Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Signer

Sunday, July 3, AD 2016

 

fortnight for freedom 2016

 

 

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

Charles Carroll of Carrollton, letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.

Charles Carroll of Carrollton, as he signed his name when he added his signature to the Declaration of Independence, was the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence.  When he died at the age of 95, he was the last of the Signers to depart this vale of tears.

The scion of perhaps the richest family in the colonies, Charles Carroll was initially uninterested in politics and, in any case, was debarred by his religion from participating in politics in his native Maryland by his religions.  However, in his thirties he became a passionate advocate of American independence from Great Britain and quickly became one of the chief leaders of the Patriot cause in his home colony.  It was only natural as a result that he was sent to Congress, in spite of his religion, where he was one of the chief spokesmen for independence and happily placed his signature on the Declaration even though by doing so he risked not only his fortune but his life if the British had prevailed.  By the end of 1776 the revolutionary government of Maryland had issued an act of religious freedom, and Carroll and his fellow Catholics in Maryland enjoyed the same civil rights as Protestants.

In 1778 he returned to Maryland and helped draft the state constitution and in setting up the new state government, serving in the State Senate until 1800, and briefly in the United States Senate.

A slaveholder, throughout his career Carroll spoke and wrote of slavery as an evil that must come to an end as soon as possible.  He attempted, but failed, to have Maryland implement a plan of gradual emancipation.  At the age of 91 he took on the task of being president of the Auxiliary State Colonization Society of Maryland, part of  a national movement to have free blacks voluntarily colonize what would become Liberia in Africa.

Something of a Renaissance man, he had a strong interest in science and in his nineties helped set up the B&O Railroad, lending his prestige to this new technology in his native Maryland.

Throughout his life his two main passions were the American Revolution and his Faith.   Like most of the Founding Fathers he regarded the idea of political liberty divorced from sound morality, derived from religion, as an absurdity.  He set forth his ideas on this subject in a letter to Secretary of War James McHenry in 1800 in which he lamented the then current American political scene:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Signer

  • Very excited you will be doing more posts on him. I just read the most recent book tha thas com eout on hi and I very much recommend it.

    On a side note his home still stands and his family still lives there. However the Family is trying everything it can to make sure the Estate does not fall to pieces. It would be a shame if that happened

    http://www.doughoregan.com/

    The Revolution literally cost him millions by the way. He fought a very unpopular fight against Paper money. His Father was rather incensed at him that he did not fight it harder. When paper money came on the scene the value of his estate decreased quite a bit

  • Great piece.
    Thanks again for the History lesson.
    The last signee to pass away…Our Founding Father’s…pray for us.

  • Another good history lesson. Thanks!

  • My father graduated from John Carroll (Jesuit University in Cleveland, Ohio). Was all-male then. Named after relative of Charles and of course the first Catholic bishop of the U.S. My father participated in college ROTC there. I wonder how many Catholic colleges allow that now in these politically correct times (especially the Jesuit ones). A couple of notable alumni include Don Shula and the late Tim Russert (Meet the Press).

Lying Worthless Political Hack Hates Catholic Conscience

Tuesday, November 22, AD 2011

 

 

It will come as little surprise to faithful readers of this blog, but the Lying Worthless Political Hack, as I affectionately refer to ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D. San Francisco), took  the opportunity during an interview with the Washington Post to slam the Church she purportedly is a member of:

On abortion

Pelosi recently was criticized for the way she characterized a bill to amend Republican-proposed conscience exemptions for health-care reform that allow providers to refuse to perform abortions. Pelosi called the measure, which passed last month with some help from Democrats, “savage,’’ and said, “When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health-care providers do not have to intervene, if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

In retrospect, does she think that assessment went too far? Not at all, she said: “They would” let women die on the floor, she said. “They would! Again, whatever their intention is, this is the effect.’’

Catholic health-care providers in particular have long said they’d have to go out of business without the conscience protections that Pelosi says amount to letting hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion.” Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it .?.?. but they have this conscience thing’’ that she insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.

On one occasion, she said, laughing, one of her critics on the topic of abortion, speaking on the House floor, said, “Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope. They think like this. And of course I do — I think the pope would agree — and I know more than you, too, mister.’’

