|
Published: December 4, 2008
“I will not tell the people of this diocese for whom to vote”
Bishop of Stockton releases statement after priest suggests those who voted for pro-abortion politicians may have sinned
Stockton Bishop Stephen Blaire has issued an official response to the suggestion by a Modesto priest that Catholics who knowingly voted for a pro-abortion candidate in the Nov. 4 General Election may need to go to confession before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.
 Fr. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto, explained his thinking in a Nov. 21 letter to his parishioners. California Catholic Daily published Fr. Illo’s letter in its entirety (see “A grave mistake, probably a grave sin, Dec. 1, 2008).
Bishop Blair’s response, while not directly mentioning Fr. Illo, is in apparent response to a firestorm of interest from the secular media across the U.S. on the matter. It was issued as a press release and posted on the diocesan web site. The bishop’s statement follows below:
Diocese of Stockton
Statement by Bishop Stephen Blaire
As the Bishop of the Diocese of Stockton, I am deeply committed to the teaching of the Catholic Church, not only in modern times, but throughout history, stating clearly and consistently that abortion is an intrinsic evil. “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (Faithful Citizenship, page 9 # 28 www.faithfulcitizenship.org)
“Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.” (Faithful Citizenship, page 10 # 32) I stand with the Bishops of the United States in calling our people to the discipline of forming their consciences through the teachings of our Church as the essential background in their voting process. We must stand against all intrinsic evils, in the public forum as well as in our own consciences.
However, determining the moral culpability of an individual Catholic who votes for a candidate with a pro-abortion record is a very complicated matter. Requiring all Catholics who voted for a candidate with a pro-abortion record to go to confession is not in accord with the moral guidelines set out in “Faithful Citizenship.” Nevertheless, if a Catholic votes for a candidate with a pro-abortion record with the motivation of supporting that abortion stance, then that is a grave moral matter.
“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be
guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” (Faithful Citizenship, page 11 #34)
“In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.” (Faithful Citizenship, page 11 # 37) The bishops state that we “…do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth.” (Faithful Citizenship, page 2 # 7)
“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” (Faithful Citizenship, page 11 # 35)
I have not and will not tell the Catholic people of this diocese for whom to vote. We must always keep in mind the whole spectrum of life issues, weigh our decisions carefully, pray to God for guidance, and make the best choices we can for the common good.
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:30 AM By John F. Maguire
I am in substantial agreement with Bishop Stephen Blaire's position as stated above. (1) As I've noted elsewhere, I regret that one of his priests stole a march on Bishop Blaire by publishing a pastoral letter containing several errors (already discussed in prior threads). (2) I applaud Bishop Blaire's decision "not [to] tell the Catholic people of [his] diocese for whom to vote." Had Bishop Blaire done so, he would have gainsaid either the proportionality analysis *in exercito* of all the Catholic voters who voted for Senator McCain or he would have gainsaid the proportionality analysis *in exercito* of all the Catholic voters who voted for Senator Obama. In no way is Bishop Blaire's position in this matter evasive; to the contrary. What is crucial here is that proportionality analysis *in exercito* had, from the beginning, been left up to the Catholic voters. (By *in exercito* I mean: as actually carried out; as exercised in all actuality--here, by the voters themselves.)
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:42 AM By Charles O'Connell
Zoom out several levels & consider that this is not primarily the fault of Bishop Blair or the others. God truly has set before US the choice of good & evil - "choose life, that you & your descendants may live". The election of Obama wasn't as great a tragedy as our side instinctively feels; election of McCain wouldn't have been any magic bullet. Bush 43 gave $2.2 billion to Planned Parenthood; McCain would likely have done as badly, or worse. Roe & Doe came down during the Republican Nixon administration. "Growing government interest in population control & the supposed threat to American national security posed by a growing 3rd World population" garnered "powerful political support. . . . In the early 1960s 'worries about the Soviet Union & the possibility of Communist inspired revolutions in the Third World were widespread in government & foreign-policy circles'. . . . By 1969 global population had become such a salient issue that 'even the question of domestic overpopulation started to arouse concern, prompting Congress to establish a Commission on Population Growth & the American Future which included among its recommendations legal abortion & its public funding for poor women' ". Abortion remains legal because Americans want it in their hearts. Mother Theresa said "abortion [itself] is punishment for sin" (contraception & lack of belief in the Real Presence among Catholics?). No Supreme Court appointment or Presidential election alone will change that essential fact.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:41 AM By Richard
Obama supports abortion. McCain supports stem cell research. Whom should I have voted for?
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 5:04 AM By JPeterman
Of course you won't tell them Bishop, you won't even tell people that they put themselves in mortal sin if they knowingly vote for a pro abortion candidate over a non abortion candidate when NO proportionate reason exists.. Pray for this 60's/70's era of Bishops. Pray that they may all soon shuffle off to retirement.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 5:48 AM By Fr. M.P.
The principles of how to vote based on the Catholic principles were discussed. Fr. Illo's comments were after the vote, so how did he tell them who to vote for? Where are the quotes using the official teaching of the Magisterium? There is the comment "the whole spectrum of life issues" without the mention whatsoever about the hierarchy of issues. Abortion is not merely the same level as immigration, for example. That's a critical omission. I wonder why that portion of the teaching on voting was not promulgated?
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:00 AM By Anita
Bishop Blair.....If we are free to make up our own mind about what is a sin, WHY DO WE NEED BISHOPS??? Are you just there to count the money??? I would like an answer to this. Satan told Eve, you can be as a God yourself and decide what is right and what is wrong. Since we are disbanding the Church, why don't we start with Bishops that don't know their faith.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:45 AM By OneoftheSheep
Re: making the best choices for the common good
Dear Father in heaven, I pray that one day, our unborn children will be recognized and included as our posterity. Let them be worthy of notice, worthy of protection, worthy of concern,worthy of our votes, worthy of our love as we seek the common good.
