I want you to consider something that Bishop Fin brought up in his brilliant homily on the eve of the American election. It is here if you didn’t read it: http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2008/11/bishop-finns-election-eve-homily.html
If Obama, and his friends, do what they promised, and push ahead with their agendas for greater access, and so called “rights”, to…abortion, sterilisation, contraception, explicit sex education, homosexual ‘rights’, and use tax payer dollars to fully fund these policies, not only in America, but also in the UN for developing countries…
…does that not constitute an offense against and denegration of religious liberty in the USA, and around the world?
The way the things are shaping up:
all doctors will not be able to refuse referrals for abortion
all pharmacies will have to sell contraception
all schools will have to teach explicit sex ed to minors
all schools will have to teach in favour of homosexual ‘rights’ – even to minors
all hospitals will have to offer abortion pills for rape victims, and other emergencies
all parents will not be told if their underage child is having an abortion
Should all American citizens be free to choose whether they wants these things, and whether they want these things for their children? Shouldn’t some of these things be decided at a family level? Not at the State level? Should American citizens be free to choose whether they want to support these things financially with their taxes? Should they have the freedom to choose “No”?
Why should so many Americans, who don’t support abortion, nor embyonic stem cell research, nor any other bioethical crime…have to pay for it…and be forced to offer it to other citizens in their professions?
Isn’t this just another type of fascism? Under a mask of pluralism, or secularism, or democracy?
Isn’t it just the State forcing people to accept a secular belief system? An ideology? A type of State-religion? Surely this type of coercion is contrary to a healthy pluralistic secularism, contrary to a democracy?
Or, is it just a natural fruit?…
Is secular pluralism just another version of “survival of the fittest” in our society? Where the strongest group of evolved animals, or the richest, or the more militant, or the majority, get to have their “ethical” way, and force that upon everybody else through their goverance and universally mandated leglisation?
Is it just enivitable that secular pluralism will always degeneratre into this, because of so many divergent views of different groups within society? For example: How does the law operate when Muslims want to have several wives, but Christians only have one wife? How should the law be set in this case? Should it allow for both, in a truly pluralistic way?
Or should there be another type of ethic involved? A natural human ethic that everybody agrees on? Based on an adherence to the real (reality), and on adherence to the recognised value of every human person.
But how? …When we don’t even agree on what it means to be human, or whether we have a soul, or whether we are persons, or whether we are just animals, or when human life begins, and when human rights start, or what marriage is, or when death occurs, or what gives life value, or whether animals can reason. And if one group agrees on something, and makes it law, isn’t that just forcing their ideas onto everybody else? Within these differences, who should be able to have “their way” when it comes to public policy for all? Is it possible to have a common human ethical system for all in a pluralistic society which is faithful to its own founding principles? Or, are there too many different groups, with too many diverse and opposed ideas and practices, especially now in our modern world?
In such a difficult case, maybe the government should just force everybody to do what it’s current policies are anyway, so that there is at least some “social order”, a “common order”? Rather than a common good, because we can’t agree upon what is truly the common good, or even upon individual goods. We are so divided. So perhaps, in a pluralistic society, the “common order” upheld by a relative and temporary law of order is only what we can agree upon? And that changes according to the people and the government?
But wouldn’t that be just a type of politcial creative whim? A relativism, where the true common good is at the mercy of the tyranny of the current governing body, or the voting mob, who can supress true personal freedom in the name of a “social order”? Is this where secularism tends towards socialism, or communism, or fascism? Does secular pluralism always end here? Can it work, humanly speaking? Or should we be looking for something else? …
What do you think?
And now, following the American elections, are we about to see an anti-life tyranny unleashed under Barrack Hessein Obama’s government? Obama says he is “pro-choice”. But he wants to take “free choice” for so many essentials, away from so many, at so many levels in society, by leglisating his agendas into law for the “free choice” of others. When do personal freedoms of some, infringe of the personal freedoms of others? When do the so called “freedoms” of some in society, take away the rights of others, even their right to life? And where does communal government authority come into this?
It looks like Americans will have to pay for Obama’s cold-blooded-murder policy, and have to accept his ways, because their pluralistic Constitution has enshrined “choice” or “liberty” – in the pursuit of happiness – as the highest value in personal life and political life. By making personal freedom so absolute, taking it beyond and away from its true nature and finality, and protecting that in their legal system, they actually begin to destroy it, and enslave the public to the whim of the “freedoms” and “ideas” of a few – of the mob – of the current ideology of the government – and in so doing, begin to kill the true personal freedom, religious freedom, and political freedom for all.
And how is the policy of the government normally formed today? By the militant extremists (radical homosexuals, radical feminists, libertarians, anti-religious athiests), the powerful elite-intellectuals (the masonic sects and other societies), and especially the media. It’s the unfortunate reality I’m afraid.
So doesn’t pluralistic secularism just become another form of slavery being forced upon the people; only this time, it will be by a coloured man?
How is this healthy? How is this good? Is the American experiment really so enlightened? Does it lead to true human flourishment? What is human freedom? What is it for? And how does it develop? How should it be protected? What is human happiness? How is it found? What should be the role of government? What does the common good truly consist of? These are important questions.
Surely, each citizen should have the freedom to act according to their conscience? Or is there more to this? The State can limit a citizen acting according to their conscience (eg, if a man thinks it is truly right to murder another man), but can the State force people to act against their conscience?
Who decides?
What is the solution?
Bp Fin’s position is a very extreme one within the US Catholic bishops.
His credibility evaporated when he said this sort of statement in the link Filia gave :-
That’s completely out of line with what the Church actually teaches, at odds with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and is nothing less than an abuse of power in an attempt to bully Catholics into not voting Obama by coercing their conscience.
Here’s a better approach which is actually consistent with what the Church teaches :-
I think Bp Malooly’s last point, that the job of a Catholic prelate is not to “alienate people” but rather to “change their hearts and minds”, should be kept firmly in mind as we approach the Obama administration.
We should ignore Bp Fin’s dead end approach and instead follow the example of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, who immediately telegrammed Obama to congratulate him and was in response personally telehoned by Obama.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5139405.ece
Let’s engage constructively rather than paint ourselves into a corner trying to demonize politicians.
For example, lets take Obama at his word that we need to work to reduce abortions by giving mothers in crisis pregnancies the economic support they need to choose life. Surely that is an area we can agree on and can work together to advance and thereby save lives? Even if there will be other policies (eg FOCA) which we will need to actively organise against.
As the USCCB has pointed out, the mutual interest between us and Obama is to drop FOCA which is not only anathema to us, but will be an extremely divisive political liability to Obama.
And, btw Filia, Plan B is not an abortion pill and the US Bishops have already allowed its careful use in US Catholic hospitals as a contraceptive after rape. Much of the hysteria being generated here is based on a misconstrual of the facts and on what the Church actually teaches.
God Bless
Although many Americans think they are heading into a bright future, the whole “hey it’s a new enlightened age we have a black president!” the reality is the seeds for the down fall of the “American Empire” might be been sowed. In the words of Oriana Fallaci:
“The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period.”
And, btw Filia, Plan B is not an abortion pill and the US Bishops have already allowed its careful use in US Catholic hospitals as a contraceptive after rape. Much of the hysteria being generated here is based on a misconstrual of the facts and on what the Church actually teaches
This doesn’t seem right to me. Can someone back this up? Isn’t Plan B the morning after pill, which in fact IS an abortive?
CHRIS SULLIVAN! I am out raged! (I just read your post)
You just do not get it do you. When John Kerry a “pro-choice Catholic” ran for president there was the whole debate where such politicians should receive communion. The message from Rome, from then Cardinal Ratzinger on behalf of JP II, was they should not be given communion in line with what the Church already taught on the matter.
Bishop Finn took the right stance, in union with the Pope. If you reject this stance, as you called on people to ignore it, you are not in union with the Pope and the Church. The Pope rang to congratulate Obama as he has to work with him as a world leader, not because he agrees with what he stands for, hell even JP II had discussions with Helen Clark.
Killing unborn babies is wrong Chris, by defending people who do you share in their sin! Good on Bishop Finn and ban Chris Sullivan from this blog!
Gianna,
It looks like this is a classic case where secular law has forced some bishops to pull their heads out of the sand and look carefully at what Plan B really is.
Sometimes the Church needs the force of secular law to drag us kicking and screaming into the modern world.
The abolition of slavery is a classic example – where secular law outlawed slavery and the Church, dragging her feet, was eventually obliged to follow.
Let’s have more of this type of secular law – it’s good for us.
God Bless
Just a question for Chris Sullivan,
Chris, do you not like the ‘professional ambition’ thread any more?
AMDG
Simon,
Let me be crystal clear.
I oppose Bp Fin’s attempt to coerce the consciences of Catholics by bully them to vote against Obama.
I oppose Bp Fin’s determination to refuse Holy Communion to Joe Biden.
If Biden can receive Holy Communion in most every diocese but Bp Fin’s, then the idea of Church as Communion has been shattered into a group of fragmented dioceses at odds with each other on basic matters (who can be admitted).
It’s a tragedy that the body of Christ has become so divided.
Filia: the divisions you touch on in your initial post are not just Church vs Secular Society. They are within the Church too. If we can’t agree within the Body of Christ, why should we expect secular society to all agree ?
God Bless
Your case is clear to all but you Chris.
Conscience is not supreme only a fully informed conscience (formed in Catholic teaching) which would not do anything to offend God is what Christians should use. Your understanding of conscience is wrong, no fully informed conscience could support Obama and his militant abortionist stance. Tens of Millions of unborn children will die over the years, do you get this?
Bishop Finn is doing what the Church says he should, are you saying the Pope is wrong on the matter as well? Finding so little monsignor who you agree with and hold that up to be the way is taking you out of union with the Church’s line causing a division in the body of Christ, stop your dissent Chris.
If Chris continues in this madness of saying “how dare you oppose the militantly abortionist Obama, how dare you uphold the Church’s teaching” he should be banned from the blog admin!
Hizaah for Bishop Fin!
Poos to Mr. Sullivan and his whacky non-Catholic ideology.
Scary White,
Toilet language will not advance your case.
It merely illustrates the poverty and puerility of your argument.
God Bless
Erm even the people who make plan b (are we talking about the morning after pill here?) say it could act as an abortion agent. Its written clearly on the box containing the medicine.
Actually Chris I suspect people have given up forming coherant arguments with you because there really doesn’t seem to be much point.
Pax
Filia Day
Welcome to the world of Liberal Fascism!
Chris
“It’s a tragedy that the body of Christ has become so divided.”
Obviously the ones who want to get the Church to bow the knee to secularist Liberal fascism are the divided brethren who want to point the smoking gun at the head of the faithful and say if you weren’t such narrow minded bigots we wouldn’t be divided. So who is at fault here if there is division. Peace at any price is not the goal, fidelity is and Christ said, he came to bring a sword. Truth divides.
Actually it is as Gianna said why bother arguing with Chris anymore, he simplely does not get it, he does not listen to anyone: even the Holy Father. So:
BAN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!! (get it?)
Anyway seriously ban him from this blog admin least any impressible mind is lead astray!
Simon,
The document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is the official voting guide of the US Catholic Bishops.
It was adopted by a huge vote of the US Bishops (only 4 against).
It has been reaffirmed by the USCCB on the eve of the US election and again after that election.
I suggest you read and study it carefully, especially paragraphs 34-37
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
It is quite clear from the document that US Catholics are free to vote Obama if their informed conscience considers Obama “less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (para 36).
It’s a fact that many faithful Catholics who have been dedicated leaders of the pro-life movement for many years (eg Doug Kmiec), have decided that Obama would result in less abortions, and have voted for him accordingly.
As have a majority of US Catholics. (Most US Catholics voted Obama).
God Bless
BAN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!!
Ah, yes.
The original reason why we needed a secular society in the first place.
And still need one now.
Because rule by the Church had lead to inquisitions and burning of human persons at the stake and other attrocities against the Common Good.
The development of the secular society is a very good thing. Benedict XVI has often said so.
God Bless
Well Chris if you think tens of millions of unborn babies killed to “pursue other authentic human goods” is worth it you really are far gone. If someone really hated Mc Cain he would still be the lesser of two evils compared to Obama. Also Joe B should be denied communion where every he goes like in Uruguay whoses Bishops have taken a firm stance on the matter with their elections coming up. From zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-24217?l=english
Face it Chris you are on the wrong side of this
“It was adopted by a huge vote of the US Bishops (only 4 against).”
Is the Church constrained by democratic principles that the majority rules. If that is the case does that mean that the ‘majority’ ruling of the Pharisees to hand Jesus over to the Romans also ‘takes the day’. In other words they were right through force of numbers.
Apparently 50 USA Bishops stood against Obama as a preferred candidate – maybe not a majority but a significantly faithful block.
Its closer to town than the USA as well – don’t forget Archbishop Hart is telling the Catholic Hospitals in Victoria to stand against the State Laws that have just been passed.
THERE IS NO PRIMACY OF CONSCIENCE over and against Church teaching.
Actually true, truth does divide.
You just do not understand things Chris. Secular law should reflect (according to Church teaching) Divine and Natural law which many things Ombama and Joe D propose to put into law do not. Also Canon Law is higher than state law.
Also lighten up Chris, it was a joke (not the calling for you to be banned, just that comment suggtesting you are a heretic for not listen to Catholic teaching)
Oh no, we fell for it again! All hail Chris Lord of the Hijack!
Apparently 50 USA Bishops stood against Obama as a preferred candidate
No, they did not.
Some 50 odd bishops issued statements clarifying the Catholic position on abortion. Good on them.
A very few (I counted 3) bishops issued statements trying to bully Catholics into not voting Obama. That’s an abuse of power and quite wrong and will be extremely damaging to the Church. It’s the sort of thing that just invites the state to step into the Church to defend the rights of Catholics whose conscience’s are being coerced. Let’s not go there.
God Bless
Strange Chris, you argue for conscience but ban Bishops for having theirs. Where not the Bishops following their conscience support the pro-life cause not less? Do they not have the authority to teach on faith and morals? As the Uruguay Prelates stated:
“Regarding Catholics who promote and/or vote for laws in favor of abortion, they recalled that such a person breaks the link that unites them to Christ and the Church.”
This is true so would not these Bishops not seek to stop this?
