tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post7546271051411229487..comments2024-03-28T09:14:32.869-04:00Comments on southern orders: FATHER PAUL SCALIA AND COURAGE!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-62502318947489886652015-02-09T09:41:17.902-05:002015-02-09T09:41:17.902-05:00We were created in harmony with God and with His w...We were created in harmony with God and with His will. But, we sinned and the consequences thereof infected the entire world of nature. So, from the sin of Adam, the entire Creation is "groaning and travailing" awaiting redemption by Christ. Our original (imago dei) nature created by God, was broken in the Fall (to what extent, Calvinists and Thomists have argued incessantly), and can only be restored in us through the supra-natural Sacrifice of Christ and in nature through His coming Kingdom. Now, mikey, I suggest you review the Enchiridion, De Trinitate, Confessions, and Civitate Dei. We are not "wholly in union with God by nature." Your Pelagianism is showing.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-41153078068852458712015-02-08T19:18:19.775-05:002015-02-08T19:18:19.775-05:00Gene - We are not, by nature, sinners. We were cr...Gene - We are not, by nature, sinners. We were created in God's image, willed into existence by God for our own sake. <br /><br />We were established in friendship with our Creator and in harmony with ourselves and with the creation around us, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ. (CCC 374)<br /><br />By nature we are wholly in union with God. That is our natural state.<br /><br />Slavery, murder, theft, dishonesty - none of these is part of the natural order, but the fallen order. All are spoken of in the Scriptures. But in no place in Scriptures are the results of sin approved as part of the natural order.<br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-23489091895614305902015-02-07T03:04:18.947-05:002015-02-07T03:04:18.947-05:00Thank you for your reply, Gene. It is clear enough...Thank you for your reply, Gene. It is clear enough but still sad.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45028426731444686732015-02-06T18:21:26.044-05:002015-02-06T18:21:26.044-05:00Slavery, like many other things, is indeed a resul...Slavery, like many other things, is indeed a result of original sin. The natural order, being the fallen world, includes all the sins within it. The good creation, created by God ex nihilo, is not the natural order…at least as it is generally understood.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59778013273296830462015-02-06T16:59:58.337-05:002015-02-06T16:59:58.337-05:00Gene - Slavery is not a part of the natural order ...Gene - Slavery is not a part of the natural order as you claimed. It is a result of sin which is, by definition, disordered.<br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-19347172268490224862015-02-06T15:12:58.200-05:002015-02-06T15:12:58.200-05:00Accepting slavery and racial/ethnic differences (w...Accepting slavery and racial/ethnic differences (which was really my point) as a given is not the same as promoting slavery. The NT neither condemns nor promotes slavery, but is rather neutral on it. Too bad. <br />Mark Brumley is the CEO of Ignatius Press…that qualifies him…how…as an NT scholar...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-31472340488004253162015-02-06T13:14:35.066-05:002015-02-06T13:14:35.066-05:00Gene - Claiming that Jesus and Paul accepted slave...Gene - Claiming that Jesus and Paul accepted slavery as part of the natural order is absurd. No, it is beyond absurd.<br /><br />Mark Brumley writes at the Catholic Education Resource Center:<br /><br />"First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order that he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor. 7:29-31).<br /><br />Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.<br /><br />Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slaves master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:27-28).<br /><br />Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (love your neighbor as yourself) and the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.<br /><br />Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn't immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.<br /><br />Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregations common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.<br /><br />Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, slaves and free men had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.<br /><br />Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.<br /><br />If Jesus and St. Paul approved of slavery or accepted it as part of the natural order, the Church could not have condemned slavery repeatedly. Sicut Dudum (1435), Sublimis Deus (1537), Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686, In Supremo (1839), etc., all condemn slavery.<br /><br />It is not a part of the natural order.<br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-80872000106355585502015-02-06T10:16:46.482-05:002015-02-06T10:16:46.482-05:00BTW, it is interesting (and maddening for libs) th...BTW, it is interesting (and maddening for libs) that both Jesus and Paul accept both slavery and ethnic differences as givens and part of the natural order. The NT message is that any can be saved in spite of these differences…not that they should all be one big uniform race or society, which is an Enlightenment/modernist interpretation. I would point you to the story of the Syro-Phonecian woman as a good example of Jesus' thinking on the matter. Even the Church is not above rationalist encroachment into her thinking and theology…to wit, Vat II.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-34387511087646691012015-02-06T09:02:33.373-05:002015-02-06T09:02:33.373-05:00Racism and segregation are not natural.
