|
Published: July 16, 2008
“Obama’s radical abortion views”
Pro-lifers pray outside San Diego Convention Center while Barack Obama speaks inside
News from the Trenches
 Thirty Catholics, joined by two Evangelical Christians and two representatives of Operation Rescue, prayed for the protection of innocent unborn babies from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. while pro-abortion, presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke to the La Raza Convention in downtown San Diego on Sunday, July 13.
Catholics prayed the Rosary and sang hymns for an end to abortion throughout the protest. The group held banners reading “We are praying for an end to abortion” and “Life is precious,” along with signs in English and Spanish that read “Abortion kills children.”
The pro-lifers stood directly in front of the Convention Center just north of a similarly sized group of the San Diego Minutemen, who were protesting other Obama policies. Along the park across the street a group of about 250 Obama supporters gathered. When a passing car would give them a sign of approval they all began to cheer as if they were at a sporting event. The crowd was young, under 40, with only a handful of people with gray hair. Noticeably, no one among the Obama supporters carried an American flag.
Obama’s pro-abortion views are so extreme that, while an Illinois state senator, he refused to vote for a bill for three years that would have protected babies born alive after an abortion. The Infant Born Alive Act was passed in that state only after he left the senate.
Those attending traveled from as far away as Escondido, Alpine and Chula Vista to bring attention to Obama’s extreme pro-abortion stance. One young woman who supports Obama approached Terry, a sidewalk counselor at local abortion mills. She asked her for pro-life information and Terry informed her of Obama’s radical abortion views and directed her to the Priests for Life web site for pro-life information. The woman was appreciative and receptive.
We were blessed to be a pro-life witness to all the people walking to the ballpark for the Padres game; one man stopped to tell us that he was grateful for our presence there and is praying for us. At least one local news station, KUSI-TV, covered the protest on their 11 o’clock news that evening.
Thank you to everyone who sacrificed their Sunday afternoon to stand in defense of those who cannot speak up for themselves and to all of you who could not be there but prayed for this intention at home!
-- Sue Lopez
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:10 AM By BJ
Write in vast numbers to the Obama feedback site.Your letter may be the one that breaks the camels back and leads to a radical rethink by pro infanticide politicians and supporters. But write intelligently and without hatred. Pray for inspiration.
The time is approaching when the USA will lead a worldwide roll back of the acceptance of death to the unborn as a `right`. God please forgive us for having started it and other abominations.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:45 AM By Fr. M.P.
Obama doesn't care about children, as evidenced by his platform and his voting record. The apostasy is evident in how many Catholics want to vote for him.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:23 AM By Ann
Time to begin fasting, along with praying, for this man to be defeated in November, along with all other candidates for office who no longer respect marriage as designed by God, children born and unborn. If Obama gets elected, it will probably be because of people who call themselves Catholic but who do not know the Faith in all its splendor, and don't attend Mass regularly, if at all, don't pray. In other words, cultural Catholics, cafeteria Catholics who need to be converted. And time for the bishops to take a firm stand on voting for prolife candidates. Abortion is the #1 issue!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:33 AM By Jim Hanink
Thanks for the splendid witness!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:57 AM By Joseph P. Belk
Thank God there remain such faithful Catholics in the Sodom and Gomorrah land that has emerged in the state of California. It remains a scandal to the whole world that so many California Catholics will vote for Barak Hussein Obama in November.
Would that some of the Church's bishops and archbishops were not supporting Obama's pro-abortion anti-family agenda. Let us pray for more holy and zealous priests, brothers, and sisters....
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:42 AM By Elizabeth
Onward Christian Soldiers!!!!
Bless your hearts and I know the Lord and Our Lady are most pleased.
Please pray to Our Lady to ask her Son to have mercy on our Country in this upcoming election.......
Pray the Holy Spirit will enlighten and guide alot of voters who are clueless about what Obama is really all about!
PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:37 AM By Dan
I noticed that on Obama's election website there is a link on issues, but when you click on it abortion is noticeably absent. He is definitely trying to hide his voting record on abortion. BJ, I am not sure where the feedback site is, but will keep trying to find it.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:28 PM By Charles O'Connell
Obama is O.K. with Partial Birth Abortion. "A catheter is inserted into the base of the skull, and the Baby's brains are vacuumed out." Article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121 | Chicago Sun Times Cartoon: God, in His image from the Sistine Chapel touching Adam's finger, touches the finger of a baby, behind whom is Obama holding sign with legend 'Live Birth Abortion', yelling at God "You Keep Out of This!".
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:51 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: You write: "The apostasy is evident in
how many Catholics want to vote for [Senator Obama]." (1) In the California primary, many Catholics have already voted for Obama, and in November many more will. (2) Aquinas distinguishes between the general apostasy that is mortal sin as such and the intensified apostasy "whereby a man withdraws from the faith." Two questions follow: Is it a mortal sin to vote for Obama? No. Only if (a) one votes for Obama *because* he is an abortocrat, and (b) one deliberately disregards the furrther requisite considerations that pertain to casting such a vote (considerations already discussed at length on this site), would (c) "the kind of apostasy...that is to be found in every mortal sin" be in evidence by casting a vote for Obama. ~ Would a vote for Obama, then, be evidence of apostasy "simply and absolutely", i.e., apostasy from the faith? No. If such a vote is not evidence of a mortal sin, a fortiori it is not evidence of apostasy from the Faith. Only "in so far as [such votes] are signs of unbelief" would they be evidence of apostasy from the Faith. ~ Fr. M.P., you appear to think that they are such signs. At best, your argument is statistical: Apostates overselect for voting for Obama. But voting for Obama, on your theory, is straightaway evidence of apostasy. So at worst your argument is circular. In any event, it does not take Aquinas's distinctions into account (_Summa Theologica: Secunda Secundae Partis_, Q. 12).
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:43 AM By ELIZABETH
YOU CAN'T BE CATHOLIC AND VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:13 AM By John L. Sillasen
Mr. Maguire, you can take that type of reasoning well beyond any kind of rational limit. Wisdom is what puts limits on ideas. With the reasoning you use, one can justify voting for the second coming of Adoph Hitler because he stabilized society, and not be guilty of voting for him out of an intention to do so at the expense of millions of innocent victims. In other words to vote for abortionist Obama is to vote for a good result at the expense of millions of souls murdered to achieve it. Have fun talking with St Peter when you get to the Pearly Gates ... hopefully which time is far off in the distant future, so as to allow you to ammend your political position and also to enjoy the fruits of a long life in society after Obama miraculously stops abortion, infanticide, euthanesia, the gay agenda, war, starvation, poverty and all other ills which only the Anti-Christ can do. So, if you want a political solution to evil, then you seem to be saying that Obama is the man to step up to the plate and get 'er done ... by hook or by crook. Vote for him not because he has evil positions, but because he is man with hope (although his brand of hope is not the same as Christ, the Hope of the World). Yes, vote either Obama or McCain not because of their evil positions but because they smile well, and your conscience will be clean.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:00 PM By John F. Maguire
Reply to John L. Sillasen: (1) The definition of apostasy outlined by Thomas Aquinas--which is all that my post sketched--is not not patient of being taken "beyond the rational limit"; nor is it patient of being recast according to your *ad Hitlerem* gloss. (2) In this same context, you've misread me completely if you think I am promoting my own political position on the November vote. Rather, I am responding to a claim that "apostasy is evident in how many Catholics want to vote for [Senator Obama]." Using Aquinas's discussion of the meaning of apostasy, I believe I have succeeded in refuting that claim. You have yet to show me otherwise. (3) I would add: Beyond the the norm against any Catholic voting for a candidate *because* that candidate is an abortocrat, other requirements need to be met to justify the favorable vote. These requirements have been identified by a number of Catholic bishops. Taken as a whole, however, they in no way warrant your hyperbolic characterization of the status of the present discussion of voting ethics. Nor, with respect to both Senator McCain and Senator Obama, do these requirements warrant a "case closed" attitude toward either candidate--I mean, from the point of view of voting ethics as a matter of moral theology. See generally CCD June 6, 2008, CCD June 15 2008, CCD June 19, 2008.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
