|
Published: October 28, 2009
USF Law School to Honor Justice Carlos Moreno
Anti-Prop 8 Judge Latest Homosexualist Honoree
 On November 13 the Jesuit University of San Francisco’s School of Law will hold its annual Public Interest Law Foundation gala. This year’s honoree will be California Supreme Court Associate Justice Carlos Moreno. Justice Moreno’s major claim to fame, and the reason USF is honoring him, is that he was the sole California justice who voted to overturn the will of the people in the Proposition 8 case.
Since its inception in 2004, USF’s Law School has made a nearly annual practice of honoring activists who support the homosexual agenda. The first PublicInterest Law gala took place in 2004, and the first honoree was San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. At the time USF chose to honor him, Newsom had been in office barely 10 months. His sole notable “accomplishment” was directing the county clerk of the City and County of San Francisco to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples--an action declared illegal four months later by the California Supreme Court.
At the time of Newsom‘s action, nationally-syndicated columnist George Will wrote that Newsom “…ordered the wholesale issuance of marriage licenses in defiance of state law. He thereby became the most flamboyant scofflaw in an American elective office since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.”
In 2006, USF chose to honor Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. From the center’s website: “[The Center] was lead counsel on behalf of same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition in the California marriage case, which sought to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in California.”
In 2007, the university chose to honor Elizabeth Cabraser. Cabraser was the lead attorney for anamici curiae brief filed on behalf of 40 legal institutions with the California Supreme Court. The brief recommended the Supreme Court overturn Proposition 8. Cabraser also donated $30,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign.
In 2000, Ms. Cabraser was fined $4,500 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for making unreported political donations in the amount of $20,000. When levying the fine, the commission noted: “Respondent Elizabeth Cabraser’s law firm, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bertstein, LLP is a sophisticated political contributor. Her firm has filed multiple major donor statements with the SOS, dating back to 1995. Furthermore, Respondent Elizabeth Cabraser was sent a notification letter, on November 3, 2000, by the Dede Alpert for Senate Committee, advising her of her obligation to file both major donor and late contribution campaign statements.”
In 2003, the California Fair Political Practices Commission had to fine Cabraser again, for three more violations. The commission noted Cabraser was a repeat offender: “In aggravation, Respondent Elizabeth J. Cabraser has a prior enforcement history regarding the failure to file a semi-annual campaign statement…Notwithstanding the previous enforcement action, Respondent failed to comply with her semi-annual campaign statement filing requirements during calendar year 2002.” This time, the fine was in the amount of $12,000.
In 2008, USF chose to honor Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and SF Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart. The USF website said they were honoring the two because “…Minter and Stewart successfully argued before the California Supreme Court this year that same-sex couples have the right to marry.”
Justice Carlos Moreno, this year’s honoree, has attempted to justify his vote to overturn the will of the people: "Someday at some point my dissent will be the majority view in California…"
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:35 AM By Mark from PA
"Homosexualist honoree"? I must say that this is the only place where I have ever seen the word "homosexualist" used. Is this actually a word that is in the dictionary? It seems to me that here it is used as a slur to tar people that believe in the dignity and equality of gay people.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:10 AM By Ron
Why doesn't USF just cut out the middle men and go ahead an honor 'ol Lucifer himself ? God Bless
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:29 AM By Central Valley
Jesuit university says it all.Maybe they should invite Dolores Huerta to speak also.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:09 AM By ted
There is a bishop, I presume, with pastoral responsibility for the area in which the USF Law School is located. I wonder if he has written USF or made any public comment about there honors the school is passing out. That would seem a very good question to ask the bishop, along with what he plans to do about it given USF's blatant and very public defiance of the USCCB's guidance.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:13 AM By Chuck Anziulewicz
Justice Moreno is absolutely correct when noting that his dissent will eventually be the majority view in California. 30 years ago most Americans didn't know of any friends, family members or co-workers who were Gay. Today most Americans DO, and with that awareness has come increasing acceptance and support. Young people especially are more supportive, and they will be the big voting bloc of tomorrow. Proposition 8 passed by a NARROW margin, and the time is coming when voters (including Catholic voters) reject such a measure.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:31 AM By Life Lady
When are we faithful Catholics going to get some relief from the horror of error that permeates our "Catholic" universities, like USF and now Notre Dame? It is painful as a Catholic to know that we are having to suffer thru these errors, and to have to apologize, and bear the brunt of humiliation knowing these kinds of things are happening. In the old testament days, when the chosen people fell into sin, God punished them with being overrun and placed into slavery. My guess is that this sort of thing is akin to those old days. I feel like I am being oppressed, as if I were a slave, to the sin that is so prevelant in society. When will we be delivered?!
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:34 AM By Anastacia
How sad that a Jesuit school would honor a man who wants to destroy marriage as God intended from the beginning of time. Are there any true Catholic schools out there?????