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack Hates Catholic Conscience

  • The Church in America deserves all the trials and tribulations it is getting simply because Her Bishops will NOT turn over to Satan people like Nancy Pelosi. That’s what St. Paul told the Church at Corinth to do with a man sleeping with his father’s wife. And that is exactly what he would tell us to do with a woman promoting and extolling the infanticide of the unborn. 1st Corinthians 5:4-5:

    In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus

  • Don”t blame me. I voted for McCain.

    Plus, she made millions $$$ on trading inside info from her legislative activities.

  • She’ll receive communion, no questions ask, the first Sunday in Advent, with the tacit approval of her local ordinary.

    We can rage all we want at her, but she’s a symptom of the actual malady.

  • “askED.”

    Grrr. My two year old is going to have to reconsider her current vocation of living alarm clock. Stat.

  • Kind of makes me hope the atheists are right, because WE have MUCH to answer for allowing narrowbacks like Pelosi ruin this country!!!

  • Couldn’t help noticing in the video, Obama mentioning that defining when life begins is above his pay-grade.

    With the benefit of experience, it appears that most other things are as well.

    As for Pelosi, I wonder what her P.P and other parishioners think of her at her home parish – or does she scuttle off somewhere where she is less recogniseable?

  • “With the benefit of experience, it appears that most other things are as well.”

    Indeed Don! Some men rise to the challenge of high office, but unfortunately Mr. Obama is not among their number.

  • He has risen to the level of incompetant.

  • Pingback: Pelosi: Anti-Catholic Polical Hack | Cowboy Papist

Neal McDonough: Bravo!

Thursday, April 1, AD 2010

An actor, a faithful Catholic, willing to lose a role in a TV series because he won’t do sex scenes?  Surely not in this day and age?  Guess again!

Neal McDonough is a marvelous actor who elevates every role he plays, whether it’s in Band of Brothers or Desperate Housewives. So when he was suddenly replaced with David James Elliott 3 days into the filming on ABC’s new series Scoundrels earlier this week, there had to be a story behind the story. The move was officially explained as a casting change. But, in fact, McDonough was sacked because of his refusal to do some heated love scenes with babelicious star (and Botox pitchwoman) Virginia Madsen. The reason? He’s a family man and a Catholic, and he’s always made it clear that he won’t do sex scenes. And ABC knew that. Because he also didn’t get into action with Nicolette Sheridan on the network’s Desperate Housewives when he played her psycho husband during Season 5. And he also didn’t do love scenes with his on-air girlfriend in his previous series, NBC’s Boomtown, or that network’s Medical Investigation.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Neal McDonough: Bravo!

  • He was superb in Band of Brothers. I’m glad to see he’s a good fella in addition to a good acta’

  • I’ve been a fan of his for a while, but I didn’t realize that he was a faithful Catholic… awesome!

  • I tried to find some way to email or contact Neal McDonough for his ethical stance. I couldn’t find a way, so please if possible forward to him that I’m very impressed. It’s good to know there are still some real men in Hollywood.

    Kind regards,

    Mark Emma
    Parsippany, NJ

  • Good for him.
    This culture is so overly saturated with sexuality that I cannot understand how anyone does not get bored with it. Religious convictions aside, don’t people ever get tired of trying to outdo each other in depravity? These so-called sexual rebels are really just marching in lock step with the culture. They all seem convince that they are breaking new ground. A month ago I was on the UIC (U of Illinois, Chicago) campus and some cute girls were at a table promoting the Vagina Monologues. Nobody paid them a visit. They looked pathetic and they shamed themselves.

  • Mr. McDonough has a facebook page where you can leave a message

  • @daledog, well said!

    @Marie, I found him on Facebook and am now a fan. Thanks.

  • I fixed the link.

    Good story and even more interesting comments on their posting over at Deadline Hollywood.

  • I remember the character he played on Boomtown, an adulterer and black-out drunk. I guess it’s good that McDonough doesn’t want to portray anything sexual, but that doesn’t seem like a big difference to me. It depends on how “hot” the scenes were going to be.

  • The reason this is so shocking is because everyone was pretty sure there was no one of character left in Hollyweird. Then Neil looses his job to his values.