Let the Holy Spirit of God penetrate the hearts of our bishops, priests, deacons, religious and people in the pews. And in this Holy Season of Advent as we expect the greatest of the unborn to enter our lives, hearts, and homes, let us recognize the unborn Jesus in the womb of each and every mother who walks into an abortion clinic, takes an RU486 abortion pill, or in any way despairs of the gift of life. I pray this in the holy and sacred name of my infant Jesus whom I love with all my heart and soul. Amen.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:49 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Bishop Blaire, you need a lot of prayers.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:49 AM By OneoftheSheep
And when we are considering voting for a law that states that all the bishops of the U.S.A. will be executed, I will hopefully not be silent as Stephen Blair's head is on the chopping block.
I believe I will tell people that life is worth living and that bishops should not be unprotected by the laws of our land. Lord help me if I declare that I will not tell the people which way to vote in that circumstance or in any other where life is at stake.
But mostly, I would hope that all people of goodwill especially Catholics will be well versed in Theology of the Body, in Scripture, in the truths of our faith. Then, voting for anyone who is intent on killing unborn children or born bishops woud be unthinkable and no one would have to tell the Catholics of the Diocese how to vote. The spectrum of life issues would be respected and "choices" would favor life over death.
Enough with the rhetoric that brought us this Culture of Death!
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:59 AM By V Stuart
Good for you, Bishop Blaire. Treating Catholics like informed,mature individuals is much needed in the church today. Keep up the good work.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:59 AM By John F. Maguire
The situation of an alienated Catholic vote--the situation of a vote that has been plundered by both political parties because both parties have rejected the common law right of pre-born infants to life--is a situation that God has permitted. This permission must needs be understood. "To those that love God, all things work together unto good" (Rom 8:28). The resentment of one corner of the Catholic electorate against the larger portion of that electorate--understandable though it is--will not avail. All should fight the good fight, but he that resists the permissive will of God, he that succumbs to a spirit of resentment, involves himself in foolish self-vexation. "Who resisteth him and hath peace?" (St. Augustine, _Opera__ Cap. 34. ML 40-966). So no, resentment-motivated fellow-voter bashing will not avail. Here's the thing: Voting as justly as possible in the context of a plundered vote should not occasion petulant resentment against one's fellow voters. A bad political situation has befallen pre-born infants and their defenders, but if we strive after justice, then we are assured that: "Whatever shall befall the just man, shall not make him sad" (Prov. 12:21)--or bitter or resentment-ridden. "Your joy," Christ promises us, "no man shall take from you" (John 16:22). To engage the political situation of the day as a "happy warrior"--such was Al Smith's contribution to American Catholic self-understanding.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:24 AM By Robert Lockwood
Too bad the Bishop does not remember his religious instrution - it is a serious matter to aid a person in a sinfull act and it is grevious if the act is grevious. Mr. Obama's promotion of abortion any time, any place, for any reason is a monumntal violation of Christ's teaching and all people everywhere should be so instructed.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:46 AM By June V
Please, Bishop Blaire, you don't have to tell the faithful who to vote for just what you must vote against.........ABORTION.....
Last night on TV's Private Practice part of the episode was about abortion. In the series, three of the Doctors had had abortions and thought nothing of it because it was their choice. All women have a choice, if you want to be a slut don't blame the baby (fetus, offspring). The blame is entirely their own. If the Bishop and the priests would start teaching the faithful how to follow their religion maybe there would not be "cafeteria" Catholics such as Marie Schreiber and Nancy Pelosi.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:49 AM By John70
I will never cease to be amazed at the quality of a majority
(or so it seems) of the bishops in this country! They rank right
DOWN there with our politicians! Neither of them have the guts to stand up for what is right, their aim is to seek approval from the elite, the powers that be, and to hell with the morals of this country or its people. If Rome does not take some disciplinary action soon against these rebels, I
don't think our prayers will help.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:10 AM By Diane
I sent a letter of support to Father Illo and a letter to the Bishop asking him to support Father.
When over 53% of Catholics vote for an open pro abort candidate, we have a problem in the pews.....
The Bishop ignores the clear hierachy of rights with regards to all the issues one must consider. A candidate may have a super health care plan but if the kids are aborted, what good is this program?
I hope all Catholics support these brave priests who speak the truth. Father Newman in South Carolina told his flock the same message as Father Illo and was told to recant what he said.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 AM By Camille
According to a friend who lives in Modesto and received one of Fr. Illo's letters, he has been misquoted by the media, and, apparently now by the Bishop himself. Nowhere in the letter or while giving his homily did he say, specifically, that one had to go to confession if Obama was the chosen candidate. What he said was, in general terms: if you voted for Obama you should think about your intentions as to why you voted for him..
If Fr. Illo's talk did one thing positive it at least forced Bishop Blaire out into the open with his own statement. Bishop Blaire in my one exposure to him while giving a presentation to the Catholics@Work group was that he is the consummate politician.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:23 AM By pete salveinini
But a bishop (or priest) CAN and maybe SHOULD warn his flock that practically it is very IMPRUDENT to support a VERY pro-abortion candidate who is LIKELY to PUSH THAT AGENDA WITH HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND THAT GOD WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO PUNISH OUR NATION IN ORDER TO PURIFY OUR PEOPLE.
This, is what Pope John Paul pretty much did (except the last phrase of punishing) in warning Pres. Bush not to go to war.
As it is, Bishop in the last sentence GIVES A LOOPHOLE TO THE WORLDLY TENDING SPIRIT OF THE FAITHFUL. to DISMISS all he said before.