Nope, not so. My Hitlerian ad is more than gloss. To vote for a man who sponsors the brutal murdering of millions of unborn babies has no redeeming value as a politician, and almost none as a man. You cannot appease the devil by slapping his man on the back. Your use of the idea that this is a legal argument does not do justice to the problem. Religion is the issue, and it cannot be forced. Continual chatter can serve to stimulate minds to look ever more deeply into the situation. Now, our next president will be one or the other, barring any unusual surprises. In this sense your argument is fine ... in this sense it really does not matter who a Catholic votes for. I'm sure the Emperor Nero had Christians on his court, and perhaps their influence on him served to drive him to his end sooner than later ... who knows. But the grist is this: If Catholic intellectuals and other bright Catholics were to advocate a third party, then we'd win. That is the sin, Mr. Maguire, dereliction of duty in the face of temptation. The rudeness I reflect only rises to the surface when the gentile fail in their obligations ... and in our era those running the Church have been failing badly, whether ordained or lay. Let's see some heroism, some potentates voluntarily step away from their worldly ties and help untie the Church from Her enemies.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 8:46 AM By John L. Sillasen
What I'm finding interesting in this exploration of the motives for voting for a president is how human nature is perceived. Jesus tells us to give God all our heart, mind, soul and strength: So, we vote with our mind while keeping our heart in the pews? Is the elemental criterion for deciding a vote based on some legal point such as "I can get away with this because the rules say I can"? That would be voting the mind while relegating the heart to the sidelines. It is saying that I such a man would be a minimal Catholic, a Catholic in the least sense, one whose heart is only on God because of the grace of some technicality in the legal definition of Catholic. This concept can be articulated further, but the real point is exemplified most radically by St Francis of Assisi, who shucked all his worldly connections so as to serve God from the most elemental wholeness of himself. His good Catholic father saw Catholicism through the eyes of a merchant. This is not bad; the late Pope John Paul II was always calling forth groups of Catholics by their vocations such as bricklayers, doctors, poor, etc. But once he had them listening, then the late Mother Teresa would work her special grace, her "big heart" as the Hindus said of her: She would integrate the listeners into their wholeness so that they could see the life presented to them by God. It is from this abject position of humility, and not from our vocations in life, that we should inform the world of true life.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:23 AM By Fr. M.P.
John F. Maguire, we have had the debate whereby my query to you was for proportionate reasons of an Obama vote. This was ducked by you who said we should wait. No proportionate reasoning was ever provided. When will we see such a proportionate reason? Another thread focused on economics as the proportionate reason. As to apostasy, it is obvious to anyone who lives the faith that we are in a time of great apostasy in the general sense. Those who don't live the faith do not even notice. Most Catholics do not go to Mass, or confession, a majority does not believe in the Real Presence (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) and are defacto heretics in the form of cafeteria Catholicism, picking and choosing what they believe. Many incorporate pagan beliefs, like zen or new age or yoga. Many are here, like those supporting women priests and homosexual lifestyles, clergy included. We can see this apostasy without looking at politics at all. And such sin causes blindness. Do you disagree? There are those particular apostates who have left Catholicism to join another faith, but I am not talking about them in particular. Many (most?) Catholics, infected with that poisoned mindset (corrupt conscience), think that abortion does not matter, or is equal to other things like immigration or economics, and therefore can vote freely for Obama. People also sin by negligence - omission, right? That includes not taking into account life and its non-negotiableness according to Catholic dogma, or reducing it to a minor issue. One can "not care" - remain indifferent - for the faith principles in performing their duty. Remember vomiting out the lukewarm (Rev 3:16)? And then there is the unanswered question of prudence by voting for a guy with a perfect anti-life, anti-Catholic record. Miraculous conversion? What does prudence say about that happening? (bad tree, bad fruit, etc) Voting for Obama is the symptom of the problem.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:58 AM By Edward
YOU CAN'T BE CATHOLIC AND VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 10:08 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Fr. M.P.,
As I have tried to argue elsewhere, those who might decide to vote for a candidate like Obama might not do so either becaues they think that "abortion does not matter" or that it "is equal to other things like immigration or economics." There is another possibility -- namely the judgement that the alternative candidate is not really pro-life, though he claims to be, or would not do anything real to protect unborn life.. If a voter judges the latter candidate to favor very destructive, clearly immoral policies in other areas, while the pro-abortion candidate would be better on balance in those areas, the judgment to vote for the pro-abortion candidate would not arise either from the notion that "abortion does not matter" or that it "is equal to other things like immigration or economics." In other words, one might judge that, despite the claims of one candidate to be "pro-life," there is really no pro-life candidate available in the election. Now, you may disagree with a political judgment in a particular case, but your disagreement would be on the level on prudence, not any moral absolute.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 12:17 PM By Carl