US Bishops Issue Stark Warning to Obama over Abortion
By John-Henry Westen
BALTIMORE, November 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a stark warning to President-Elect Barack Obama, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), today warned the Obama Administration, on behalf of all the US bishops, that “aggressive pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.”
The statement, which was “written at the request and direction of all the Bishops,” was released today at the end of the annual fall assembly of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
While the message begins on a conciliatory note, the vast majority is directed at the issue of the rights of the unborn. “The bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all,” begins the statement. From there, however, it notes that the 1973 Roe v Wade decision was “bad law” and that the Freedom of Choice Act which Obama has promised to sign is even “more radical.”
Cardinal George writes that “the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve,” if the administration’s policies increase abortions.
The full statement follows:
A similar article on zenit:
Bishops Oppose Freedom of Choice Act: Call It Divisive, “Bad Legislation”
http://www.zenit.org/article-24240?l=english
THERE IS NO PRIMACY OF CONSCIENCE over and against Church teaching.
According to Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, there is, and he laid it out here :-
God Bless
Chris once again you show you do not understand.
Back in the old days you had to get a bishops permission to go to a protestant wedding and some times they said know and went anyway. They where rightfully following their conscience against their Bishops authority as it was not really a matter of faith or morals.
Under your arguement you could have an abortion and if your consciences says its ok then thats fine. But as we see if you have an abortion you are excommunicated by the Church showing conscience is not surpreme in the way you you put it Chris.
Indeed I am not arguing this for Chris but for anyone who might be lead astray by Chris’s misunderstandings. Ban him and end the maddess!
Just to clarify: Even one must stand before God and be judged. In regards to conscience you try to live life doing what is right. As Christians we must seek the understanding of the Church on God’s will, if you oppose Church teaching on faith and morals you are controdicting Gods will(which is not the right thing).
There is no”I was just following orders”. As St Thomas said if someone thinks Christ was evil it would be sinful to follow Christ, although if one listens to the Church one could not come to this conclusion which is in error. We must always seek truth, not just to be ok with our actions
Chris,
Much of the hysteria being generated here is based on a misconstrual of the facts and on what the Church actually teaches.
Now, I’m sure I left that kettle around here somewhere.
if you have an abortion you are excommunicated
But if someone deliberately and cold bloodedly murdered an innocent toddler then that someone would not be excommunicated.
And no-one excommunicated the Catholics involved in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (an act the Church condemned as the murder of innocents).
See how one-eyed and inconsistent we have become when the human life people want to take happens to still be in the womb ?
And why excommunicate the poor mother anyway ? Very often the abortion is not her free choice. It’s been imposed on her by someone else under deleterious social conditions. Social conditions which Obama says he wants to redress.
if you oppose Church teaching on faith and morals you are controdicting Gods will
How would that have worked out when the Church was using torture on heretics (she now teaches that torture is intrinsically evil) and somebody went against the Church and opposed that use of torture ?
I’ll tell you how it did play out.
Those who opposed the Church’s use of torture were themselves accused of heresy, and then tortured and executed.
That’s why we have the secular state.
To protect us from Church abuse of power.
God Bless
The abolition of slavery is a classic example – where secular law outlawed slavery and the Church, dragging her feet, was eventually obliged to follow.
Why do you spout such nonsense? If it wasn’t for the Church, we’d probably still have slavery. It is the teachings of Christ, who established a Church, that led people like William Wilberforce to change the world.
Scribe,
When the Popes held state power, none of them ever abolished slavery. In fact, the Popes used galley slaves to propel the papal navy.
At the time slavery was abolished, the Holy Office was still teaching that slavery was licit.
It was only after secular Western states abolished slavery that that Pope Leo XIII finally got around to issuing a bull (In Plurimus) teaching against all forms of slavery.
A clear example of secular state action informing papal teaching.
And an example of leadership from protestants in abolishing slavery at a time when many US Catholic Bishops themselves owned slaves.
God Bless
Here’s the right way to engage Obama.
Go Pope Benedict XVI ! You really rock !
God Bless
And here’s the start of the excellent statement released by the US Bishops after their recent 3 day meeting.
An excellent way to engage Obama (and the rest of the stmt is excellent too).
Anyone spot the difference in approach between the Pope and the US Bishops on the one hand and the right-wing anti-Obama Catholic doom and gloom brigade on the other hand ?
God Bless
I do know its church teaching (From a Legionary of Christ and they usually know their stuff) that one is obligated to follow their conscience, however, thats with pretty strict stipulations ie guilt is culpable if its their own fault they haven’t formed their conscience etc etc.
Also Chris might wanna watch your argument. Pretty soon someone is going to come up with stats showing high numbers of abortions for those whom economics does not play a part. Although I do agree that often poverty may play a role.
Guys a piece of advice: this will go no where. Its obvious you disagree with Chris, and there is no point continuing. You might as well argue with a brick wall (both sides actually haha!)
Is it just me or has Chris gone completely nuts? I am beginning to get quite worried, Chris, are you advocating for a side that is against the Catholic Church? You seem to oppose the Church A LOT and you are always quick to stab her in the back. What is your deal man? Do you hate the Church? Is it your calling in life to lead others astray? I hope you are not influencing your family with these obsurd beliefs because it would be a huge shame if this was the case.
Simon, we don’t need your “BAN CHRIS FROM THIS SITE”. Just pray for him and his family.
Gianna,
Good point on conscience and the obligation to inform it. Too few Catholics do.
I’m convinced that law is a necessary instrument for defending human life and that some abortions are by the rich for personal convenience. But the abortion rate is very much higher among the poor than the rich as, I think, Cathleen Kaveny has pointed out in one of her articles here (the 1st I think)
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2514
Her document here is a good one for those interested in a discussion of US abortion law from a thomistic persepective.
http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/kaveny/kaveny-thomist-abortion.pdf
God Bless
The Prophet,
Thanks for the prayers.
Always welcome.
Always needed.
I love the Church. But I don’t think some of the views advocated here are in line with Catholic teaching.
We have to be honest. We don’t have all the answers.
Sometimes the secular state can teach us a thing or two.
Filia raises some excellent questions. But some of them are not black and white. And to pretend that they are not only leads us into error but into public ridicule.
God Bless
Ok I just got back so my response to post 30:
Chris really. Someone murders a toddler then they are not to be admitted to communion as they are considered (although not judged) to be in mortal sin. Also the Church in not one eyed as the atomic bombs dropped during WW2 where done so in a time of war, indeed a just war.
Also your take on history is very flawed. As a history teacher, and some what of a historian, I am sick with people who have no sense of history making such argues. You do not get matters of dogma and you surely do not get matters of historical context. The common mistake is to equate the divine society of the Church with the secular society of the day.
Torture was seen as ok as secular society thought it was ok and regularly used it, and church people coming from society used it as every one thought it was ok. Indeed because of this torture was ok with their conscience (and no Chris not everyone who disagreed with torture where hunted down and tortured themselves).
We do not need secular society or its trends but the authentic teachings of Christ and His Church. Indeed Christ said “go forth and make disciples of all nations” not “let the nations whose secular society you agree with teach you how to be Christian”.
Also riddle me this Chris: remember when the Dumb Ox kept challenging you to a dual and you cited the Papal Encyclical from Leo XIII on dueling saying Catholics should not take part in the practice. So to your view conscience could override this? This leads me onto your belief “it is always wrong to kill” even in self defense, which is wrong in itself but is an example of an absolute you believe in. So as the Catholic Faith has many absolute truths there would be many “always wrongs” which conscience could not trump.
So rather you have to admit your “always wrong to kill” position is wrong as conscience can trump it our that there are some things which conscience cannot be supreme in as there is an absolute principle which cannot be ignored (which you really could only know as you have a fully formed conscience in regards to Catholic thought).
Chris,
The rest of the US bishops’ statement is basically an indictment of Obama’s promise to sign FOCA as his first order of business.
Actually just read Gianna’s post and I agree this will go no where, Chris does not listen.
I must disagree with the Prophet, this is just one of many many posts destroyed by the madness of Chris Sullivan, he needs to be banned for this to stop.
The only reason people argue with Chris is so he does not lead anyone astray. Many people have been praying for Chris and he just keeps getting worse, indeed keep giving Chris opportunity to sin on such a scale by attacking the Church is in my opinion is like giving alcoholics alcohol, merciless. Not only does he harm himself but wastes the time of many people as well.
This is my last post on this topic, one I really wanted to discuss but it turned into another victim of Chris. If this keeps up I may as well leave the blog as what is the point if every post will be hijacked by Chris and people trying to stop his errors spreading? This is not the exchange of Catholic ideas people come to Being Frank for. As I quoted before:
“The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period.”
What is the principles of Being Frank? Are they being given up to cater for Chris Sullivan? Will this be the blogs effective end?
Seriously I wanted to discuss the topic, and now the thread is ruined. It’s a serious problem. Later
Simon,
You are right that there are absolute principles (eg dogmas) which ought to inform our conscience.
But voting for Obama is not in that moral category for a very simple reason :-
THE CHURCH DOES NOT NOT NOT TEACH THAT VOTING OBAMA IS EVIL.
A man’s conscience is simply his intellectual grasp of moral truth which may be more or less in conformance with moral truth depending on how well informed his conscience is.
Feel free to discuss, but don’t expect everyone here to agree with you.
The NZ Catholic Bishops don’t, for starters.
God Bless
Scribe,
The USCCB stmt says :
Which is a good point, but, precisely who is trying to turn the election of Obama into a referendum on abortion ?
Wouldn’t it be those US Catholic bishops and their pro-Republican hangers on, who have very deliberately tried to make this election into just such a referendum ?
By, for example, insisting that Catholics cannot vote for Obama because to do so would be to vote for abortion.
I’m afraid that the right-wing of the US bishops have shot themselves in the foot over this one and they are rapidly loosing credibility among the Catholic faithful (most of whom voted Obama), not to mention the US public as a whole.
We are in real danger of the Democrats concluding that the Catholic Church is in the very partisanly Republican camp and therefore to be ignored whenever we criticise the Obama administration.
That doesn’t bode well for the kind of political relationship necessary to advance the fight against FOCA.
And precisely how is FOCA an attack on freedom of religion ?
Aren’t the stmts of some bishops, all but condeming to hell those Catholics who dared vote Obama, also a direct attack on the freedom of religion ? The freedom of Catholics to vote according to their conscience – a basic principle of our religion and of Love itself, which never coerces conscience.
God Bless
Chris #26
Re Primacy of Conscience. You miss the point . The Church is not a totalitarian system – you have the right to reject to Church teachings be it on your own conscience. But that decision is subjective and is not informed therefore it has no bearing on the objectivity of the Churches teaching.
You are ‘hanging ten’ as it were. The problem is that Catholics ‘do their own thing’ and claim it as a legitimate interpretation of their faith as CATHOLICS – in this they are wrong. The Churches teaching are not in error and no ones conscience in conflict with Church teachings can claim and authentic Catholic interpretation.
So I repeat there is no primacy of conscience OVER and AGAINST CHURCH TEACHING.
Also
“And precisely how is FOCA an attack on freedom of religion”
By enforcing the right of one person to DEMAND that their right to an abortion be met then they remove the right of the medical profession – be it Catholic doctor or hospital not to provide the means to ’satisfy that individuals right’.
The doctor or hospital must support the FOCA in all regards or they are in contempt of the law.
This forces the hospital or individual doctor, nurse etc to act against their religion and in fact puts the state in role of persecutor of those will not provide the means to provide an abortion as of right of that individual woman.
So I repeat there is no primacy of conscience OVER and AGAINST CHURCH TEACHING.
There is when what the Church teaches is wrong.
For example, when she supported torture, or slavery.
Or, today, when she refuses to ordain women.
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2545
These occassions are, of course, very few and far between. But they do occur and Ratzinger is right that a Catholic must follow his conscience even against Pope. As Fr Roy Bourgeois is.
The FOCA abortion / hospital issue is not a freedom of religion issue.
It’s a freedom of conscience issue.
Which, ironically is what I’m arguing for here, and others (including some right wing US Bishops) are arguing against.
Memo to pro-Republican bishops: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t deny Catholics freedom of conscience to vote Obama and then turn around and demand freedom of conscience in Catholic hospitals to refuse to do abortions. Not if you want the public to take you seriously.
Memo to SCDF: You can’t have it both ways either. You can’t coerce the conscience of Fr Roy, threatening to excommunicate him unless he changes what be believes about ordaining women, and then turn around and expect the US public to take you seriously when you come knocking on their door begging for freedom of conscience exemptions for US Catholic hospitals refusing to do abortions.
Be very careful of the bed you make on freedom of conscience.
Tomorrow you may have to lie in it.
God Bless
Chris, it’s obvious that you love your version of the Church and that is admirable. Perhaps I too can look forward to the day when a female priest baptises my child while giving praise to the almighty God.
Please close the door on your way out to wherever your wacky theology takes you.
“Be very careful of the bed you make…”
How very ironic and applicable for you.
God bless.
This is an excellent, thought provoking post Filia!
Or, today, when she refuses to ordain women
And as a women I have no problem with this. Jeez.
“and then turn around and expect the US public to take you seriously when you come knocking on their door begging for freedom of conscience exemptions for US Catholic hospitals refusing to do abortions.”
The point here also is that at the end of the day the Church answers to Christ for authentic witness and teaching it isn’t a matter of being ‘taken seriously by the US public’. As many a martyr has testified to the end they have a higher authority than colluding with the oppressor.
FOCA will ensure that the State DICTATES morals to the Church hospitals. Likewise does gay marriage and civil rights in this regard force Catholic adoption agencies to adopt to gay couples. So they are forced to close the doors. That is the cost.
There is no way a woman can be a priest ‘in persona Christi’ is makes a nonsense of the covenant established in scripture. Baptism is another matter.
It appears I missed your letter to NCR in support of Fr. Roy and Women’s ordination, Chris.
This priest’s ego is his problem. He’s forgotten his vow of Obedience.
That’s not just to his superiors in the Maryknolls – its to Christ, who has given his authority to the Church.
“Whatever you bind………………”. He was speaking to Peter, and on another occasion, the Apostles – the successors of whom is the Magisterium.
Wow, this thread has has got it all, and it’s not even 12 hours old!
I saw a few posts up the top on Bishops refusing Holy Communion, which is likely to come up a lot more now that America has a catholic vice president who supports abortion laws.
Many people think that Bishops have discretion in refusing Holy Communion to people, but that’s not actually the case.
