptuous way then it is a Mortal Sin. If some one has a contemptuous attitude for those around him and drives recklessly so as to endanger their lives needlessly, then it is a Mortal Sin.
To take human life or to use human life with contempt is a “grave” offense against God!
To quote my friend again: “all my life i thought a mortal sin was an XTRTEMELY serious infraction like nothing short of murder”
Treating those around you as though they were nothing more then a rag to sop up the dirt on your garage floor, is an “extremely serious infraction”!
Here are some other statements from the CCC that may help to clarify God’s teaching.
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.
The Son hurt’s the eyes of those who wish to remain in Darkness!
Showing posts with label catechism of the catholic church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label catechism of the catholic church. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
New museum says dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark
May 27th, 2007
A ‘pet peeve’ of mine is the teaching of ‘evolution’ as fact when,
IN FACT
it has never been proven!
It has never been proven! Don’t get me wrong… I am not a ‘dyed in the wool’ creationist either, but I think it an abomination that so called ’scientists’ can teach as fact something that is only a theory, that being, “evolution”. Any realistic, honest person who has studied both sides knows that evolution has, not only, never been proven, but many leading evolutionists totally disagree with each other. Evolution is a theory that should be taught as such!I am speaking here of public education, of course. What is taught in a private school is up to the teaching staff of the school.
”$27 million museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media…” click here.
[Opponents argue that children who see the exhibits will be confused when they learn in school that the universe is 14 billion years old rather than 6,000.”Teachers don’t deserve a student coming into class saying ‘Gee Mrs. Brown, I went to this fancy museum and it said you’re teaching me a lie,”‘ Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, told reporters before the museum opened.]
I actually like this part… teachers shouldn’t lie to the children!
It should be against the law for teachers at a public school to be able to say that the earth is 14 billion years old when they can’t prove it! I think there should be a public debate with qualified people presenting both Creationism and Evolutionism. Then people would see the truth! Which is that they are both ‘theories’ that can’t be proven. If either should be taught in public schools, they should both be taught or niether and then as theories. To be fair, there probably isn’t enough Evolutionists or Creationists that agree (with each other), to form 2 teams for opposing views.
A ‘pet peeve’ of mine is the teaching of ‘evolution’ as fact when,
IN FACT
it has never been proven!
It has never been proven! Don’t get me wrong… I am not a ‘dyed in the wool’ creationist either, but I think it an abomination that so called ’scientists’ can teach as fact something that is only a theory, that being, “evolution”. Any realistic, honest person who has studied both sides knows that evolution has, not only, never been proven, but many leading evolutionists totally disagree with each other. Evolution is a theory that should be taught as such!I am speaking here of public education, of course. What is taught in a private school is up to the teaching staff of the school.
”$27 million museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media…” click here.
[Opponents argue that children who see the exhibits will be confused when they learn in school that the universe is 14 billion years old rather than 6,000.”Teachers don’t deserve a student coming into class saying ‘Gee Mrs. Brown, I went to this fancy museum and it said you’re teaching me a lie,”‘ Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, told reporters before the museum opened.]
I actually like this part… teachers shouldn’t lie to the children!
It should be against the law for teachers at a public school to be able to say that the earth is 14 billion years old when they can’t prove it! I think there should be a public debate with qualified people presenting both Creationism and Evolutionism. Then people would see the truth! Which is that they are both ‘theories’ that can’t be proven. If either should be taught in public schools, they should both be taught or niether and then as theories. To be fair, there probably isn’t enough Evolutionists or Creationists that agree (with each other), to form 2 teams for opposing views.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Anti Christian/Catholic/Life Media Bias
Media Bias
February 1st, 2007
I was discussing anti-Christian/Catholic media bias with a friend.