THE CHUR...Racism and segregation are not natural. <br /><br />THE CHURCH AND RACISM:<br /> TOWARD A MORE FRATERNAL SOCIETY <br />Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace (1988)<br /><br />2. "Racist ideologies and behavior are long-standing: they are rooted in the reality of sin from the very beginning of humanity, as we can see in the biblical accounts of Cain and Abel as well as in that of the Tower of Babel."<br /><br />6. "In the eighteenth century, a veritable racist ideology, opposed to the teaching of the Church, was forged. It stood in contrast, moreover, with the commitment of some humanist philosophers who promoted the dignity and freedom of the black slaves, at that time the object of a shameless and widespread trade. This racist ideology believed it could find the justification for its prejudices in science. Apart from the difference in physical characteristics and skin color, it sought to deduce an essential difference, of a hereditary, biological nature, in order to affirm that the subjugated peoples belonged to intrinsically inferior "races" with regard to their mental, moral or social qualities."<br /><br />12. "Some mention must also be made of ethnocentricity. This is a very widespread attitude whereby a people has a natural tendency to defend its identity by denigrating that of others to the point that, at least symbolically, it refuses to recognize their full human quality. This behavior undoubtedly responds to an instinctive need to protect the values, beliefs and customs of one's own community which seem threatened by those of other communities. However, it is easy to see to what extremes such a feeling can lead if it is not purified and relativized through a reciprocal openness, thanks to objective information and mutual exchanges. The rejection of differences can lead to that form of cultural annihilation which sociologists have called "ethnocide" and which does not tolerate the presence of others except to the extent that they allow themselves to be assimilated into the dominant culture."<br /><br />33. "The effort to overcome racism does in fact seem to have become an imperative which is broadly anchored in human consciences. The 1965 U.N. Convention expressed this conviction forcefully: "Any doctrine of superiority based on the difference between races is scientifically false, morally condemnable and socially unjust and dangerous."(77) The Church's doctrine affirms it with no less vigor all racist theories are contrary to Christian faith and love. And yet, in sharp contrast to this growing awareness of human dignity, racism still exists and continually reappears in different forms. It is a wound in humanity's side that mysteriously remains open. Everyone, therefore, must make efforts to heal it with great firmness and patience."<br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-86442532247159211282015-02-06T07:52:09.909-05:002015-02-06T07:52:09.909-05:00Anon 2, I answered your post but, for some reason,...Anon 2, I answered your post but, for some reason, Fr. did not post it. here is the short version…no, I do not have any gay friends or Muzzie friends and do not want any. My business partner and attorney for years was black, and our first pediatrician was black. I have several close associates who are Japanese and who stay at my home on visits….just so you know. I no longer have any liberal acquaintances because I have shunned them all after deciding they were either dangerous, or stupid, or both when they voted for Obama twice. All this being said, I still prefer to associate and live among my own kind…racially and politically. That is normal and healthy. I do not find globalism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, or forced diversity to be desirable things and consider them to be, in most cases, socialist ploys of the Left to change America into a totally socialist/welfare government directed European type State or some Third World political drump. If you are for those things, you are my enemy. Clear enough?<br />Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37226801573544629762015-02-04T23:11:06.886-05:002015-02-04T23:11:06.886-05:00And Jusad:
Have you noticed how Gene does not hav...And Jusad:<br /><br />Have you noticed how Gene does not have any homosexual friends or Muslim friends (or, I assume, Black friends or Democrat friends) because he seems unable to imagine that a person is more than the particular characteristic(s) he dislikes? I can only assume, then, that the only friends Gene has are people who think, feel, and act exactly as he does. He even refuses to meet me because, horror of horrors, I voted for Obama and he willfully and stubbornly refuses to understand my reasons for doing so. (If and when he reads Kirk he may finally understand). I expect this sort of attitude from the member of an extremist, narrow religious sect. I do not expect it from someone who calls himself a Catholic. <br /><br />But I try to understand Gene and to be charitable by thinking that his heart is in the right place and that his uncivil rants proceed from the misplaced zeal of a recent convert to the Faith. However, it is difficult sometimes and I get worn down by it. I have been asked why I bother and waste my time on him. Perhaps I am a glutton for punishment. Or perhaps it is because I have also seen a much better side of him on this Blog and I like what I see. So I continue to challenge the rants and the equivocations as I do in the previous post.<br /><br />So go on Gene, make my day – tell me I am wrong about your friends.<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-60259112901066239162015-02-04T23:09:30.096-05:002015-02-04T23:09:30.096-05:00Gene:
“I did not dismiss the idea of a support gr...Gene:<br /><br />“I did not dismiss the idea of a support group for gays if it is based upon the effort to help them adopt a normal lifestyle or remain chaste. I was merely suggesting that such groups, run by your typical lib Priest or layman, would likely turn into a gay fest.”<br /><br />Really? <br /><br />In response to Father’s post about Father Scalia and the notion of starting a Courage group in the Macon deanery, you said: “We need to stop turning flips catering to loud, demanding minorities and anomalies. Homosexuals have all the support they need…Hell, the government, the protestant churches, and the media are their biggest support groups. Let them start touchy-feely pity parties for them. Maybe the blacks and the homosexuals can unite and have a big Crisco party after they burn the next town.”<br /><br />Father then responded to that comment by saying: “as it concerns those with same sex attractions, the support they get from the world is precisely the problem and there are Catholic homosexuals who know that and need help to avoid it!”<br /><br />To which you replied: “Yes, I understand that…but, given the number of liberal Priests and laity in the church, such groups will doubtless turn into support groups for the homo lifestyle based upon a ‘change in pastoral practice.’”<br /><br />So, yes, you did dismiss the idea because “doubtless” they will turn into something else and my reading of your words as “dismiss[ing] the idea of establishing the support group Courage in the Macon deanery” was a perfectly fair and natural reading of your words. <br /><br />Of course, if you have now been persuaded to change your view from “doubtless” to “likely but not necessarily” then that’s fine but it represents a change in your view and not your view as originally stated. <br /><br />And we should not forget: “Danny boy, If it were not for the constant bombardment from the media about blacks and gays, I'd never give them a thought because I do not prefer to associate with either group, and the less I have to hear about them, the better.”<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-60873606019999705032015-02-04T07:19:56.921-05:002015-02-04T07:19:56.921-05:00Jusad, do you notice, with Anon 2, how a hit dog h...Jusad, do you notice, with Anon 2, how a hit dog hollers? He cannot resist running in to defend all his homosexual friends...he also runs in little circles when anyone suggests that Islam is not a religion of peace. Like watching a little wind up dog or something.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3384427229785731652015-02-04T07:04:56.431-05:002015-02-04T07:04:56.431-05:00There are ample references in Scripture to homosex...There are ample references in Scripture to homosexuality being an abomination. Christ supported the Law as its fulfillment as well as the way to salvation from the condemnation of the Law. But, the condemnation still stands as the Law. It would really be a stretch to attempt to show that Jesus' would have supported homosexuality or gay marriage. Of course, Paul is very clear, but libs do not like Paul. <br />Oh, and I did not dismiss the idea of a support group for gays if it is based upon the effort to help them adopt a normal lifestyle or remain chaste. I was merely suggesting that such groups, run by your typical lib Priest or layman, would likely turn into a gay fest.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37781785410240597632015-02-03T21:59:52.722-05:002015-02-03T21:59:52.722-05:00JusadBellum:
“It's embarrassing to read other...JusadBellum:<br /><br />“It's embarrassing to read otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that there is thus "no" condemnation of sodomy in the New Testament”<br /><br />You may not have been thinking of me at all when you wrote this, but then again you may have been because my comments perhaps come closest on this thread. So, let me say that I was very clear in limiting my observations to the Gospels and expressly recognized that condemnations are present in Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament as well as the Old testament (jot and tittle reference). <br /><br />I was responding to Gene’s statement that: “you know, I missed that part in Scripture where Jesus embraced homosexuality, condoned aberrant sexual behavior and orientation, and encouraged his followers to embrace and be open to the homosexual lifestyle. I just couldn't find that anywhere no matter where I looked.”<br /><br />My point was simply that one cannot read a condemnation in the Gospels either and so one cannot not draw conclusions one way or the other from the Gospels themselves (although you do suggest some possible inferential reasoning). And the context for my response was to help blunt Gene’s adducing the absence of Gospel approval of homosexuality to dismiss the idea of establishing the support group Courage in the Macon deanery, something that you and I both appear to agree is a good idea deserving of serious consideration.<br /><br />Sorry if I am a bit touchy here but I am very tired indeed of having my positions misrepresented and/or of being subjected to ad hominem attacks because a certain someone (not you) does not want to or is unable to address the merits of an issue intelligently through reasoned discussion (something you certainly do in exemplary fashion).<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26403653987314137952015-02-03T12:07:52.946-05:002015-02-03T12:07:52.946-05:00http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/a-case-of-mista...http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/a-case-of-mistaken-sexual-identity <br /><br />A witness from Courage -very interesting take on the anthropological mistake in calling people by their appetites or disorders rather than by their inherent dignity as sons and daughters of God.JusadBellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74368289689797239452015-02-03T11:37:34.954-05:002015-02-03T11:37:34.954-05:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35NtCUqmIv4