    What is amazing to me is how the Hollyweird minion are suggesting there is no difference between playing a murderer, and taking your clothes off, making physical sexual (at least sensual) contact with an actress (who is not your wife) are not different issues. One is pretend, while the other is far from it.

    Hats off Neal, stand your ground, do not back down, and never apologize for being the last one standing with a moral core.

  • I wouldn’t be surprised Randy if a fair amount of actors and actresses aren’t secretly cheering him on. The entertainment industry is pretty intolerant of dissenters, and most people who dissent from the dominant worldview of Hollywood learn pretty quickly to keep their mouths shut if they want to work.

  • Pinky,

    In the Catechism it specifically states that even acted out sex is prohibited.

  • get tiger to do his role

  • Awesome!!! Finally someone to stand for faith, values and morals, Hollywood could take this to heart. Cheers for Neal McDonough.

  • Tito, are you referring to paragraph 2354 in the Catechism? I don’t think that every depiction crosses the line into pornography. A lot depends on how “hot” the scene is, I’d think.

  • @ Mark Emma
    I was thrilled to hear about Neal McDonough!!! I am also looking for a way to send email to applaud his actions. It also reminds me of another soap star who did the same thing…. Roark Critchlow- he played Mike on Days. If you find a way to catact Neal, let me know! I think he will get more opportunities to work- I believe God honors you for standing up for what is right!!!!

  • How awesome is that! Someone who actually has morals.

  • I also wish to applaud Neal McDonough for standing up for his beliefs and remaining faithful to his Catholic faith. May God continue to bless him and his family.

  • Glad to see an actor with moral character to say no to the filth and trash on our movies and TV screens. I commend him for his decision and wish more actors and actresses had the courage to do what he did. God Bless him. May he be an example for hollywood.

  • Yes, indeed. Bravo, Mr. McDonough! I’ll be looking forward to your new series.

  • Bom, sou brasileiro e achei muito impressionante a posição deste católico. Sou católico também e parece que o mundo não tem mais jeito. Mas mesmo sendo católico, eu duvido sobre estas coisas, mas aí que vem o poder de Deus e age para acreditarmos sempre, sempre. Felicidades para vc Mr. McDonough! Jesus o abençoe e Maria sempre o proteja!!!

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy:) Mr. de Melo’s comment is basically on-topic, so here’s a VERY rough translation from his Portuguese via my college Spanish:
    “Well, I’m Brazilian and [I like to look at things(?)] from a Catholic point of view. I’m Catholic, too, and it seems that the world now has more [skill?]. But this Catholic blog, you’re devoted to these things, so that one can see the power of God and have to praise him forever and ever. Congratulations to you Mr. McDonough! May Jesus lead you and Mary always protect you!”
    (As I said, this is a very rough translation of Waldney’s comments, so if anyone can refine it, that’d be great.)

  • Here’s Google’s translation:

    Well, I am Brazilian and found it very impressive that the Catholic position. I am a Catholic and seems also that the world is hopeless. But even being a Catholic, I doubt about these things, but then that is the power of God to believe and act whenever, wherever. Cheers to you Mr. McDonough ! Jesus and Mary bless you always protect him!

    /translation finished

    Pretty close to Mrs. Cathy “Civilization Guru” McClarey’s translation.

  • i just want to say…..I love this guy! why can’t i find a fan site??

The Kennedy Mystique

Monday, August 31, AD 2009

The past week has given me pause for thought on the Kennedy Mystique and what it means in Catholic circles today. I’d intended to remain silent on the topic of Senator Edward Kennedy, he wasn’t someone I had much admiration for, but death is a great equalizer. While it certainly doesn’t put someone beyond criticism, it’s polite not to take the opportunity to attack someone while those who loved him are mourning. And yet, in the end I made some rather strong comments on the topic. Why?

Ted Kennedy isn’t himself the sort of figure one would expect to arouse more than normal political feelings — a sometimes boorish and boozy character, but a party loyalist able to bring a fair amount of rhetorical power to pushing his party’s line and able to bring a self effacing charm into play (when he tried) which softened his partisan edges. The the sort of person I’d tend to admire, but also not someone I’d feel called upon to rail against.

