|
Published: March 30, 2009
“In awe of her”
Secretary of State Clinton expresses admiration for Margaret Sanger, confusion about Our Lady of Guadalupe
A day before receiving the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s highest honor – the “Margaret Sanger Award” – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid a visit to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, leaving a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” and asking the basilica’s rector, “Who painted it?”
In response to Clinton’s question, basilica rector Msgr. Diego Monroy responded, “God!” The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the cloak of St. Juan Diego in 1531.
 According to a report from Catholic News Agency, Msgr. Monroy received Clinton on Thursday, March 26, at 8:15 a.m. Msgr. Diego Monroy, reported CNA, took Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been lowered from its usual altar for the occasion. After placing a bouquet of white flowers by the image, Clinton went to the quemador – the open-air area at the Basilica where the faithful light candles -- and lit a green candle. Leaving the basilica half an hour later, Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “You have a marvelous virgin!”
The following day, Friday, March 27, Clinton was in Houston to receive the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization's founder, a noted eugenicist. Clinton, repeatedly interrupted by applause, cited several recent actions by the Obama Administration demonstrating that ‘reproductive rights’ are a crucial element of the new president’s foreign policy.
“I was very proud when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy,” she said, according to a transcript of her remarks released by the State Department. “As a result, nongovernmental organizations overseas can once again use U.S. funding to provide the full range of family planning services so that women and their families can get access to the healthcare that they need. President Obama’s decision on Mexico City… reflects a deep personal commitment to expanding opportunities for women… I am also pleased to tell you that we announced that the United States will once again fund family planning through the United Nations. We are going to fund a contribution of $50 million this fiscal year. That’s a 130 percent increase over our last contribution, which was made in 2001. Congress has also approved the Administration’s request for $545 million in bilateral assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs this year. And this is a significant increase over last year.”
Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood and for whom the award Clinton received was named, was a proponent of eugenics, advocating selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia. In 1932, Sanger urged “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” In one of her first pamphlets, published in 1915, Sanger observed, “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.” Sanger also advocated government coercion to stop the “unfit” from bearing children, saying, "The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Nonetheless, according to the State Department’s transcript of Clinton’s remark, the secretary of state said, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision… when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 12:12 AM By Central Valley
In awe of Margaret Sanger but not in awe of Our Lady... Hillary is keeping bad company again, Dolores huerta is a Margaret Sanger award recipient. The same Dolores Huerta that was invited to speak at Our Lady of Guadalupe School in Bakersfield last year... another chapter of the diocese of Fresno under John T. Steinbock. Hillary has this award now and there will be American bishops lined up for photo ops with her. Our Lady of Guadalupe pray for us.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 1:01 AM By Charles O'Connell
Interesting article in Catholic Insight (March 2009, on-line), "The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt": Eleven-point list of social and familial disruptive policies bears strong resemblance to the list in the "Jaffe Memorandum" ("Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the US", Memorandum from Frederick Jaffe to Bernard Berelson, March 11, 1969, published in Family Planning Perspectives, Oct. 1970). (Searchable on-line.) Planned Parenthood is consistent in seeking to entice young people into early sexual activity and to disrupt the influence in their lives of their families and the Churches. Here we see the triumphant rise to prominence of the plenipotentiary Minister of Love (MINILUV, Orwell, 1984), acting to enforce many of the outline-points of the Jaffe Memorandum and the Frankfurt School within the international sphere, so that no small country or remote corner of the earth can remain a haven for youth-chastity or the safety of the unborn within the sanctity of their mothers' wombs. But far more powerful is the loving influence of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the "Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (Rev. 12:1-2), who so easily put a stop to the sickening slaughter of the feathered-serpent religion, and who will yet, once again, gloriously save her children from the devouring jaws of satan. Be of good cheer! God and the Virgin have already conquered! Let us be her faithful servants.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 2:26 AM By BJ
And to think i was told the Clintons are 'clever' people.... but i suppose that doesn't mean they aren't 'blind'. Go Hillary and Barack,-.... fund the killing of babies across the world with tax payers money and .... be proud of it?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 2:28 AM By Elizabeth
Pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe for this so confused women!!!!
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 5:15 AM By Fr. M.P.
What else would one expect to hear from Clinton? I wouldn't be surprised if her question was rehearsed so as to infer the miraculous image is merely a painting.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 5:32 AM By St. Christopher
There is no good deal with the Devil, Hillary.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 7:46 AM By JLS
Hillary is in awe of the devil, also.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 7:48 AM By Camille
When, I wonder, will the USCCB and its local counterparts wake up to realize that they have allowed government to supplant God in this country. Cong. Dan Lungren said it very well this morning on a tv interview: "We have allowed Obama to become Father in Chief [over us all]." God help us.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:19 AM By Gabriel Espinosa
Andddddd... how many "catholics" voted for this administration?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:31 AM By Peter
Truly in this age of absurdities, as predicted, God makes the powerful look small by those who appear to be powerless.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:38 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Our Secretary of State may have the I.Q. of a genius, but she failed to prepare in even the most elementary ways to inform herself of the major aspects of Mexican culture prior to visiting our next-door-neighbor, with whom she may or may not have heard, our relationships are complex, delicate, and rife with minefields. As a Catholic, I am offended that she has chosen to allow herself to remain so astonishingly ignorant of our religion. As an American, I am angry that we are represented by a Secretary of State so ill prepared to visit Mexico. As a woman, I am ashamed that the highest ranking woman in the American government is such an embarrassment. The American people were wise not to elevate her to the presidency. They must have sensed that in that position, she would be a world class loser, just as she is as Secretary of State.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:48 AM By TotaTua
i am in "shock and awe" of our Secretary of State. is she really so clueless that she believes that the Mexico City policy was only about family planning. Who goes to a place like a shrine and doesn't have their handlers at least brief them on the back story. That is embarrassing (not surprising).