I relaized for the first time - firsthand - media bias, when it comes to Christian/Catholic news reporting. It was years ago at the pro-life rally in the Ocala Town Square, Flroida. It was probably my first year attending this event. The pro-life people had about 300 marchers, they were conservative in their approach, prayerful…
There were also about 12 pro-aborts. They were noisy, trying to disrupt the rally speakers. When all the pro-life people marched around the square at the end, praying and holding signs, the pro-aborts sat on steps near one corner and cursed and spit at people. I saw all this first hand, not ‘word of mouth’.
That night I watched the news, I was still naive in those days and I actually watched news programs but this was an ‘eye opener’ on the veracity of news reporting.
Channel 2 Ocala, the station is right across the street from the square, showed about 12 pro-lifers and 12 pro-aborts. They made it look like equal numbers showed up for both sides and they showed the pro-life people shouting at something one of the speakers said and at the same time showed the pro-aborts talking and standing quietly.
They made it look like there were equal numbers of people on both sides and that the pro-lifers were the rowdy ones!
Not a word on the pro-aborts spitting and cursing people!
That wasn’t the beginning of my disenchantment with the news media but it was a ‘BIG STEP’ so to speak!I figured that if I can’t trust the news media on something I know for sure, then why should I believe anything they say at all? Mt 10:16 “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.”
The following is an article from LIFENEWS.COM http://www.lifenews.com/, on the most recent ”March for Life” in Washington D.C.. The Post is anti-Christian/Catholic.
“The story was illustrated by color photos, but in a far too common tactic, the Post balanced a picture of four pro-life demonstrators … against a photo of four or five feminists,” he explained. “One side turns out tens of thousands, and the other turned out tens.”http://www.lifenews.com/nat2896.html
February 1st, 2007
I was discussing anti-Christian/Catholic media bias with a friend.
I relaized for the first time - firsthand - media bias, when it comes to Christian/Catholic news reporting. It was years ago at the pro-life rally in the Ocala Town Square, Flroida. It was probably my first year attending this event. The pro-life people had about 300 marchers, they were conservative in their approach, prayerful…
There were also about 12 pro-aborts. They were noisy, trying to disrupt the rally speakers. When all the pro-life people marched around the square at the end, praying and holding signs, the pro-aborts sat on steps near one corner and cursed and spit at people. I saw all this first hand, not ‘word of mouth’.
That night I watched the news, I was still naive in those days and I actually watched news programs but this was an ‘eye opener’ on the veracity of news reporting.
Channel 2 Ocala, the station is right across the street from the square, showed about 12 pro-lifers and 12 pro-aborts. They made it look like equal numbers showed up for both sides and they showed the pro-life people shouting at something one of the speakers said and at the same time showed the pro-aborts talking and standing quietly.
They made it look like there were equal numbers of people on both sides and that the pro-lifers were the rowdy ones!
Not a word on the pro-aborts spitting and cursing people!
That wasn’t the beginning of my disenchantment with the news media but it was a ‘BIG STEP’ so to speak!I figured that if I can’t trust the news media on something I know for sure, then why should I believe anything they say at all? Mt 10:16 “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.”
The following is an article from LIFENEWS.COM http://www.lifenews.com/, on the most recent ”March for Life” in Washington D.C.. The Post is anti-Christian/Catholic.
“The story was illustrated by color photos, but in a far too common tactic, the Post balanced a picture of four pro-life demonstrators … against a photo of four or five feminists,” he explained. “One side turns out tens of thousands, and the other turned out tens.”http://www.lifenews.com/nat2896.html
Friday, December 22, 2006
Should a Muslim be allowed to 'swear in' on the Koran to uphold a public office in the USA?
First Merry Christmas!
As to the question about swearing in on the Koran if you are Muslim, I personally do not have problem with that. Because, if a person doesn't believe in the Bible there isn't much 'force' to their 'vow' or 'oath' that they will uphold the responsibilities of their office just because they lay their hands on a 'book' and say some words.
Let me quote Prof. Scott Hahn from SalvationHistory.com on the meaning of 'swearing an oath' on The Bible.