I think the issue is that the combination of the Kennedy name and the Democratic party-line positions holds a certain place in American Catholic history which causes strong reactions among various Catholics depending on how they reacted to that period in Catholic history in this country. JFK was elected at a point when it seemed Catholics had finally “arrived” in the US. They’d made it out of the ethnic ghettos, through college, and into mainstream American society. And while public schools were heavily Protestant, and Catholic “smells and bells” still looked very strange to WASP eyes, Catholicism had become a large and mainstream religion in the US complete with famous converts and Fulton Sheen as a major TV personality.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Kennedy Mystique

Charles Carroll: Our Catholic Founding Father

Saturday, July 4, AD 2009

Charles Carroll of Carrollton was a delegate to the Continental Congress and later United States Senator for Maryland. He was also the only Catholic to have signed the The Declaration of Independence. One of the wealthiest men in the colonies, it is reported that — upon fixing his signature,

a member standing near observed, “There go a few millions,” and all admitted that few risked as much, in a material sense, than the wealthy Marylander.

(The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1832, by Kate Mason Rowland).

A new biography, American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll (Lives of the Founders) (ISI) will be published in February 2010. (Tip of the hat to Carl Olson). The author, Dr. Bradley J. Birzer, was recently interviewed by the Washington Times:

Continue reading...

Father of the United States Navy

Wednesday, March 25, AD 2009

john_barry_by_gilbert_stuart

1745 was a busy year in the history of the misnamed British Isles, with Bonnie Prince Charlie doing his best to end the reign of the Hanover Dynasty in England, so I guess it is excusable that no note was taken of the birth date of John Barry in Tacumshane, County Wexford, Ireland.  During his childhood John received, along with all the other excellent reasons given to Irish Catholics over the centuries to love Britannia, good reason to look askance at the British when his father was evicted from his poor little farm by their British landlord, and the family went to live in the village of Rosslare.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Father of the United States Navy

Generations & American Catholicism

Friday, January 23, AD 2009

There have been some refreshingly candid (if not entirely harmonious) conversations over at Mirror of Justice recently about the blog’s mission as it approaches its fifth anniversary. Mirror of Justice is a great resource for Catholic legal scholarship, and it has a diverse set of contributors with different perspectives on Catholic legal theory.

I have thoughts about many of the issues that have come up, but one topic that I found especially interesting was the discussion of generational differences.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Generations & American Catholicism

  • As a college student, I think that it’s true. Most of the people who really care about the Catholic faith are faithful to the Magisterium. However, there are plenty of people who self-describe as Catholic who openly dissent from the Church both in teachings and lifestyle.

    but again I think you’re right. The people who aren’t faithful to the Magisterium aren’t that concerned with their religion at all: they might go to Mass on Easter/Christmas and their grandmother might push the to marry in a Church, but as far as pushing theology or going into the seminary it seems that they’re faithful. Of course there are many exceptions, but that seems to be the trend, which is good news for the Church

  • I don’t know. Having just finished a BA and a MS at a major Jesuit University, I saw upfront how Jesuits/arch-leftists train the Magisterium-haters of the future. Meanwhile, serious Catholics (especially the children of serious Catholics) are relegated to organizing a Christian life on the fringes of campus (physically and metaphorically). In the middle are a lot of eager but leaderless and uninspired Catholics who aimlessly spiritually traverse campus, often following whoever speaks loudest. Then of course, there are the many Protestants or agnostics in the prime position for evangelization on a college campus who interact with the lowest elements of the Church and hear nothing but contempt and distrust about University bureaucrats and clergy from their more-serious Catholic friends.

  • I don’t think the “smaller and purer church” is what you think it is.

  • Well, in turn, I don’t think I think what you think I think the “smaller and purer church” is. If you find that response entirely useless, we will be in the same position.

    All of which is to say, specificity would be appreciated. 😉

  • I feel that those young dissenters eventually leave. Not all, but most. Like George Crosley said that there are those that are being trained in Magesterium hating. Hopefully they will hold less influence as better Catholics begin ignoring them altogether.

    My opinion on a smaller and purer church are those 10%ers, 10% of Catholics who actually practice their faith, are whom Pope Benedict is referring to. They will be the mustard seed, the creative minority that will invigorate their fellow Catholics as well as their surrounding culture. The liberals-protesting-School-of-America types will either convert to being faithful Catholics or go off into the dark unknown and be soon forgotten like the Hans Kungs of the world.