From Canon Law:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
This canon is referring to the external conditions necessary to have the right to receive Holy Communion. There is a fundamental right to receive Holy Communion, unless there is a law preventing such.
Canon 915 states:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The relevant part here is others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The question is a factual one – if a person is obstinately (firmly or stubbornly adhering to one’s purpose, opinion, etc) persevering in manifest (known or public) grave sin then a minister of Holy Communion (ordinary or extraordinary) is not to admit that person to the sacrament.
There is no discretion here. And the obligation is on the minister of Holy Communion.
A very, very good and detailed article on the matter by the excellent Archbishop Burke (soon to be cardinal and future pope material in my opinion) is here:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
I would recommend any extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to read the full article.
So am I being lead astray? Am I one of these poor young souls who is being turned away from the Church and towards the devil simply because I read Chris’s blogs and that they get me thinking? Am I going along a demonic and un-Catholic path because I am listening to both sides and determing my own opinion rather than being force-fed a one-sided view?
“I love the Church. But I don’t think some of the views advocated here are in line with Catholic teaching.”
I agree though who posts such views?
“I must disagree with the Prophet, this is just one of many many posts destroyed by the madness of Chris Sullivan, he needs to be banned for this to stop.”
Personally a person who gives links to more information, whether biased or unbiased, relevant or irrelavant, is helping me with my understanding by giving me what I need and seek; information. Just because I read his posts and the information he offers does not mean I will agree with him. BUT it does mean that I become more informed. Obviously the question is is it “well-informed” or not. But give us casual BeingFrank readers credit, we can make up our own minds on what is useful information and what is useless. We don’t need someone telling us who you should or should not be listening to.
“What is the principles of Being Frank? Are they being given up to cater for Chris Sullivan? Will this be the blogs effective end?”
Will it? Or will it be individuals who lack tolerance and compassion? Who are too quick to vent their anger and frustration? I understand that having someone nit-pick at your thoughts and opinions must get frustrating but banning someone? Would that itself be going against what this blog is about? Would it be an un-Catholic thing to do?
And finally, just a general thanks to all the people who post on all these topics! Getting points of view from all sorts of people is of great help in one’s faith development.
el,
If a politician once voted for some law the bishops didn’t like, then, at the very worst, he once did a bad thing. Probably quite a few years ago. Probably under extenuating circumstances. And probably he could make a sound case for a Catholic vote for such a law.
Voting for a bad law a few years ago is obviously not obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.
Judge not least ye be judged.
Follow Jesus’ own example. Judas betrayed him yet still Jesus invited him to the last supper and gave him Holy Communion.
That’s the example we’re invited to follow.
God’s ways are so much higher than our ways.
Because they are the ways of love, not our ways of exclusion and vindictivness and judgementalism.
Feed the hungry.
Feed my sheep.
Feed my lambs.
Feed my sheep.
Feed them, don’t send them away hungry.
God Bless
There is no way a woman can be a priest ‘in persona Christi’
Sure there is.
Mary was and is.
She ate bread and drank wine and transubstantiated them into the very body and blood of Jesus in her own womb.
That’s a priestly role.
At the cross, Mary offered sacrifice. The perfect sacrifice. Her own son, God.
That’s a priestly role.
In a real but mystical sense Mary is a priest and always was a priest.
And there is a long tradition of Mary as priest in the Church.
As mediatrix of all graces, all graces flow to us from God via Mary. A priest not only acts in person Christi but also in persona Mariae. Which opens up the possibility to ordain women.
The Greek orthodox are already ordaining women deacons, as the Orthodox did in antiquity.
It is only a matter of time until we also ordain women.
The writing is on the wall and the times they are a changin.
God Bless
Don,
Peter hasn’t bound on ordaining women.
There is no infallibly defined dogma that the Church cannot ordain women.
Church law only allows excommunication on the basis of belief if the belief at hand is an infallibly defined dogma.
Therefore the SCDF have no power to excommunicate anyone merely on the basis of a belief in ordaining women.
If we go down the path of excommunicating each other and banning each other from Holy Communion then we’re walking away from Jesus and from his mother and all it will do is to drive people away from the Church in droves.
God Bless
Chris,
Stop drinking the NCR Kool-Aid. I’m surprised you haven’t linked to Fr John Dear’s article about the Call to Action conference and the desire that there be a woman pope within 40 years. I for one don’t want that.
Therefore the SCDF have no power to excommunicate anyone merely on the basis of a belief in ordaining women.
Well, we’ll find out in a few days if they have that power. And Fr Ray has certainly done more than express a belief in ordaining women. He’s taken part in an ordination.
Conan,
Perhaps I too can look forward to the day when a female priest baptises my child while giving praise to the almighty God.
Well, she’d almost certainly baptise in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier
Hi Chris,
Re post #55, not sure what you’re getting at in the first half of your post, you seem to be referring to a specific situation, Biden?
In all situations the test is the same and can apply to anyone, not just Catholic politicians – is the person obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, and if so then that person is to be refused Holy Communion by the minister.
An exception is made if the person is in danger of death.
Archbishop Burke’s excellent article discusses all your concerns, I recommend a good, thorough read of it. Archbishop Burke was earlier this year made prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority of our Church (apart from the pope himself).
One thing I noted with concern about your post Chris, you say:
Judge not least ye be judged.
then three sentences later you say:
Because they are the ways of love, not our ways of exclusion and vindictivness and judgementalism.
I can’t see any other way to interpret your second line other than that you are making a judgement on those bishops who have refused Holy Communion to people per the law of our Church.
With respect my friend, that comes across as hypocritical of you,. We all need to be careful of our words lest we condemn ourselves by them.
Christopher,
you may think that you know more than the Church when it comes to the issue of women’s ‘ordination’, but you can hardly expect the Church to agree with you.
the desire that there be a woman pope within 40 years.
Relax.
The Church is led by a woman and always has been. All popes come under her.
I’ve always had a great respect for the National Catholic Reporter and reading their articles played a key role in my becoming a Catholic. It’s an excellent publication. Beats hands down one local rag which has seriously undermined adult faith education and fostered division in the Church by taking aim at the Bishop’s own Catholic Institute for Theology.
You can read the excellent National Catholic Reporter for free at http://www.natcath.com
The weekly homilies from Bp Gumbleton are excellent as is the reporting by John Allen.
God Bless
El,
Archbishop Burke caused so much damage and mayhem in St Louis that he had to be removed to the Vatican where he could be kept on a tighter reign.
He also tried to excommunicate a nun in his diocese who believes in ordaining women.
The last gasp of a failed policy is always to use coercion to try and hold it in place by force when everyone with eyes and ears open can see that its time for change.
These excommunications are a sign that things are about to change.
Let me make this crystal clear :
1. Those bishops who have denied Holy Communion and want to excommunicate others are wrong and doing the opposite of what Jesus did.
2. I am not judging their motives. Some of them genuinely believe that excommunication is the way to go (I did once too but I grew to realise that it isn’t the way of Christ). Some bishops and popes once believed that the inquisition was the way to go too.
God Bless
FXD,
Very many Catholics have spent many years studying, pondering and praying about women’s ordination.
We have come to the conclusion that:
1. The ban on ordaining women is not infallibly defined.
2. There is no solid reason for this ban.
3. It’s time to change it.
God Bless
Scribe,
Read the statement from Fr Roy Bourgeois issued by his lawyer.
The SCDF are threatening to excommunicate this good priest unless he rants his belief in ordaining women.
In good conscience he can’t do that and he’s explained why.
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2545
The polls show that an overwhelming majority of Catholics in the USA, in Ireland and in Switzerland believe in ordaining women.
If the SCDF aka Holy Office aka Office of the Inquisition want to excommunicate every Catholic who believes in ordaining women then they are going to have to excommunicate most Catholics.
They’ll have to excommunicate me too because I believe in ordaining women.
God Bless
Nice article here from the NCR on the abortion issue and Obama.
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2553
God Bless
And some great advice for Obama here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_143251.html
God Bless
Hi Chris,
Re your post #62
Let me make this crystal clear :
1. Those bishops who have denied Holy Communion and want to excommunicate others are wrong and doing the opposite of what Jesus did.
Firstly, and as an aside, someone who has been excommunicated is to be denied Holy Communion, among all sorts of other penalties, but someone who is to be refused Holy Communion under the obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin law isn’t excommunicated by that (although may also be excommunicated for other issues), but is also to be denied Holy Communion.
To say those bishops are wrong is to say that the Church is wrong. And if you are going to put forward a position that is contrary to the Church’s teachings, I think that the only decent thing to do is to state such so as not to risk confusing people. You could say – the Church teaches x, but I believe that the Church’s teachings on that issue are incorrect and that it should be y, and these are my reasons for it…
It would clarify what we’re actually discussing (ie whether the Church should teach this rather than that as opposed to the Church actually teaches this rather than that) and it would also show that you have the courage of your convictions.
And on that topic, I think someone mentioned on this blog a few days ago that when we only believe teachings of the Church that we agree with, we don’t believe in the Church (which was founded be Christ and given His authority), we believe in ourselves.
It’s worth noting that Pope Benedict has publicly agreed with Archbishop Burke’s application of canon 915. Furthermore he has appointed Archbishop Burke to the highest canon law court of appeal in the world.
That means that if someone is denied Holy Communion and appeals the decision, it would go to Archbishop Burke to determine if it was valid or not. That speaks volumes of the Pope’s views on the matter.
Archbishop Burke caused so much damage and mayhem in St Louis that he had to be removed to the Vatican where he could be kept on a tighter reign.
You can’t have much respect for our pope if you think that is the reason behind his appointment of the Archbishop.
He also tried to excommunicate a nun in his diocese who believes in ordaining women.
Which is allowed. A catholic believing in the ordination of women does fit the objective criteria for heresy, which is legally defined as:
the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same
As the Church’s teaching on the (non) ordination of women is infallible, then believing it is possible is (objectively speaking) heresy, and heresy does carry an automatic excommunication with it.
We have come to the conclusion that:
1. The ban on ordaining women is not infallibly defined.
2. There is no solid reason for this ban.
3. It’s time to change it.
It’s worth pointing out that the previous pope, JPII, and the current pope have stated that the Church’s teaching on the (non) ordination of women is an infallible teaching of the Church.
Furthermore, on 30 May 2008, the CDF announced that those attempting to confer holy Orders on women, and the women attempting to receive holy Orders, hence forth incur automatic excommunication.
The polls show that an overwhelming majority of Catholics in the USA, in Ireland and in Switzerland believe in ordaining women.
None of those Catholics hold the keys to the Kingdom, given by Christ Himself to Peter, the first Pope. As mentioned above, the current pope and the previous pope have both told us that the teaching is infallible.
Chris,
I’ve always had a great respect for the National Catholic Reporter and reading their articles played a key role in my becoming a Catholic. It’s an excellent publication.
The publication is a disgrace and shouldn’t be allowed to call itself Catholic. John Allen is a great journalist; his colleagues, though, spend their time undermining Church teaching on a range of issues. The paper runs ads for seminary training by correspondence.
Beats hands down one local rag which has seriously undermined adult faith education and fostered division in the Church by taking aim at the Bishop’s own Catholic Institute for Theology.
So you’d rather read a publication that undermines Catholic teaching than one that tries — not always successfully — to be faithful to that same teaching?
Having the support of Chris Sullivan is hardly a ringing endorsement for the pro-womyn’s ordination minority lobby group.
After all, you also believe that there could be more than four people in the Trinity, that Catholics can be Muslims, that the Greens are pro-life, etc, etc, etc
Your endorsement of the womyns ordination lobby has confirmed for me once again how loppy and nutty an idea that really is.
Chris,
The polls show that an overwhelming majority of Catholics in the USA, in Ireland and in Switzerland believe in ordaining women.
The Church isn’t a democracy — thank God.
If the SCDF aka Holy Office aka Office of the Inquisition want to excommunicate every Catholic who believes in ordaining women then they are going to have to excommunicate most Catholics.
I think the SCDF is more interested in people who actively participate in ceremonies “ordaining” women, like Fr Bourgeois (great name).
Chris,
You are a fool.
I don’t mean this as an insult, I mean this in the proper English understanding of the word…
Fool:a person who lacks judgment or sense; or a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid
You have been deceievd by Satan Chris.
It is an absolute tragedy that someone so seemingly inteligent is prepared to believe, endorse and then propagate the lies of Satan and all his other wicked spirits who roam this world seeking the ruin of souls like you.
“But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition [to be women priests] in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive [to the teachings of Christ through His Bride the Church] , full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.”
- James 3:14-17
I shudder to think that people are being formed from Chris’s dubious ideas.
Remember that Satan himself can quote Scriptures, and is much more intelligent than any of us; he can make hell itself appear as paradise, to the ruin of souls.
Re: 32, etc. Slavery.
Slavery has been discussed to death. You have repeatedly demonstrated your willingness to ignore the data and continue to present your biased arguments. I’d rather not have to discuss this again, and I have expressed this to the admin’ previously – and I hope you can see why, from this:
• Amazing Grace
• Are we a Christian country?
• Preach it Brother!
• The Cafeteria Myth
• The equality of inequality
• “But it says on page 1,326…” (note: I say the exact same thing here)
Re: 47, 63, etc. on Women’s Ordination.
You are preaching another gospel, not in accord with the mind of the Church nor the Apostolic Tradition. Here is the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, 25:
As for the “frequent repetition of the same doctrine,” here is a list of documents on the reservation of Holy Orders to men:
1. Paul VI, Response to the Letter of His Grace, the Most Reverend Dr F.D. Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury, Concerning the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood. (1975)
2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores, On the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood. (1976)
3. John Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem, no.26. (1988)
4. John Paull II, Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, no.51. (1988)
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.1577. (1992)
6. John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Apostolic Letter on reserving Priestly Ordination to Men alone. (1994)
7. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dubium” “de doctrina tradita tamquam definitive tenenda?”. (1995)
8. John Paul II, Ad Tenendam Fidem. (1998)
Re: 55. Refusing Communion.
The Bishops have a God-given task and charism to rule, teach, and sanctify, as they participate in the three-fold office of Christ. It is their duty to make judgements for the good of their flock. One cannot impose some ideological and political correct behaviour on the Sacred office.