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:43 AM By Laurette Elsberry
The best thing that could happen to this Jesuit university (and probably most others) is that it be denied the right to call itself Catholic. Will this award to Moreno be the final outrage that will cause the Vatican to act? One can hope.....Moreno is not only openly pro-homosexual, he is an abortion rights (sic) supporter, appointed by radically pro-abortion former California Governor Gray Davis, and was on the list for consideration for Supreme Court Justice by radically pro-abortion Barack Obama. Another pro-abortion California Supreme Court Judge of ill fame is Ming Chin, appointed by pro-abortion former Governor Pete Wilson. At his official confirmation hearing Chin was extolled by USF president Fr. John Schlegel wearing his priestly garb. Chin has been widely quoted as saying. "(I)t's the woman's right to choose". He proved his point immediately by becoming instrumental in forming the new Supreme Court majority necessary to invalidate the law requiring parental consent before abortionists can abort the babies of minor girls. Ming Chin subsequently received USF's prestigious St. Thomas More award despite thunderous oppostion.....St. Ignatius, pray for the students and faculty of USF.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:50 AM By Tom P
Why should something like this even be news to Catholics? USF is not a Catholic university any more than UC Berkeley is. Or Santa Clara or Georgetown, for that matter.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:08 PM By Tom Amadeo
Anastasia---marriage as God intended has been destroyed already.If one examines the 7 sacraments,6 are fundamentally the same as they were when Our Lord instituted them. Baptism,Confirmation,Holy Order,Eucharist,Penance,and Extreme Unction are as they were almost two millenia ago. But not matrimony. Matrimony of today and matrimony of the days when Christ walked the earth are the same in name alone. Marriage today has been taken over by the government and is redefined and executed by state law in any way it pleases. We no longer have a definition of marriage--it means whatever the tyrrants want it to mean. Catholics,in my view,should avoid today's marriage,and rename their Sacrament,partaking of it as a Church sacrament only,with no legal status,or public record. And when matrimony returns to the state it was when Christ blessed it,(don't hold your breath waiting),Christians again should embrace it. Let the sodomites keep their"marriage." The fix is in! Don't you get it? Meanwhile,the clergy and layity should be purged of ALL corruping individuals,and be called the"faithful" with some meaning.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:17 PM By Alum
Does USF stand for "Use Saint Francis" ?
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 PM By WOODY GUIDRY
Laurette, how can we do anything to prevent these Counterfeit Catholics from passing themselves off as the genuine article?
If you have ANY kind of a plan (which I hope would have some legal teeth), I would gladly pay for ads to collect the necessary funds to launch the campaign.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:14 PM By Tony de New York
What a shock!!
What else can we expect from a Jesuit University ?
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:54 PM By Harry G
The infiltration of our Catholic educational (an other) institutions by the secularists continues unabated. The idea is to neutralize the Church as a counter-cultural force by diluting its teaching on crucial issues. Our Catholic educators obligingly facilitate this secularist campaign unfailingly. Our bishops are asleep at the switch and it seems nothing or no one can wake them. Is there anything lay folk can do since they seem to be the only ones left to care? Or must we watch the steady destruction of our educational system and our Church? What recourse do lay people have when their religious leaders fail them so egregiously?
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:19 PM By gravey
Homosexualist Mark from PA asks if "homosexualist" is an actual word. The answer is "yes."
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:51 PM By Dan
These Jesuits are clearly at war with traditional Catholic faith and practice with regards to abortion and marriage. I don't think any other word can be used when there is such a defiantly consistent thumbing of the nose at the Magesterium by these Jesuits. Clearly they long for the day when the tide turns decisively against the Church and the secular-progressive zeitgeist prevails, and will do what they can to hasten that day. Would that Burke or Chaput was the Ordinary up in SF! And would that the head of the Jesuit order had a true commitment to orthodoxy in the order.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:22 PM By Thomas Edward Miles
USF RESPECTS FOLKS WITH THE COURAGE TO SAY NO TO THE RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST, WHO CARES WHAT THE SUBJECT IS! GOD BLESS THE JESUITS!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:59 PM By Anne T.
These dissenters would be right there asking for the head of St. John the Baptist because he dared tell Herod his marriage was illicit, or saying, "Crucify him when Christ went to the Cross. They are so blind, and unable to see that they are. The problem is many of them are in illicit situations themselves according to Church law or have been. Some having had as many as three or more "marriages". And instead of repenting and rectifying it, they condone the same bad behavior.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:28 PM By FHKJ
I live in fear as to what God will do next. Images of Sodom and Gommorah come to mind! Let us pray through the Holy Father and the Church of Christ that God will br merciful to all who stray from the path!
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:31 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Harry G, that is simple, don't support them or any other so called Catholic Institutions that are going against the teachings of Christ and His Church.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:32 PM By Anne T.
A correction to my last post. Maybe some of them are not so blind. Maybe they know exactly what they are doing. God help them if that is the case. They are going to need it.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:35 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Woody, if you are willing to pay for some ads that will at least educate the many ignorant about the damage being done at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (I call it Lost Angels) so called Religious Education Congress, please contact me. I and Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. are listed in the City of Anaheim.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:55 PM By Ronnie
Chuck seems to think that it's just a matter of time before people accept this disordered oreintation. Of couse, indoctrination of our youth is why young people are confused today...But uisually with age comes wisdom and therefore most people will realize that this gender identity disorder is not healthy to the body as well as the soul. And considering more and more "former" gays are coming forward with the truth, I think this is more like wishful thinking...
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:41 PM By Gil
What does this have to do with a Catholic Website? I could see it if USF were in any way a Catholic school, but since everybody knows that it isn't, why bother?