To many people, picking the next president on the basis of his supposed abortion views is like picking your next taxi cab driver on the basis of his. Sometimes I wonder if the taxi driver doesn't have more real life impact on the subject.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 12:53 PM By John F. Maguire
Reply to Fr. M.P. "Asked and answered," a courtroom in lawyer would object. Here I was refuting your vote-fior-Obama-is-apostasy position, not making a proportionate argument for either candidate, even were such an argument not premature. Specifying the moral theology of voting is a job that commits me not one wit to the partisanship you demand. Nor, when the Catholic bishops begin clearing their throats on this matter, will it commit them to such an
analysis. I would however say that axiomatically any proportionate analysis must take into account the fact that neither candidate in question recognizes the right to life of preborn infants as what it is: a matter of constititional protection for "persons" under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. That is the premise for proportionality analysis, not returning the abortion question to
the states, which do not have a right to approve abortion
in the first place.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 2:00 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Fr. M.P.: I agree with you that if sin is not
acknowledged as sin by the sinner and renounced as sin by the sinner, the consequent effect is moral scotosis--moral blindness in increasing degrees. Such, I take it, is the universal consensus of theologians. Indeed, this consensus is subaxiomatic to Aquinas's axiom that a thing is known according to the mode of the knower. Disagreement among theologians enters, however, when the distinction between (a) the upright conscience and (b) the veridical conscience, is introduced. The upright conscience is "conscientious" ( = upright), yes, but for all that the upright conscience is not necessarily yet the veridical conscience ( = true conscience), which is not only upright but right indeed. The ancient Hebrew prayer asking God to further enlighten one's conscience, so that one's upright conscience actually secures the truth, is the scriptural point of departure for the distinction between these two forms of conscience. Many argue that the fact that there is a discrepency between these two forms of conscience--i.e, between (a) the upright and (b) the upright but also true conscience--is, in itself, symptomatic of the weakening of human nature, a weakening traceable to sin: here primarily original sin. Whatever sin is involved and to whatever degree, I would agree with you, Fr. M.P., that sin causes blindness.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:21 PM By John L. Sillasen
Prudentially, if I were to find myself in a dark forest some night caught between a starving pride of lions and a starving pack of wolves, I would not render a vote for either one of them.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:37 PM By John L. Sillasen
Human nature is not in a process of weakening; that went out with the advent of Jesus Christ, the light of the world. Human nature has been growing stronger for two millenia. Those who choose not to hop in the train to gloryland are the souls who are weakening, call them the lost, the damned, and in some cases the irredeemable. But Christ has strengthened the nature of human beings, and we are witnessing this power among the faithful to withstand the terrors and seductions of the evil one. Those who cannot are the ones who are being culled from the Church ... their own lives witness their poverty of grace, their refusal to accept grace, their abject worthlessness ... "If the salt has lost its flavor, then it is no good and is thrown out with the garbage" (Jesus). There is absolutely no legal argument that can trump faith. One believes and one does not fall into the trap of having to vote for one or the other candidate. Voting is not a divine mandate ... but faith in Divinity is a necessary act which has infinitly more power than any legal reasoning out of this predicament. A lawyer is subject to a judge, and this political operation is ruled by a judge who has no ties to God, no faith, and is worthless, a blight upon the salvific efforts of Jesus, a soiled garment which will prevent its wearer from entering the great banquet of the Lord. All the legal arguments ever made or ever to be construed cannot gain entrance into Heaven. This war today is not a war of wits, but a war of faith. Legal battles win a few skirmishes, but as I've pointed out, the abortion rate has not declined in the face of every legal argument put forth by man, nor any argument put forth by God. The Devil is rising and the world can kiss his toes all day long but to no avail. Law is the control factor for sinners ... but when the sinners overpower it, then it has no effect. This is our case at hand. St Paul and the Baptist lost their heads despite their unequaled legal skills.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:26 AM By Edward
My apologies John F.M., Fr. M.P. and John L., et al; I am enjoying this discussion. I look forward to more from you John F.M., because your mind seems a fertile place indeed. I assume the following is a typo, or that I have misunderstood your intent; I’d like to get the conversation back on track: “but for all that the upright conscience is not necessarily yet the veridical conscience ( = true conscience), which is not only upright but right indeed”
“Not necessarily yet” and “right indeed?!”