Or have you forgotten that the Church is a mystical body of Christ, and that the apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle-workers, healers, helpers, administrators, and speakers of tongues have their being in the body by the gifts of the Holy Spirit Himself (1 Corinthians 27-31)? To refuse to rule, teach and sanctify is to neglect their charism, and thereby to sin against the Holy Spirit by holding His gifts to contempt. Indeed, their failure to exercise their authority for the fear of men would risk their own souls, and the souls of the flock entrusted to them. Are you willing to take responsibility for this?
el wardo has shown clearly from Canon Law that your position is out of line with that of the Church – or do you place yourself above the authority of the Church? You do not have the charism or the authority for this.
Re: 61. National “Catholic” Reporter.
Here is Catholic Culture’s review of National Catholic Reporter, which gives it the fidelity rating of “Danger!”. The list of weaknesses include the following:
Finally, the words of St. Paul seem very relevant here:
(Galatians 1:6-12)
the previous pope, JPII, and the current pope have stated that the Church’s teaching on the (non) ordination of women is an infallible teaching of the Church.
No they have not.
No Pope has ever taught that this is an infallible teaching.
That’s why believing in ordaining women is not a heresy.
God Bless
This is classic Sullivan hijacking. And I have taken the bait.
Chris,
> That’s why believing in ordaining women is not a heresy.
Perhaps, but it is dissent that clearly violates the directives of Lumen Gentium, and it is to hold the unifying guidance of the Holy Spirit in contempt. You are playing with fire, for yourself and for the souls of others. I would not want to see it consummated for you or anyone else in the next life.
This is the right way to respond to those we are tempted to excommunicate or deny Holy Communion.
St Paul, quoting the Torah :
God Bless
Chris,
The Church is feeding Fr Bourgeois — with the truth. And he wishes to ignore it.
When someone errs to the point of being in danger of excommunication, the Church tries to bring the person to the truth. In a similar way, denying someone Communion is an invitation for them to correct their erroneous choices, whatever they may be.
TTM,
OK. So we are on the same page that the SCDF has no power to excommunicate anyone on the basis of a person believing in the ordination of women.
Because the inability to ordain women is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Church.
I used to think it was a defined dogma (like others on this blog who still do) but Cardinal Ratzinger explained to me that it is not.
God Bless
columbaramba cobbers!
scribe, yes, i have to agree – chris has hijacked this thread
God bless you chris.
objectively speaking “believing that ordaining women is ‘ok’ is a heresy – it is contrary to the deposit of Faith. but we can’t know if a particular person is truly guilty of it – because they might truly be so confused, and muddled, and caught up in ideology, and agenda, and their own personal biases, and their own self-love, and their own self-styled theology, that their minds have become so darkened, foggy, twisted, and addled that they can’t see the Light, or be open to the Truth anymore; so we can’t judge that. only God can truly judge it to the very core. but that doesn’t change the fact that the belief is a heresy.
so we can’t judge them as holding internal heresy (the internal forum)…but the Church (the authentic authority and those charged with exercising it) can, after investigation, and repeated warnings, and repeated requests of recantation, and repentance, pronounce a judgement based on external factors (the external forum), because the external forum gives some indication of what is going on internally. so to protect the common good of the Church, and as an act of mercy and medicine to the person(s) involved, She can warn them of the danger of holding such a belief, for the sake of their own salvation, and the salvation of others, so that they remain in communion with the Church, or they may find themselves, by their own actions, out of communion (ex-communited) from the Church. The Church’s pronouncement is simply a reflection and a manifestation by the hierarchy, of the already existing reality that they have ex-communicted themselves from Christ, from His Church, from the Body, and from the living Tradition. the Church certainly can err in Her judgement of this for particular persons***, but it doesn’t change the fact, that if they hold to a heresy obstinately and wilfully (and they are guilty for it), they have excommunicated themselves, which God knows, and sees.
*** it follows then that some people can be pronounced ‘excommunicated’ by the Church, but in reality, at the deepest level of communion with Christ and His Church, they are not (eg, St Joan or Arc), ie, the Church has made a mistake. judgements about excommunications are not infallible acts of the papal or ecumenical magisterium.
but for this case, “women’s ordiantion” – it is clear that it is contrary to the Deposuit of Faith – as outlined by Paul VI, JPII, Ratzinger, Bertone, and the Revelation itself.
peace sisters and brothers.
Chris,
Archbishop Burke caused so much damage and mayhem in St Louis that he had to be removed to the Vatican where he could be kept on a tighter reign.[sic]
This is bordering on libel and is a disgraceful statement. If anyone made such disparaging comments about a bishop in New Zealand, you’d scream “bloody murder”.
Here’s proof of the “damage and mayhem” Archbishop Burke — a cracking good bishop — caused in St Louis: http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14443
Here’s an extract:
(Emphasis mine)
denying someone Communion is an invitation for them to correct their erroneous choices
No it isn’t.
It’s showing them the door and asking them to leave.
As very many Catholics have already done.
Let’s not carry on that way or more will walk (and I suspect that some here want just that).
Let’s grow up and learn how to love one another.
Feed my sheep.
Feed my lambs.
Feed my sheep.
I was hungry and you would not feed me.
I admire Fr Roy Bourgois for having the courage to organise protests against the School of the Americas, where the Pentagon trained soldiers in how to torture. One of their victims was my brother in law who was tortured by Latin American soldiers – the same soldiers trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas.
Prophets of social justice like Fr Roy know that the way to change is to confront injustice.
That’s what he’s doing over women’s ordination.
That’s what Jesus did too. Defied the religious authorities when it was necessary to do so. Taught the truth. Confronted the businessmen in the temple.
One can argue with Fr Roy’s tactics.
But there is no doubt he’s absolutely sincere in his conscience.
Good on him and may God bless and protect him. The Church needs more courageous priests like him.
I might differ with his tactics but I’m going to stand in solidarity with him. So are many others.
God Bless
Hi Chris,
No they have not.
No Pope has ever taught that this is an infallible teaching.
Sure they have. Usually you would argue that no pope has INFALLIBLY defined that the teaching is infallible but here you’re saying that no pope has taught that it is an infallible teaching? We’ve discussed this before.
Approximately 16 months later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on October 28, 1995, issued a Responsum ad dubium, a formal response to an inquiry posed to the Holy See. The inquiry or dubium concerned the authoritative status of the teaching of John Paul II in Ordinatio sacerdotalis regarding the ordination of women. The CDF’s response was brief, if provocative:
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.(12)
It was JPII himself who approved the Responsum. Right there he teaches that the teaching is infallible.
A few thoughts:
The hypercritical remarks coming from Chris here make me very upset. Very. Scribe is right Chris. I read numerous articles about how sad people were to be loosing Archbishop Burke.
Scribe is right. You’d be screaming bloody murder if ANYONE said something like that about an NZ Bishop. In fact you only seem to think its OK to make such statements when its a ‘conservative bishop.’
Second this post is unbelieable. This was an excellent post I wanted to discuss but instead we’ve gotten onto womens ordination AGAIN which Chris brought up WHY???
A word from the wise, to the more wise; this argument will go NOWHERE. Why don’t people start replying to the actual post and ignore inflamatory remarks.
Don’t get me wrong I’m all for both sides of the coin, arguments etc. But this is just disgraceful that we are here, arguing this AGAIN.
There is a reason many posters no longer post very often. Its a frustrating a futile experience.
Just to be clear.
Grrrr. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That is all.
This is what it has gotten to in the US Church.
Hounding out those who don’t agree with us.
When are we going to learn to love our neighbour as ourself ?
God Bless
El,
Re 84.
The responsum was not issued by JPII.
It was issued by the SCDF.
The responsum is insufficient to establish the infallibility of this teaching.
About 1860 the SCDF issued a responsum saying that slavery was OK. Later Popes corrected this. Read Denzinger and you’ll find numerous cases where the SCDF said something and a later Pope corrected them.
God Bless
It’s showing them the door and asking them to leave.
As very many Catholics have already done.
Let’s not carry on that way or more will walk (and I suspect that some here want just that).
I want people to live according to the teachings of the Church so they don’t have reason to leave. What I don’t want is a lowering of the bar to say Communion is for anyone and everyone. That’s not good for someone’s eternal soul.
If someone is acting in a way contrary to the teachings of the Church, he or she is potentially rolling the dice for his or her soul. Why should priests/bishops ignore that? To do so is to fail in their duties.
You’ll condemn this comment, Chris, but there are plenty of other churches where people can go — and have gone — because they struggle to accept and live out the teachings of the Church. We all fail to do that from time to time, but have a desire to live in the right way and strive to do better.
Some want to be members of the “club” without following the “constitution”.
Hey Chris,
I used to think it was a defined dogma (like others on this blog who still do) but Cardinal Ratzinger explained to me that it is not.
When did Cardinal Ratzinger explain this to you? In his letter accompanying the responsum where he wrote:
In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.
If you had thought that JPII made an ex cathedra proclaimation in OS then I can understand you changing your mind after Cardinal Ratzinger’s clarification.
Hi Dave,
Re post #81,
Good post, well explained.
there are plenty of other churches where people can go — and have gone — because they struggle to accept and live out the teachings of the Church.
Knowing that truth, maybe we ought to take that on board and cut people a little slack and show them some love and compassion ?
You know, like Jesus did.
Not hound them out.
God Bless
Chris,
People — even priests — are flawed and make some poor decisions. In this case, I think that priest in the US made a poor decision.
It pales in comparison to what Fr Bourgeois (great name) did, though, IMHO.
Chris,
The Catholic Church is the Queen of love and compassion. The Church does what Jesus did — she tells people to “go, and sin no more”. People’s attachment to sin can prove too powerful.
Cutting people some slack can lead to a very slippery slope, cf The Mass.
El,
as you quote :
the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
and
In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible…
Which attests to the fact that JPII’s declaration is not infallible.
If you had thought that JPII made an ex cathedra proclaimation in OS then I can understand you changing your mind after Cardinal Ratzinger’s clarification.
I did just that.
as for this:
it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium
It has not been. There was no vote by the bishops dispersed as OUM infallibility requires.
It’s a fact. This teaching is not infallible.
Therefore, to believe in ordaining women is not heresy.
Therefore, the SCDF are completely wrong and out of order to bully Fr Roy Bourgeois that he will be excommunicated unless he recants his belief in ordaining women.
Enough of bullying in the Church. It is not the way of Jesus. And it is a great scandal which has driven and is still is driving many out of the Church.
God Bless
Excommunication, ‘latae sententiae’, simply means, by the act itself.
That is to say, by the clear contravention of the law, excommunication is automatic.
That is to say, excommunication is incurred, whether or not you get a letter from Rome.
That is to say, when one is excommunicated ‘latae sententiae’, the agent of that excommunication is oneself.
“I shudder to think that people are being formed from Chris’s dubious ideas.”
Now TTM you will have Intrigued on your back claiming “you lack tolerance and compassion”
I know I said I would stop posting but we are having the very same arguments we have had for years, that we have gone over a hundred times so I feel I must say the following.
On this thread we have people calling other people “fool”, “nuts”, “mad” etc and being very judgmental (Intrigued I mean you). This has to stop and this goes for all threads. This blog is becoming uncharitable: out of frustration, not out of close mindedness. This did not develop overnight, this has been happening for years but getting worse of late.
Do you know so many people are being put off Being Frank because it is not only going hugely off track but becoming very uncharitable? I have talked to protestants who view Being Frank and are put off by the way we treat each other. Although it is not exactly how we treat “each other” there is one catalyst to all this but still everyone is responsible for their actions. If you want drama watch Shortland Street (actually do not do that), as I fear Being Frank is turning into a morbid soap opera with many discussions at Catholic gatherings bringing up Chris Sullivan and “can you believe he actually believes this” or “you know what Chris said…”
Also claims this conflict is educational therefore ok are dubious. Conflicts on Being Frank should not be a main source for formation, every Catholic should be doing religious study such as reading the Catechism at least once a week or ideally for 10 minutes every day. No one can say they cannot do 10 minutes a day or it is unreasonable. Read official Church documents or books with imprimaturs do not be lazy and seek to listen to “both sides”: leave the controversies to you are well formed. If it is a pressing issue talk to a priest or write your bishop.
Overall we just fight with Chris to the point it becomes a beat up. Sure he is wrong but we all know he just gets defensive and does not listen and lets face it, it is not helpful to Chris nor is it chartable. Level heads are not prevailing; things are continuing in an unbalanced way.
So I make the appeal (especially to those at work who should be working) think very carefully about what I have said and act as you see fit.
Also perhaps we need to organize in person “Being Frank” discussion groups so we can talk about every thing and anything in a more fluid and interactive manner (in a non-work time period). Also I believe face to face would be more civil and educational
Chris for crying out loud, go and do some work to provide for your family. Stop wasting your time and ours.
Chris,
Here — again — is what el wardo linked to above. Please read it carefully:
People’s attachment to sin can prove too powerful.
OK.
Then we have to realise that and love them and be with them and realise that it will take time and all the love and help we can give them, especially the eucharist to slowly help them out of attachment to sin.
Often this kind of spiritual change don’t happen overnight. It can take years. A lifetime for some.
Faith and spiritual growth is a journey.
Often a very hard one.
The lambs need the food which only we can give them.
Otherwise we haven’t helped them make it but we’ve become a obstacle in their path to holiness.
You know who’s there with those driven out of the Church over women’s ordination, ministering to them and helping them ? Good priests like Fr Roy. We should be applauding him and helping him, not trying to hound him out too.
God Bless
Scribe,
Re 100.
All the say so in the world by the SCDF that such and such is infallible won’t make it so.
Only the Pope can define a dogma infallibly.
You know that.
Can’t you accept that the SCDF might be, in good faith, wrong about this ?
After all, the charism of infallibility is not wielded by the SCDF, and they have been mistaken about doctrine before (look up their 1860 responsum on slavery for example).
God Bless
Christopher,
the spiritual journey is not only fed by the Blessed Sacrament.
It must also be fed by the grace obtained through the sacrament of confession (penance, reconciliation).
Sometimes, in fact, the best sacrament for the spiritually sick is not the Eucharist.
That’s why Our Lord, in His wisdom, and knowing us better than we know ourselves, gave us the surety of forgiveness, and grace to avoid future sin, in the sacrament of confession.
That grace is, of course, further amplified in the intimate union that comes in the reception of the Eucharist.
However, sometimes our sin blocks the way to the reception of the Eucharist. To use an ecologically pertinent image:
You want to hug a tree. There is a wall you’ve built around that tree, which prevents you from doing so. Use the tools for removing the wall, before you use the tools to hug the tree.