First, contracts involve promises, covenants involve oaths.
When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a promise to the seller, along the lines of: "I give you my word that I will pay you this amount of money for your house." The seller, in turn, makes a promise: "I give you my word that if you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you the deed to my house."
The "word" you each pledge to the other is your name. And you each sign your name on the contract as a "sign" that you'll uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.
Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as your witness.
Think of the oath we're most familiar with, the oath you swear before taking the witness stand in a courtroom: "I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
You've promised, given your word to tell the truth. You've also asked God to help you keep your promise. It's not only you and the judge now. It's you, the judge and God. Now, if you lie under oath, you're not only liable to go to jail, you're liable to be punished by God. The flip side of asking for God's help in an oath is surrendering yourself to God's judgment. You say, in effect, "I'll be damned if I don't tell the truth."
In the old days, we used to have politicians swear on the Bible and the Bible would be opened to the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, where the blessings and the curses are recorded. We were asking them to swear to uphold the constitution or suffer the curses recorded in those pages.
Even in our highly secularized society, we retain elements of this older understanding of oaths. We make doctors, police officers, military personnel and public officials swear oaths. Why? Because we depend on them; we literally put our lives in their hands. We want them to swear to God that they'll do their jobs. We can't just take their word for it, we want them to know that they'll have to answer to a higher authority.
Incidentally, did you know that the word "oath" translates the Latin word sacramentum, where we get our word "sacraments"? In a future course, we'll look sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship with God.
END SALVATIONHISTORY.COM
Literally when a Christian lays their hands on the Bible and swears to uphold their office or 'tell the truth, so help me God', they are saying that if they tell the truth, by God's Hand they will receive all the blessings contained in the Bible or the reverse is also true. They are saying that if they lie, all the curses contained in the Bible will come upon them.
A heady thought when understood properly.
My problem isn't with the Koran.
But I pose a further question, if we allow the Koran, then we would have to cater to every possible group. For example, The Book of Mormon for Mormons or let's get right to the nitty gritty... perhaps we would have someone who believes in Satan who wants to swear in on a Book of Rituals for Satanic practices.
In a case like that, you would have someone promising to ... what? To cause chaos and disruption at every chance... perhaps. Then where would a nation founded on Christian principles be?
I submit that it is dilemma. Maybe we could have an "approved list" of books allowed.
I am wishing for you this day a Happy Christmas!
I wish you laughter, pure joy, a merry heart and a clear conscience!
As to the question about swearing in on the Koran if you are Muslim, I personally do not have problem with that. Because, if a person doesn't believe in the Bible there isn't much 'force' to their 'vow' or 'oath' that they will uphold the responsibilities of their office just because they lay their hands on a 'book' and say some words.
Let me quote Prof. Scott Hahn from SalvationHistory.com on the meaning of 'swearing an oath' on The Bible.
First, contracts involve promises, covenants involve oaths.
When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a promise to the seller, along the lines of: "I give you my word that I will pay you this amount of money for your house." The seller, in turn, makes a promise: "I give you my word that if you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you the deed to my house."
The "word" you each pledge to the other is your name. And you each sign your name on the contract as a "sign" that you'll uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.
Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as your witness.
Think of the oath we're most familiar with, the oath you swear before taking the witness stand in a courtroom: "I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
You've promised, given your word to tell the truth. You've also asked God to help you keep your promise. It's not only you and the judge now. It's you, the judge and God. Now, if you lie under oath, you're not only liable to go to jail, you're liable to be punished by God. The flip side of asking for God's help in an oath is surrendering yourself to God's judgment. You say, in effect, "I'll be damned if I don't tell the truth."
In the old days, we used to have politicians swear on the Bible and the Bible would be opened to the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, where the blessings and the curses are recorded. We were asking them to swear to uphold the constitution or suffer the curses recorded in those pages.