Is not the nature of the veridical mind to, in fact, be “wrong indeed?!” Is not the attempt to rely on veridical conscience as some comparative guide, a far less than perfect (to be kind) means to an adulterated end? As it is, veridical conscience is blinded by our sight, our memory and our ability to conceive, consider and/or accept (or deny) with conviction, our motivations, prejudices, the sins we commit, and their effects upon us...is it not? I think then the veridical mind is, well, assumptive, overly confident, in denial, unaware, and even arrogant; it is unreliable at best and potentially demonic at worst. If this is your point, then I agree to the extent that we must walk it to recognize that this is a universal experience, if we are willing to recognize at the same time it is a specifically individual affliction.
For our conversation, while it (the weaknesses of the veridical conscience) may be recognized, generally (by a very small audience -and each of us in our rare shining moments), no mitigation is available on a consistent individual basis -a micro level, within the scope of the window of opportunity for this -a “collective vote (macro)" governing our conversation (a political election); there simply is no mitigation. If (and only if) your point is that we evaluate all things according to our "gifts, abilities, and infirmities," then I am compelled to agree and I concede the point; however, in that case, I am compelled to state that this was John L’s point from the outset.
Also, as MORE THAN AN ASIDE, our Holy Family is not “convened” in a judgmental, legalistic court. Rather, it is a family affair: God our Father, Jesus our Brother, Mary our Mothe
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:16 AM By John L. Sillasen
Edward, interesting analysis!!! I, for one, may have said to the effect, "we evaluate all things according to our "gifts, abilities, and infirmities"; However, I believe there is more on occasion. Recalling that when we are in a state of grace, we are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, and thus are capable of voicing things which are beyond our capacities. Now, I hope I've worded this sufficiently vaguely, so as not to claim that such voicing can elevate our individual authority at such times. This might be one area where Catholics and Protestants part ways ... the one prophesying truly yet not claiming authority, while the other prophesying truly but claiming authority. Without the hierarchy of the Mystical Body of Christ, one who utters any true prophetic statement can slip into a false view of personal authority. I like to go back again to what I've read alleged of St Thomas Aquinas, which may be factual but I don't know for sure, that he considered all his works as far less than the author behind the author of his works. So what he was doing was rendering prophetic statement (in the sense of profound truth as differentiated from the popular notion that prophesy is foretelling the future) yet not claiming his own authority behind it, or exalting his own sense of privilege in being the one to utter such illuminating things or teaching such great lessons of discernment. There is, in other words, more to an individual Christian in a state of grace than the natural mode of existence. This benefit provides immeasureable advantage when engaging the spiritual enemy who can only mimic the relationship of Christians with God. *** And to the second of you critical points, yes, that is what I've been up to in many of my arguementation with Mr. Maguire, who obviously provides this forum with a certain brilliance, making it more than worthwhile to try and figure out the meanings of his "erudition" (and I'm stretching my recall for accuracy on this word").