As a green voter, Christopher, I thought the image was particularly apt, if somewhat unusual, and imperfect.
:mrgreen:
That was :mr green:, for anyone who missed it.
Chris,
You seem to have a protestant view of infallibility. Here’s a clear rundown on the topic from a theologian at Good Shepherd College, including a direct explanation of why the non-ordination of women is infallible teaching.
I hope you don’t ignore it like you have in the past:
Wow. It must be Friday.
Everyone calling for Chris to be banned,
Banning is not the answer. For starters, it’s not technically possible. Secondly, Chris has a right to express his views – no matter how wacky they are. The thread poster can delete and remove posts if he/she thinks they’re off topic…if they want to.
Thirdly, for those who are concerned that others may be poorly formed in their faith by listening to Chris, that is why it is important that you shoot down his false arguments clearly, cleanly and concisely.
All the time offering this work up for the Holy Souls. 
Chris,
Scribe has nailed it, I think – you see infallibility as being only valid when ex cathedra. But that is not in line with Church teaching as he has posted above.
If, however, you want to continue taking a Protestant line, then riddle me this, Batman:
1) Please indicate a single Gospel passage that shows Christ choosing a woman as one of his twelve apostles. You may select from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. If you can’t find one, then show me where on God’s good earth you get the authority to teach that the Church is wrong on this decision.
2) Please show me where Christ’s instruction to St.Peter to “feed my lambs” was interpreted in Scripture to mean the Eucharist. Also, please show in a similar Scriptural reference where Christ said that all were welcome to said meal.
I literally can’t wait for your responses as I’m sure they will shed light on this one way or another…!
It’s a lovely day outside, I’ve just come back from taking my wee ones to the beach.
Hey Chris,
In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible…
Which attests to the fact that JPII’s declaration is not infallible.
I honestly don’t know how many times it needs to be said before you
realise it, but no-one is saying that JPII’s declaration in OS was an ex cathedra statement (or at least they shouldn’t be).
JPII himself has said that it was not an ex cathedra statement. This has been put to you many times on this blog, yet you seem to treat it as a new discovery EVERYTIME.
JPII has said that he was confirming an already existing infallible teaching of the Church, which is infallible through the ordinary and universal magesterium.
Also, you quote this:
In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible…
But you seem to be ignoring the very next part of that sentence:
In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.
And then you state:
All the say so in the world by the SCDF that such and such is infallible won’t make it so.
Again, as it has been stated here many times, no one is saying that the infallibility of the teaching arose from the SCDF saying that it is infallible.
The CDF clarified the status of the declaration made by JPII in OS. There was some confusion about the nature of JPII’s declaration at the time. Some people though he made an ex cathedra statement.
It is the CDF’s job to clarify such. They clarify such issues when there is doubt. They did exactly that. They sought JPII’s confirmation on this and HE DID CONFIRM IT.
You appear to be using the old straw man argument here, setting the CDF as the body defining an infallible teaching, when it was JPII himself that confirmed the infallibility of it. The CDF clarified the issue when asked to do so, which is their job.
All the say so in the world by the SCDF that such and such is infallible won’t make it so.
You come up with these every time. Yet you’ve never been able to show in either of the two Vaticans’ documents where it is stated that a poll must be taken of all the bishops to see what they believe.
What ratio must be meet? must every single Bishop beleive in a teaching? Is it 98%?
The reason why you haven’t shown us where that is stated in either Vaticans’ documents is because there is no such thing. There is no such requitreemnt.
To say that there is such a requirement is to set yourself up as a second tier magisterium that has the power to make binding rules on the real magisterium.
You’re simply making things up here.
God bless you.
Chris you really are deluded about this issue, and you just can’t see how wrong you really are.
It’s like your heart and mind has some sort of spiritual block to seeing reason and truth.
Please indicate a single Gospel passage that shows Christ choosing a woman as one of his twelve apostles.
That’s easy.
The Samaritan woman at the well (who went back and converted her village and bought them back to meet Jesus).
And Mary Magdelene who Christ sent to go tell the others (the Greek “apostle” means one who is sent).
And, preemintantly, his mother, central in the early Church and at Pentacost.
God Bless
Also, please show in a similar Scriptural reference where Christ said that all were welcome to said meal.
Easy.
Christ invited Judas to the last supper.
And fed him his body and blood.
The ways of God are inclusionary, not exclusionary as are the ways of men.
God Bless
El,
The plain facts are that there is no defining act to establish the inability to ordain women in infallible.
Anyone can witness/claim its infallible because they say thats always and everywhere been held (they said the same about slavery and interest on loans and about everything the Church changed her mind about).
But only a defining ACT can establish that the thing actually is taught infallibly.
That’s why we have defining acts and don’t just rely on so and so said it has always been held.
God Bless
Scribe,
Re 106:
The Good Shepherd quote hings on this assertions
it seems
Pardon me if I’m not convinced that some theologian’s “it seems” really establishes the infallibility of this.
God Bless
I don’t know why we’re arguing the infallibility issue again.
It’s clear that those who oppose the magisterial directive on the matter (such as the folks at Call to Action) frequently verge on heresy and generally do not have the sense of the faithful (sensus fidelium). They intend to re-form the Gospel in their own image and ideology, rather than to be docile to the Tradition of the Apostles that the Church has received as a gift from Christ and, in turn, from God Himself.
Even if there is a theoretical doubt on it, the highest teaching office in the Church has spoken repeatedly on the matter. If we are to be loyal subjects of Christ, we must also respect the teaching office of the Church which participates in Christ’s own prophetic and kingly office. We certainly do not have the authority or the charism on the matter, since it is not the realm for our own charisms (which complement, rather than oppose, theirs – take note!):
Here is an excerpt from Lumen Gentium 25 again (see #72), with added emphasis:
Are we seeing reverent acknowledgement of the Papal authority on the matter? Are the judgements of the Holy Office sincerely being adhered to?
If not, one is outside the mind of the Church, and risks breaking communion with her and with the Holy Spirit who guides her.
Chris,
The theologian’s comment are entirely consistent with other experts in canon law around the place. The fact that you can’t accept that the teaching is infallible beggars belief.
Ignore the “it seems” that you are using to justify your unwillingness to accede to this teaching — talk about clutching at straws. GRRRRRRRRRRR. Read this on the ordinary and universal magisterium, which shows there needn’t be an ACT to make something infallible.
Ordinary and universal magisterium too is infallible. However, it differs from extraordinary infallible magisterium in that it is not defined in a single document, instance of teaching or single gathering of the bishops of the Church, but rather is defined by the constant and ordinary teaching of the all bishops of the Catholic Church with and under the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. [cf Lumen Gentium 25]. As such, this ordinary and universal teaching must be, and be shown to be, constant through time and space.
Chris,
James asked you to point to a Gospel passage that shows Christ picking a woman as one of the 12 apostles.
The Samaritan woman at the well (who went back and converted her village and bought them back to meet Jesus).
WRONG!
And Mary Magdelene who Christ sent to go tell the others (the Greek “apostle” means one who is sent).
WRONG!
And, preemintantly, his mother, central in the early Church and at Pentacost.
You guessed it, WRONG AGAIN!
I think, to be fair, one may have a theoretical, intellectual uncertainty on the matter. However, it is clear from Lumen Gentium that our will must be in line with the teaching, so that we hold to the judgement of the Holy Office in reverence that is due to the primary teaching instrument of the Spirit of Truth.
Thus, the teaching which has been repeatedly affirmed by the Papacy, and defined as being infallible by the CDF with papal endorsement, must be held to be infallible, even if a very minor room is left for theoretical and intellectual possibility of it not being infallible as such.
You have to admit, though, one has to be pretty legalistic to keep looking for loopholes and theoretical possibilities to this degree.
Chris,
Read my question again, Chris. One of Christ’s 12 – twelve – apostles.
None of those count. Feel free to try again.
Chris,
Where in that passage did Christ say “All are welcome”?
Now this is an interesting step to take: http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2008/11/priest-those-who-voted-for-obama-should.html
Here’s a letter he sent to parishioners: http://www.stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2008-dedication-of-the-lateran-basilica-in-rome
Makes the priest asking the parishioner to move her Obama-stickered car look like a raging liberal…
Hi Chris,
The plain facts are that there is no defining act to establish the inability to ordain women in infallible.
The plain facts are that there is not a defining act when we are dealing with the ordinary and universal magesterium, which others have mentioned here and many more have pointed out to you previously.
Links to articles on the issue have been previously provided.
A defining act is needed for an infallible teaching that has been defined through an ex cathedra statement or through a bishops’ conference (authorised by the Pope). Not for a teaching through the ordinary and universal magesterium
Anyone can witness/claim its infallible because they say thats always and everywhere been held (they said the same about slavery and interest on loans and about everything the Church changed her mind about).
Two parts here, first we’re not talking about anyone making this claim, we’re talking about Pope John Paul II, the two hundred and something successor of Peter, and holder of the keys to the Kingdom.
Second part, and this is important, are you claiming that any pope has ever stated any of the following – slavery, or interest on loans, or anything else the Church has changed her mind on (as you claim) as an infallible teaching of the church through the ordinary and universal magesterium?
But only a defining ACT can establish that the thing actually is taught infallibly.
As stated on a number of occasions, not for the ordinary and universal magesterim, which is by definition not achieved through a defining act.
That’s why we have defining acts and don’t just rely on so and so said it has always been held.
When you say so and so you’re referring to Pope John Paul II. At least you’re being honest about your feelings here. It would be more accurate to refer to yourself as a so and so who thinks that the infallible teaching of the Church is not infallible. That would be a much more accurate way to view the matter.
If we are to be loyal subjects of Christ, we must also respect the teaching office of the Church which participates in Christ’s own prophetic and kingly office. We certainly do not have the authority or the charism on the matter, since it is not the realm for our own charisms (which complement, rather than oppose, theirs – take note!):
I agree very much with that.
Ordaining women can only happen if a Pope infallibly defines our ability to do so.
I think he can, but the power to define is not in my court and it’s not in Fr Bourgeois’ court either.
God Bless
Ordinary and universal magisterium too is infallible. … is defined by the constant and ordinary teaching of the all bishops of the Catholic Church with and under the Bishop of Rome
That’s true.
But the only way to know for sure if a teaching really is “the constant and ordinary teaching of the all bishops of the Catholic Church with and under the Bishop of Rome” is by some sort of defining act.
Just saying so doesn’t establish it.
God Bless
James,
Scripture is clear that there were more than 12 apostles.
Start counting them (don’t forget St Paul).
God Bless
If Judas, who had already agreed to betray Jesus was welcome, then it stands to reason that most everyone else is welcome too.
God Bless
Looks like the troll’s feeding himself.
Check the last four comments.
I must say, after the latest efforts on this thread, I am stunned.
I wish we had a Bishop Finn here in NZ; we need shaking up badly.
And nothing shakes more than the truth.
Chris;
take your red sunglasses off!
#111 and 125
Judas was offered the chance to repent by Jesus, (as we all are..)but by taking eucharist unworthily he allowed Satan to enter him and this sealed his fate.(John 13;27)
If Judas was such a friend to you then why did you wish this end to him?
a true friend will protect, not condemn Inclusiveness should not be confused with compassion
Ah Chris,
How do you manage to fit so many major theological errors into your postings on Being Frank?
It’s quite a feat really – there must be some sort of world record here.
I guess that’s what happens when you stop listening to anybody but yourself and your own whacky ideas.
Chris,
No, Scripture is clear there were more than 12 disciples. Christ himself chose only 12 apostles.
You’re quite amazing how you can wrap yourself in such unbelievable “logic” that even a rhetorical question doesn’t come back with the answer everyone else would give. Simply amazing. And disturbing at the same time.
You’re right there Chris – not a single Pope has said that he can or will ordain women. Not a one. So you, and all women who want women priests for whatever reason, are simply out of luck. So how about you drop it until the Pope pronounces that it’s allowed? Because all you’re doing in the meantime is stirring people up to point out the facts you’re already aware of…and it gets tiresome.
morning campers,
another beautiful day in the Lord’s service!
just to change topic briefly, here is some news…
Obama to resume funding of U.N. program implicated in forced abortions
interesting…
Republican Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship
me again :mrgreen:
“Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.” Luke 10:10
people, i think that there is nothing to do but to shake chris and his heretical dust from our feet and move on…
what do you think?
God bless
ps, that doesn’t mean removing chris from beingfrank (for those who might like to twist my words) but just not going over and over this stuff time and time again; and being drawn into chris’ traps, and allowing him to derail our conversations. i notice that these topics have been discussed with chris so many times, and all the proper information has been presented, but he still refuses to accept some things…
let’s just move on, and wipe him and his ideas from our feet, and let Jesus deal with him when He comes…
chris, i notice that you seem to zero in on one idea from a post and get obsessed with one word, one phraze, one thing that you want to grind an axe about…maybe try a bit harder to read the whole, not only of threads, but of others posts, instead of getting bogged down in tiny minutiae.
maybe also try tyo avoid [pushing your well know agendas out of chairty for everybody else?
peace
A friend of mine saw a series of quick interviews on CNN – as to why people were going to vote McCain or Obama. The third of a segment of 4 quick answers was a woman from Texas who said: “I’m voting McCain because Obama is a baby killer and I don’t vote for baby killers.” And when these segments made it to NZ tv, the other three answers were there but that one had been edited out. The NZ media didn’t want NZers to see that one – or to consider that point of view.
But let us not shy away from it: Obama is a baby killer and Catholics cannot support baby killers in good conscience.
For a Harvard educated man and a lawyer, Obama’s arguments for the right to abortion are poor.
1) Well, it’s a tough choice for a woman so women have the right to make that choice. – Well it’d be a tough choice presumably for a woman to kill her husband too, or her three year old. It’d be a tough choice for me to rob a bank, so can I?
2) Obama when asked whether he thought life began at conception “Well, that’s a question above my pay grade”. Surely the benefit of the doubt should have go protecting life, if you don’t know.
Either Obama was pandering to his special interest groups which makes him a weasel, or he believes the above arguments which makes him way dumber than W. (Bush went to Harvard too).
Chris,
> “OK. So we are on the same page that the SCDF has no power to excommunicate anyone on the basis of a person believing in the ordination of women. Because the inability to ordain women is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Church.”
Don’t put words into my mouth please.