The Bishop should not have told his flock which candidate by name to vote for, BUT MAYBE HE SHOOULD HAVE WARNED THEM CLEARLY OF WHAT SUCH VOTE MIGHT MEAN IN PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
PS. and again, it appears the Bishop did not communicate with the pastor. This is how bureaucrats operate not Shepherds!
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:32 AM By papamac
In short, I will not defend the Gospels if they become controversial, that would be above my pay grade. I will certainly not support a Priest who dares to support the Sanctity of life or marriage if it offends the sodomites or the baby butchers. Did this Bishop have his Priests preach homilies telling them the RIGHT WAY to form their conscience before the elections?? considering the evil intentions of Obama on many issues, I bet not, to controversial right Bishop.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:37 AM By ted
The person must have voted for the pro-abort candidate because he or she was pro-abortion in order to be guilty of a grave sin. That, to me, is a song and dance routine I'd expect from the ACLU or Johnny Cochran. It certainly sounds mealy-mothed coming from a guardian of the faith.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:03 PM By roy
Right to choose ??.....so if I have a bowl of berries with cream and someone adds rat poison, it will be alright to eat it because my intent was to eat the berries and not the poison. (Explain that to your immune system). Thank God for Denver's Bishop Chaput who has the character to
"tell it like it is".
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:20 PM By Hicardo
I hope this bishop doesn't truly believe what he says as being a response to what the priest said. Telling people that voting for a certain politician would be a mistake or a sin because of a politician's policies, is different from telling people whom to vote for. Either the bishop knows this and is setting up a straw man, or he really thinks it addresses what the priest said. Either way doesn't fair well for him.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:45 PM By Life Lady
Wow, I can see the tire marks on Father Illo from here. That bus that he was thrown under was pretty big. It has his bishop's name written all over it.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:00 PM By J H
I understand Bishop Blaire that he had to restate his position on abortion. He I think did a pretty good job in his recent statement; however, I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE that he and MOST of America's bishops did a POOR job (by their silence on the matter) of informing their flock's consciences why abortion will always be a grevious sin against God and His church. True the bishop and the church cannot mention candidates by name but THEY CAN shout out from the rooftops the ISSUES AND ABORTION.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:12 PM By Barbara
What a disappointment that Bishop Blaire didn't strongly support Father Illo in this matter. I believe it is because of wishy-washy positions such as his that gave President Elect Obama 54% of the Catholic vote, as opposed to something like 24% of the evangelical vote. Evangelicals are NOT afraid of sticking their necks out and telling it like it is.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:29 PM By Almond Milk
Laurette Elsberry you are right about praying for him. OneoftheSheep your post made me smile because what you said makes sense. These bishops must be in bad will or they simply do not have backbone.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:41 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: You are right that Bishop Blaire fails to make any explicit reference to the *ordo amoris*--the order of love--within which the love of all persons is affirmed. I agree: Bishop Blaire should have made the priority status of the right to life of pre-born infants explicit. Which is why, in response to his statement, I allowed that I found myself in "substantial" agreement--but here, if you will, I should say that substantial agreement is not perfect agreement. I regret Bishop Blaire's decision to leave implicit what should have been made explicit. See my post at CCD 12/01/9:52 AM (criticizing Bishop Blaire's habit of "truncating" or "appearing to truncate" his thought). It is crucial not to truncate so important a point as the priority status of the right to life of pre-born infants. Once, however, Bishop Blaire's statement is redressed on this point, that statement, so far as I can tell, is beyond cavil.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:43 PM By Michael II
Here's the real kicker, a priest who is not afraid to tell it like it is while applying the Church's teachings, and a Bishop who hides behind an unofficial documents as though it is the Gospel truth. Faithful Citizenship (FC) misses the mark as a binding document, yet we have a Bishop who quotes it extensively. If he were to quote a document why not one from the Pope's writings on the subject! FC is not clear on what is considered to be graver than an innocent life taken from abortion and being able to vote for a candidate who supports abortion.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:47 PM By marc j belllm
Come on sir, if satan were running would you still not speak up and warn. Surely you have read the book of Ezekiel, where God warns the shepards to be just that, shepards of His people, warning them of sin, danger and to maintain a right relationship with HIm. How can the Church survive in this evil time if its leaders are more afraid of man than God?
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:01 PM By Anne T.
Yes, Life Lady, your last e-mail is right. The Bishop sure did throw Fr.Illo under the bus, and poor Gianna Jessen, who survived an abortion is still saying to Obama, who threw his grandmother under the bus before she died and who could not bring himself to defend those who survived abortion, "I am still here, Obama." Those who voted for this spineless man should be pretty proud of themselves.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:18 PM By John Cullen
"I have not and will not tell the Catholic people of this diocese (sic) for whom to vote." Of course Bishop Blaire will not; he is deathly afraid of losing the Diocese's tax exempt status and of a decrease in offerings from the "Catholics" who voted for Obortion.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:22 PM By Mark from PA
"Obama, who threw his grandmother under the bus before she died." What in the world are you talking about here, Anne T? You are accusing Obama of abusing his grandmother? This makes absolutely no sense at all.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:50 PM By Anne T.
Barbara, you are right. Sarah Palin has more spine than all three of the men in the election, with maybe Mc Cain as somewhat of an exception. Oh, well! It took Joan of Arc to save the Dauphin when most of the men were either unfit or wimps, and then some of them threw even her under the bus.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 5:10 PM By Anne T.
