Comments on: A Lesson in Graviora Delicta for the Church Haters

By: Feeney

Feeney — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:20:49 +0000

christine: * Thanks for your response. KeithToepfer has explained it better than I can. I wasn’t relying on religious belief. I was referring to the “natural moral law”, which precedes any laws that a legislative body might pass. The Supreme Court’s granting of a “right” to abortion offends against this higher law, because there can never be a right to destroy a child growing inside a woman’s womb. This so-called “right” is simply an illusion.

By: Amos

Amos — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:48:13 +0000

TomG – sorry to see the genra of satire lost to some….

Keith Toepfer – your comment comes as a welcome sense of relief to Biden, Pelosi, et al…

By: Keith Toepfer

Keith Toepfer — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:53:06 +0000

christine,

Not to be dismissive nor insulting, but Feeney’s reference to “ontology” rather rules out the question of legal rights. He is talking about moral rights, and, I suspect, he is doing so from a natural law perspective. Thus, under the natural law there is no such thing as a “right to abortion” or a same-gendered marriage. With the increasing influence of positive law during the past half century and more, it is more and more the case that the fact that a legislature establishes some practice as “legal” has less and less relation to whether the practice is moral.

Pax et bonum.

By: christine

christine — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:46:24 +0000

Dear Feeney: There is a legal right to abortion in this country. Several states do legally allow homosexuals to marry. These things do exist, even if some do not agree. Religious beliefs are not the same thing as legal rights.

By: Mike Melendez

Mike Melendez — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:27:07 +0000

I’m heard many arguments on the tone-deafness of the Vatican regards PR. The strongest, in my mind, comes from The Anchoress on this web site. Yet, I have difficulty with that idea. PR is a dangerous, if useful, tool for the Church to pursue. It seems to me that the origins of the sexual crisis were mainly exercises in PR. Had the Church stuck to its mission at the diocesan level, the erring priests might have been dealt with at the time rather than decades later. And the solution might have been of substance, removing them from ministry, rather than the current “Why weren’t they laicized?” as if that approach was some kind of magic. But that was a path not taken and its consequences can only be guessed at now. So I remain doubtful but not certain.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:49:03 +0000

miasarx:
Here’s why women cannot be priests: because the Mass is the sacrifice of the Bridegroom, Jesus, for the Bride, the Church.

If that’s the reason why women can’t be priests, then the same logic would seem to prevent men from being “the Bride, the Church.”

By: TomG

TomG — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:38:24 +0000

bob and Amos: read Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Dominus Iesus” (c. 2000). It’s “Church”, as in the Mystical Body of Christ. Also, He “gave Himself for us” (Titus 2:14). As is often pointed out, Catholicism is “both/and” not “either/or”. Hence, Trent AND Vatican II. “2010″, of course, is a meaningless number in terms of eternity.

By: Amos

Amos — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:46:46 +0000

Oh, I get it. Christ died only for Catholics. Thanks Miasarx!

By: bob

bob — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:23:03 +0000

Is Miasarx serious: the Mass is the sacrifice of he bridegroom for the bride? Is this 2010 or the Council of Trent?

By: JFM

JFM — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:18:47 +0000

You do your position no favor by assuming the worst motives on the part of those who disagree with you. I might even go so far as suggesting it is uncharitable. That said, Ms. Mangan got it right on the whole Polanski fiasco in the same essay, for what it’s worth. The Guardian newspaper is secular and treats all denominations (except Islam) with disdain. Stop playing the victim. Moreover by any standard the Vatican is tone deaf on the PR front.