[Sen. Barack] Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted.
14 comments :
This presidential candidate is a real threat to the security of our nation founded on Christian values. In conscience a Catholic cannot vote for this man. In conscience Catholics ought to leave the democratic party.
http://lasalettejourney.
blogspot.com/2007/06/
david-carlin-is-lifelong-democrat.html
Ellen Wironken
ewironken@yahoo.com
Speaking of life issues, an individual identifying himself or herself as "proud alum" has been having a debate with Richard Blanchard regarding artificial contraception and left the following response:
"Yes--and to explain elementary Catholic doctrine to you again, matters are not infallibly decided (and therefore open to debate) unless they are
1. ex cathedra teachings or
2. from a church council or
3. part of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Without consensus, this is not magiesterial teaching.
You know I'm right, you just don't like it. You also know that the Pope cannot say that this has been infallibly decided unless he wants to unleash his ex cathedra authority and he is not going to do that."
Actually, proud alum couldn't be more wrong on this matter. There are two reasons why Catholics should believe that contraception is always wrong. First, the Church teaches it. Indeed, because the Church has proposed this teaching constantly and most firmly, her infallibility in day-to-day teaching on matters of faith and morals would guarantee it (see CMP, 35.D-E). Second, in his work on the theology of the body, Pope John Paul II has provided careful analyses of the relevant scriptural data and drawn the conclusion that the moral norm excluding contraception “belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God: also from this point of view, it could not be different, but solely what is handed down by Tradition and the Magisterium.” (John Paul II, General Audience, (18 July 1984).
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI precisely reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching on contraception, and in doing so he referred explicitly to Pope Pius XI’s universal proposition (see Humanae Vitae, No. 11 (“quilibet matrimonii usus” - “each and every marriage act”). To avoid seeming to confuse grave matter with mortal sin, he does not repeat Pius XI’s “stain of a grave wrong” (Casti connubbi). Still, he nowhere denies it. Therefore, one reasonably interprets what he does say as including a reaffirmation of previous teaching that contraception always is grave matter.
Grisez tells us that “Two further considerations support this interpretation, first, in his pastoral exhortation to married couples in Humanae Vitae, Paul VI not only urges them to seek strength in prayer and the Eucharist, but exhorts them to make use of the sacrament of penance (Humanae Vitae, No. 25). Since only mortal sins must be confessed, this exhortation suggests that Paul VI considered contraception a grave matter and assumed that it ordinarily is a mortal sin even for those struggling to avoid it.”
I attempted to post this at the HCCNS website unsuccessfully. Hope it helps.
Pax Christi,
Paul
Richard, thank you for your kind note at the HCCNS website. You, Jay and an individual named Frank have been doing great work at that forum.
For some reason, I still cannot post there. But thanks for passing along my meager contribution.
God bless,
Paul.
Paul, you are very welcome. I also have difficulty in posting every now and then on HCCNS
What's the url for HCCNS?
Jerry, here it is.
http://www.hccns.org/
I suspect that Proud alum over at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website has a flawed understanding of infallibility. Vatican II declared that there is such a thing as collegial infallibility, when the Bishops in union with Rome agree on some doctrine of faith or morals.
The Bishops of the Church, in union with Rome, agreed on the following at Vatican II: "..when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law."
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI carried this teaching a step farther, to the Natural Law. He explained that their inerrancy extends also to matters that belong to the Natural Law: "No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the Natural Moral Law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared, that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the Apostles his divine authority and sending them to teach all nations his commandments, constituted them guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the Natural Law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation." (Humanae Vitae, 1, 4).
As I mentioned earlier, "There are two reasons why Catholics should believe that contraception is always wrong. First, the Church teaches it. Indeed, because the Church has proposed this teaching constantly and most firmly, her infallibility in day-to-day teaching on matters of faith and morals would guarantee it (see CMP, 35.D-E). Second, in his work on the theology of the body, Pope John Paul II has provided careful analyses of the relevant scriptural data and drawn the conclusion that the moral norm excluding contraception “belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God: also from this point of view, it could not be different, but solely what is handed down by Tradition and the Magisterium.”
By insisting that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is not infallible, Proud alum is rejecting the perennial doctrine of the Church on artificial contraception. Pope Paul VI was teaching anythng new. He was merely reaffirming this perennial doctrine.
Pray for this angry and confused soul. I say angry because this individual lashed out at me for merely stating this truth.
God love you,
Paul.
Errata:
The above should read, "Pope Paul VI was not teaching anything new. He was merely reaffirming this perennial doctrine."
Paul.
Paul, you are right. That dissenter, Proud alum, has a flawed conception of infallibility. Naturally, he will not be able to see this truth since he has denied his disciple-ship with the Lord. And once again, thank you for your input. Are you still having a problem posting on hccns?
Thanks Richard. It's touch and go I guess. I was able to post the one time now I cannot. My dad used to tell me that no matter how eloquently I might put something (and I'm not claiming to be especially eloquent here, believe me) there would always be some who flat out rejected what I had to say, no matter how convincing the argument.
Good old dad. He always was much wiser than me. I'm learning. Boy, am I learning.
Pax Christi,
Paul.
Hi,
Does this blog have any connection with Richard B from the HC site? I noticed that it was started by a Richard B. I left the following response at the HC site but apparently I am now being banned as I used to be able to post there. I wonder if this because I am a HC student and it would be deemed "too scandalous" for some?
My response to Richard B:
I graduate next year from HC. I have visited this site in the past but never posted. It seems like nothing will ever be accomplished dialoguing with dissenters. They are not open to truth and will keep dismissing anything you say. Just my opinion. I think it would be easier to whittle down Mt. Everest with a shrimp fork than to get the dissenters who frequent this site to admit they are wrong about anything.
Some people are content with remaining ignorant. They revel in it. Like Lucifer, pride is their downfall. They will not - they can not - accept anything that has the character of coming from above. This would remind them they are not God but merely creatures who are totally dependent upon God for anything and everything.
And that, to them, is intolerable."
I noticed that Richard has also had this problem.....comments being censored.
Richard,
Thanks for alerting me to what Proud alum is saying about me at the HCCNS website. If Proud alum wants some background on me, he or she has merely to do a Google search of "Father Feeney Wikipedia."
I will, of course, pray for this angry soul. I will also give thanks: Matthew 5: 11,12.
Just yesterday I received another piece of hate mail for my opposition to Fr. Feeney's distorted theology and the rabid anti-Semitism of some of his followers.
Jesus be praised!
God love you,
Paul
This person should have refrained from attacking or questioning Paul Melanson's character at that forum, especially without sufficient facts.
His post is most unfortunate and represents an attempt to harm another's reputation within the context of a public forum. He should probably avail himself of a sacramental confession.
If this person really wants to know what sort of person Mr. Melanson is, he should ask Mary Richardson of the television program Chronicle and the program's producer Mr. Clint Conley. Mr. Melanson was interviewed for a piece on the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire because of his expertise on the theological points involved and because he has had the courage to teach the Church's truth regarding salvation for non-Catholics.
This alumnus of Holy Cross not the only one who has slandered Mr. Melanson. Stormfront (a well known nation-wide White Supremacist hate group) has slandered him as well. Paul has also and received threats against his life.
How very sad.
Post a Comment