It’s to be held as being infallible. To refuse to do so is to reject both the communion and its source, the Holy Spirit (contrary to the popular belief among such dissenting groups that the Church is simply a human institution, rather than a sacramental one as Vatican II taught in LG 1). Excommunication is simply one consequence of this, and the ruling charism gives them the authority to explicate and ratify that reality (presumably with Papal approval?), lest they remain blind to it.
Gianna,
re: #85-86:
Yes, that last bit especially expresses the frustrations I have heard expressed offline (especially by those who have stopped either posting or reading the ‘blog), and which I myself have felt from time to time.
As for replying to the actual topic of the thread and ignoring the recurrent off-topic posts, I think most of us who do reply feel that the latter cannot be left unanswered, lest they lead some innocent and uncatechized persons astray (unfortunately, the widespread poverty of catechises in NZ means that this is a real risk, and not due to the fault of such persons themselves).
This is a problem that needs to be dealt at the level of administration, especially on issues that have been discussed to death with the exchange of more or less identical set of arguments. This repetitive tendency is certainly not a good thing to have on a ‘blog, let alone forums (which often have stricter management and censorship, even though it is less of an issue for their less chronological format). The admin’s are aware of the issue, and I think they’re working on a possible solution that would lessen the problem while maintaining such a freedom as to enable all posters to ‘be frank’ (would this be right, admin’?).
In the meanwhile, it seems we’d best answer the off-topic posts concisely and quickly (without accumulating 50+ posts in response), linking to the past discussions of the issue if it has indeed been discussed to death (to both indicate this point and to direct anyone new to the topic/blog), and quickly get back to the topic of the thread ASAP.
It seems that admin should act sooner rather than later to restrict irrelevant posts. I met someone else today who told me that they had given up reading Being Frank as every second post was by Chris Sullivan dragging red herrings across every path, which people then followed off the track to wherever he wanted to go. They also expressed dismay at the way that posts degenerate into abusive frustrated outbursts at Chris – which, contrary to the Catpain’s analysis, does not illustrate the contrast between charitable Chris and nasty others, but more the fact that he is quite successful in riling people up – which is not listed among the top 100 charitable pasttimes in most spiritual classics.
The time has come for the organisers of Beingfrank to decide what it is that they are seeking with the site – a little group of apologists against the specialised and unique attacks of one CS – ie – a little cult whose leader attracts by repelling,in the way that gamblers are addicted to the thrill of the loss, or a more robust discussion group on topics of Catholic interest. The latter may seem on the surface more boring – but nothing could be more boring than the former in my opinion.
As for the reception and ministering of Holy Communion, see ‘Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles’,by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
Wow, this site is getting more and more Shortland Street-ish by day! You haven\’t watched it for a long time, and when you watch it again, you find yourself pretty much watching a same episode. But fear not: Shorty is still on air after 16 long years. Pretty good outlook there, Being Frank!
iforgot,
> “But fear not: Shorty is still on air after 16 long years. Pretty good outlook there, Being Frank!”
I’m not sure what to think of that – when a Catholic blog degenerates down to the level of Shortland Street, something must be abysmally wrong!
I think our hope in this case is that God can bring good out of evil (evil in the privative sense of missing what should be there).
On a more positive note, though, we ought really to be full of thanksgiving in the freedom we have (freedom in the true sense). We are guided by the Magisterium and must be faithful to it as sheep to their shepherd, but this should not be seen as some sort of an unduly (a key word there) rigid and legalistic thing. We adhere to the authority of the magisterial as a child to his/her mother, since such is the environment of true freedom where all of our potentials and possibilities can be nurtured and realised through her loving and maternal care (the greatest fruit of which is salvation – “unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3).
I think being orthodox in the face of seemingly ubiquitous unfaithfulness and dissent seemingly takes an incredible degree of ‘rigidity’ in standing one’s ground, as it does also with natural marriage against the culture of unfaithfulness and adultery, but we must be constantly aware of the true freedom this brings, and never reduce the relationship to such a rigidity (in both cases).
This is the case, I think, in every area of Catholic faith: theology, ministry, apostolate – anywhere where faith, hope and love are manifest. What Aidan Nichols says for theology seems applicable everywhere: it is dependent on the magisterium for its very life in faith, yet also its scope is not prescribed by the office beforehand. We are the body of Christ and individually member of it (1 Corinthians 12:28), yet out of this harmony, and out of the same Spirit who forms us into the same body, comes various gifts which constitute the diverse offices and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-6,28-31).
The hands and feet work in harmony with the head and the nervous system, but not for the sake of such harmony alone – they’re directed toward some common end. So, we must firmly be established in our roots of the magisterium and the faith, yet we must not forget that this is directed through the stem of hope toward its flowering in love.
Oops, here’s the link re: Aidan Nichols (see under no.2 for the point mentioned above).
The Greenville, SC, pastor, Father Jay Scott Newman, saying those who voted for Obama should go to confession if they are to receive communion, whom Scribe linked to above, has been repudiated by the administrator of the Diocese of Charleston.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog
Good on the Diocese of Charleston and all those who prayed that this abuse would be sorted out.
It’s an abuse of power for priests to threaten those choosing to vote Obama.
If the Church can’t sort this mess out ourselves then the state will have to step in and sort it out for us. And the state has the tools to do that (US law revokes Church tax exemptions for political partisanship).
God Bless
Nice article here on how on earth Catholics can be expected to repent of beliefs they sincerely hold.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=97577957-1321-AEAA-D322F699B09A8F39
God Bless
hidihoe campers!
ttm, thanks for post 139. that makes it very clear.
poorclear, regarding post 138; i agree.
peace cobbers
poorclear et al,
As admin hasn’t had the chance to respond, let me just reiterate my point from before – there is no way to effectively ban Chris Sullivan or anyone else from the blog. Admin and the posters can delete comments that are off-topic, so you can ask Filia to do that if you like, but I don’t see how it will help.
How about this for a different strategy. Chris posts a comment saying something apparently crazy – say, that women can be priests.
Now, instead of engaging him, treat this as a debate where you are presenting to the audience. In fact, treat this as being a debate like what Helen and John had during the election campaign – i.e. assume that Chris will never concede your points nor come to your viewpoint.
Now, with that assumption firmly in place, if he posts something that you disagree with and that you think is wrong, don’t respond to him directly, but rather respond to the audience who might be reading his (and your) comments.
For example:
Parry, block, but don’t engage. That way Chris can express his views, as can everyone else, but no one baits any “trolls”, the debate doesn’t go on and on for 200 comments, people don’t get bored, and those reading can see that Chris represents one view of the Church that is quite…unique (for lack of a better word) but that there are plenty of other views that differ with it.
Just try that for a month. That’s what I’m going to do.
Let me try it on this one:
From the comments on the same post:
Moreover, one can be expected to recognise that what one believes in is demonstrably false. If so, one should be expected to investigate why one believes what one does believe, and then do all one can to explore the path to correcting one’s belief.
I once belived and held with deep conviction that youth groups were not for me as they were for people who need to grow in their Faith…and I didn’t need to grow in mine. How wrong I was – something I only discovered when I attended a youth group and found out how much growing I had to do.
…
See everyone? Easy.
Chris,
re:144.
Well, to be fair, there is a distinction between formal and material cooperation, and remote material cooperation can be permissible with proportionate reason (see Cardinal Ratzinger’s document above).
I imagine, though, that such priests determined that there could be no proportionate reason to the evil that would come out of the “Freedom of Choice Act”:
(Barrack Obama on abortion)
James,
> “…treat this as a debate where you are presenting to the audience”
Yah, I think that’s a good point. I tend to always have the readers in mind, so for me this is often like a personal apostolate. It ain’t no practice round at being salt and light to the world – we’re on air full-time, 24/7, globally! Let us, with the grace of God, be humble witnesses to Our Lord in faith, hope and charity.
James,
I suppose that one way to try to shut down debate is to accuse Fr Bourgeois of lying. If you choose that tack, so be it.
But the Catholic News Agency backs up Fr Bougeois’ claim that the SCDF have demanded he retract his belief or he’ll be excommunicated :-
Lots of Catholics publicly support ordaining women – I’ve heard a priest in my own parish give his support for ordaining women from the pulpit in a homily.
Is the Office of the Inquisition / SCDF going to excommunicate all of us ?
God Bless
Okay, sounds fair.
But somehow I think that your personal CDF list of suspect theology and possible heresy will be much longer than most of the others.
If you look into this story a bit deeper you’ll discover that in August Father Bourgeois actually “concelebrated the liturgy, delivered the homily and laid hands on longtime friend and fellow peace activist Janice Sevre-Duszynska during what traditionally would have been the ordination rite at the ceremony in a Unitarian Universalist church.”
This is why he was sent the letter from the CDF telling him to sort his S**t out.
The CNS story is actually ripe for the picking – here are some selected quotes…
“Father Bourgeois said he was invited to the ceremony by Sevre-Duszynska and decided to participate after a period of discernment.”
A period of discernment that probably lasted no more than 2 whole minutes, and involved him reflecting on the words of a Marty Haugen song while looking at a picture of rainbow.
“Father Bourgeois said… he had no intention of participating in any other such ceremony.”
You could easily put that statement on one of the Tui billboards.
Has anybody thought to ask him why if he has such peace and certainty about ordaining women that he wouldn’t actually participate in another one of these ceremonies?
Or do his “convictions” not actually translate into action?
If the guy is so convinced the women’s ordination is valid and right then why would he no longer participate in them?
“When we get the blessing from family and loved ones, it does bring some peace. At the same time, it saddens me to put them through this,” he said.”
Well it saddens the rest of us as well that you’ve put them through this!
How about next time you don’t put your family through this be simply being obedient to the Holy Spirit and not engaging in immoral publicity stunts?
Umkay?
Scary White,
As I’ve said before, I don’t agree with Fr Bourgeois’ actions in actively participating in the “ordination” ceremony.
But one needs to understand the background he’s coming from.
In the Civil Rights, Peace, and Social Justice milieu, it’s commonly held that the way to achieve social change is by actively challenging injustice. As Rosa Parks famously did from Black Americans.
This explains why Fr Bourgeois did what he did.
Sure, some disciplinary action is appropriate for breaking ranks, for involvement in an illicit ordination, and for ordaining candidates where there are serious doubts that a proper discernment and formation programme has been carried out.
But it doesn’t have to be excommunication.
And in fact, if one reads the earlier SCDF statement decreeing excommunications for those ordaining and ordained at women’s ordination ceremonies then it’s clear they do not cover Fr Bourgeois because he was not doing the ordaining.
As for your derogatory comments about Fr Bourgeois (eg 2 mins discernment), not only are you judging him with no knowledge of his actual thoughts and procedures, but also perhaps people would take you more seriously if you were more charitable ?
As for his family, it’s on the record that Fr Bourgeois has the support of his father.
He does not stand alone and there is already an internet petition to the SCDF to support him with some 3,500 signatures to date.
God Bless
Chris,
Lots of Catholics publicly support ordaining women – I’ve heard a priest in my own parish give his support for ordaining women from the pulpit in a homily.
If I heard a priest say that during a homily, I think I’d get up and walk out.
In the Civil Rights, Peace, and Social Justice milieu, it’s commonly held that the way to achieve social change is by actively challenging injustice. As Rosa Parks famously did from Black Americans.
This explains why Fr Bourgeois did what he did.
Women don’t have a “right” to be ordained; no one has a “right” to be ordained. So his actions are misguided at best and certainly disobedient to the ongoing teaching of the Magisterium.
He does not stand alone and there is already an internet petition to the SCDF to support him with some 3,500 signatures to date.
I think we should start an Internet petition calling on priests to proclaim the teaching of the Church, rather than spit in her face.
Its funny, I was at mass this morning and I can tell you I wanted to get up and leave as soon as the homily started. I look forward to the day where particular priests will not dumb down their homilies thinking that everyone in the congregation is four year old children and that we enjoy watered down generalised comments said in a dinosaurs voice that sometimes steer us away from solid Catholic teaching. Ok enough complaining for me, I’ve used my quota, back to the work.
Scribe,
I can’t say that everyone agreed with the priest, but not one parishioner walked out of that homily.
There are lots of Catholic priests and bishops who support ordaining women.
Lots and lots of them.
Few have the courage to speak up openly, but their belief is genuine.
And the reason for that is simple : we are not convinced by the arguments advanced against ordaining women.
And we are not convinced that the teaching has been infallibly taught.
The last resort for a position which can no longer be intellectually defended and is now widely rejected in the Church is to try to enforce obedience by excommunications.
That’s a clear sign that the days of this doctrine are numbered.
God Bless
> “In the Civil Rights, Peace, and Social Justice milieu…”
Which is exactly what it does not fall under. Feminist and liberation theologies can tend toward categorical fallacies in matters of faith and morals, precisely because they sometimes ignore the sacramental nature of the Church (which is the first aspect of the Church to be spoken of in Lumen Gentium). I repeat: it’s a categorical fallacy to treat the reservation of Orders to men as a justice issue.
It’s as much of a justice issue as campaign for men’s right to become pregnant. It’s an issue of ontology, which is why humanistic ideologies (upon which they’re based) can never be compatible with the mysterious design of God that images a greater reality (namely the relations within God Himself, as JP2 taught in the Theology of the Body).
In fact, it’s a grave injustice to treat it as they do, since it offends against the virtue of religion (which is a subset of justice), and against Christ who instituted it, the Holy Spirit who protects it, and ultimately the Father who willed it into being.
> “Is the Office of the Inquisition / SCDF going to excommunicate all of us?”
If they do, they’d only be ratifying your own actions. How could you be expected to remain in communion while rejecting its formal cause, the Holy Spirit, who brings it into being?
Chris,
How are Fr Bourgeois’s action and Fr Newman’s actions different? Are they both right or both wrong?
> “There are lots of Catholic priests and bishops who support ordaining women. Lots and lots of them.”
Woopdidoo – and there were lots of Catholics and bishops who supported the Arian heresy. Lots and lots of them! Guess what? They were still wrong. Wrong enough to be excommunicated, too; that was also to ratify what they themselves had done.
That would be because, as our present Pope (as Cdl Ratzinger) famously said, truth is not determined by a majority vote. To be sure – otherwise Anglicans would have more of it than anyone else!
Truth in the supernatural order is revealed, not guesstimated! Then, it’s a matter of docility to the teaching that comes from above, as LG 25 states.