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:05 PM By John F. Maguire
Tom Amadeo: Astonishingly, you post a post that denies the validity and the efficacy -- in short, the very reality -- of the sacrament of marriage in the current life of the Church and of humanity. In reply to Anastasia, you write:
"Anastasia -- marriage as God intended it has been destroyed already." Mr. Amadeo, none of the Seven Sacraments of the Christ's Church are patient of destruction. Indeed, as such, neither Christian marriage nor non-Christian marriage can be destroyed. ~ "That Christian marriage (i.e., marriage between baptized persons [man and woman]) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: 'If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.'" The occasion of this solemn declaration was the denial by Protestant leaders of the sacramental character of marriage." See Augustine Lemkuhl, "Sacrament of Marriage," in _The Catholic Encyclopedia_ (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910). ~ Mr. Amadeo, where the leaders of the Protestant movement thought marriage was a mere ordinance (like "agriculture, architecture, shoe-making, hair-cutting" [Calvin]), and that's why THEY denied the reality of sacramental marriage, you, by contrast, think that marriage has been "redifined" out of existence by the state, and that's why you deny the reality of sacramental marriage. REPLY:
However the state defines marriage, marriage's destruction -- its reduction to inexistence -- is impossible. (1) God is the Author of marriage and sustains what He authors in existence. (2) The nuptial meaning of the human body is inextinguishable. No state can define it out of existence.
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:21 PM By Dan
"USF RESPECTS FOLKS WITH THE COURAGE TO SAY NO TO THE RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST..." That right wing group you and they despise is the pope and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:26 PM By John F. Maguire
"Marriage as God intended it has been destroyed." Mr. Amadeo, what would Pope Leo XIII have thought of such a claim? For Pope Leo XIII, as for all Catholic pontiffs, God is the Author of what God intends. "Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, consequently there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous but innate; not derived from man, but implanted by nature" (Leo XIII). On account of its hallowed character, then, marriage has always been regarded as something sacred. ~ In this connection, Augustine Lemkuhl makes an important point. Lemkuhl points out that Pope Leo XIII applies the term SACRAMENT
"to all marriage, even those of infidels...[and so the term *sacrament*] is to be taken in its widest sense, and signifies nothing but a certain holiness inherent in marriage." In this light, Tom, your claim that "marriage as God intended it has been destroyed" is just as false in regard to non-Catholic marriages as it is in regard to Catholic marriages.
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:09 PM By JLS
Maguire, here is another of your heretical beliefs, that God authors all things. No, the devil causes lots of destruction. Jesus, if you'd bother to read Scripture, says that some things that happen are not the will of God.
|
Posted Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:42 PM By abqdad
Mark from PA - I think that it's terrific that you going to bible study. However, you might try reading the ENTIRE bible...including where God tells us the homosexual acts are an "abomination". God's word is NOT a "pick and chose" process. You either believe ALL of it or none of it! (Perhaps you need to review the recent article on how to read the bible?) While we never judge a person for homosexual tendencies, giving in to the "acts" is a grave sin. While this might be inconvenient for you, it is God's truth nonetheless. It's that simple. (Jesus told us that taking up our cross and following Him would be difficult...Sorry!) Given God's truth on the matter, the behavior of USF's leadership is blasphemous as best. They are leading vulnerable and ignorant people to believe that a sinful act is not a sin...That is the gravest of sins! They are also being disobedient to the USCCB and the Vatican. They will answer to God/Jesus for their heresy, disobedience, and blasphemy! The sad reality is that they are "successfully" misleading so many young students that are honestly seeking truth, but will never find it at USF!
|
Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 1:47 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: There is nothing in being that is not willed into being
by God, who is the uncreated Being and the Author of all created being. This is the Church's doctrine of CREATIO EX NIHILO. The Catholic Church teaches that God created all things out of nothing. To hold this doctrine, JLS, can hardly be called heterodox, let alone heretical. ~ Moreover, JLS, your misunderstanding of the (created) being and power of Satan derives -- unfortunately -- from your failure to understand (1) the doctrine of CREATIO EX NIHILO and (2) the truth of God's absolute innocence regarding evil and death. These two failures condition the false Satanology you promote in well-nigh every third post you post on this website. ~ Satan can do nothing, JLS, except what God permits Satan to do.
|
Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 1:58 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Dan: By dint of her custodianship of both the natural law and the evangelical law, the Catholic Church is the judge of all ideologies -- left, right, and center. For this reason, the Catholic Church can never be identified with any one of these positions on the political spectrum. To the contrary, the Church is the judge of each and every one of these positions or "ideological" locations. ~ Dan, it is not impossible that the post-French Revolutionary (Parliamentary) notion of left, right, and center, is, in its own turn, ideologically overdetermined. In any event, the Catholic Church is not to be identified with any locale on this spectrum whatsoever for the good reason that the Church is the judge of all ideologies and all utopias alike.
|
Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 6:59 PM By Mark from PA
Abqdad, you state that "You either believe ALL of it or none of it." You say that God's word is NOT a pick or choose process." Another poster mentioned Deuteronony 20. Here is part, "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; ... you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves." This is part of Jewish history but doesn't give me any inspiration on how to live my life. From Deuteronomy 22, "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife." "If a man meets a virgin who is not bethrothed and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her." So here in the first case both the man and the woman are killed but in the second case the woman must marry her rapist after he has paid her father for "damaging" the father's property. These are not the rules of God but the rules of the Hebrew people from those times. I can't imagine that anyone would consider these readings equal to Christ's words in the New Testament.
|
Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 7:15 PM By Mark from PA
I don't think a lot of Catholics are all that familiar with much of the Old Testament. For example, Leviticus 15 - Verse 32 - "This is the law for him who has a discharge and for him who has an emission of semen, becoming unclean thereby; also for her who is sick with her impurity..." Verse 19 - "When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for 7 days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean." "If any man lies with her, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean for 7 days." Verse 25 - "If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyong the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in her uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean." Verse 16 - "If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening." So if a man has a nocturnal emission or does self gratification he is unclean. Again, this is part of the Hebrew culture but I don't thing people today know about or follow these rules.