  • Michael,

    I am curious about your thoughts on the subject of the generational divide, as we obviously have had very different experiences of the Church. I’d also be interested in your thoughts on George’s comment. As a product of Jesuit institutions, I am sure you have some opinions, and I would be interested in hearing them (if you wish to share them).

    My (limited) experience with schools ‘in the Jesuit tradition’ suggests there is a fair amount of truth in what George says, but you would be in a better position to comment.

  • The debates and tensions that George talks about have nothing to do with whether a campus is “Jesuit” or not. Yes, I spent a lot of time at a Jesuit school (bachelors and masters, plus a few years as a campus minister). While I was a campus minister I did a lot of networking with other Jesuit schools and non-Jesuit Catholic schools, both in the campus ministry and campus activism circles. I assure you, each of the 28 Jesuit universities is quite different and has its own issues. My own alma mater, though the smallest of the Jesuit schools, was quite diverse and it certainly wasn’t a “training ground” for dissenters. I think all Catholic schools wrestle with questions of Catholic identity and what it means to be a faithful Catholic. It’s not limited to Jesuit schools.

    The liberals-protesting-School-of-America types will either convert to being faithful Catholics or go off into the dark unknown and be soon forgotten like the Hans Kungs of the world.

    This show how seriously we can take Tito. A Catholic’s position on the School of the Americas has nothing to do with his or her orthodoxy. They only orthodoxy that SOA protesting Catholics question is americanist orthodoxy. I have long suspected that Tito gets those two mixed up all the time. Now it’s quite obvious. If Tito only knew the number of faithful priests, sisters, brothers, and bishops who are part of the SOA Watch movement. But he isn’t interested in facts, only that SOA Watch Catholics are a “helpful” target in his rants.

  • I’ve certainly seen a generational difference in how people address the Church if they disagree with it. Those 50 and over seem a lot more likely to still identify as Catholic and even be very involved in parish activities while strongly disagreeing with major Church moral and doctrinal teachings. And even those who seldom if ever go to Church still generally call themselves “Catholic” — unless they’ve become Protestant.

    Those our age, however, definitely seem to see being Catholic as something you choose, or don’t. A couple of my coworkers have used phrases like “my parents are Catholic”, “I used to be Catholic” or “I went to Catholic schools”, which I don’t think you’d hear out of older non-practicing or ex-Catholics.

  • Those our age, however, definitely seem to see being Catholic as something you choose, or don’t.

    I think there is some truth to this, but I think it’s far from clear whether or not this is a good thing. I think it’s ambiguous.

  • An interesting example is that of Michael Harrington, Jesuit trained in St. Louis in the 1940s and 1950s. He was interested in social issues, worked for a time with Dorothy Day. and then organized various versions of the Socialist party. He could not abide Dorothy Day’s firm commitment to the Church.

    Interestingly enough, it was the legalisation of the contraceptive pill which was the determining factor in his relations with the Church. One might say that he was too bright for his own good, a characteristic not uncommon among students at Jesuit schools. .

  • Michael I.,

    Yes, people such as Fr. Roy Bourgeois are excellent examples of following the Churches teachings.

  • I think there is some truth to this, but I think it’s far from clear whether or not this is a good thing. I think it’s ambiguous.

    I think it may arguably be the best that we can hope for in the modern world we live in.

    There’s an advantage to people continuing to think of themselves as Catholic (or at least continuing to think of Catholicism as simply being _the_ form of religion available) in that this leaves them with an obvious course of return should they become sufficiently “mugged by reality” to start drifting back towards God. I certainly think that it’s better than not if people who “aren’t religious” continue to see calling for a priest as the obvious thing to do at the end of life or at the death of a loved one or at some other inflection point in life.

    However, in the modern world — perhaps in part because Catholicism is too often seen as one denomination among many, and Protestant denominations have been in a pretty active process over the last 200 years of adapting Christianity to the needs of the spirit of the age — the choices seem to be between either a “the Church doesn’t change, love it or leave it” or “Catholic is a cultural identity and the sooner those old celibate guys catch on to what we with-it people believe, the better”. Of these, the former is clearly preferable.