When I said in my last post all three of the men in the election, I meant the two Democrats and one Republican who were on the ticket in all the states. I would certainly not call the men, such as Alan Keyes, spineless.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:11 PM By JLS
Maguire, maybe part of my inability to comprehend the liberal, Obama voting Catholics is my lack of experience in growing up with any Catholics in my known familty tree. My family in this nation never experienced the government persecution of Catholics. We were never subjected to ethnic persecution such as were the Irish, Italians, Spanish, etc. My father's uncles were Masons and founded a Lutheran church with also was a Catholic Church ... reversible pews, and the only such building left on the planet. I was not raised with any such teachings but somehow the attitudes were "in my blood". My mother's side were German and English, and likewise never experienced any persecution in this nation. Religious discussion was not allowed in family get togethers, and in a recent family reunion when I tried to bring up even a vague reference to religion, I got zero response ... kneejerk reaction zero response. I knew almost nothing about Catholic culture until I got to college. It seems to be difficult for cradle Catholics to comprehend this when I try to convey it to them. It might well be my perspective that makes it nigh impossible to comprehend why any Catholic politician, bishop or layman or laywoman would opt for a candidate who violated the basic treasure of Catholicism. It seems to me that the explanation is fear. Fear of renewed persecution.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:38 PM By Leonard
The bishop is just doing damage control. It is all about the almighty dollar. AMEN.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:40 PM By Anne T.
Mark, the expression "to throw someone under the bus" means to talk about, not back someone up, to betray. It does not mean to actually throw someone under the bus.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:08 PM By John F. Maguire
Thank you, JLS, for your informative post. It was not so much fear of persecution, at least not abject fear of persecution, but rather a kind of civic-republican combativeness against nativist bigotry that mobilized urban Catholics and Rest Belt Catholics politically. The fight of these Catholics was a fight for their participatory rights as citizens. Whence the Catholic opposition to such politicians as U. S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, and James G. Blaine, all of whom appealed to nativist fears. During the Gilded Age, urban Catholic politicians opposed progressivist eugenicists, on the one hand, and Protestant Evangelicals, on the other. Catholics, for several important reasons, became a significant presence within the FDR coalition. What drove many Catholics out of the Democratic Party, however, was, first, the McGovernization of that Party, which process was anticipated by the doctrinaire secularism of the Kennedy administration. Then, second, came (not a feminism worthy of the name but) an abortocratic feminism, which was anticipated from within the Republican Party by the Rockefeller population-control movement and Richard Nixon's executive order allowing abortions in the US military, which order, as we know, constituted a signal to the Supreme Court that the Executive Branch, as co-responsible for Constitutional interpretation, would not resist a forthcoming ruling prejudicial to the rights of pre-born infants. Whereas, early on, Catholics had to fight for citizenship rights, now they have to fight for their very existence politically--on account of the dual capitulation of America's party system on the issue of abortion. See George J. Marlin, _American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years of Political Impact_, rev. ed. (St. Augustine's Press, 2006).
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:04 PM By +JMJ+
We all need to pray as we are no longer one i.e. NO LONGER CATHOLIC in faith and morals. Most of us don't know the Catholic Faith and that goes for some of the modern bishop politicians roaming without spines. We all need to pray the Rosary humbly, devoutly, and daily to receive God's graces that we lack to gain favor with God and clearly understand His Catholic teachings. We all need to be aware that the devil is behind that which is dividing us to weaken us and destroy our souls and our Catholic Church. Be on guard, many of us may not be saved from Hell or will suffer a long time in Purgatory. Here is an old beautiful prayer we can all pray to call on Blessed Mother's help and protection, and believe me it works: August Queen of Heaven, Sovereign Mistress of the Angels who didst receive from the beginning the mission and the power to crush the serpents head, we beseech to send thy Holy Angels that under Thy command and by Thy power they may pursue the evil spirits, encounter them on every side, resist their bold attacks, and drive them hence into the abyss of woe. Most holy Mother send they Holy Angels to help and defend us and to drive the cruel enemy from us. All ye Holy Angels and Archangels help and defend us. O good and tender Mother thou shalt ever be our love and our hope. Holy Angles and Archangels keep and defend us. Amen
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:24 PM By Anne T.
Thank you for the infomation in your last post, John F. Maguire. I have heard that about the Rockefellers and Nixon before. When I was younger, I did not know about their population-control involvement.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23 PM By FHKJ
The Bishop is correct and I support him with my prayers. As another poster noted, neither presidential candidate was in complete agreement with Catholic teaching: Obama supports abortion rights, McCain supports stem-cell research. It is a choice between two evils!
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:28 PM By Anne T.
JLS, I have Irish-American, cradle-Catholic friends who would be appalled at voting for Obama. They switched from being Democrats to being Republicans because of the pro-death philosophy of most of the Democrats and many of the Catholic Democrats, so not all Irish-American Catholics fall for the "pro-choice" line. They were also incensed, as I was, at what the left-winged Democrats did to Cardinal O'Conner and Governor Casey. I have some Irish-Catholic ancestors, too, not most, but some.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:48 PM By Thuvia Parth
In reply to Anita: In an exasperated tone but I take it only rhetorically, you ask, "Why do we need bishops?" The Church's answer is clear: Because the bishops of the world in union with the Bishop of Rome constitute the episcopal structure of the Church of the Incarnate Word, i.e., the true Church of Christ Our Lord.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:19 PM By R. J. Keyes
In reply to Life Lady: If your vision is so keen as to be able to "see tire marks on Father Illo" due to a "pretty big" bus having run him over, then your vision should also be keen enough to have seen that Father Illo stepped off the curb before looking.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:36 PM By E. Mae
Camille's got it right. "He's the consummate politician." Just as I was counting the days till Cardinal Mahoney retires, we now have a Bishop Blaire who will fit right into Mahoney's shoes. Catholicism with the shades of gray.
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 3:24 AM By Angelo
Michael ll, Excellent post. You said it all! C'mon Central Valley, where are you! If this bishop were a German Bishop during WW2, He would not have spoken out against Hitler.
He would have let Catholics make their own decision as
"informed mature individuals." On a visit to the US, Pope John Paul the Great had this to say to the American People,
"The Peace of this Nation, depends on this countries response to abortion." Thanks Father Illo. Stand your ground in defense of the unborn. For the Greater Glory and Honor of God! The Children are depending on us, and one day we will meet them in person.