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 9:00 AM By Diane
Is it any wonder that our country is going to hell in a basket? Look at who our leaders are following. Dear God, what next?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 9:42 AM By MaryCatherine
Let's all pray, everyone who reads this, a novena to Our Lady of Guadalupe to obtain light for her daughter Hillary.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 11:21 AM By Anita
Maryanne, Hillary? The IQ of a genius? Where do you get that? Have you ever listened to her? This is what the press tells you and you believe it. They are doing the same with Obama. He's also clearly no genius, but they say he is... so many people just buy it. Remember, Reagan was dull and Bush stupid. Based on nothing but their intent to control people's opinions. It is sad to see so many go for the bait. Did you know she flunked the bar exam when she went to Washington. The press covered that up for years. It's all manipulation and the face behind the screen is clearly for abortion and hates Christians.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 12:07 PM By Jerry Maurer
Genius IQ starts around 135-140. Hillary Clinton has a 140 IQ. Rush Limbaugh's is 147. IQ is not a reliable measure of common sense or morality.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 12:18 PM By Virgo Potens
It's pretty obvious what's happening with this administration: they're trying to appear as Catholic as they can so they can drag us down with them. "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." (Mt 24:24) We've got Obama surrounding himself with "Catholic" cabinet members who support baby-murder. We've got Hillary visiting Our Lady and expressing faux reverence. See? Obama can't be all bad! His people kinda sorta do Catholic things sometimes!! Virgo Potens, ora pro nobis.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 12:26 PM By Jimmy Mac
She's a Methodist, for crying out loud! Why should she know (or care) about OL of Guadalupe?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 12:48 PM By Pentential Ski Ven
I can't believe the nerve of Mrs. Clinton! She would actually dare approach the Holy Queen of Heaven when she is responsible for so much carnage and wanton destruction of innocent babies! What can she be thinking?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 12:50 PM By betty
If I'm not mistaken, Adolf Hitler also shared some of Margaret Sanger's notions and talked about a "Master Race" of purely Teutonic individuals. Hitler committed suicide.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 1:09 PM By Fr. Michael
Do you not see the spiritual battle unfolding just in the juxtaposition of the two events on Secretary Clinton's schedule? The Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Margaret Sanger Award on consecutive days. The pregnant virgin of Tepeyac and a sex-crazed racist eugenicist. Be aware of the signs of the times.
Mainstream sources rightly villify Adolph Hitler for his anti-life policies and actions. What has never been loudly circulated is that Hitler (the "monster") admired Sanger (in whom our Secretary of State is "in awe"). Hitler's plan was short-circuited by his impatience. Sanger and her ilk had the long haul in view, and, as such, they have been able to wreak far more destruction than Hitler could have reasonably striven for.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for Hillary Clinton. Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us all.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 1:22 PM By RayC55
She's not confused. She's a hypocrite and a liar.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 1:57 PM By JLS
There was a substantial thread with good Catholics with some solid data on the IQ of presidents et al during the run up to the election. It was on another site ... Maybe google to find out which. They all tend to be above 100, but that's about it. Power and IQ are pretty much mutually exclusive. Wise men are wise not because of unmatched I.Q., but for other reasons. Jesus does not vaunt I.Q., because those in union with Him are thus also in union with God, and in all ways, body, soul, mind and heart: This is why the "gifts" spoken of by St Paul are found in the Church.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 2:39 PM By Marlene
Her visit was a staged event, all for show and politics. Two diametrically opposed views/public-relation events back-to-back and her comments reinforcing the "culture of death" and showing naivety to our Blessed Virgin Mother, only registers like a big gauge on where her heart and soul really lie. We need to pray for her and all of the "Culture of Death" Obama Administration staff for the conversion of their souls to Catholicism to save innocent babies throughout the world, and to save their own tormented souls.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 3:08 PM By ssoldie
A persons actions and words tell me what they are all about......evil.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 3:22 PM By L.S
Is it any wonder with "leaders" like her, as well as, the rest of them, that this once better country is now in such a mess?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 3:26 PM By Pax Christi
Hillary indeed found herself in a "will you choose Jesus or Barabbas?" moment ... only this is choosing between the Mother of God or Margaret Sanger, who viewed certain elements of society as "human weeds." She went ahead with receiving the award, but hopefully her conscience is getting a big-time work over. She and her hubby must feed off each other's ignorance, for it was Bill who appallingly talked about embryos not yet being fertilized during a recent interview in which he defended embryonic stem-cell research.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 5:12 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Gabriel Esponza,