|
Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 7:29 PM By Mark from PA
Leviticus 12 is also very interesting. "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days." On the eighth day the child shall be circumcised. "Then she shall continue for 33 days in the blood of her purifying." "But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for 66 days." So it seems that according to the Old Testament, if a woman has a baby girl, she is unclean for twice as long than if she has a baby boy." When you ask Abqdad, if I believe this. I believe that this is what the Bible says but I don't really believe that a women is unclean for 40 days when she has a baby boy and 80 days when she has a baby girl.
|
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:52 AM By Bud Whisler
Jesuits are truly becoming just like the secular arrogant professors nationwide; worried about their tenure and clinging to whatever seems politically correct. They are bringing down their own order and rightfully so! They are "treason" claiming to be within the Church!
|
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:08 PM By Mark from PA
It is interesting to compare how Jesus treated women with how women were viewed in the society. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well; Jesus saved the life of the woman caught in adultery; Jesus healed the woman with a flow of blood, a woman considered "unclean" by her society. It is amazing how Jesus affirmed the humanity of women and outcasts in His society. So when a Christian reads much of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, they don't as much tell us how to live our lives as much as give us insight into the laws of Jewish society and how Jesus gave us a higher law, a law of love. Because the scribes and the Pharisees of Jesus' time loved the ancient Jewish laws but they did not love their fellow man. "Love your neighbor as yourself." That is the law that Jesus gave us.
|
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:16 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Bud Whisler: (1) How in the world is it "rightly so!" that any one, least of all a circle of Jesuits, "bring down" the Society of Jesus? (2) Another question: Isn't it true that persons can never BE the sins they commit? OK, so why do you go ahead and write "They [the Jesuits] ARE (emphasis mine) 'treason'..."? (3) Then there's that "They". Mr. Whisler, unless you take the trouble to be more specific, you risk the suspicion of group defamation.
|
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:38 PM By JLS
Maguire, your evil is not willed by God, but by you. Your argument defies the Our Father prayer, "Thy will be done". If you cannot see how this is so, then follow my continuing directions and take a course in Catholcism. Your Calvinism simply won't do.
|
Posted Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:11 AM By gravey
Mark from PA, You clearly do not understand the relationship between the Old Law and the New Law. Having read and suffered your pro-homosexual comments, there really is no reason to explain those differences. You will continue to justify your acts by blaming and pointing to the sinful behavior of others. You will continue accuse others of hate, but just the opposite is true. For what can be a more hateful act then to lead the weak into error; and your Pollyanna persona makes it all the more insidious. Such is the wolf in sheep's clothing for it is your perverse sexuality which defines and drives you, not the Catholic Faith.
|
Posted Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:22 PM By Anne T.
Mark from PA, why don't you go to the free online Jewish Encyclopedia and read about those passages. Most of them were very enlightened for their day, including the laws about women's menstral periods. Of couse some passages apply to a certain time and certain place, but others do not. The taboo against sodomy applies for all time because it is unnatural and dangerous to the body and a misuse of the sexual function, but how one behaves in war has changed over time -- no prisons to hold enemy soldiers, etc. back then. You know this, but you still keep it up.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 4:44 AM By Mark from PA
Anne T, I don't believe that killing a woman for being raped or forcing her to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22) was enlightened in any age. It was part of that culture and showed the place of women in that society. But look at what happened in that school in California where the 15 years old girl was raped and nobody went for help. They just watched. So we still have a ways to go with how women are treated in our society.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 7:01 AM By JLS
What a certain homosexual behavior advocate, himself lilly white, defines about theology, philosophy, and Church history does not make any difference: What the problem is, is defiance of God. One has no grace to rationalize away the Will of God; doing so or attempting to do so is nothing less than making oneself a competing god ... this is idolatry, the most grave of sins. Homosexuality is the consequence of sin, and when one worships an idol such as himself, then one brings on the consequences which eventually includes homosexual behavior. Does anyone actually believe what these homosexual advocates say? I don't. They say they can have chaste homosexual relationships, but they don't; they say they are homosexuals but do not do the acts ... who would thoughtfully believe this hype? If they advocate same sex attraction, there is a reason for it, and that reason is the attempt to justify their own homosexual behavior.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 11:28 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS: You write: "Maguire, your evil is not willed by God, but by you." That's true -- and nowhere in my posts have I denied it. ~ Still, let's be clear -- the reason WHY the evil that I or anyone else does is not willed by God CAUSATIVELY is because, and just because, that same will, as evil, lacks a proper ordination to the good. On the other hand, we need to keep in mind: Human freedom -- as a high good -- is itself willed by God. Put simply: Human freedom is itself a good thing. ~ Catholic theology, then, distinguishes between (a) the causative good of God's creation -- and, JLS, human freedom is a part of that causative good; and (b) the permissive evil that stems from human freedom. Here is how Albert Stockl sums up the matter: "God is not, indeed, the author of evil; but evil could not exist in the world unless by permission of God, since nothing exists contrary to His will. Evil is opposed to the will of God in so far as He abhors it, but it is not opposed to the will of God in the sense that it exists in spite of Him. Consequently, though evil, in itself, is not good, yet it may be said that it is well it should exist, since it does not exist without God's (permissive) will. But it is well that it should ONLY exist in so far as it is subservient to good. God can draw good out of evil." A. Stockl, "Pre-Scholastic Philosophy," Jacques Maritain Center, University of Notre Dame; also see Michael Torre, "Francisco Martin-Sola, OP, and the Origin of Jacques Maritain's Doctrine of God's Permission of Evil," _Nova et Vetera_, English ed., 4 (Winter 2006): 1 (Naples, Florida: Sapientia Press, 2006), pp. 55-94 (here Michael Torre draws our attention to the recently published correspondence between Jacques Maritain and Charles Journet as that correspondence relates to Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola's important investigation of the question of God's permission of evil).