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 6:07 AM By Fr. M.P.
John Maguire, the critical omission in wording is what gives clever support to voting with all issues being considered equal. It's the half-truth method. The similar process is followed by those who say "follow your conscience" but conveniently "forget" that one must form the conscience according to Jesus teachings as promulgated by His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Whenever USCCB documents are used instead of Magisterial documents, there is the watering down of the faith. Like Art and Environment for church wreckovations, and the homosexual Always Our Children. (Then of course their movie reviews. Most movies today are full of promotion of sin and should not be viewed.) So a teaching moment is lost. *** JLS, persecution is coming in 2009 when Obama takes office (it will be interesting to see how his citizenship issue gets resolved). He will begin his FOCA work, as well as his related "no on 8" viewpoint beginning to take shape. One form will be how real Catholics in the medical profession will choose job over living the faith since the religious conscience objection will be removed - either do abortions or you're fired. That includes whole hospitals. Soon real Catholics will face the gulag for "hate crimes" and "discrimination" because of refusal to support the unnatural. Violence will be allowed. Of course we won't be thrown to the lions this time around because of their protected species rating, and one wouldn't want cruelty to animals by starvation before a Catholic meal. We have seen the promotion of that violence right here in these pages by the homosexuals and their supporters. Have you heard Glenn Beck mention 20,000 troops being deployed inside our country? Everything is getting lined up.
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 1:15 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: I do not know whether Bishop Blaire's formulation was simply a lapse or rather an instance of the "half-truth" method. If it is the latter, then my original thesis (I think) stands: namely, that neither Bishop Blaire nor Fr. Joseph Illo are correct in this matter.
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 1:25 PM By Joseph
Angelo and +JMJ+, You both hit the nail on the head! Angelo I had the very same idea but you beat me to it and I am happy how your message shows so clearly the weakness of some of the modern bishops in the Catholic Church to say it like it is. I'd also like to add this prayer for the benefit of our souls and our country: Behold, O kind and most sweet Jesus, I cast myself upon my knees in Thy sight, and with the most fervent desire of my soul I pray and beseech Thee that Thou wouldst impress upon my heart lively sentiments of faith, hope and charity, with a true contrition for my sins and a firm purpose of amendment; whilst with deep affection and grief of soul I ponder within myself and mentally contemplate Thy five most precious wounds, having before my eyes the words which long ago David the prophet put in Thy mouth concerning Thee: They have pierced My hands and My feet, they have numbered all My bones (Ps. 21.17,18)
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 4:00 PM By JLS
Keyes, the curb was moved secretly during the night, and Fr Illo was betrayed by not being told. *** Anne T., my Danish ancestors partied out with the Irish for centuries.
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 7:35 PM By JPeterman
Maguire: "All should fight the good fight, but he that resists the permissive will of God, he that succumbs to a spirit of resentment, involves himself in foolish self-vexation." Oh Maguire how you do wax poetic.. Your posts really do give me a chuckle. If Catholics voted for Obama they need to know their soul is in jeopardy and they should stop by the confession booth sooner rather than later. Nobody goes to heaven (or hell) alone Maguire and it's every Catholic's responsibility to help others along to the ultimate goal of heaven. That is never vexing nor will people ever tire if as St Paul says: They "run the race to the finish line."
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 9:14 PM By Talitha Kumi
I just want to say thank you to all of you men out there who are real me; Just and Heroic men who defend us.
Defending the Bride of Christ, Body of Christ.
You who stand up to the enemies of our Church and our Faith and our Tradition. thank you.
You are of great value because you're rare & much needed.
The world has it wrong; "diamonds aren't a girls best friend", you warriors are.
Masculine. God fearing. Brave.
Men enlisted in this spiritual battle led by St. Mich a el.
And again I thank you
|
Posted Friday, December 05, 2008 10:34 PM By Angi Sovolana
Bishop Blaire, I BEG OF YOU!!!!!! PLEASE Get A Newer Photo Taken of Yourself!!!!
|
Posted Saturday, December 06, 2008 12:10 AM By Anne T.
Wow! Talitha Kumi. What a beautiful tribute to righteous men. I once had an eleven years old boy, my age at the time, who saved me from molestation by an older man. His name, Talitha Kumi, was Michael Imperial. Truly St. Michael has some great and brave warriors. God bless them all.
|
Posted Saturday, December 06, 2008 4:35 AM By Angelo
Michael ll & +JMJ+, thank you for the prayers you taught us.
Fr.MP, Let the intellectual battle begin, give us your Blessing. Talitha Kumi, I had to let the euphoria go down a bit. I hope you were including me in your post. If not I've included myself. Your words are the greatest words a man could ever hear. By virtue of the Sacrament of Confirmation
I am enlisted as a soldier of Christ. My resolve is to imitate Our Lord, as an Alter Victimae Paschali, as a Lion of the tribe of Juda. My standard being the Cross. Regardless of its weight or consequences. With the motto of the Carmelites, "Sub Tutela Mater" ( Under a Mothers protection). It is words like yours that encourage a man to convert and lead a life of virtue, causing us to become warriors of the Truth of Christ through his Holy Catholic Church. All of this would be imposible, if it were not for women like yourself. Virtuous Women make men, real men!