Perhaps a better question would be: how many bloggers on this blog voted for Obama?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 5:34 PM By Life Lady
Water, like pig slop, seeks its own level. Now we know how it is that the Clintons got together. They were too morally and ideologically alike for anyone else to want them. Both are corrupt and morally bankrupt. Both of them are not only ridiculous in their interpretation of certain things, like embryos and Our Lady of Guadalupe's miraculous image, they are both just too ridiculous to take seriously, yet more people have supported them than have not, and they still can walk around, and gain a certain amount of publicity and those that follow hang on their every word. I watched that interview with Bill and nearly fell out laughing, and crying. I looked at this article, and imagined Hillary in the same light, well excuse me, DARKNESS. Neither of them are enlightened, in any way. Can we just move on from here, and continue to work and pray, because the majority of this country voted for these people. Let us pray for our country that it wake from this moral nightmare, and that we all are delivered from this evil.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 5:57 PM By JLS
There is a youtube interview of Sanger by Mike Wallace. I just checked and could only find short one, not the long version. The long version is live footage interrupted only by the cigarette commercials. It reveals a very evil woman. She is extremely shifty, but not nearly as slick at this as Hillary.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 6:59 PM By Thuvia Parth
Having never inquired into the question, a good number of visitors to the Cathedral of Our Lady of Guadalupe do not know the story of Our Lady and Juan Diego, nor are they current on Tilma studies regarding the parts of the Image of La Senora that have been hand-painted and the stunning features of the Image (imprinted on Juan Diego's Tilma) that evidence divine origin. Hillary Clinton is an ultra-secularizing Methodist and, despite the fact that she is the United States' Secretary of State, she is not prepared culturally for her job. Hillary's oversights? Let me mention them in order. One of the titles of Our Lady of Guadalupe is: Patroness of All the Americas. Secretary Clinton, however, seems not to have been aware of La Guadalupa's pan-American provenance. In light of this fact, one of Hillary's oversights is to have presented the Dark Virgin with flowers "on behaf of THE American people" (emphasis mine). In any other context, such a signature would likely not to be a mistake; but here it is a real gaff, as all Mexicans recognize the Lady of Guadalupe as the Patroness of ALL the Americas.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 7:32 PM By Marc
This woman is an embarrasment to this country. Well, so is our president.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 7:39 PM By Thuvia Parth
I hope I am mistaken but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to have failed to understand the intimate link between Our Lady of Guadalupe, on the one hand, and the specific care that is due to preborn infants, on the other hand. In the image itself, i.e., the image left on Juan Diego's tilma, a type of pancho that Juan Diego wore and used to gather the Castilian roses Our Lady's instructed him to gather on Tepeyac Hill on December 12, 1531; in this image, and in just this image, miraculously wrought,
"Our Lady is pregnant, carrying the Son of God in her womb. Her head is bowed in homage, indicating that she is not the Goddess, but rather the one who bears and at the same time worships the one true God" (Fr. Frank Pavone,
"Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Pro-life Movement," Internet. This world-famous Pictograph -- evidently not made by human hands -- depicts (first to Juan Diego and his bishop Zumarraga and today, more than four and three-quarters centuries later, to all mankind) the image of the pregnant Mother of God.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:20 PM By Eibhlin R
I was not aware of some of the information contained in the above postings. Indeed a great worry. I'm mindful of Mt 7:1, as I make these comments. Ms Clinton may be totally unaware of our Lady of Guadalupe & what the Blest image represents. However her minders/researchers should have been. Do we have Ignorance, hypocrisy or a patronizing demeanor? Not sure that she even considered a choice in this case. Fr Michael's posting made something clear to me... I thought Sanger had taken a 'leaf out of Hitler's obscene book' ... in fact quite the reverse! Knowing what Margaret Sanger stood for, I find it hard to believe there is an award in her name. What's more can your Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, be fully aware of ALL this person advocated... and still be "in awe" ?
These really are disturbing times!!
From the other side of the world we watch and pray with you.
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:49 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Anita, you might be right about my falling for the press' version of Hillary's IQ. Just because they say she is a girl genius doesn't mean she really is. I see nothing that she has done, from selecting Bill Clinton to marry, to offering the American public "two for the price of one" in speaking of the presidency as almost a co-presidency, to her shockingly failed attempt to provide health care reform, to suggest that the press is right to praise her intelligence. This debaucle in Mexico is just further proof that she is not making good use of whatever intellectual talent she was born with and appears to have the same values as the president. Which is to say, sadly contorted values which support the killing of unborn children and the bankrupting of future generations. I stand corrected, Anita. What good is I.Q. anyway if you can't come up with the right answers to life's important questions?