Even in our highly secularized society, we retain elements of this older understanding of oaths. We make doctors, police officers, military personnel and public officials swear oaths. Why? Because we depend on them; we literally put our lives in their hands. We want them to swear to God that they'll do their jobs. We can't just take their word for it, we want them to know that they'll have to answer to a higher authority.
Incidentally, did you know that the word "oath" translates the Latin word sacramentum, where we get our word "sacraments"? In a future course, we'll look sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship with God.
END SALVATIONHISTORY.COM
Literally when a Christian lays their hands on the Bible and swears to uphold their office or 'tell the truth, so help me God', they are saying that if they tell the truth, by God's Hand they will receive all the blessings contained in the Bible or the reverse is also true. They are saying that if they lie, all the curses contained in the Bible will come upon them.
A heady thought when understood properly.
My problem isn't with the Koran.
But I pose a further question, if we allow the Koran, then we would have to cater to every possible group. For example, The Book of Mormon for Mormons or let's get right to the nitty gritty... perhaps we would have someone who believes in Satan who wants to swear in on a Book of Rituals for Satanic practices.
In a case like that, you would have someone promising to ... what? To cause chaos and disruption at every chance... perhaps. Then where would a nation founded on Christian principles be?
I submit that it is dilemma. Maybe we could have an "approved list" of books allowed.
I am wishing for you this day a Happy Christmas!
I wish you laughter, pure joy, a merry heart and a clear conscience!
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Catholics should be outraged over caricature's of Jesus & The Blessed Mother!
9:59 AM 2/23/2006
Calling All Catholics
I heard a really good homily today at daily Mass. The Gospel Readings were from, The Gospel of Mark 9:41-50. I would like to point out verse 43 in particular.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire."
Fr. Sean Shine pointed out that Jesus did not mean this literally, but that he meant we should be willing to stand up for what we believe, no matter the cost. Father pointed to the present day riots of the Muslims over the caricature of The Prophet Mohammed.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/13914885.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_world
He said that while it is terrible that some people are being killed over this, it is right that they should stand up for their belief. Father also said that Catholics should be more like them. Some time ago an artist in New York put an image of Christ in a bottle of his own urine and offered that to the American public as 'art'. Also, there was a portrait of The Blessed Mother covered with cut-outs of pornography, presented as 'art'. With no outcry from the Catholic Church. The American Catholic Bishops did not make one statement! With over 150 million Catholics in the United States we can make an impact!
Here is a link to a group that legally fights anti-Catholicism. The Catholic League. http://www.catholicleague.org/
Here is one on the Muslim caricature from The Catholic League: http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%201/060217_Illinois_Cartoons.htm
Calling All Catholics
I heard a really good homily today at daily Mass. The Gospel Readings were from, The Gospel of Mark 9:41-50. I would like to point out verse 43 in particular.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire."
Fr. Sean Shine pointed out that Jesus did not mean this literally, but that he meant we should be willing to stand up for what we believe, no matter the cost. Father pointed to the present day riots of the Muslims over the caricature of The Prophet Mohammed.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/13914885.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_world
He said that while it is terrible that some people are being killed over this, it is right that they should stand up for their belief. Father also said that Catholics should be more like them. Some time ago an artist in New York put an image of Christ in a bottle of his own urine and offered that to the American public as 'art'. Also, there was a portrait of The Blessed Mother covered with cut-outs of pornography, presented as 'art'. With no outcry from the Catholic Church. The American Catholic Bishops did not make one statement! With over 150 million Catholics in the United States we can make an impact!