This has been the will of God since the days of the Old Testament. That your words would start a new movement in the Church, whose goal would be, The Reign of God in all Souls. This is my absolute Hope! Talitha Kumi THANK YOU!!!
|
Posted Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:47 AM By JLS
My own view as to the poetic waxing of Mr. Maguire, and the obviously extensive research that goes into it, is that it is a kind of Catholic holding pattern. The Church is aware of the difficulties and hostilities facing Her, and sometimes does not find what it takes to move forward in the acquiring of more souls. So, we bide our time by storing up treasured information, hopefully for good and effective use in the future. Sort of like a farmer piling up materials by a prospective field in preparation for bringing in a hearty yield in due time. In our time, this pile of materials seems to be building into a mountain higher than Everest. I wonder if this "mountain" is the very same perch from which St John looked down on the Great City burning.
|
Posted Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:28 AM By Anne T.
I am not sure I made it clear in my last post that Michael Imperial was the young boy who saved me from molestation through his wisdom. I did not know and do not know the name of the older man.
|
Posted Saturday, December 06, 2008 6:58 PM By Fr. M.P.
John Maguire, USCCB documents have a history of the half-truth method compared to Magisterial teachings. For example, Archbishop Nienstedt said "The USCCB statement "Always Our Children" is not a normative teaching statement of the bishops' conference. I, along with the majority of bishops at the time of its publication, never had the opportunity to discuss or vote on that document in general assembly. It was written by the Committee on Marriage and Family and, with the approval of the NCCB Administrative Committee, it was published in the committee's name only (see Origins, Oct. 9, 1997, Vol. 27, no. 17, p. 287)." Bishop Bruskewtiz said on the same document "Not only does this document fail to take into account the latest revision in the authentic Latin version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, but it juxtaposes several quotes from the Catechism in order to pretend falsely and preposterously that the Catechism says homosexuality is a gift from God and should be accepted as a fixed and permanent identity. Of course, the document, in order to support the incorrect views it contains, totally neglects to cite the Catholic doctrine set forth by the Holy See which teaches that the homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered". Also, the document's definition of the virtue and practice of chastity is inadequate and distorted." I mentioned the wreckovations from Art and Environment. Unfortunately the history is repeating. Google for comments on Faithful Citizenship by clergy and religious alike and you will see. (sorry, I can't post links). It is harder to spot omissions. *** Angelo (and all), Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. Amen. +
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 8:49 AM By JLS
All sorts of organizations tell their members how to vote. So, what is the hang up that bishops resist this option? Or, is it only an illusion that bishops do not tell their flocks how to vote ... by means of telling the leadership of various organizations how to influence their members on the vote? How many unions for example are traditionally Catholic, and whose leadership hob nob with bishops? How does a bishop "tell" his people how to vote? Does it have to be in words? Or can it be in publicity? If a bishop is seen largely in news photos as smiling along with abortion promoters, gay activists, porn movie moguls, anti-Catholic politicians, etc, then is this not "telling" their flocks how to vote? So, when a bishop claims that he refuses to tell his people how to vote, yet makes it known through these less verbal means, without a clear instruction, then what's the difference? And if so, then how can he claim to not tell people how to vote? Is there a contradiction between what such a bishop claims and the facts? If so, then what is this contradiction called? What does Jesus teach plainly in Scripture about this sort of thing? How strongly does the Gospel speak to this sort of thing? What is it called when there is a trumped up "mystery" that requires people to assume without explanation? Is it difficult to integrate these questions with applicable responses? Why or why not? Please explain.
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:48 AM By J
I just shake my head at all the hate filled comments from the people on this board who think they are more Catholic than the Bishop or even the Pope.
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:08 PM By Victoria G.
Well, J, many of the people on this board ARE more Catholic, and certainly more Spiritual, than many of the bishops. Many lay catholics are more catholic than the anointed/ordained of our church.
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 PM By Eileen
J, Does all of your head shaking translate into the real nitty gritty reason behind your post? Did you vote for Obama too?
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 3:59 PM By Almond Milk
J what a pity that you see "hate" in the faithful. You must be suffering with spiritual blindness. All I read in most of these comments are people who are charitable and hope to change what is affecting our moral values and our relationship with Christ, people with backbone and truth! Let truth reign! Eileen I wish too, ask as well if J voted for Obama? Why else would this person be judging us.
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:00 PM By Anne T.
J, when a presidential candidate such as Barak Obama cannot even bring himself to vote for The Infant Borm Alive Protection Act after it has been changed two times after the first draft to please the "so-called pro-choice people", and even they vote for it, he or anyone who defends him will not get a vote or approval from me. I am sorry if that offends you, but that is just the way it is.
|
Posted Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:21 PM By Anne T.
By the way, J, many bishops flat out said that there was no proportional reason to vote for a man such as Obama. In fact, some named him as radically pro-abortion, including a Knights of Columbus e-mail I received. Although, John McCain was for embronic stem-cell research if the child was already aborted (that is wrong too), he had a much better pro-life record than Obama. There were also others on the various tickets who were 100% pro-life, so we all had better choices. As far as those killed in wars, there have been more children aborted since Roe vs Wade, than those killed in several of the recent wars in which the United States has been involved. All pro-lifers can do now, is pray that he moves more toward the pro-life side, but that is very doubtful with his recent picks of very pro-abortion people. As Mother Teresa said, "Abortion is the chief obstacle to peace." If the child in the womb is not safe, or the child born alive after an abortion is not safe, none of us are safe. I am sorry if you are offended by what some of us say, but say it we must do and tell the truth as we see if we must to do, whether you or others approve.
|
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 6:53 AM By Grisha
J: I believe the whole idea of the Body of Christ is that none of us baptized and confirmed into the Church are any more or less Catholic than the Bishops (Inc. the Bishop of Rome)
The problem comes when some people this they are better theologians a than b the bishops and the Pope. The problem is that when the American Bishops get into politics, they get the idea that they are better political scientists than some of the laity. IMHO, they really aren't very good at it.
|
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 9:12 AM By BJ
It´s better not to vote than to have the blood of even one innocent, however indirectly, on your hands. No matter what is being promised in exchange for your vote, a fundamental question must be: will more human beings be ripped from the womb if i vote for this or that person?Could you stand outside an abortuary and accept the fact that the child being carried in for ´termination´ is a victim whose death you secured by your vote.There is culpability by voting for whoever has promised to make abortion even more widespread, when those increased abortions/ murders come to pass.
|
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 11:41 AM By TJG
I respectfully disagree with the Bishop's stance on this topic. Supporting Life means being against Abortion, Euthanasia, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research, all of which the liberal Democrat agenda of today supports, and I think that all faithful Catholics (religious and laity) should speak out. Don't hide in your robe!!!
|
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 11:49 AM By Victorian Catholic
SILENCE PRESUMES ASSENT. Any Catholic who openly supports a pro-abortion politician supports that politician's pro-abortion policies.