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 8:52 PM By mark mitchell
Will America ever be rid of the Clintons? They really seem to have kind of a demonic staying power, and like satanic energizer bunnies, the two of them, in their evil energy, generate so much RICH SATIRE; the latest being mined from the supreme irony of Hillary receiving the award from the largest BABY-KILLING org. in the world, & then actually acting like she is showing respect to the PATRONESS OF THE UNBORN, The Holy Virgin of Guadalupe. -- MARKRITE
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 11:42 PM By Anne T.
I don't think she has a clue as to what the Holy Virgin stands for. Does she not know that the Virgin was pregnant with the Christ Child in that picture? Has she never heard that the babe, John the Baptist, leaped in his mother's womb when the mother of the Lord visited St. Elizabeth? Some people read the Bible and see not and hear not. They just don't get it. Let us pray the Good Lord opens her eyes and unstops her ears.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:14 AM By JPeterman
Don't be fooled to think that Hilly didn't know who "painted" Our Lady of Guadalupe. Everything this woman does and says is calculated for effect. She made her crass, asinine statement to show everybody that SHE doesn't believe.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:48 AM By Joseph
the irony is rich, a boquet of flowers to the Patroness of the unborn to turn around and receive an award that honors the termination of the unborn... oh and yes, Hillary, she is the mother of all peoples!
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:50 PM By Snookums2
Please pray for Hillary Clinton. I expected her to be more respectful of Catholics in the world. Let me just say that her visit to Mexico City was a huge disappointment to many.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:01 PM By Bbo
I have never been a Clinton fan, but ...
I would venture that 90%+ of U.S. Catholics don't know about the Virgin of Guadalupe and if they have heardf of Her, they would not know that the cloth is not a painting. Add to that, the fact that the majority of Christians do not believe in intercesory (sic) prayer, why would they even suspect that there was more to the story that they should check out?
I see the vitriolic comments coming back to the site. Would Jesus talk about her like some on this site do? Remember, he hung our with prostitutes and tsx collectors. Remember, you cannot be a Christian if you are not a sinner.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:24 PM By JLS
JPeterman hit the nail on the head about as squarely and clearly as could be done.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:55 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
I second JLS's remarks concerning Peterman's remarks.
Wouldn't it have been great if the flowers had wilted immediately?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:21 PM By Thuvia Parth
In reply to Sky Ven: The Church invites one and all to contemplate the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe imprinted on the Tilma of Juan Diego. In so doing, the Church never begrudges the contemplation of this precious Image to anyone. Your notion that someone can be morally disqualified from approaching the Guadalupana; your theatricalized chagrin that Hillary "would dare to approach" Our Lady of Guadalupe, contradicts the Church's teaching on grace, notably "actual grace," i.e, the grace that is granted by God as a transcient help (as, for exampe, the act of contemplating Her Image). To be sure, God has already granted Hillary the natural favor of contemplating the Image of His Son's Mother. But actual grace is something more: It is the performance of a salutary act (1) where the grace received is supernatural and (2) where the grace received is present and disappears with the action (again, as here, the action of contemplation). That any one person's contemplating the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe might, in fine, be an actual (salutary) grace, can NEVER be precluded. True, actual grace (again, such as the salutary contemplation of this Image) is not yet habitual grace, which is the abiding grace that is sanctifying grace itself. Rather, actual grace is a transcient help from God attendant uponn one transcient action. Contemplating the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe may well be, then, an actual grace, a transcient aid to (habitual) sanctifying grace. Mary Catherine, for one, understands this truth. Whence her gracious recommendation: "Let' all pray, everyone who reads this, a novena to Our Lady of Guadalupe to obtain light for her daughter Hillary."
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:56 PM By JLS
Bbo, when you say, " Remember, you cannot be a Christian if you are not a sinner", what do you mean? This sentence makes no sense. Also, your figure of 90% of US Catholics not knowing of OLG sounds like a stretch of the imagination, a considerable stretch. And your claim that the majority of Christians do not know of intercessory prayer ! You gotta be kidding, right? All Catholics are aware of it; and evangelicals are always praying for one another by request; and don't forget your Orthodox ... they are emersed as well as Catholics in intercessory prayer; and there are some left but not a whole lot who practice Christianity.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:20 PM By JPeterman
Bbo: Didn't Jesus say "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" and, "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble." Or how about,. "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces." Shall I go on? You see Bbo, you've been fed the classic lie of "love, love, love." But I've got news for you, being a good Catholic is not all about love love love. Clinton is a leader who's leading people right down road to hell like the modern day Pharisee she is.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:12 PM By Marie
the majority of Catholics do know about Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Does that mean we shouldn't pray for Hillary and our current President, Vice-President etc.? We need to pray for our leaders. Change hearts.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:11 PM By JLS
Marie, do you know of any whose hearts have changed?
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:54 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JPeterman: Your error -- if I am not mistaken -- is to suppose that Christ's words of excoriation ("You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?") are not words of love when, to the contrary, that is what they truly are. As the Church's anathemas are motivated by love, so her Founder's words of rebuke are motivated by love. On this question, compare Dietrich von Hildebrand's reflections in his book _The Charitable Anathema_ (1993) with Francois Mauriac's novel _Viper's Tangle_ (1957 [1932]).