    Ideally, of course, would be an understanding that the Church does not change combined with people lapsing but never actually repudiating the Church. However that does not seem to be forthcoming at this time.

  • I think that it’s not possible to break Catholics, young or old, into two categories. It’s more like an xy diagram, with 4 quadrants. There are faithful Catholics in every sense, those for whom religion is important but don’t consider it necessary to be faithful to the magisterium, those who are simply lax in every sense, and probably a portion who while orthodox in their beliefs don’t take their faith seriously.

    Only one of these quadrants entails the smaller, purer Church referred to by Pope Benedict. I think that something non-orthodox Catholics don’t understand, to culpably hold heresy is to incur excommunication:

    Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ? can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ? can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

    All that remains is to give them an opportunity to repent and issue the proclamations.

    Michael I,

    I think all Catholic schools wrestle with questions of Catholic identity and what it means to be a faithful Catholic.

    I don’t see how this is possible, it is all clearly spelled out in the CCC. Now, if you mean wrestling with questions of WANTING a Catholic identity or WANTING to be a faithful Catholic, that would be accurate.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

    There’s nothing particularly difficult about what it means to be a faithful Catholic, the only difficulty is actually practicing it.

    Matt

  • Yes, people such as Fr. Roy Bourgeois are excellent examples of following the Churches teachings.

    You do know that the SOA Watch movement has existed for over 10 years and that Fr Roy’s “issues” have only occurred within the last 6 months? You do know that Fr Roy cannot be equated with the entire movement? You do know that I have been involved in the SOA Watch movement for about 8-9 years, and that I DISAGREE with what Fr Roy did?

    Are you able to make these distinctions, or are you really that stupid?

    Matt – You’re off the page, man. What’s up with you?

  • Michael I,

    so you didn’t know Fr. Roy’s support of women’s ordination before 6 months ago? It was well known by those outside the SOA movement. Do you know any other of the SOA Watch members that are in favor of women’s ordination? Any that publicly oppose the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, or liberation theology?

    It really would assist the dialogue if you would refrain from vague statements like “you’re off the page”, I’m sure it’s an insult, I just don’t get it…as well as to avoid calling people names, it’s really un-christian.

    Matt

  • Fr Roy’s “position” on women’s ordination was not as issue until he participated in a fake ordination.

    Do you know any other of the SOA Watch members that are in favor of women’s ordination? Any that publicly oppose the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, or liberation theology?

    Of course. But I know plenty of pro-life people who are in favor of women’s ordination, and who question the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, contraception, and liberation theology but I doubt you’d want to discredit the entire pro-life movement on their account.

    I didn’t call you names. I said you were off the page.

    Can you tell me in one sentence the Church’s view on liberation theology?

  • Michael,

    Fr Roy’s “position” on women’s ordination was not as issue until he participated in a fake ordination.

    Really? You think it’s morally acceptable to support women’s ordination as long as you don’t participate in a fake ordination?


    Do you know any other of the SOA Watch members that are in favor of women’s ordination? Any that publicly oppose the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, or liberation theology?

    Of course. But I know plenty of pro-life people who are in favor of women’s ordination, and who question the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, contraception, and liberation theology but I doubt you’d want to discredit the entire pro-life movement on their account.

    Perhaps in the circles you run with Michael, but not in any group that I would affiliate myself with. Perhaps you should be more careful.

    I didn’t call you names. I said you were off the page.

    You called Tito stupid.

    Can you tell me in one sentence the Church’s view on liberation theology?

    I’m surprised, running in the circles you do, I’d think you were deeply versed in it. Benedict XVI has made the connection between Liberation Theology and “millenarianism”, but it is a far more complex topic to distill in a single sentence. The Church’s position is nuanced, an area fraught with pitfalls which must be carefully avoided in order to remain orthodox. Frankly, in an organization where many other heterodox positions abounds, one is likely to find forbidden forms of liberation theology at it’s root. Here’s a link for you that you might begin to study these issues:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

    Matt

  • Really? You think it’s morally acceptable to support women’s ordination as long as you don’t participate in a fake ordination?

    Haha. Morally acceptable? Without a doubt, yes. Theologically acceptable from the official Roman Catholic perspective? Ah, that’s where the debate is. Since we can’t even agree on what kind of discussion we’re having (moral, theological, doctrinal, etc.) I doubt we will get very far.