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:02 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Edward: The idea--far from perfectly expressed in my prior post--is that the upright conscience is not necessarily the veridical conscience. Dynamically, the upright (or "conscientious") conscience is "not yet" the true (or "veridical") conscience because, despite its conscientious character as upright, the upright conscience might not yet have achieved veridicality (truthfulness). For example, the pacifist conscience at its best is an upright conscience, but the pacifist conscience is not yet (if, for my part, I am not mistaken) the veridical conscience (for failing, I mean, to acknowledge the right to collective self-defense). To be sure, a pacifist, for his or her part, could reverse the terms of this discussion, and privilege the pacifist
conscience as veridical, thereby reading the conscience informed by just-war criteriology as (simply) upright or "conscientious" but not yet truth-based. Following Fr. Antonio Rosmini's treatise _Conscience_, my primary point here is simply to distinguish these two forms of conscience: the upright and the veridical. ~ As applied to the problem of conscientious voting: The ancient prayer in which the people of Moses ask God to enlightened the conscience is truly a salutary prayer because in this prayer it is admitted that what we already take to be our upright conscience might not, despite ourselves, yet be, in all actuality, veridical, correct, truth-based.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 12:37 AM By Edward
Dear John F.M., You must admit this conversation has a rather odd feel, as it walks an oft unspoken fine line. Synderesis it seems is your goal, here. Are we talking reflection? However do we recognize it inherently, consciously and consistently? If we do and since we have it, what do we do with it? Can we guide its suggestion? If so, through what mechanism and is it interactive and instructive? And, how do we perceive it? Do we perceive it individually AND collectively as human beings regardless of our respective religions and/or those of a more secular leaning, as this is very important in our “American Experiment?” How will we reconcile with those “religious secularist (each unto his own motives, as well as the combined group(s), at various times being either in agreement or disagreement)” who have certainly presented us a fine society, originally based on a collective recognition of this particular strength to which you refer, but whose perspectives have diverged and whose succession have crossed grave and unacceptable lines? Though they see it, and understand it at some level, are we smart enough to bear witness in the manner that each and all of them needs to experience the “responsibility of it” along with the “freedom of it (yes, it makes me ill too),” without direct recrimination and acrimony?” How do we reconcile with this world, John? This is the issue at hand, as I see it. Do we accept this as the end time and rail against our “enemy?” Do we turn the other cheek? Do we “minister” to them on a grand scale to “better” our world through our efforts, to bring glory to God? Might we consider Synderesis from Jerome, Plato, Aquinas, Bonaventura in order to understand the ways in which it will be a help to us in evaluating ourselves, as well as others? Shall we consider it in the context of the perspective of the man, the act of the man, the reconciliation of the man?
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 12:40 AM By Edward
What is this thing, John, this eagle, this spark of conscience; surely it is free will. So I ask: Why has free will not entered this discussion -as previously posited, more directly? Why do we dance this silly dance? We know the real question. It isn’t “Are we man enough.” It isn’t “Are we sensible enough?” It isn’t “Are we religious enough?” The question is: “Do we love enough to be aware and sensible and caring?” Can we overcome this evil that offends us so, with God’s love? Of course we can, but I am not sure where to begin. Where does the intractability end, John? I think these are the questions. I think we all know the answer is with us but again, I am equally sure we’re all pretty wiped out at this point, arguing with each other as well as the world beyond our door!
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 8:23 AM By John L. Sillasen
Edward, God provides endless energy to those who act on the faith He supplies. There is no being "wiped out" when doing God's work. *** Sixtyfour (64) words in one of Edward's sentenses. This is surely no record, but is moving in that direction. *** Edward, two points for dispute: One, the tone of your 12:37 post ( "regardless of our respective religions and/or those of a more secular leaning") harps to a kind of man made hierarchy of authority to be found in knowledge -- this is not Catholic; two, the Church is not meant to, nor can She reconcile with the world.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 10:23 AM By BJ
Dan info@barackobama.com is one way to get a message in there. It may lead to a specific address for `policy` suggestions.Everybody must take the time to write sensibly, to those who just might eventually hear something if the shout is loud enough.
Clinton wouldn't have been any better and McCain is dodgy. Some choice!