Here is a link to a group that legally fights anti-Catholicism. The Catholic League. http://www.catholicleague.org/
Here is one on the Muslim caricature from The Catholic League: http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%201/060217_Illinois_Cartoons.htm
Monday, January 30, 2006
With all the hoopla about the lawsuit against the priest in Italy who is supposedly misrepresenting Jesus, I thought this information would be useful.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/
Secular History of Jesus
There is the writing, for example of "Flavius Josephus" commissioned by the Romans to write a "history" of their conquests. Being he was commissioned by the Romans he could not cover Jesus, in depth, because they wanted to hear about themselves, not some supposed Messiah. The fact that he wrote anything about Jesus is actually a wonder to most scholars and that the Romans left the information in the history.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html
Here is another source of information:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/
Secular History of Jesus
There is the writing, for example of "Flavius Josephus" commissioned by the Romans to write a "history" of their conquests. Being he was commissioned by the Romans he could not cover Jesus, in depth, because they wanted to hear about themselves, not some supposed Messiah. The fact that he wrote anything about Jesus is actually a wonder to most scholars and that the Romans left the information in the history.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html
Here is another source of information:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm
Monday, September 12, 2005
911 - Katrina
911-Katrina
Monday, September 12, 2005
To Whom It May Concern;
I found some of this information on the internet, to the best of my knowledge it is true.
Chain of Responsibility
In case you are not familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work:
The chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans is:
1. The Mayor
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security
(a political appointee of the Governor who reports to the Governor)
3. The Governor (ME - In case of emergencies each state is autonomous.)
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President
3. The Governor (ME - In case of emergencies each state is autonomous.)
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President
What did each do?
1. The mayor, with 5 days advance notice, waited until 2 days before he
announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of President Bush).
Then he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done.
(So much for political appointees)
3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2 DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal troops and aid. Until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.
4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be ready when the Governor called for them .
5. The President:
(ME- Because of each State's autonomy, can not just move troops & assets into an area without first being asked.)
President Bush urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.
The levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
[...]
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.
The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin's court to carry out the evacuation order. With a 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration [messed] up.
Mayor Nagin has displayed lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.
---
(I apologize for making changes, to whomever wrote the original piece. I have been unable to "track" the "author" down. But as a Christian I can not report facts that I am unable to confirm
and there was also originally profanity in the piece, which I deleted.)
---
(Onetruth)
and there was also originally profanity in the piece, which I deleted.)
---
(Onetruth)
As a resident of Florida I was glued to Fox News before, during & after hurricane Katrina hit.
In interview after interview you could see the total lack of leadership in both the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor or Louisiana.
They should both be immediately replaced for the protection of their own people!
Compare the disaster of Katrina with the terrible attack of 911.
Katrina was forecasted well in advance. The leader's in charge of New Orleans and the fine State of Louisiana had adequate time to prepare and react to the problem. In every interview of both the Mayor & the Governor before and immediately after they said that everything was under control.
As the media began to report all the "problems" the hurricane had caused from no electricity to the breaking of the levees, both the Mayor and the Governor, rather then stepping up to "bat", so to speak, seemed to go into what can only be described as a catatonic state.
As I said earlier, let's compare one disaster with another.
Everyone knew Katrina was going to hit and yet no local authorities reponded until about 48 hrs. later.
While 911 was completely by surprise and yet Mayor Gulianni and the men & women under his authority took care of the problem in stride, reacting immediately.
There was never a time when The Mayor of New York was interviewed and he did
not know exactly what was happening and would happen, as far as his control extended.
With Katrina, many people interviewed on the news said that things went so adly because there was actually two disasters in New Orleans, a hurricane and a flood.
(Both of which were forecasted before they happened.) (Emphasis mine.)
During 911 there was also two disasters, neither was known ahead of time.
One was the planes hitting the building, but the second was, the collapse of the buildings. Yet the Mayor and the Governor of New York handled both with competence.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Slippery Slope
To Whom It May Concern;
The following is based on an article from Crisis Catholic magazine by Mark P. Shea.,
he puts to words, something that I have been saying all along.