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:16 AM By SHIRL
WE MUST PRAY FOR GOOD MORALS, PRECIOUS LIFE AND GOD'S MERCY AND THAT HILARY WILL HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:03 AM By Penitential Ski Ven
Well, I didn't think that I was important enough to warrant such a lengthy criticism. What you wrote Mr. Parth, is well above my unsophisticated reading level, therefore you have wasted your time in trying to correct me. Besides, I am not familiar enough with you to consider you a trustworthy source. I will humbly accept correction from Father M.P. or JLS because I trust them and they can write on my lower level. Thanks for trying.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:24 AM By Victoria Marie
For heavens sake, I am a southern Baptist and I am well aware of the origins of the tilma and the miraculous image of the Virgin of Guadalupe. What a disrespectful thing to say to the monsignor. Hillary shows her true feelings: awe and admiration of the racist, eugenist Margaret Sanger; ignorance and flippancy to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Disgraceful!
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:20 PM By M. F. X. Hurley
In reply to Penitential Ski Ven: You are no less mistaken about the "sophistication" level of the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace than you are about the gender of Thuvia Parth. Question 460 in the _Baltimore Catechism #3 asks: "What is the difference between sanctifying grace and actual grace?" Answer:
"Sanctifying grace remains with us as long as we are not guilty of mortal sin; and hence it is often called habitual grace; but actual grace comes to us only when we need its help in doing or avoiding an evil action, and it remains with us only while we are doing or avoiding the action." Thuvia Parth is right: An actual grace is a "transient" help from God. Further, as Parth points out, the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is -- when its viewing is more than a natural favor from God -- certainly a transient "salutary" help from God, i.e., an actual grace. My only difference with Thuvia is her addition of a "c" in the spelling of transient. Otherwise, her post, although perhaps labored, is no more sophisticated than the Baltimore Catechism.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:38 PM By Penitential Ski Ven
Thank you for your post M. F. X. Hurley. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The way you say it is somewhat clearer. I tried reading that other post again and I still could not decipher it. I guess I am just invincibly unsophisticated as you so aptly pointed out. Question: Is it an affront to God to spurn an actual grace?
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:59 PM By JTJ
If there is nothing wrong with abortion why don't proponents just refer to it as such? There's no need for euphemisms like reproductive health. Murderers giving awards to their hero murderers. That's a big deal.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:31 PM By JPeterman
Maguire, your mistake is not seeing the word "all" in "it's not all about love, love, love" and so it isn't. Of course our Lord is telling us what he did and it was all for love but I'm specifically referring to the "peace and love" of the 1960's origin. All you need is love, indeed, and the harsh words of our Lord are a different kind of love.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:37 PM By Margaret
To JLS' question of whether Marie knows of any hearts which have been changed -- how about Bernard Nathanson, early architect of arguments to push abortion "rights", who began as an atheistic cultural Jew, became enlightened about the truth of abortion, and went on to fight the evil he once promoted.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:44 PM By Fr. M.P.
Pentential Ski Ven, we do not know the intent of Mrs. Clinton when she visited the Guadalupe Shrine. It could be for show, it could be for curiosity, etc. In any case, it is possible that some actual grace - a help to live a truly Christian life and promote same in government - could result from this visit, *IF* she is open to it. Pray that she is.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:41 PM By JLS
Margaret, I'm asking about major politicians - rulers - whose hearts have changed.
|
Posted Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:21 AM By Penitential Ski Ven
Thanks Father M.P. The way I understand it is that although her actions the following day indicate that she is closed to God, the life of the soul is known only to God; therefore we can not say for sure that she rejected an actual grace. Based on the experience of St. Paul, I get the impression that someone with a bad intent might receive some actual grace; but at the surface that seems to contradict commonsense. I guess God's ways are to mysterious for the rest of us. I probably should have directed my outrage towards Mrs. Clinton's reception of a pro-baby killing award shortly after her hypocritical visit to the Queen of Heaven. Enuff said.
|
Posted Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:35 AM By G
Ironic how this woman wrote a book "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child" and yet speaks on about breaking the cycle of birthing children into poverty through contraception. Clearly she is sending the message "It Takes ONE ADMINISTRATION to Kill Many Unborn Children". Pray for her.