Scribe,
Did Fr Bourgeois threaten his parishioners that they would go to hell if the voted accorded to their conscience ?
The difference is that Fr Bourgeois supports Catholic teaching on the primacy of conscience; Fr Newman did not.
God Bless
How could you be expected to remain in communion while rejecting its formal cause, the Holy Spirit, who brings it into being?
Those who support ordaining women are not rejecting the Holy Spirit.
They are rejecting the human interpretation that women cannot be ordained.
My point that a majority of Catholics support ordaining women is not that a majority establishes that it is the right thing to do.
It’s that a majority support ordaining women because the arguments against ordaining women no longer convince most Catholics.
St Thomas Aquinas taught that the reason women could not be ordained was because he thought they were to be held in subjection to men.
As that argument has clearly been shown to be wrong, from a Thomistic perspective there are now no good reasons against ordaining women.
God Bless
Isn’t Fr Newman just acting in accord with his conscience? He’s discerned that parishioners who voted for Obama should not receive Communion unless they’ve repented. That’s what his conscience tells him he should do.
Scribe,
Whether or not Fr Newman thinks that his parishioners who voted Obama should receive Holy Communion is beside the point.
It’s whether of not the conscience of each individual parishioner tells him he has sinned that is the relevant conscience.
Scripture is clear – an individual is to examine his own conscience – not the parish priest attempt to examine it for them.
Fr Newman is enjoined by Jesus not to judge his parishioners. That he has judged them just illustrates how far from the gospel his attempt to coerce his parishioners really is.
Let’s not politicise the Holy Eucharist. Attempting to do so will just divide and weaken the Church.
On the other hand, there’s nothing in the gospels that forbids ordaining women. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was asked to look into it a few years back and they found nothing in the bible that forbade ordaining women.
God Bless
Another pontifical council in the late 60s found no case against contraception.
And yet the pope, Paul VI, reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Church.
The same has been done by Pope John Paul II, in regard to the ‘ordination’ of women.
Whether the arguments are convincing or not, is largely irrelevant.
Whether the teaching is the truth, and has been constant, is.
That the non-’ordination’ of women has been the constant teaching of the Church, is manifestly demonstrated.
FXD,
The key issue here is how would one know that the teaching is the truth ?
If the arguments are not convincing then reason and study have not managed to convince.
If the infallibility of the teaching has not been established then claiming dogma has not managed to convince.
It hasn’t been established that this has been the constant teaching of the Church because :
1. It has not been shown that this was in the deposit of faith and accepted by the early Church.
2. Until recent years the matter has not even been seriously considered. One can’t claim a constant teaching on a matter that hasn’t been seriously considered until modern times.
It has been established that the Orthodox Church ordained women deacons in antiquity.
One is reminded of the teachings in support of slavery, against taking interest on loans, against girl altar servers etc; all of which were once thought to be the constant teaching of the Church.
The problem is that it’s easy to claim that such and such has been the constant teaching of the Church, but it’s almost impossible to prove it.
The reality is that what’s taught develops over time.
God Bless
What a load of old poos.
It has been manifestly, clearly and undeniably estabished that this is an infallible teaching.
Sadly, a very small number of theologically and intellectually challanged people refuse to accept this fact.
The reason they haven’t been convinced is because they either just aren’t smart enough, or because they aren’t honest enough, to admit the very clear truth that the Christian teaching on the non-ordination of women in infallible.
Chris,
> “St Thomas Aquinas taught that the reason women could not be ordained was because he thought they were to be held in subjection to men.”
No, he stated as a description, not a prescription:
He seems to regard it as data, perhaps from the book of Genesis, in which case it is as sure as death itself, since it would be a consequence of the same fall:
“To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)
Given this, what are we to make of it? Certainly, it is not an indication of an ontological inferiority, since it is a matter of relationship in the temporal realm. Like the cross, salvation comes through embracing it, so that from it God can bring a greater good out of it – Mary’s “fiat” being the prime example (St. Paul also seems to hint at this: 1 Tim 2:15).
What is more, since Christ has brought with His salvific work a great reversal of the order of the world, so that from the cross comes the resurrection, so that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first (Mark 10:31). This is why Mary ranks as the greatest Saint of all, since her ‘fiat’ reversed the disobedience of Eve through the order of subjugation she had brought, just as Christ’s cross reversed the fall of Adam through the order of death that he had brought.
St Thomas Aquinas taught :
Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.
As the first part has been proven wrong (”it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree” – contradicts the role of Mary as Queen of Heaven and alone due Hyperdulia) it therefore follows that the 2nd part “she cannot receive the sacrament of Order” has not been proven by Thomas.
Therefore, from a Thomistic point of view, we are left with no reasons not to ordain women.
And one could even argue from St Thomas (and I would) that as a woman does signify eminence of degree (Mary), it follows from Thomas’ argument that women can receive the sacrament of Order.
IMHO, the entire argument for ordaining women hinges on the role of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces.
God Bless
Everyone,
It has been infallibly taught that women cannot be ordained. The Pope has said that he does not have the ability nor the power to do so. As such, any debate or discussion about this is purely for the fun of typing or talking. The Church is not a democracy.
As for priests and bishops who think that women should be ordained, they are entitled to their own thoughts. However, just like I can be entitled to my own thoughts about my employer, say, I am not entitled to express them in my capacity as an employee without the approval of my superiors. If I do, I can be sanctioned in whatever way my employer sees fit, as agreed in my contract of work.
I’m sure you get the point.
Priests can disagree, but should treat that disagreement as an opportunity to study on a deeper level why the Church teaches what she does. They are not allowed to go teach, preach and speak whatever nonsense they like.
Fact.
> “They are rejecting the human interpretation that women cannot be ordained.”
This is an example of a phenomena called ‘projection’. Of course they’ll say, from their humanistic perspective, that it is wrong because it would be discrimination if they decided it.
As if the chasm of salvation could be traversed by means of man’s ascent to heaven, rather than through God’s kenosis and descent to us! Some Pelagianism in disguise.
As it is, it is not an issue of ‘human interpretation’. The Church is guided supernaturally in both the Apostolic Tradition and in the interpretative and magisterial office – why do you think LG 25 requires of us reverent assent to the Church’s teaching? Because they Lord it over us, and because they are a sort of a religious upper class out to oppress those under them?
Wake up! The Church is as a sacrament – both human and divine. Your ‘liberal’ ideologies and those who promote them are fading away, because they’re based on some humanistic fashion that has no basis on the eternal things. A countless number of souls have had their faith destroyed by the likes of them, whose ‘faith’ is a caricature of the divine gift, and those who remain find themselves in the chaos of division that arises not from the Oneness of the Spirit, but from the father of lies. So I say to you in the Lord, and plead to others who would raise up such a Babylonian tower: “come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins” (Rev 18:4).
> “As the first part has been proven wrong (”it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree” – contradicts the role of Mary as Queen of Heaven and alone due Hyperdulia)”
As if Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the Universal Church, would be ignorant regarding the Virgin Mary, only to be refuted by Mr. Christ Sullivan!
Sed contra, :mrgreen:
Mary is the greatest of all the Saints, precisely because she is the sign of lowliness. She implies this herself:
This would have been clear enough in the post that you had replied to, if your ideologies did not blind you to the truth:
This is why the Church is called to imitate her, to be lowly servants of the Most High:
It is not infallibly taught that women cannot be ordained. If it was, that would decide the matter.
I don’t agree that if would be discrimination if it was properly decided. It would just be the divine will based on some ontological difference between male and female.
As if Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the Universal Church, would be ignorant regarding the Virgin Mary
Aquinas was a man of his times and made various mistakes. One of them was to disagree with the immaculate conception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
The Church does not accept Aquinas’ thinking on the inability to ordain women based on their supposed state of subjection and has explicitly rejected such arguments in her documents on ordaining women.
Which undermines the idea that Church has always taught this – because the Church now rejects the very reasons historically advanced against ordaining women.
Showing that such historical reasons were simply miscogynist and not a proper basis on which to claim this was always taught.
God Bless
Chris,
> “IMHO, the entire argument for ordaining women hinges on the role of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces.”
In that case, let us see what we see in Calvary and in the heavenly liturgy, which justify this title.
Mediation is a priestly role. Christ is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:20), and so offers Himself on the alter of the cross (CCC #1366). Mary participates in this offering which is subordinate to Christ’s self-offering, as the New Eve to the New Adam, in the re-creation of the world.
Now, the priest acts in persona Christi (2 Cor 2:10) to consecrate the Eucharist. The laity participates in this offering, in a way subordinate to the priest’s offering, as Mary was to Christ at Calvary, in continuing to re-create the world (this is at the heart of the Vatican II teaching on the role of the laity, as Paul VI explained on the phrase, ‘consecratio Mundi’).
Thus, Lumen Gentium 10 states:
Chris,
> “Aquinas was a man of his times and made various mistakes. One of them was to disagree with the immaculate conception.”
It may help to remember that it was prior to the dogmatic definition, and with a lack of sufficient data, as the EWTN article states: “At this time, the data from Scripture and the Fathers was still not clear. In addition, the understanding of original sin was not as clear as it should have been…”
> “Which undermines the idea that Church has always taught this – because the Church now rejects the very reasons historically advanced against ordaining women. Showing that such historical reasons were simply miscogynist and not a proper basis on which to claim this was always taught.”
Nonsense.
The Church has always held to the Apostolic Tradition first, and to the reasons second. The same is true for the the Trinity, the Incarnation, and any number of the dogmas of the Church. Doctrines develop through the process of ‘faith seeking understanding’ – the faith is presupposed before the reasons can be identified.
> “The Church does not accept Aquinas’ thinking on the inability to ordain women based on their supposed state of subjection and has explicitly rejected such arguments in her documents on ordaining women.”
OK, please provide the documents so we could verify this for ourselves.
TTM,
Offering sacrifice is a priestly role. Which Mary did at Calvary.
Transubstantiation is a priestly role. Which Mary did in her womb during her pregnancy (transformed the bread and wine she consumed into the body and blood of Christ).
Mary is much more priestly than just in the sense of the priesthood of all the faithful.
This is confirmed by the long tradition in the Church of Mary as Priest (suppressed by the Vatican in 1927).
As Mary was a priest, so can women be priests, by imaging her.
If I walk down the road to my local Anglican Church there is (or was when I last checked some 6 years ago) a women priest who consecrates.
We already have women priests and they are already doing the priestly vocation.
God Bless
TTM,
The Church readily admits that arguments used in the past against ordaining women are scarcely defensible today and that influence of prejudices in the tradition against women is undeniable.
Therefore, the claim that the Church has always taught that women can’t be ordained is faulty. Because the Church herself admits that the arguments used in the past as reasons why we couldn’t ordain women are faulty.
God Bless
> Transubstantiation is a priestly role. Which Mary did in her womb during her pregnancy (transformed the bread and wine she consumed into the body and blood of Christ).
Don’t be silly. It was Christ who initiated the Incarnation – Mary cooperated with it, as lay persons do with priests. Talk about stretching the argument – why don’t you refer to Calvary, where the high priesthood of Christ and the royal priesthood of Mary are manifest?
> “As Mary was a priest, so can women be priests, by imaging her.”
Yes, they can – into the royal priesthood. Perhaps you have not read my post #174. It was not suppressed in 1927 – it became incorporated into Lumen Gentium, as the passage in post #174 indicates.
> “Therefore, the claim that the Church has always taught that women can’t be ordained is faulty.”
I said, “please provide the documents so we could verify this for ourselves”, not “please quote the document selectively so we can be collectively fooled by your prejudices”.
I’ve found the document, from the women priests website.
Perhaps you may like to read the document in full. As for the first part of the quote, it clarifies that it refers to the arguments derived from cultural prejudices against women:
That is followed by:
> “It is true that we find in the Fathers’ writings the undeniable influence of prejudices against women.”
Now, this displays a culpable and wilful omission on your part. Here’s a quote of the two paragraphs around the line you quoted (with my notes in brackets):
Sigh.
Frankly, Chris, I’m sick of having to debate with a dishonest, ideologically driven man bent on distorting and ignoring the truth. It doesn’t seem to matter how much anyone says anything to you, since your will is not to seek the truth. You’re wasting my time, and everyone else’s, as well as your own. May God have mercy on you.
For those people who are utterly sick of Christopher Sullivan:
http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hopha/penguin.swf
It’ll get rid of some tension.
Just for the record, you don’t want to hit it high.
You need to get it to slide along the snow.
Record: 593.5m (with slide); or 493.5 on the fly.
Let me try that again…
That about sums it up really.
Unfortunately it has got to the point with poor deluded Mr. Sullivan that this is the only appropriate response to many of the bizzare and anti-Catholic ideologies that he holds.
g’dday galahs
Now, this displays a culpable and wilful omission on your part.
yes, i agree ttm.
chris, that is deliberate deception. this is not the first time you have done such things and missed out key phrases, paragraphs, or words when quoting sources to ‘help’ your arguments.
people who do that are deceivers and liars.
chris, seek for the truth, and start being charitable (by being honest) in the way that you participate on this blog.
stop lying to us and trying to deceive us chris, and start being charitable. thanks.
Cheers guys…
> “chris, that is deliberate deception. this is not the first time you have done such things and missed out key phrases, paragraphs, or words when quoting sources to ‘help’ your arguments. people who do that are deceivers and liars.
Yah, I noticed this as well. I think it’s clear enough that ideology takes priority over truth, in Chris’s case.
Anyway, I’m going to take a break from this for a while. I’d be too frustrated to be of much good if I keep this up.
Guys,
Here you go again.
Accusing those who disagree with you of being dishonest and ideologically driven etc etc.
Name calling won’t win your argument.
I have read all of Inter Insigniores.
I’m not trying to hide anything by just quoting the passages which pertain to the point I’m making. Anyone can just look up the document to get the full context.
My point is that the Church herself, in this document, agrees that the old arguments are invalid.
I disagree with the SCDF that the use of old arguments does not invalidate the old tradition. I think it does.
Because it’s clear that, as the old arguments against ordaining women were based on anti-women prejudice, then the view that this has always and everywhere been held is seriously flawed.
Because the reasons this view was once held have been shown to be wrong.
People hold views for reasons.
If their reasons are wrong, then their views are suspect.
Unless they can show that what they believe was actually taught by Christ and is in the apostolic tradition. Which has not been shown.