That being, "Someday someone is going to 'lobby' for the legality of child sex or what so many Americans (rightfully so) are in an uproar about in The Catholic Church scandals.
http://www.iamonetruth.com
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils,
they will differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
(G. K. Chesterton) (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/499)
Different ideologies have different ways of effecting what in Catholic Church theology or the Bible calls mortal sin. Those people trying to follow a moral code laid out
in their lives through study of theology, The Bible and the hard knocks of life are familiar with the manipulations of "Truth" from the 'far left'. There are those who would have us believe any 'perversion' that is pushed as 'normalcy' by a group, should, first of all be heard out and then for the slightest of reasons made into law.
And so the old saying; "The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'."
Meaning that just because society wants to treat any minority group fairly we have to accept any idiocy they present to the world as 'gospel truth' or 'fact'.
(The following is from the article by Mr. Mark Shea.)
"And now according to Lifesite News (http://www.lifesite.net/), that very same ethos has made it possible for Richard Yuill to be awarded a doctorate degree from Glasgow University for arguing in his doctoral thesis that sex between children and adults is
sometimes a positive experience for the children.
The reason a moral cretin like Yuill can now be taken seriously in the leftist academy is actually quite simple: Once you embrace one form of sexual sin on the basis that
morality is subjective or that the ends justify the means your own flawed logic demands that you support whatever fresh perversion rounds the bend. After all, if you try to tell
Dr. Yuill that he's advocating a violation of the immemorial moral code of humanity you stand in grave danger of having your recently legitimized sexual sin called back."
Mark P. Shea, Crisis magazine "Toying With Evil"
http://www.crisismagazine.com/
This is what The Catholic Church has been referring to all along when they talk of immorality being a "slippery slope". Once you are on the slope, once you allow any form of perversion, such as abortion, as the norm, it is much easier to slide down. It is almost impossible to slide up or even remain where you are.
It may take 10 years, but if we allow same sex marriages, someone will petition the courts to marry their dog or cat! And you know how many animal lovers we have in the United States? It might no longer be a minority asking for the ridiculous or harmful.
The following is based on an article from Crisis Catholic magazine by Mark P. Shea.,
he puts to words, something that I have been saying all along.
That being, "Someday someone is going to 'lobby' for the legality of child sex or what so many Americans (rightfully so) are in an uproar about in The Catholic Church scandals.
http://www.iamonetruth.com
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils,
they will differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
(G. K. Chesterton) (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/499)
Different ideologies have different ways of effecting what in Catholic Church theology or the Bible calls mortal sin. Those people trying to follow a moral code laid out
in their lives through study of theology, The Bible and the hard knocks of life are familiar with the manipulations of "Truth" from the 'far left'. There are those who would have us believe any 'perversion' that is pushed as 'normalcy' by a group, should, first of all be heard out and then for the slightest of reasons made into law.
And so the old saying; "The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'."
Meaning that just because society wants to treat any minority group fairly we have to accept any idiocy they present to the world as 'gospel truth' or 'fact'.
(The following is from the article by Mr. Mark Shea.)
"And now according to Lifesite News (http://www.lifesite.net/), that very same ethos has made it possible for Richard Yuill to be awarded a doctorate degree from Glasgow University for arguing in his doctoral thesis that sex between children and adults is
sometimes a positive experience for the children.
The reason a moral cretin like Yuill can now be taken seriously in the leftist academy is actually quite simple: Once you embrace one form of sexual sin on the basis that
morality is subjective or that the ends justify the means your own flawed logic demands that you support whatever fresh perversion rounds the bend. After all, if you try to tell
Dr. Yuill that he's advocating a violation of the immemorial moral code of humanity you stand in grave danger of having your recently legitimized sexual sin called back."
Mark P. Shea, Crisis magazine "Toying With Evil"
http://www.crisismagazine.com/
This is what The Catholic Church has been referring to all along when they talk of immorality being a "slippery slope". Once you are on the slope, once you allow any form of perversion, such as abortion, as the norm, it is much easier to slide down. It is almost impossible to slide up or even remain where you are.