|
Posted Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:04 AM By M. F. X. Hurley
In reply to Ski Ven: Against John Calvin's claim that salvific grace is irresitible, the Catholic Church teaches the contrary: that I can (God forbid) resist sanctifying grace and that I can (God forbid) spurn actual graces -- bearing in mind, however, this distinction regarding actual graces: that many actual graces are God's favors granted to my human nature, which nature is already a gift from God (for example, my having a musical gift, good eyesight, etc.); other actual graces are salutary graces in the strict sense that they are gifts that they help me do doing good and avoid evil. I do good in contemplating the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe (about whom, let's say, I know very little). If I am open to this contemplation as what it is, even if I do not grasp that it is a help from God, then that contemplation ("transient" because it will end) is an actual grace -- a transient help -- but also a grace that is salutary. Still, such actual grace is not sanctifying grace. The latter abides in my soul as a habit (the Baltimore Catechism therefore calls sanctifying grace "habitual grace"), whereas actual grace, as noted, is a transient help. I can spurn (God forbid) even the actual grace that pertains to my nature -- my life itself (by contemplating suicide), but normally I would not do so. Normally no one who contemplates the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe spurns the experience but is, in a real sense, taken by it. Taken by it as an actual grace; yet not sanctifying grace, to which actual grace is related only obedientially.
|
Posted Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:18 PM By JLS
Grace for the sake of babies can be applied in such a way as to render the perpetrator somewhat less effective or more visible in corruption than would be the case without the grace. My instinct tells me that is what happened in this case.
|
Posted Friday, April 03, 2009 9:36 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Ski Ven: Authentic grievance is one thing; outrage is another. Outrage is prone to cloud the mind. Ski Ven, you could have brought the charge against the Secretary of State Clinton that she is an abortocrat. Instead,
your charge is that her visit to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe (facilitated by Monsignor Diego Monroy, who brought the Secretary of State into close standing position to the Tilma Pictograph) is a "hypocritical visit". Hypocrisy involves pretense, but -- throughout -- did Hillary pretend to be something she isn't? Even if one SUSPECTS Hillary of
hypocrisy, do not universal speech-ethics apply here?
"A judgment must not be confounded with suspicion or doubt; they are three shades, or rather three very notable distinctions, in the operations of the mind, and in its ascending progress towards certainty and conviction." Judgment is a postive adjudication; suspicion is "a simple disposition which leads us to believe that the thing probably exists, but which hesitates to pronounce a definite opinion; doubt is, so to speak, a suspended state of mind, neither inclining to one side or the other" (Monsignor Jean Francois Landriot, Archbishop of Rheims, _Sins of the Tongue_, trans. Helena Lyons (Boston, Massachusetts: Thomas B. Noonan and Co., 1872, reprinted by Loreto Publications (Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, 2008), p. 140). When a mere doubt or mere suspicion is wrongly elevated into a positive judgment, it has long been the practice of theologians to refer to that judgment as rash judgment.
|
Posted Friday, April 03, 2009 12:40 PM By Penitential Ski Ven
I wanted to use Google's language tools to translate Mr. Maguire's writing into English, but I could not find a suitable starting language.
|
Posted Friday, April 03, 2009 1:42 PM By Talithia Kumi
Jimmy Mac: Because she is a representative of our country to the people of Mexico and should have done a bit o' research, or at least have been briefed by an aide or something.
It never occured to me that she, Hillary, asked "who painted it" as a ruse. but now that it has been mentioned I can see that as a possibility. All I know is this entire business is nauseating. In awe? of Sanger? Wait til judgement day; THEN we can use the word awe.
|
Posted Friday, April 03, 2009 11:08 PM By JLS
Don't let these God hating evil people fool you. The Clintons are bad people, have no respect for God, and it looks like Hillary was introduced to the Woman of whom it can be said holds her eternal fate in her hands. The priest who arranged it is humbly kicking the problem upstairs. What more can we do. Christ came to save sinners, and she's about as bad a sinner as they get. Again, there are virtually zero converts at the political levels of these world rulers like Hillary. The devil offered all such kingdoms to Jesus if only He would bow (like Obama recently bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia) to him. Once the devil sets up these people to rule his worldly kingdoms, they are used as a lure to the Church. Long ago, St Justin Martyr put a lot of time and effort in explaining the Mass to the Roman Emperor (Claudius, perhaps it was), yet was executed anyway. It might be argued that St Paul was converted after murdering Christians; however, the difference here is that he was following the Law as handed down by Moses, and was not following some variety of pagan religion. He was doing what the Jews taught ... So this is a special case.
|
Posted Sunday, April 05, 2009 12:01 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: If you mean that Saul of Tarsus (the future St. Paul) "was following the law as handed down by Moses" when, and just when, he instigated a persecution against Christ's disciples, a persecution that culminated in Saul's participation (he held the cloaks of the stoners) in the stoning of Christ's disciple Stephen, then -- I am sorry -- you have seriously misread sacred scripture. Saul of Tarsus was not a reliable interpreter of the law of Moses. Saul was an *enrage* [accent over the last 'e'] -- a man enraged by the very existence of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. As such, Saul was NOT following the law of Moses in persecuting Christ's followers. Here's proof: Rabbi Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin, a Doctor of Mosaic Law -- and, yes, a reliable interpreter of that law (also, by the way, Saul's own revered teacher) had, in point of fact, correctly interpreted the law of Moses in this very matter -- in sharp contrast to his student Saul of Tarsus, who, as noted, was perpetually enraged at the very existence of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. Accordingly, Rabbi Gamaliel -- precisely as a genuinely learned interpreter of the law of Moses -- advised the Sanhedrin AGAINST persecuting and arresting the followers of Jesus. "Have nothing to do with these men, and let them go," Gamaliel advised. "For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38).