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 3:33 PM By John F. Maguire
Calvinism, JLS, is a heresy. It denies the propitiatory character of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and it posits a doctrine of "double predestination" according to which, ab initio, certain souls are condemned to hell (the reprobate) and certain souls destined to heaven (the elect,
the "saved" [self-designated]). Calvinism, then, turns on a "double decree" imputed to God from the get-go. Famously, this Calvinist "double decree" ("the double decree of Dordrecht"), besides denying the Catholic doctrine of predestination (whereby one is lost only if one obstinately refuses to cooperate with God's grace), prompts, as one might expect, a tremendous anxiety. If, ab initio, there are two camps -- the camp of the elect and the camp of the reprobate -- then the angst-ridden question arises: Which camp am I in? This anxiety is "resolved" by a suspect comfort -- I mean, the comfort of *certitudo salutis*, better known as the comfort of a "blessed assurance" of salvation. Whence the Calvinist rejection of St. Paul's emphasis on our working out our salvation in fear and trembling. Whence the substitution of a sense of "blessed assurance" ('I am saved' [notice the presumptuous past-tense -- JM). Whence the Calvinist rejection of Purgatory. Whence the Calvinist rejection of the doctrine of sanctifying grace, for which grace one need only ask to receive. [The very grace to ask, we know, is a grace, namely, prevenient grace.] ~ So no, JLS, not only do I reject Calvinism but I've rejected Calvinism in past posts on this website -- some of which, by the way, were addressed to you.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 3:59 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, I am no more defying God by expressing my opinion then you are in expressing yours. And yes, I am a white person, but I am not sinless and have never claimed to be. Christ came to heal and save sinners. And to tell you the truth, JLS, I have never defined myself as a "homosexual" or "a homosexual activist." I define myself as a Catholic.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 4:02 PM By JLS
The Old Testament Law demanding death sentences for even the victims of rape was handed down by God; anyone who believes himself or herself to be a better judge of life or death is a fool.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 4:03 PM By JLS
Maguire, evidently you haven't read your own many posts which contradict your claim of Calvinistic innocence.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 5:49 PM By John F. Maguire
And how is that, JLS? I am a Thomist, not a Calvinist. Give me a quote from any post of mine you think savors of Calvinism -- instead, I mean, of making off-the-cuff (conclusory) charges -- and I will be happy to comment.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 6:13 PM By John F. Maguire
The oddity of your post at CCD Nov. 2: 4:02 PM, JLS, is that
it is far more proximate to John Calvin's position on capital punishment than it is to the Catholic Church's position on
capital punishment. Here, for the record, is the Church's position on capital punishment. The Church's position, JLS, is based on the natural law and the evangelical law, not on historically conditional penalties reported in the Old Testament. ~ CCC 2266 reads: "The State's efforts to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender." These words, JLS, cut against your neo-Calvinist "paleo-biblicist" position on resort to capital punishment. CCC 2267, however, is even more to the point.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 6:25 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, what you wrote in your post of 4:02 PM is your opinion. I wonder how many women would agree with you on that. I don't think any of the nuns that taught me would agree with that statement.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 6:27 PM By John F. Maguire
CCC 2267 reads: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. 'If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute suppression of the offender
"today...are very rare, if not practically non-existent."'" JLS, doesn't your post at CCD Nov. 2: 4:02 PM contradict CCC 2266 and CCC 2267 on the question of capital punishment?
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 8:11 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Mark from PA,
Who are you trying to kid? Your own words in defense of the homosexuals you say you personally know, including I believe your relatives, define you as a homosexual activist, not necessarily a homosexual yourself, but an acitivist.