It may take 10 years, but if we allow same sex marriages, someone will petition the courts to marry their dog or cat! And you know how many animal lovers we have in the United States? It might no longer be a minority asking for the ridiculous or harmful.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
What do you think?
Mat 10:26 "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. (curtesy of E-Sword)
A Pastor asked his congregation two questions at Mass last week.
Question number 1: "Who thinks that it is correct to post in the local newspapers the names, addresses and photos of all known sex offenders?"
Many in the congregation raised their hands.
Question number 2: "Who thinks that it is correct to post in the local newspapers the names, addresses and photos of all known sinners and a list of their sins?"
Not one hand was raised.
www.iamonetruth.com
A Pastor asked his congregation two questions at Mass last week.
Question number 1: "Who thinks that it is correct to post in the local newspapers the names, addresses and photos of all known sex offenders?"
Many in the congregation raised their hands.
Question number 2: "Who thinks that it is correct to post in the local newspapers the names, addresses and photos of all known sinners and a list of their sins?"
Not one hand was raised.
www.iamonetruth.com
"Who is culpable?"
To Whom It May Concern;
A question arose. Actually it was more like an accusation or a 'judgment'.
It was brought to my attention that a Pastor of a Catholic Church was accused of being pro-choice. This accusation came from within his own parish and was brought to the attention of the Bishop of the Diocese.
The accusation came about because the pastor in question; (to protect the ignorant we will call pastor A), Pastor A allowed a doctor to put an ad in the parish bulletin. The doctor is Catholic and goes to Pastor A's parish for church services and functions.
It was found out that the doctor in question distributes birth control as part of his practice. He is in general practice and this is only a small part of what he actually does as a doctor. But this part of his practice is immoral in the eyes of God and The Church.
A parishioner of Father A's church pointed out, the doctor in question did distribute birth control which goes against church teachings and demanded that Pastor A pull the plug on the doctor's ad.
Pastor A didn't think that was warranted. Because the doctor had many other functions in his practice and this was a small part.
The parishioner who made the complaint to Pastor A started attending another Catholic Parish, this Pastor will be referred to as Pastor B. Pastor B wrote a letter to Pastor A telling him that he was in mortal sin as long as Pastor A allowed the doctor to run the ad in the bulletin. Because of the birth control part of his practice.
Pastor A, in return, invited Pastor B to get together to talk about the issue. Pastor B flatly refused.
Pastor B notified the diocese, at the same time Pastor A contacted the diocese to get a ruling on the situation. The diocese said that, at the time they had no rule for such a situation. So, Pastor A left the ad in the bulletin and pastor B cut off almost all relations with the entire parish of Pastor A.
(I might add during the interim, that is, until the matter was settled, Pastor B would not publish in his bulletin any functions that were happening in Pastor A's parish. On the other hand, Pastor A allowed any advertisement for functions in Pastor B's parish.)
Pastor A, showed me, the letter from the parishioner, from Pastor B to A the first time, from the diocese to A, also,the letter to Pastor B inviting him to a talk and the letter from Pastor B denying the offer for communication.
Pastor A gave me his reasoning. I believe I would have acted differently, but his reasoning is sound.
Pastor A, wasn't running an ad for the local 'abortionist', who only does abortions and abortion related issues in his practice. He was running an ad for a General Practitioner who as a small part of his practice does indeed distribute birth control pills. But, Pastor A's question is this; "If we take out the doctor's ad because a small part of his practice goes against Church Teachings, then how far do we take this idea?"
You may not get my meaning at first; but think about the implications of taking out the doctor's ad for a moment. Suppose we take this 'idea' to it's ultimate conclusion. If we reject everything that has to do with abortion or goes against Church teachings, we might not be able to exist, in our society.