Well ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35NtCUqmIv4<br /><br />Well worth watching to see and hear the message of Courage.JusadBellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-7700918824878753272015-02-03T11:32:06.952-05:002015-02-03T11:32:06.952-05:00We know that Jesus is "for" friendship. ...We know that Jesus is "for" friendship. That people need friends. That all people need interpersonal love.<br /><br />But parent to child, sibling to sibling, extended family to each other, colleagues at work, co-workers and fellow patriots can - and do - enjoy deep and meaningful friendship with each other without a sexual dimension.<br /><br />To go from Jesus' expressions of love and friendship for others to a tacit approval of same-sex behavior (i.e. sodomy) is simply to stand everything on its head. If that's how one does exegesis and theology, then what ELSE might one develop?<br /><br />It's not true that men must commit sodomy with other men in order to be healthy psychologically or emotionally. Indeed, it's exactly the opposite. But rationalization is strong and lust makes demands that can silence reason as we all witness in our own lives and in the scriptural account of King David falling for Bathsheba and killing a loyal soldier to hide his sin. At no time did his actions "make sense" or fall into the category "healthy". But it was enough for his lust to be enflamed for his will to give way.<br /><br />Thus it stands to reason that anyone or institution that would stand in the way of men lusting for something will face certain wrath. The Georgia martyrs died upholding the sanctity of marriage after all!<br /><br />To stand for chastity and monogamy is to challenge deeply wounded people who see sex as some way of salvation. It's a vulnerable place to be in and it will 'cost' us to be faithful to the Lord in this way. But what choice do we have but fidelity?<br /><br />We are not the cultural aggressors here. We aren't the ones who practice spite, hatred, anger, and fear. We're not the ones calling for tax exempt status to be revoked, anti-discrimination laws imposed, claiming religious rights must cede to 'constitutional rights'.<br /><br />It's certainly hard to stand between a man and the object of his lust. But if we love him we will stand there. JusadBellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-43411870079106872862015-02-03T09:32:20.962-05:002015-02-03T09:32:20.962-05:00We Catholics believe that the God who inspired the...We Catholics believe that the God who inspired the Old Testament is the same God of the New. That the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets.<br /><br />Thus the Old Testament stories of Onan, the destruction of Sodom, the death penalty for sexual sins including bestiality and sodomy can't be dismissed.<br /><br />The essential point of sex was the life long union of one man and one woman ("and thus the two shall become one") leading to children and their proper upbringing in the Lord (thus not for a season but for a lifetime).<br /><br />Any use of the sexual faculty outside of the marital embrace was (and thus is) deemed by God almighty to be an abomination of his original design.<br /><br />As for 'no mention' of homosexuality, the New Testament epistles are full of condemnations and list male prostitutes and 'dogs' on the list of activities that will not lead to salvation. <br /><br />One thinks of St. Paul's warning to the Church in Corinth, the letter to the Romans on the darkening of the intellect leading men to lust for men and women for women. The Epistle of St. Jude warning about these sins being precursors of the end times.<br /><br />It's embarrassing to read otherwise intelligent people continue to insist that there is thus "no" condemnation of sodomy in the New Testament or that somehow the same Jesus who told us that looking lustfully at a woman is to commit adultery would not be upset with men looking lustfully at other men! <br /><br />In what moral universe must you live if you accept Jesus' warning about merely looking lustfully at women and yet think man on man sexual congress is somehow "OK" because he didn't explicitly condemn it?<br /><br />He also didn't explicitly condemn nuking a city - just not calling down fire from heaven (see how we can quibble? Sure, it's fire that annihilates the city, but it's not "from heaven" and thus....).<br /><br />So, no explicit words against nuking cities....golly I guess we're good to go? Ah, no..not so much.<br /><br />Well, did Jesus explicitly call for women suffrage? No. How about federated constitutional republics? Nope. <br /><br />But he did preach that men would leave their parents and cling to their wives and the two would be come one flesh and thus form a new family and be blessed with children. That's the core, fundamental building block of society: man to woman marriage, consummated in conjugal union open to life.<br /><br />That this is no longer popular is of no moral or theological consequence. JusadBellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58023066623933136472015-02-02T21:22:53.688-05:002015-02-02T21:22:53.688-05:00FYI....abortion rates are at the lowest point sinc...FYI....abortion rates are at the lowest point since 1973. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-40560656834436479682015-02-02T15:42:12.259-05:002015-02-02T15:42:12.259-05:00Anonymous, In the Kingdom, it own't matter. It...Anonymous, In the Kingdom, it own't matter. It does matter here, however.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-53691734902193237762015-02-02T15:41:17.824-05:002015-02-02T15:41:17.824-05:00Anon 2, No, regarding Kirk, but it is on my list.Anon 2, No, regarding Kirk, but it is on my list.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-30224398461877614682015-02-02T14:14:15.742-05:002015-02-02T14:14:15.742-05:00What about my question about Russell Kirk?What about my question about Russell Kirk?Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-19905664456912870702015-02-02T14:06:14.241-05:002015-02-02T14:06:14.241-05:00Of course it says enough for you, Gene. You seem u...Of course it says enough for you, Gene. You seem unable to handle complexity.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-21187731268112156812015-02-02T12:42:41.022-05:002015-02-02T12:42:41.022-05:00Gene, may Our Lord put you near black people in th...Gene, may Our Lord put you near black people in the Kingdom of Heaven!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com