How can someone who constantly goes against the Church's teachings, recent and from Tradition, on homosexuality and its sinfullness, possibly expect to define himself as a Catholic?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 9:38 PM By JLS
Doesn't matter what their opinions are. What matters is God's will, and God spelled it out. Anyone can read it, and see that it is God's word, and mine only in faithful imitation. You either go with God, or you worship yourself or your neighbor. If you go with God, then you will be at peace with your life ... you will also gain the understanding which you do not have and cannot have otherwise. Also, note that PA is once again attempting to seduce me and readers into believing that what we read in Scripture is subject to our interpretation ... Homosexuals consistently and persistently do this, tempt others away from the Catholic Faith, which has a Pope to call the shots. These seducers always try to ply one with a sense of vanity ... they have no humility in themselves at all, have no knowledge of humility and serve the flesh and various idols they place in front of their eyes to obstruct any view of holy faith. Many faithful commentors have pointed out the subtle deception of such bloggers as PA, Grisha, Maguire ... their posts coincide exactly with what modernism wields ... just read up on the heresies and read the late pope's encyclical on Modernism ... don't remember which pope, just look up the encyclical, study it with eyes of faith and you will see. Jesus opens our eyes with faith. Note how PA's only source of authority is the vague nuns who taught him and the vague priest who indulges his homoerotic advocations? He has never put forth any other authority other than himself. This is the essense of modernism, and reading these PA threads is a great study on the application of Modernist rhetoric. One can adapt the lessons found in it to other aspects than homosexuality. As for his "saving grace" of being against abortion, well so is my dog against abortion; even some abortionists oppose abortion yet they do it anyway. PA has never claimed to be for God ... Now watch how he will begin such a claim but then qualify it with some gobbledygook.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 9:45 PM By JLS
Maguire, no it does not contradict the CCC. How many times have I told you that you need to take a refresher course in reading comprehension? All you do is spew out endless quotes ... that is neither good writing, nor good study, nor does it lend to competent understanding. Others have advised you how to improve your efforts, yet you ignore it all. Maguire, listen, I've read the best there is and at all levels of eloquence ... your writing style sucks, dude. Take a course ... even a freshmen college course in essay writing and composition. Dump the big words, dump the anglicanization of Latin words, learn how to focus on conveying a message clearly and concisely ... and stop dillydallying around with the fancy footwork which only trips you up and never proves a point.
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 9:56 PM By JLS
What, Maguire? You a Thomist!!!??? Yeah, right. The first criticism you ever made of me was to call me a Scotist, and yet I never read more than a paragraph of him at the most, if even that. If you were a Thomist, then you'd make sense, because St Thomas makes sense. What you do, frankly, is what many college freshmen do with literature, and I did that also, and that is to try to mimic what looks confusing but impressive in a writer. It comes out pretty much like what you post. It is due to the lack of insight by the reader ... usually college freshmen go on to gain interpretive skills. I had to work hard at it for many years ... so I know the difference. I see the same thing in readers who have not mastered the art and discipline of reading carefully. I don't even care if you are some kind of professor or teacher, you still have a long way to go with developing competent writing and rhetorical practices. The univeristy campus I started at had the pits for English professors and TA's ... worst on campus at saying what they meant and meaning what they said. Even the engineering students were better at language. The best there were the practical professors such as in biology and agriculture. The economics dept profs were deluded. The philosophy department should have been run out of town on a rail it was so bad.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 6:23 AM By Mark from PA
Mr. Maguire, it depends on whether one follows the teachings of Deuteronomy and Leviticus in their entirety or the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Jesus did not feel bound by all those Jewish laws as He was God and most of those laws were just man-made. That is one of the reasons why He was hated and feared by many of the Scribes and Pharisees.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:38 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: I am Thomist in metaphysics, that is, I recognize the real distinction between essence and existence, but Scotist in the minimal sense of recognizing a place for the primacy of Christ in the the context of the motive of the Incarnation (Cur Deus Homo? Why did God become man?).
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:27 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS, my hope is that your crab-appling about my style of writing doesn't work to obscure what, in one of your recents posts, you call -- and rightly -- real argument.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:51 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Mark from PA: I confess, I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that the capital punishment issue depends on "whether one follows the teaching of Deuteronomy and Leviticus in their ENTIRETY (emphasis mine) or the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church"? I would argue that, upon consideration, there is no such live alternative. ~ All cognizant Catholics accept the natural-law content of these ancient prohibitions. At the same time, under the evangelical dispensation of Jesus Christ, we are NOT under the penal provisions of the ancient Hebraic codes, Accordingly, the Catholic Catechism has -- perfectly rightly -- rejected the sectarian insistence that goes under the name of Dominionism in the United States and elsewhere (Dominionists hold that all the death penalties described in the Hebraic codes should be enforced today). The CCC, in effect, rejects Dominionism -- and the CCC is right. Mark, you'll recall the case of a woman caught in adultery -- a capital offense (Lev. 20:10-12). "They said to [Jesus]: 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?' They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.' Again, he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders" (John 8:4-9).