|
Posted Sunday, April 05, 2009 3:32 PM By Sister Act
In reply to JLS: It is absolutely impossible that Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of Christians, was "following the Law as handed down by Moses...." Was not Moses himself WITH Christ in Christ's Transfiguration on the "high mountain" (by tradition, Mount Tabor)? And Elijah -- was he not with Christ on Mount Tabor? Was not the meaning of the presence of these two Old Testament figures clear, that together they stood for the Old Testament itelf, Moses for the Law, and Elijah for the Prophets, so to indicate that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Matt: 15: 17). But if Christ is the fulfillment of the Law of Moses; if Moses, for his own part, was WITH CHRIST on Mount Tabor, then the Law of Moses cannot be invoked against Christ, neither by Saul of Tarsus nor by anyone else. ~ JLS, any claim that "he [Saul of Tarsus] was following the Law handed down by Moses" must necessarily be false.
|
Posted Sunday, April 05, 2009 5:12 PM By JLS
Sister Act, you've failed once again to rise to the argument. Saul of Tarsus did not know of the Transfiguration. He did not know that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law. He saw the Christians as blasphemers against the Law of God, and thus he followed the Law in executing these people.
|
Posted Sunday, April 05, 2009 5:23 PM By JLS
Maguire, Saul of Tarsus was carrying out the Law of Moses under the authority of the Sanhedrin, even though he had studied under Gamaliel. Undoubtedly Saul was told by the Christians he persecuted the Gospel, but he did not hear it. The Law of Moses was clear that blasphemers should be executed. That is why they executed Jesus. Jesus asked His Father to forgive them because they did not know what they were doing. Saul converted totally upon learning the truth. You cannot compare politicians today with St Paul, as they all follow the law of the love of money; those who don't end up out of government, or pigeon holed in some minimally effective committee. The issue here is whether modern political leaders have ever converted in any radical (meaningful) sense from paganry to Christ. Name one. Certainly we are meant by God to pray for these vain rulers, but too often we are advised that we should expect them to change their hearts ... I think this comes from watching too much of the televangelist circuit where great miracles happen on schedule. Let's have the name of one modern national level ruler who has turned his or her life over to Christ ... completely with no political compromise.
|
Posted Monday, April 06, 2009 10:37 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: (1) It was NOT the position of Rabbi Gamaliel that the followers of Christ were subject to execution under the Mosaic Law for blasphemy; quite the reverse. NON-CULPABILITY is why Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin, advised against arresting Christ's followers and against persecuting them. (2) For this reason and others, JLS, your use of the word "they" is improperly underspecified. (3) Your failure to recognize what sacred scripture reports -- namely, the fact of a serious split within the Sanhedrin and outside it, as to how to proceed in regard to the Jewish disciples of Christ, has the effect of completely distorting the dynamic reality of the situation. (We are talking here about the situation circa five or six years after Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection.) (4) JLS, bear in mind: one of the primary reasons why Christ invoked the appearance of Moses on Mount Tabor was to BOLSTER the understanding of his disciples that persecution would come on account of a MISAPPREHENSION of the Mosaic Law. It was important, then, for Christ's apostles -- represented by Peter, John, and James -- to come to understand the unity of Moses and Christ so to bolster these disciples against any suggestion that Moses and his Law could rightly be cited against Christ. (5) The presence of Moses on Mount Tabor, as Sister Act has pointed out, directly refutes that misapprehension. The fact that Saul of Tarsus wasn't present at Christ's own pro-Apostolic confirmation of Christo-Mosaic continuity, is not relevant. In God's providence, Gamaliel was a sufficient help to Saul on this point, even if Saul, in his chronic rage, blundered ahead with his program of violence and persecution. ~ Yet JLS, you persist in your claim that Saul of Tarsus was "following the law handed down by Moses." The truth is otherwise: Saul of Tarsus -- having foolishly rejected the position of his own teacher Gamaliel -- proceeded against Christ's Jewish followers without warrant.
|
Posted Monday, April 06, 2009 1:34 PM By Sister Act
In reply to JLS: Your idea that Saul of Tarsus's false interpretation of the Law of Moses as warranting persecution of Jewish Christians is somehow a "clear" interpretation of the Law of Moses, is bizzare. Your idea that Saul's (obvious) non-presence at the Transfiguration is relevant to this discussion is also bizzare. Saul of Tarsus MISTAKENLY thought that he had warrant from the Law of Moses to persecute Jewish Christians -- and you call that mistake a "clear" reading of Moses? Look, Saul of Tarsus would later admit that there never had been any justification in the Law of Moses for his persecutory campaign against his fellow Jews in the first place. Indeed, at the same time, Saul, now become Paul, came to realize that all who might think that killing Jewish Christians was justified, had fallen into the habit of reading Moses blindly. See 11 Cor. 3: 13-15 ("a veil lies over their minds").