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 10:53 AM By Edward
John L, 64? Really? hmmm...better look into that. Regarding point 1: I merely acknowledge the fact that everyone has the conscience experience as part of their makeup, regardless of his/her religious belief, or lack thereof; everyone has this conscience and everyone has this free will. I am contrasting the religious minded to the secular minded; I am recognizing the value of our Constitution and the people who created it (be they religious or not in each individual’s case), while decrying the manner and mud through which it is sometimes dragged. I have always believed that by the evidence (evident reason) of the liberties Americans enjoy, this country must have been given the blessing of God; but those liberties are so far out of context at times the resulting effects must be an abomination to God. My effort is to point to the shared experience of conscience as a common ground upon which some reconciliation may occur, which is how these men got together and were able to agree on the founding charters. When I say smart, I don't mean to imply convoluted reasoning; I mean to say that we have wisdom enough to disengage from intractability and look for common ground. Regarding point 2: Maybe you are right. It is an easy answer for one who is tired, and as I said, I certainly am tired. Also, it is true that when I write I am sometimes ambiguous and for that I apologize, and I ask the patience of my brothers and sisters.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 12:46 PM By John F. Maguire
In further response to Edward: Yes, because *synderesis* is the disposition (*habitus*) of our *practical reason* to grasp the universal *first principles* of human action, I am delighted that you introduced this term as a term that helps illuminate the dynamics of the human conscience. As Robert Greene has pointed out, "[i]t is a remarkable fact that Jerome's single citation of a Greek word in his commentary in the year 415 on Ezechial's inaugural vision" should, over the intervening 17 centuries, so profoundly inform our understanding of man's conscience. ~ At issue here is the remorselessness of the abortocratic politician who feels no compunction for his failure to work towards the the legal protection of the lives of preborn infants. Although Rosmini does not address so specific a question, he does explain the remorselessness of moral blindness as a general phenomenon: "One reason [Aquinas] gives amongst others is: 'Because those deprived of the light of faith are blind, their synderesis does not reproach them for things contrary to faith. Or else we must say that although synderesis always reproaches evil in general, it does not reproach the heretic in particular because of his error of reason in applying the universal principle.' This is the synderesis or *dictate* which we do not apply because we do not wish to apply it." "Nevertheless," Rosmini adds, "we must not entirely despair of the conversion of the sinner; we must use all the charity we can towards him."
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 1:23 PM By John L. Sillasen
Edward, Point one, agreed. Point two, important: Weariness is a faith fight. Opponents in a fight will try to wear the other one down, to weaken him. We Christians have a continually renewing resource in the Comforter. When we are at our wit's end or emotionally drained, then we pray and take a deep breath, a deep spiritual breath. God will never put us beyond our capacity. If it takes everything we've got, and we're in a state of grace, then we put the petal to the metal, unbridle the horse, get off our heels and up on our toes, let go and let God. Weariness then become irrelevant, a minor irritation, not even a feeling of discomfort but of frustration that we have to "waste" time resting. So, let God fill our down time with holiness.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 5:47 PM By John L. Sillasen
St Paul calls it a "seared conscience": 1 Timothy 4: "1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry". Linked to "seared conscience" we can see "forbidding to marry": Now I'd say this "gay marriage" movement is just exactly this, the flip side of "forbidding to marry"; if marriage is so loosely defined as the attempts are being made today, and we also know that the gay agenda does not impose limits on such licence ... then by reducing marriage to that which makes no sense or is trivial, the result is the same as forbidding to marry. What is under the gun legally here and now is the state legal benefits that go with state defined marriage. At some point the state will forbid Christians to marry under state law unless they bow their knee to the state. This is a more specific look at the crisis many have spoken generally about.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 5:53 PM By John L. Sillasen
Obama and the African American population certainly would hold some level of vengeance, of the sense that justice has yet to be rendered on the white population which held it in slavery for many centuries, and a frequent brutal slavery at that. Whites pay now or later, but they pay. Remember that one of the sins that cries out to God for justice is cheating the workers out of their wages: So, who does not see that the African American slaves were cheated out of their just wages for centuries? Who does not see that the brutality inflicted upon them so often by breaking up families has not been justified yet? Who sees the connection between this and the gay marriage agenda? How should the white population whose cultural ancestors sinned in these grievous manners is immune to the supernatural law that the consequences of sin will pass down through the generations? Who is going to correct this? Or who actually believes it will remain swept under the carpet? Staggering thought, huh?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|