I am in full agreement with Fr. Illo. We need MORE - not less - women and men like him who are willing to stand up and say "this is wrong. Black is black, and white is white, and there are no grey areas."
Bishop Blaire is trying to play both ends against the middle. He should get on one side of the fence or the other - not try to straddle it.
|
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 1:04 PM By Almond Milk
Hip hip hooray TJG, good comments! I also disagree with the Bishop here in this news article.
|
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 7:25 PM By JLS
Grisha, the bishops and popes are not necessarily theologians. The current Pope is a theologian; the late John Paul II was not a theologian, but a philosopher, and so forth. St Thomas Aquinas was both a philosopher and a theologian, but not a bishop. Clergy have the grace of acting on behalf of Christ, which is why they are vicars, or vicariously Christ, or in persona Christi. God is not a theologian ... why, after all, would God want to study Himself? Theologians study God, but bishops enact God by virtue of God's authority and power. To rule by means of a study or document such as the Mosaic Law or the Gospel is not the primary virtue of a bishop ... which is to rule in the stead of God via union with God. This union comes about through the sacraments, not through any study.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:45 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Since philosophy is a major component of theological studies, your attempt to divorce these two fields is ill-founded. To say that Pope Benedict XVI is a theologian and Pope John Paul II is a philosopher (because JPII held an academic post in philosophy) is entirely to misconstrue the integral relation between philosophy and theology within the Catholic tradition. Nor does a contemplative/active split distinguish a theologian from a bishop (you write, almost unintelligibly: "Theologians study God, but bishops enact [sic] God by virtue of God's authority and power"). No, all power in heaven and on earth comes from God, including the cognitive power to do theology. Obviously, the power of ecclesial office is not held by a theologian who does not hold it, but the very work theologians do is in the service of the bishops of the Church,
who must also be theologians (1) in their own right and (2) so to garner the benefit of the work of theologians.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:15 AM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to JLS: Every theologian moves from (a) about to attain a theological insight to (b) attaining that insight; and then from (b) attaining that insight to (c) adjudicating that insight as true or false, with various attendant degrees of certitude. The reason why "God is not a theologian" is that God is Pure Act, i.e., there is
no movement in God from (a) potentiality to (b) actuality--no movement from about-to-know to actually-knowing. To be Pure Act is not to "have" knowledge but TO BE omniscient.
THIS is why God is not a theologian--not, JLS, for your anthropomorphic reason ("...why, after all, would God want to study Himself?"). It is not a question of God not "wanting" to "study" Himself; it is a question of God's very Being as Pure Act, whereby, unlike a student, God does NOT move from about-to-know to actually-knowing. Unlike all student-like intelligences, including the super-intelligences of the angels, God is Pure Act. As such, He does not "have" intelligence--He IS (uncreated) Intelligence; God does not "have" being--He IS uncreated Being.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:41 AM By RR
John F. Maguire: HUH?? Am I the only one here who has no idea what you are talking about in your posts?? You are one smooth talker. You write an awful lot, but say nothing. You use all these big words that Webster wouldn't even know and you put them into sentences that make no sense to me. I consider myself an educated person, but I really can't follow you. To me, it's just a bunch of non-sense thrown together into sentences to make people think that you must have good cause for voting for the EXTREMELY PRO-ABORTION candidate. You sound so intelligent that surely you must be right in voting for the Obamanation?? NOT!!
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:16 PM By Eileen
John F. Maguire, In response to your reply to JLS... How then do you explain your own breakdown in your post about (a) (b) and (c) when it comes to defending Professor Douglas Kmiec and voting for pro-death Obama? Do you interpret and translate the meaning of the words "various attendant degrees of certitude" into a yellow get out of jail free card clause or excuse for loopholes? John Maguire when you witness many Catholics driving into abortion centers with their rosaries swinging from the rear view mirrors, it is heartbreaking. I asked God to please show us how and why the breakdown and collapse of basic Catholic moral values had happened? God is faithful to prayers. The breakdown has occurred by one disobedient loophole against Authentic Catholicism at a time. I think you need to revisit (a) and (b) and then you can "have" certitude of truth when influencing others about (c) which is "Thou Shalt Not Kill"! Oh, and John, that does not require a lofty theologian's prideful intellect. It requires the simplicity and humility of three humble shepherd children in a field who listened and learned and obeyed God. Is your ultimate goal heaven or a pedestal?
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:35 PM By Fr. M.P.