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:09 PM By Mark from PA
Mr. Maguire, I agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to the death penalty. I am a pro-life person. I think the teachings of Deuteronomy and Leviticus reflect the culture of the time. Some of the ancient prohibitions (such as the dietary laws) make sense if one takes into account the times and there is an emphasis on cleanliness. Orthodox Jews still follow these prohibitions. This is the first that I have ever heard of Dominionism. I don't think most Catholics are aware of much about these matters. I always thought that John 8 was a moving story.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:18 PM By Mark from PA
JLS, the nuns that taught me were not "vague." I had many excellent nuns in school, especially in high school. A couple of the elementary school nuns were too strict. I don't know how much contact you have had with nuns and don't know how much religious education you had as a student. I had nuns for religion class through 7th grade. In 8th grade we had a priest and a nun and we had a priest in high school. I would like to introduce you to some of the nuns that I know. You could probably learn quite a bit from them. I have great respect for these religious women.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 5:09 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: You claim that the ancient Hebraic codes specifying the death penalty (for a large number of offenses) is live law (as having been "handed down by God" and "anyone who believes himself or herself a better judge" of the matter is "a fool"). The very contrary is true, JLS. Although everything in the ancient codes that squares with right reason in moral matters is retained, still we are no longer under the penal provisions of the ancient Hebraic codes. Christ's intervention against those who would stone a woman to death for the thentofore capital offense of adultery, is pointedly instructive of the character of the new dispensation -- the new law of Christ. Paleo-biblicism -- regression to the penal provisions of the Code of Leviticus --
is not an option under the new dispensation of Christ our Lord. It is in this sense that the Catechism of the Catholic Church chimes with a correct reading of Sacred Scripture,
and it is in this sense that your post at Nov. 2: 4:02 PM runs contrary to a correct reading of this same Sacred Scripture.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 5:26 PM By JLS
It's all your own view, and your defiance of Dogma does not bear good witness to those nuns who you say taught you well.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009 5:29 PM By JLS
Maguire, your real arguement is that it's ok to vote into office a man like Obama who is extreme pro-abortion, pro-perverse homosexualism, and trying to mount the leg of the Church like a dog. That is the substance of your real argument, and you refuse to come to terms with it. You prove what the Church says when She says that if one is not completely opposed to abortion, then no other political view amounts to anything at all. You have said you oppose abortion, but your actions belie your claim.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:27 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS: On this website, I've posted twenty posts if indeed I've posted one post on: VOTING ETHICS in the last election. In so doing, I made the case that it is not NECESSARILY a mortal sin to have voted for Senator Barack Obama, given the traditional Thomist teaching on conscience, including the traditional Thomist teaching on ill-informed conscience. I also made the case that those who DID vote for Barack Obama in the last election have a SPECIAL OBLIGATION to oppose his abortocratic policies today -- I meant, a special obligation beyond the ordinary obligation of all those (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) who, dedicated as they are to the common good of all persons, oppose the abortocratic policies of the Obama administration. By the way, JLS, I take it that this is the position of the Catholic bishops of the United States. You may recall that I also quoted Thomas Aquinas who solemnly warns against fostering post-election bitterness. Here, JLS, you seem to me to have involved yourself in just such bitterness even now, a year after the election of Senator Obama -- a year later, precisely when Catholic solidarity against abortocratic rule is most needed! ~ The CCD editors know very well that ill-informed guessing at how CCD bloggers voted in the last election is violative of these bloggers privacy rights. Why, JLS, is it violative? Because these bloggers are thereby placed in a position of being pressured to waive their right to retain their expectable voting-privacy rights so to reply to the imputation. For my part, I too have stood by my own rights in this matter, but I have also done so because I am in solidarity with Democrats for Life and hold it against the Republican Party that it does not officially recognize a federal-constitutional right to life of all persons, including preborn infants.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:13 PM By Thuvia Parth
No one prevails in an argument by bringing up issues that are off-point, JLS. Mr. Maguire is right in his defense of the Catholic Catechism's teaching on the death penalty.
That teaching contradicts your claim that the death penalties listed in _Leviticus_ and _Deuteronomy_ are in force under Christ's new Law. No, JLS, these penalties are not in force under the Law of Christ.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:24 PM By Mark from PA
I am surprised that more people didn't take issue with the statement of 4:02, "The Old Testament Law demanding death sentences for even the victims of rape was handed down by God." This means that not only the rapist was sentenced to death but also the victim. I don't think you could find one nun who would agree with this. To execute a rape victim would surely be a grave sin against the 5th commandment.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:01 PM By JLS
" I made the case that it is not NECESSARILY a mortal sin to have voted for Senator Barack Obama,": This attitude, Maguire, is your downfall as a Catholic. All you renegades ever do is seek loopholes. Jesus addressed what you are doing often; I've run the verses for you. You cannot see it, because it takes faith and humility to see it.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:43 PM By Anne T.
Someone is twisting the Old Testament Scriptures as he usually does, and this person claimed before to have Jewish relatives or be from a Jewish background although a Christian. The only time a woman was excecuted in the Old Testament who was supposedly raped was when she refused to ask for help when she could do so. Not to do so when she could gave the impression that she was not really raped. The good judges at that time took all those things into consideration, just as a good judge does so now. The laws of many nations around Israel at that time were far worse and far more unfair to women.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:13 PM By JLS
The OT Law has been explained innumerable times on this site, and on this thread. Those who cannot understand ... well, too bad; you have the resources but you reject them, and those which you accept are filled with fluff.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:16 PM By JLS
Thuvia, the point with Maguire is that he persists in evading the crux of the issue which I have named lots of times. He dances around that which is critical by bringing up all sorts of references that are not. He provides specifics that are valid in themselves but that do not support the issue which is his attempt at credibility while supporting archfiends Obama and Kmiec. He has never rejected his support for these two enemies of the Church and of human nature.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:19 PM By JLS
Thuvia, contrary you your denial of Church teaching, Jesus Himself says to us in the Gospel that He is the fulfillment of the Law. The penalties are indeed in force ... just go ahead and commit the sin and see what happens to you.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:36 PM By JLS