    Frankly, in an organization where many other heterodox positions abounds, one is likely to find forbidden forms of liberation theology at it’s root.

    1) What “organization” are you talking about?

    2) The Church has not forbidden any particular “forms” of liberation theology. It has warned about certain tendencies, of course.

    Here’s a link for you that you might begin to study these issues…

    I “began” to study these issues over ten years ago. I’m now working on a doctorate focusing on them.

  • Michael,

    Really? You think it’s morally acceptable to support women’s ordination as long as you don’t participate in a fake ordination?

    Haha. Morally acceptable? Without a doubt, yes. Theologically acceptable from the official Roman Catholic perspective? Ah, that’s where the debate is. Since we can’t even agree on what kind of discussion we’re having (moral, theological, doctrinal, etc.) I doubt we will get very far.

    moral == theological == doctrinal… It’s all the same baby.

    Frankly, in an organization where many other heterodox positions abounds, one is likely to find forbidden forms of liberation theology at it’s root.

    1) What “organization” are you talking about?

    I don’t understand, you haven’t read the posts? SOA Watch.

    2) The Church has not forbidden any particular “forms” of liberation theology. It has warned about certain tendencies, of course.

    She has done more than “warn”, she has excommunicated adherents to unorthodox forms of liberation theology.

    Here’s a link for you that you might begin to study these issues…

    I “began” to study these issues over ten years ago. I’m now working on a doctorate focusing on them.

    So, you of all people should know that the issue can not be distilled in one sentence… what a strange question to ask.

  • moral == theological == doctrinal… It’s all the same baby.

    Incorrect.

    I don’t understand, you haven’t read the posts? SOA Watch.

    I see. Well then you should be able to produce some evidence that SOA Watch has “forbidden forms of liberation theology at it’s (sic) root.” Please produce some.

    She has done more than “warn”, she has excommunicated adherents to unorthodox forms of liberation theology.

    Who has the Church excommunicated for their liberation theology?

    So, you of all people should know that the issue can not be distilled in one sentence… what a strange question to ask.

    It’s not a strange question to ask if you have distilled the complexity of this and other related concerns in single sentences, as you have above and elsewhere. You seem to have it all figured out (“t is all clearly spelled out in the CCC,” for example), so I figured you could deal with my request.

  • Michael J. Iafrate
    Comment:
    Matt: moral == theological == doctrinal… It’s all the same baby.

    Michael: Incorrect.

    Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail how the doctrine of the Church is in disharmony with theology and morality.

    I see. Well then you should be able to produce some evidence that SOA Watch has “forbidden forms of liberation theology at it’s (sic) root.” Please produce some.

    I didn’t say that it did, I just suggested that if there is a lot of rejection of Church teaching, you can probably find “forbidden forms of liberation theology at its root”. My basis for this conclusion is that the revolution called for by millenarianism includes revolution against the Church’s teachings in many areas which the adherents consider to be patriarchal or bigoted.

    She has done more than “warn”, she has excommunicated adherents to unorthodox forms of liberation theology.

    Who has the Church excommunicated for their liberation theology?

    Fr. Balasuriya (lifted after he renounced his position)

    It’s not a strange question to ask if you have distilled the complexity of this and other related concerns in single sentences, as you have above and elsewhere. You seem to have it all figured out (“t is all clearly spelled out in the CCC,” for example), so I figured you could deal with my request.

    I don’t have it all figured out, the Church does.
    CCC 11:
    This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries

    Matt

  • Fr. Balasuriya (lifted after he renounced his position)

    His excommunication had nothing to do with liberation theology. It had to do with his (former) position on Mary.

    Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail how the doctrine of the Church is in disharmony with theology and morality.

    I didn’t say that they were in “disharmony.” I said that the terms are not equivalent. Thus, you asked if it was “morally wrong” to believe in women’s ordination. The Church obviously teaches it’s doctrinally wrong, but not that it’s morally wrong. The Church teaches a lot of things, but disagreeing with a particular teaching might not, in fact, be “morally” wrong.

    You didn’t answer my question about why you wouldn’t discredit the pro-lilfe movement, even though there are pro-life people who are for women’s ordination and other “morally wrong” things, but you (and Tito) will discredit the SOA mv’t for the same thing.