While it is true that philosophy and theology are partially related, the bigger truth is that one can know and accept the faith needed to live the Gospel without knowing either philosophy and theology. And ditto for teaching. Think of St. Peter and St. John (in modern paraphrased vernacular): "hey you, come off the boat and follow Me." How many early Church saints had theology and philosophy degrees? Think of St. John Vianney, who is the patron of parish priests who barely made ordination because of difficulties with studies, and only did so because of a desperate Bishop with a priest shortage courtesy the French revolution. The true Church method of faithful learning is to accept all the teachings of the Church and then understanding will be given by God as needed. God has no need of sophisticated philosophers and theologians (which are useful in certain cases), rather He needs OBEDIENCE for us to be saved. Jesus said Say yes when you mean yes, and no when you mean no. Anything else is from the devil.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 6:33 PM By JLS
I did not attempt to divorce philosophy and theology. What I did was make note that they are not the same thing.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:39 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: Your interest in "credentials" in the academic sense still puzzles me, but let me just say that the best of Catholic apologetics has always made it a point--I know from your posts that you agree--that Christ's credentials as the true Messiah are indeed in order.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:09 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Eileen: Space precludes my answering your post in full, but you ask an inescapably relevant question when you inquire what is meant by "various attendant degrees of certainty." The phase is short-hand. It refers to the six theological grades of certitude as orienting the work of theologians. These six grades of cetainty are listed by Ludwig Ott in his_Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_: (1) "The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are 'de fide definita.' (2) Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). (3) A teaching approximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church." The remaining three degrees of certainty, Eileen, are listed below.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:29 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Eileen (completing Ludwig Ott's list of six theological grades of certainty): "(4) A teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions). (5) Common teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinion, but which is accepted by theologians generally. (6) Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (opino tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church."
Of utmost importance, this classification is really only effectively appropriated by the student of theology in the concrete context of specific teachings. But that is what
the rest of Ludwig Ott's primer provides us.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:00 PM By JLS
Christ does not need credentials. St Paul however talks about his own credentials ... impressive indeed.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:03 PM By JLS
Good philosophy and good theology spring from obedience. But it is the wandering minstrel who, like the camel holding his nose high and into the wind, dashes off to the promise of each new thrill.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:04 PM By JLS
John Maguire, re post 8:09, you got a "B" in that course, didn't you?
|
Posted Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:05 PM By Eileen
John F, Maguire, All of that writing and we're back to square one. Your example of the #1 degree or should I say Ludwig's # 1 degree fits right in with God Revealing the 5th Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". The spiritual, logical and rational conclusion to # 1= Don't vote for "any leader" or President who supports killing unborn children and who even supports the even more heinous action of killing the babies who have survived the initial murder attempt. (Even if it means that three soup kitchens for social justice might close down) You cannot build in charity when the foundation of that social justice requires you to look the other way while someone is being killed. Life is the initial building block of charity. You have it reversed. You should have stopped at # 1 John. It is pretty obvious now that when you don't even obey God's 5th Commandment, why wouldn't you be a likely victim of falling prey to excuses for loopholes. People who don't listen and obey God usually don't ever listen to anyone else either, "unless" it benefits them by salving their own conscience about something. Hence, the defending of Professor Kmiec who defends the voting of Obama who defends the killing of children. This all occurs so the conscience can defend itself from hearing the painful truth. The #6 degree starts off with the words "Theological Opinions". The Ten Commandments are not opinions or suggestions. You have proven that you are capable of quoting Ludwig Ott's 6 grades of certainty but the written evidence in these degrees only proves with all the more certainty that you are guilty of ignoring the obvious. You sure didn't do yourself any favor by printing those self-incriminating degrees. John, A loaf of bread cannot rise to it's full potential if the yeast is missing. I think it might be helpful to go back and retrace the steps of your decision making process and ask yourself, "At what point in my life did I abandon the yeast?"
|
Posted Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:28 PM By Fulminator Ski Ven
I like JLS's B reference.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:23 PM By George Kadlec
A quote attributed to St. Athanasius "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". During the Arian Heresy at its peak, all of the eastern church and most of the western chuch with the exception of Rome and few a of the western churches embraced the arian heresy. I personally believe that the great apostasy could now be taking place. The
|
Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 2:25 PM By John F. Maguire
The use of the word "credentials" for such prerequisite (prophetic) necessities as, for example, that the Messiah be born of the House of David, is parlance that is very much a part of the Catholic apologetic tradition.
|
Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 3:13 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Eileen: Prior to the Vatican Council II, Ludwig Ott's _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ was widely used in the intellectual formation of priests in Catholic seminaries.
You asked me what I meant by "degrees of theological certitute" and I replied by quoting Ott's six degrees of theogical certainty. I am not sure how that brings us back to square one; it seems to me that it advances us a full six squares. But I would hasten to point out that the six degrees are the degrees of theological certitude that attach to theological PROPOSITIONS; they do not pertain to the MORAL CERTITUDE that is required to ACT in accord with right reason, for example, to VOTE in accord with right reason. In general, with respect to moral certitude, all human acts except morally indifferent acts (what color tie I should I wear, etc.) require that we be morally certain that we are doing the right thing so to go ahead and do it. This requirement of moral certainty applies to voting no less than to any act that is not morally indifferent. My posts on voting
stressed the alienation-of-the-Catholic-vote-from-the-get-go because from the get-go neither candidate embraced the traditional common law protections afforded pre-born infants. My posts on voting, however, attacked no part of this alienated Catholic vote except (1) that vote for Senator Obama that went to him BECAUSE he is an abortocrat, and
(2) that (smaller) vote for Senator McCain that went to him BECAUSE he is an abortocrat. Concurring as my position does with the both sides of the Catholic vote (most Catholics, I am confident, did not vote for any candidate BECAUSE that candidate is an abortocrat), I take it that both sides of this vote were cast by persons who were morally certain of their vote (though of course there is always a difference between a conscientious vote and a vote that is both conscientious and correct). This position--I had hoped before the election and hope now--is yeast for receptive minds.
|
Posted Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:00 PM By Almond Milk
RR I share your feelings regarding John F. Maguire. He does not make sense to me either.
|
Posted Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:27 PM By Almond Milk
Fulminator Ski Ven I also like JLS's B reference. : )
|
Posted Monday, December 15, 2008 1:19 PM By Fulminator Ski Ven
Ahh, you get it too, Almond Milk.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|