Maguire, your big bubuu in your big hot air post is making believe that either the republicans or the democrats who have painted prolife signs on their politics are somehow the answer ... but you fail to realize that neither one has stopped abortion. Neither one has put forth a strategy that can ever stop abortion. If you are inside the lions' den, you will not stop them from eating you. Only God will stop them; and the republicans and the democrats are not obviously doing what it takes for God to stop them from being used as tools of the elites who want abortion and more of it. There is a "why" to this observation, the answer is in the nature of the one party system now predominating in this nation. You constantly supply the lie that we have two parties and that it is helpful to be prolife in one or the other; however, there are not two parties. Not with respect to what God wills. The only sense in which there are two parties is in trifles, scraps tossed to the de facto slaves of this nation. Slaves because this nation serves the idol of abortion and the devil behind it. If it were not so, then there would be no legal abortion. As has been said often, if either party when in power had wanted to outlaw abortion, either one could have done it. They did not do it; the bishops did not do it. Hot air will not get a soul into Heaven; you should start listening and stop twisting what the Pope says and what the loyal bishops say; but your purpose is to lie, deceive and move minds towards abortion. I have shown in many concrete examples in these posts. None of these you have ever taken on, not one. And I am not the only one who has proved your treachery. You use lots of fancy nonsense just like the devil did when he tempted Christ ... you, Maguire, exemplify the power which steals souls from God through deception and complicity in murder of unborn babies, although you claim to support the Church -- but this is exactly how you and your allies are being outed.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:33 PM By Mark from PA
So Anne T, if the woman was too afraid to cry out when she was being raped then it was OK to give her the death penalty? I thought you were a pro-life person and would back me up in my views. In reality, in those times the rapist was considered to be committing more of a crime against the woman's father or her husband than against the woman herself.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:00 AM By John F. Maguire
It's been a year now, JLS, and by now you should have come to see that the voters who voted for Senator Obama have a special obligation to oppose his abortocratic politics -- that is, an obligation beyond the general obligation of everyone to oppose any politics that does not include recognition of the right to life of all persons, including preborn infants. This obligation, however, does NOT mean that it is fair comment on those Catholic voters who voted for Senator Obama (the Catholic majority) that these Catholics necessarily committed a mortal sin in so voting; nor does it mean that these Catholics are second-class citizens, as it were, in the Catholic Church. "Hot air," JLS, is what wafts through your compulsive insistence to the contrary effect.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:44 AM By Thuvia Parth
You're in cloud-cookoo land, JLS, if you believe that my defense of the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty constitutes a "denial" on my part of "Church teaching." Preposterous! When Christ Our Lord fulfilled the Law, he did so in many ways -- one of which was to ABROGATE the death PENALTIES of _Leviticus_ and _Deuteronomy_ . JLS, it was in the very spirit of the Law -- the Law as fulfilled in himself -- that Christ promulgated the Law-as-fulfilled, which is exactly what the Evangelical Law is. This, JLS, is the meaning of Christ's intervention against the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. One more thing, JLS. Aren't your motives here suspect? Who do YOU want to have stoned to death today? That's a fair question, since you defy the Catholic Catechism's teaching on capital punishment by denying that the Old Testament death penalties have been abrogated by Christ. In your book, for example, my defending the Catholic Catechism places me in the camp of the heretics. Therefore, JLS, you'd have to start by approving the death penalty for me, no? But JLS, as has already been mentioned in this thread, it is a viral doctrine known as
"Dominionism" -- the doctrine claiming that the Old Testament death penalties are applicable today -- that is false, not the Catholic Catechism's position on capital punishment.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:51 PM By John F. Maguire
My position on voting ethics can hardly be described as "exemplifying" what you call "the power which steals souls from God through deception and complicity in the murder of unborn babies"! Good Lord, no! So do please, JLS, get a grip. Ask yourself whether you are generally in the habit of demonizing bloggers who proffer criticisms of your posts? Or is it me in particular? Even so innocuous an observation of mine to the effect that there are two major political parties in the United States, gets construed by you as a "lie" on my part. Which construction, in turn, gets amplified by you as my "constantly" supplying "the lie that we have two parties...." JLS, your economic instructors,
"deluded" though you claim they were, must at least have mentioned in passing the salient difference -- in economics --between a monopoly and a duopoly. I think it is a fair to say that the American party system is a duopoly. Withal, I do not think such an observation is mistaken, let alone a lie.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:53 PM By JLS
Madness, Maguire, madness ... how can you look yourself in the mirror and say that voting for an extreme abortion promoter would reduce abortions. Absolute lunacy on your part!
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:24 PM By Mark from PA
Anne T, I have to comment that I could be more pro-life. I am inspired by Sister Helen Prejean but wonder if I could be as courageous as her. I thought of this because of the case in Ohio. I don't know a lot about the story as I haven't read about it, except for headlines, and when I hear about it on the TV, I change the channel as it is too disturbing to me. I wonder if I was on the jury of the monster who raped and murdered all those women, if I would be greatly tempted to give him the death penalty. It upsets me greatly that so many women are sexually assaulted and abused in our country. It is truly an epidemic. Violence against women is a serious problem and a great tragedy in our country.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:06 PM By JLS
Thuvia, you have no concept at all of what the Law is about. It is so clear; the Church is clear as a bell on it, and always has been clear. Jesus explains it in various ways. He is the fulfillment of the Law; not an iota of the Law was dropped, according to Jesus. But since you cannot understand what He is saying you try to create your own world wherein it all makes sense to you. That world, Thuvia, is the same one inhabited by Maguire, and is called the world of liberalism, where your respect for the authority of the Church is nil. All you respect is your replacement church which you call by the same name as the Catholic Church.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:09 PM By JLS
Thuvia, why are you accusing me of wanting someone stoned to death? I never said that I do. This is just one more irrational thing that you drum up because you refuse to do what it takes to gain the understanding.
|
Posted Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:15 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: I never said that voting for Barack Obama "reduces" anything. Remember, my topic here is voting ethics. In that connection, I said that it is not necessarily a mortal sin for a Catholic to have voted for Senator Obama, given the Catholic understanding of conscience-formation. By contrast, it is obligatory -- and necessarily so -- for all (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) to oppose abortocratic policies on the ground that these policies exclude preborn infants from the compass of humanity.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|