|
Posted Monday, April 06, 2009 3:29 PM By Mark from PA
You are correct Sister Act (& John F. Maguire).
|
Posted Monday, April 06, 2009 7:57 PM By JLS
Maguire, Gamaliel was not the high priest of the Sanhedrin, but one voice. Saul was given papers by the Sanhedrin. Right about the misapprehension: But Saul had not been informed. He was open to correction, and made the transition. Again, this was a special case, and let me know when you discover any modern ruler who has done likewise.
|
Posted Monday, April 06, 2009 8:10 PM By JLS
Sister Act, Saul's interpretation was not false as you claim. He was in line with the leaders, with the decision of the Sanhedrin, which gave him the mandate. He had not been informed of the facts of Jesus. He learned from the lead of the Sanhedrin, who had recently effected the execution of Jesus ... Mosaic Law required respect for and allegiance to the Sanhedrin. This is something that liberal Catholics have trouble with today, and is demonstrated by their constant disputes with the Magisterium. Saul was provided with the facts by divine intervention, as no one had up to that time been able to persuade him. Saul was certainly not perfect in his understanding of the coming of the Messiah, because he responded to the power of God. His people had been subjegated by the Romans, and he certainly did not like that. All Jewish history provided him with the recourse which was armed conflict. That is what he was doing, trying to correct the situation by the sword. The Truth was eventually presented to him, and he was able to humble himself before God. He became one of the greatest apostles of Christianity ever, and obviously ever to come. He did not, before his conversion, know that he was blind to the true fulfillment of Mosaic Law. Who could have known that the fulfillment was the Son of God? Yes, it is found in Scripture, particularly in Davidic Psalms, but tell me some other who prior to that time of Saul of Tarsus had figured this out. Even Blessed Mary Ever Virgin learned it by being told plainly. So, come up with another ... oh yes, John the Baptist. But not even the extremely intelligent devil knew for sure who Jesus was. Those who were blind to it, such as Saul, paid the penance ... Have you ever read of the penance done by St Paul? Which modern rulers have matched this conversion experience? Name one.
|
Posted Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:15 AM By Fr. M.P.
Saul's unbelief led him to think that he was following the law correctly. He initially rejected Christ and His teachings as proclaimed by the Christians - "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." (1 Timothy 1:13) It was clear to him as he saw it then. That same law was used by the Sanhedrin who claimed that Jesus blasphemed for which death was the penalty. Hence the Sanhedrin's similar misuse of said law to arrange the killing of Jesus Christ. Saul had official papers from the Sanhedrin, the chief priest, to pursue his plan at Damascus, but then God intervened directly. Remember St. Paul's own words; he said he was the pharisee of pharisees, raised above his brothers. Saul knew the Mosaic law well, and as we have seen, he then learned the New Testament Law, that of grace and love, even better.
|
Posted Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:46 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: No, I did not say that Rabbi Gamaliel was THE high priest of the Sanhedrin. I said he was "a member" of the Sanhedrin. Moreover, although Gamaliel did not know that Christ was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law (You ask, "Who could have known....?"), he left the matter of Christ's identity OPEN. It was in this spirit that Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrin not to arrest and persecute the followers of Jesus of Nazareth; and it was in this spirit that Gamaliel (we surmise) also advised -- either directly or indirectly -- Saul of Tarsus to do the same, most especially Saul of Tarsus, his own student and the Pharisee *enrage* most in need of restraint. ~ On a related matter, JLS: you seem to have made *your own* a positivistic (command-based) theory of law in your tendency to suppose that any mandate issued by the Sanhedrin must necessarily be lawful. Violations of the right to life -- e.g., as it turned out in an earlier incident, the right to life of Christ's follower Stephen -- these violations cannot be regarded as lawful tout court. Where the Mosaic Law is invoked in defense of them, we have not the Mosaic Law but instead only the simulacrum of that Law. So no, transgressive mandates from the Sanhedrin cannot be regarded as the Law of Moses; rather, they must be regarded as that Law falsely invoked. (I leave open the question of the contents of "official papers" from the Sanhedrin that were in Saul's possession en route to Damascus, though again, these executive orders, as it were, must not be automaticaly presumed to be in accord with the Law of Moses rightly understood.)
|
Posted Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:38 PM By JLS
What Fr. M.P. exceptionally lucid post clarifies what I was trying to convey. Saul of Tarsus, moreover, illustrates that the Law is not sufficient in itself, that there is something more required if one is to attain truth. The objective of Saul's faith was not correctly informed, but it was all he had, so he went with it. Later, God intervened and showed him the truth, and Saul converted. Then in his time of evangelizing, he faced the Sanhedrin and called it exactly what he had previously been, a "whited wall", or as some might say, a "blockhead". He had converted out of that condition, but seems to have been frustrated that those in the Sanhedrin would not consider the truth of what he was preaching. What this illustration gets across is that not everyone has ears to hear, even though they have all the information.
|
Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:42 AM By Cara
I think that this is disgraceful, HIlary supporting this legislation so that we can help someone in Africa kill their baby. I am so so extremely disgusted with this new government.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|