For example: ATT is known to give money to pro-abortion groups, so does Sprint and MCI. The local phone service is Sprint, to my knowledge for both Pastor A & Pastor B's parishes. They both fall into this category of Sprint being their local phone company. So, Pastor B and Pastor A as well as all the parishioners who use the Sprint local service would be in mortal sin if they know that Sprint contributes some of their money to immoral and anti-Catholic activities. Or, for that matter, suppose the Diocese has funds invested in companies that own companies that make part of a drug that could be used for abortion.
I know that this is really knit-picking, but I want you to 'clearly' see where I am going with this. Shouldn't someone, in Church authority say where the 'line' will be drawn. Or maybe every Catholic parish should go on a 'so-called "witch-hunt" or, in this case, "immoral-hunt"? Looking, and delving into every nook and cranny to see when and where a parish ad, parish contributions or parish service, such as the phone company, where we get milk for the children's school from, or where we invest the parish or diocesan money and wherever we uncover the slightest connection to immorality or anti-Catholic sentiment, we crush it immediately!
So, this was Pastor A's point. Like I said, I myself might have handled it differently, but this is a sound argument. He wanted to know from 'higher up' where the line should be drawn.
When the diocese finally made a decision they asked pastor A to take the ad out, which Pastor A did. But, at least to my knowledge, the Diocese has not made any further decision on such matters.
____________________________________________________________
That would actually be the background to the real problem.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on this type of issue.
CCC 1857 for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." 131
So, in order for Pastor A to be in Mortal sin the situation would have to involve 'grave matter', which it did. We know, as Catholics, that abortion, or having anything to do with an abortion is 'grave matter'. So, that condition has been met. But, what of the other two, you need to know that what you are doing is a mortal sin, which in this case, Pastor B and the parishioner, could not have possibly known, about Pastor A.
So, when they accused Pastor A of being in Mortal sin they were making a judgment that they couldn't possibly be aware of without supernatural means!
What the doctor, in question, was doing in handing out the birth control pills was 'grave matter'. I would have to say that, for him, he was 'culpable'.
You might easily say here 'physician, heal thyself'. But, we can judge rightly here, because the teaching on the Church is clear, that if you partake in an abortion knowingly and willingly, as an adult in the Church you must be held accountable on some level. This is so because it is up to you to know Church teachings on grave matter and then to adhere to them. If the doctor actually didn't know the Church's teachings it is up to him as an adult to know Church teachings and to follow it.
__________________________________________________________
But, let's take another look at Pastor A.
Why?
One reason is the theology of 'culpability'.
Culpability:
WordWeb: Deserving blame or censure as being wrong or evil or injurious.
Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) - (Our Sunday Visitor's)
Culpa is the Latin term for fault or blame. In canon law, culpa refers specifically to negligent or otherwise blameworthy conduct which is considered serious enough for ecclesiastical penalties to be applied.
In the case above I don't see how it can be proved that Pastor A was 'culpable'.
Again, in order to prove culpability you would have to have, information that is only available to God and Pastor A, you would have to be able to read the mind of Pastor A. On the other hand, the doctor can be held culpable because as an adult in the Catholic Church it is his duty to know what concerns grave matter especially in his own field of expertise.
Lastly, we have Pastor B and the lay person, who apparently meant well, but went about it without the love of God in a judgmental way.
CCC 2477
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: (The Catechism says that Pastor B and the lay person, are guilty!)
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; (Again, the Catechism says that Pastor B and the lay person, are guilty!)
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; (Perhaps, here only the lay person is culpable, because he announced Pastor A's sin on the radio he works at.)
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. ( Again, the lay person, in question because he made known to the public information that was inaccurate and sinful, even though malice was probably not intended.)
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: (Again guilty!)
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. (end quote from CCC)
This last part fits in with Pastor B being invited by Pastor A to discussion. If Pastor B is correct in his reasoning, he should have 'shared the truth in love" Ephesians 12:15.
Which did not happen.
So. who would you say is the sinner or sinners here?
So. who would you say is the sinner or sinners here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