  • I don’t have it all figured out, the Church does.
    CCC 11:
    This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals…

    That a book exists which teaches the “essential and fundamental”s of Catholic doctrine regarding “faith and morals” means the Catholic Church has it “all” figured out? Why won’t the Church share their cures for cancer and AIDS with the rest of the world then? And in what chapter of the Catechism can we find that?

  • Michael I,
    Fr. Balasuriya (lifted after he renounced his position)

    His excommunication had nothing to do with liberation theology. It had to do with his (former) position on Mary.

    Really? The title of his condemned work is Mary and Human Liberation, so yes, it relates to Mary…However, the declaration listed errors related to difficulties with his form of liberation theology relating to original sin, the nature of Christ, the nature and necessity of the Church for salvation, Marian dogmas, and papal infallibility.

    If this is your area of study, and you are unaware of these things, that is a problem, I hope your professors don’t figure it out. If you are aware of them and yet try to obfuscate to support your position, that is something else.

    Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail how the doctrine of the Church is in disharmony with theology and morality.

    I didn’t say that they were in “disharmony.” I said that the terms are not equivalent. Thus, you asked if it was “morally wrong” to believe in women’s ordination. The Church obviously teaches it’s doctrinally wrong, but not that it’s morally wrong. The Church teaches a lot of things, but disagreeing with a particular teaching might not, in fact, be “morally” wrong.

    You are in serious and dangerous error here. The Church has declared infallibly that she has no authority to ordain women, that it is not a matter of discipline, but a matter of faith and morals universally taught by the ordinary magisterium. Doctrinal assertions with regard to faith and morals demand our intellectual assent, but not assent of faith, this is not one of those cases, it demands assent of faith, even if you do not understand why it is so.


    You didn’t answer my question about why you wouldn’t discredit the pro-lilfe movement, even though there are pro-life people who are for women’s ordination and other “morally wrong” things, but you (and Tito) will discredit the SOA mv’t for the same thing.

    Yes I did, SOA is an organization, pro-life is a movement. None of the pro-life groups I affiliate with have members publicly opposing the Church’s teachings.

    I don’t have it all figured out, the Church does.
    CCC 11:
    This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals…

    That a book exists which teaches the “essential and fundamental”s of Catholic doctrine regarding “faith and morals” means the Catholic Church has it “all” figured out? Why won’t the Church share their cures for cancer and AIDS with the rest of the world then? And in what chapter of the Catechism can we find that?

    The cures for AIDS? Well an ounce of prevention, which is covered in the Catechism is worth a pound of cure. As to cancer? She has done better… She has through the sacrifice of Our Lord cured death itself. This may sound like a smug turn of phrase, but I am precisely demonstrating that Michael I’s view of the Church’s mission is flawed and that drives many of his erroneous positions. The Last four things are Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell, worry more about preparing for these things and we can worry less about cancer and AIDS.

    Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3

    Matt
    ps. I’m noticing a common thread here on the relationship between rejecting Church teaching on women’s ordination and liberation theology, does anybody else see this?

  • Matt you are a nut case. Notice how I am the only one talking to you or acknowledging you exist? I think this blog’s contributors are distancing themselves from you.

  • Michael I,

    whenever you are unable to respond substantially you resort to such ad hominem nonsense. Really, grow up, be a man, and post like one. I know it can be frustrating that you can’t silence your critics here like you and your lefty buddies do on Vox Nova, but surely you can overcome this childishness.

  • Alright, well that’s enough of the Iafrate v. McDonald showdown for now. I probably should have stepped in sooner; at any rate, any subsequent back-and-forth between you two on this thread will be deleted.

  • May I have Matt’s email address?

  • Matt, you are welcome to continue your ridiculous comments in my email inbox.

One Response to Remembering Thomas Merton

2 Responses to American Catholic 2008

  • I love that video…

    there only 2 change would I would make

    1) is the last line…

    instead of “vote your conscience”, I would have said

    “inform your conscience”

    “and VOTE”

    2) I dislike the word “values” … I wish people would say “virtue” instead

  • Bret,

    I had the same issues with “vote your conscience” as well. First thing that popped in my head was have a well-formed conscience and vote.