My view is not ideological. When I thought this was taught infallibly I wrote a letter to Tui Motu opposing women priests. I changed my view when Cdl Ratzinger showed me that it wasn’t taught infallibly. That’s not the track record of someone ideologically driven. It’s the track record of someone honestly seeking the truth and carefully considering the Magisterium’s case.
The argument against ordaining women is all smoke and mirrors.
God Bless
Q.E.D.
The end of deception, and of this thread.
[yawn]…. :roll:
Name calling won’t win your argument
but you’re a real hoot chris!
it’s not “our argument” my good man. you are arguing with the church, with her entire Tradition on this matter, with every pope that has ever been, with recent popes who have directly taught on this matter: pope paul vi, john paul ii, and pope benedict xvi…and that fact there has never been any women priests in the history of the church.
you’re a real hoot brother!
as for “name calling”, it’s not that. when one deliberately leaves out important paragraphs that contradict their own position, that is what we call “selective quoting” and when one does it several times, thereby making it seem wilful, we call that, “being dishonest” in normal everday language.
and i’m sorry, you’ve done it before, so i’m not convinced that it is innocent from you.
and somebody who does that several times and knowingly is normally described by a word: the word helps give expression and description to their actions. eg, a person who steals cars is normally called a “robber”, or a person who openly engages in homosexual relations is a “homosexual”, or a person who performs abortions is called a “abortionist”.
similarly, a person who regularly misrepresents a source, or reference is called a “fraudster”, a “liar”, a “con artist”, a “cheat”: like a person who fabricates or invents things for their CV.
you may not be familiar with the term “liar”, but you’ll be happy to know that there can be female liars and male liars. :mrgreen:
try a bit harder when quoting here on bf.
God bless you
incidentally, i have been doing some back-reading here on beingfrank and i found this interesting “post” from you chris, back in an old post from tuppence called “priorities and weaknesses”
so moses was a murderer huh? so, chris, not only women priests, but moses was a murderer? and when we say that Christ is the new moses, does that mean that Christ is somehow fulfilling moses’ murdering ways…?
quite astonishingly, i also found this “post” from filia day’s old thread “martyrdom and the priesthood” giving a list of your so called “beliefs”
at first, i thought to myself, there is no way that chris believes all of this stuff, and there is no way that he has said these things here on beingfrank…but after the latest discussions about abortion, obama, the greens, and women priests, i am starting to wonder…
chris, do you really hold all these opinions?
and from what you have said in tuppence’s thread, can we add to these,
37. that moses was a murderer?
i am not trying to be funny (though it may seem that way). i am just sincerely worried about you chris. what’s going on mate?
peace brother
God bless
Chris,
> “Here you go again. Accusing those who disagree with you of being dishonest and ideologically driven etc etc.”
I don’t say such things lightly, Chris. I said so because the data shows that:
1. Your accusation that the old arguments are invalid is contextualized by the document specifically to the arguments from cultural prejudice; Aquinas’ thesis traces back to the Scriptures. In other words, it does not fall under the ‘invalid’ category.
2. your accusation that it traces back to cultural prejudice was refuted in the document itself, in the passages immediately surrounding the verses you used to make that exact accusation.
With such a selective reading and evident lack of objectivity, I don’t think I can trust that you’re arguing with truth in mind (or at least not with any degree of scrupulosity). Thus, my comment still stands, as do the others which follow:
The problem for your Chris is that it has been manifestly shown, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that the Catholic teaching on the non-ordination of women:
1. Is infallible
2. Is firmly grounded in Scripture
3. Was Practiced by Christ Himself
You refuse to accept this truth because you have become so deluded by your own ideology, and I think that you are too proud to admit that you were terribly wrong to say that this is not an infallible teaching.
Ratzinger stated that this is an infallible teaching by virtue of its nature, so when you use him to try and endorse your erroneous position on this issue it just shows everyone here how little you really do know about this teaching.
The list of major theological errors that you have espoused on this blog, that Dave Morgan has reprinted in #186, really does raise some serious questions about whether it truly is Catholicism or Chrisolicism that you actually believe in.
Can we put this riddiculous error to bed once and for all please?!
This idea is so stupid that just reading it makes me feel dumber.
Mary DID NOT transform any bread and wine into Jesus – ever.
Such a ludicrous suggestion shows a total lack of understanding about basic human biology and pregnancy.
Women don’t turn the food and drink they consume into babies – instead, the food and drink they consume becomes nourishment for the babies that grow inside them.
This is a completely different process to what happens during Transubstantiation.
The priest does not nourish the bread and wine to allow them to grow into the Body and Blood of Jesus, instead the power of the Holy Spirit working through Him transforms the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and they retain their original form, even though their substance is changed.
This is NOT what happened when Mary was pregnant with Jesus.
Instead Mary had a divine person growing inside her, and He was nourished by the bread and wine that she consumed – but the bread and wine never became the divine person, it was instead digested by Mary (so the form of the bread and wine is lost – unlike Transubstantiation), and then turned into nutirents which nourished the growing physical body of the divine person of the baby Jesus.
But this notion of Mary making bread and wine into Jesus gets even more ludicrous when one realises that Mary also ate lots of other foods as well during her pregnancy, not just bread and wine – things like dates, figs, meat, grapes, cheese, etc.
So, if you believe this dumb idea you must also be forced to believe that Mary actually transformed bread, wine, grapes, cheese, figs, meat, dates, and assorted other baked goods and vegetables into the Body and Blood of Jesus.
But wait – it gets even more stupid when you start to ask yourself important questions like:
“Did Mary have to eat bread and wine before Jesus could be concieved, or was Jesus already concieved BEFORE Mary actually ate any bread and wine that day – and if she hadn’t eaten any bread and wine then how did Jesus become flesh within her?”
In a nutshell, here’s why this idea is total arrrse…
Transubstantiation = bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus
Mary’s pregnancy = the body and blood of Jesus being given nourishment by the bread and wine (and all other foods) that Mary ate during her pregnancy
Umkay?
TTM
please don’t leave because of Christopher. I find your comments most uplifting, and charitable, and incisive, without the invective to which others of us are sometimes prey.
We need you here.
An update on The State of the Nation
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2571
God Bless
Thanks FXD
Not to worry – I only meant a few hours, since I’d been stuck here for half a day on this thread. :mrgreen:
I do try to be incisive though; the aim is to be as comprehensive and definitive as possible in each post, and to anticipate possible objections (avoiding creating loopholes – only works with truth, of course). Hopefully it helps to keep the post count down, and avoids providing easy tangents to wriggle out of the more potent objections with.
A bit like chess, really… which is why it’s frustrating when the opponent is careless with the rules of fair play.
All,
I reiterate my suggestion to refrain from starting your posts with “Chris,” as the blog should be a place for everyone to express their views. As has been mentioned by admin before, the software and structure of a blog is not really designed to be an indepth, threaded discussion board (that’s something else we’re looking at), so you’re better to make your points and counterpoints addressed to the audience reading, rather than to individuals.
People can then make their own mind up as they read the case put forward. If one comment makes a point (e.g. Mary was invovled in transubstantiation by being pregnant with Jesus, therefore women can be priests….), and then 10 comments make counterpoints that prove that point to be false, people will be able to see that for themselves. We can skip the playing the man, personal insults etc. I feel by trying to cling to the higher ideals of debate.
This is not ignoring said crazy points – you are free to offer your rebuttal. I simply suggest offering it to the world, rather than to one or two posters.
Just an idea.
If anyone would like to email the Vatican to ask that they not excommunicate Fr Bourgeois, the email addresses are here:
http://paceebene.org/nvns/nonviolence-news-service-archive/fr-roy-stands-justice-catholic-church
God Bless
He he he he
FDX DXS XDF
he he he
Funny games matings, I was getted up to 593.fivings
he he he
Beace peples
howdy cobbers,
chris,
thanks for that link, i sent one through – but asked them to do the Will of God, and act according to Church Law, and ex-communicate him if he obstinately refuses submission to the Church, on such an important point of doctrine. if he holds to his errors, then unfortunately he is out of communion with Christ and His Church….and technically, no longer catholic.
thanks for providing the link.
peace
btw, i agree with james, and i think that chris has a place here, as does everybody, – he just needs to be consistent in his blogging, not ignore important contents when quoting, and be open to the truth, eh chris? and admit that he doesn’t know more than the church on some things :mrgreen:
haha, all yous are galahs!
have a good night!
dave,
One is only out of communion with the Church in the sense of heresy if the disputed point is one of defined dogma.
This matter is not a defined dogma.
God Bless
All,
One is out of communion with the Church when the Church has a stated position and teaching on the Truth and one disagrees with it. For example, since the Church has stated that women cannot be priests, if you disagree with that point, you are not in communion with the Church.
It’s quite simple really.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), guided by the office of Peter (Matthew 16:18-19) so that we may be united under one Lord, one faith and one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5), in the unity Christ himself prayed for us as witness to the world (John 17:21).
In other words, division is a counter-witness to the truth of the Gospel, since it works against the Spirit who forms the one body (1 Corinthians 12:13). Indeed, it is the work of those who are devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19). Such ones cannot inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 15:50), since they work to destroy it (Mark 3:24).
Let us heed, then, the words of St. Paul:
“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10).
James,
The Church once had a stated position in support of using torture and in support of slavery and against taking interest on loans and for starting wars and for executing people. These are all in official papal bulls and the decisions of Church councils.
Does that mean that Catholics back then who disagreed with those stated positions were out of communion ?
I don’t think so.
Properly speaking, one is only out of communion when the matter of disagreement is a defined dogma. This one is not a define dogma, as Cdl Ratzinger has stated.
TTM,
Were we obliged to agree with torture, slavery, against interest on loans and for wars and executions when those were all Church policy ?
I don’t think so.
True unity is unity with Christ. Not with bad decisions made by those men ruling the Church.
God Bless
> “Were we obliged to agree with torture, slavery, against interest on loans and for wars and executions when those were all Church policy?”
1. The decrees on torture were only legislative in character, not doctrinal. See the Catholic Culture article on ‘The Church and Torture’.
2. Slavery has been discussed to death, and has not been demonstrated to have been the sort other than indentured and penal servitude:
• Amazing Grace
• Are We a Christian Country?
• The Cafeteria Myth
• Preach it Brother!
• The Equality of Inequality
3. Usury is still not allowed, and the prohibition of interest on loans seems to be a simple matter of legislative practice that was suitable for the time – again, it is not a matter of doctrine, and so is liable to change:
(From Catholic Encyclopedia on Interest. See also Usury.)
4. Just wars and capital punishments are still allowed by the Church under strict conditions, which is why it was not wrong to oppose Hitler by force from taking over the world. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2309 and #2267.
5. The point still stands (#199).
Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said (emphasis my own):
TTM,
The Responsum Ad Dubium is certainly the considered opinion of the SCDF that this teaching is infallible.
But their considered opinion that this is infallible does not make it so.
Only a dogmatic definition by the Pope himself can establish that a teaching is infallible.
A statement by someone other than the Pope, even by the SCDF, cannot establish infallibility.
The SCDF aka Holy Office have been wrong before on numerous Responsum Ad Dubium. See Denzinger. One of their famous errors was their declaration circa 1860 that slavery was ipso facto licit.
It is my considered opinion that the SCDF are in error in their claim that this is taught infallibly.
God Bless
Excuse me?!
And who the heck are you?
Other than some poorly catechised layman who reads dissenting Catholic publications and authors and doesn’t actually understand Catholic doctrine or Magisterial authority properly?
According to your “considered opinion” it is also perfectly fesible…
01. that the Trinity could be more than 3 persons
02. that unmarried couples who live and fornicate together are in a sacramental marriage
03. that Mary was the first priest
04. that it’s okay to counsel and help someone to have a “safe” abortion
05. that one should counsel condom use for obstinate fornicators
06. that if you don’t counsel such, then you are guilty of murder if such persons get aids
07. that the church is guilty of murder for not counseling such a course of action in africa
08. that the church does not teach her just-war doctrine
09. that bondage and discipline is okay in marriage
10. that the celibate priesthood is not right
11. that clerical celibacy is the cause of homosexual and pedophilic problems in the priesthood
12. that the Eucharist should’nt be refused to those in a state of public/scandalous mortal sin
13. that everyone gets eternal salvation
14. that the devil is not going to hell
15. that God and the devil may reconcile in the future
16. that good muslims and buddhists are catholics
17. that good catholics are muslims
18. that the death penalty is always immoral and evil
19. that Pope St Pius V was a murderer for handing homosexuals to the state to be prosecuted
20. that Pope Urban II was guilty of mortal sin for ordering the Crusades
21. that women “priests” would be fine
22. that there were women priests in the early church
23. that a male only priesthood is not an infallible doctrine
24. that a soldier who kills in war is always guilty of mortal sin
25. that homosexual sex has some goodness in it as long as they love each other
26. that we should follow our local bishops/priests no matter what they say, do, and teach
27. that the church’s priests/bishops have abused children for 2000 years
28. that the church has suppressed women throughout her whole history
29. that the sacraments are still valid even if the matter and form are completely changed
30. that the church has the power to change everything in a sacraments
31. that the koran is the holy book
32. that the koran was inspired by God and part of God’s revelation
33. that Mohammed is a holy prophet
34. that all forms of slavery have always been intrinsically evil
35. that the church has always been guilty of slavery
36. that it would be good to have married priests
So you’ll excuse me if I don’t have time for your opinion on this issue, instead I’ll place my trust in the Holy Spirit speaking with authority through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
he he he
FDX XFD DFX,
and my cuz POB
I was has haff da accidenting, and was haff hit the pengy with da second swings of da clubbing.
Beings da little samoaning, I was has haff to use 2 of da swings to get da milking from da goganut, sos am used to dis hehehe. Nows I do its with da pengy good tymes
Da longestest hit on second swinging: 578.1 of dem
fah
> “One of their famous errors was their declaration circa 1860 that slavery was ipso facto licit.”
from #201:
The slavery argument is null and void in such a case, unless one also thinks that prison labour is immoral.
TTM,
The Holy Office Responsum supporting slavery circa 1860 is perfectly relevant.
It was used by the US bishops to back up their own teaching in support of slavery.
And they believed what they taught as is evident by the fact that many US bishops in 1860 owned slaves themselves.
It’s an inconvenient fact that many Responsum from the SCDF aka Holy Office aka Office of the Inquisition have been found to be in serious error and had to be corrected by later Popes and ecumenical councils.
This one on ordaining women may well be another in that category.
God Bless