Coercing Consciences
Dec 7, 2011
George Weigel
During his homily at the Mass pro eligendo Romano Pontifice [for the election of the Roman Pontiff] on April 18, 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger cautioned his fellow-cardinals that John Paul II’s successor would have to deal with an emerging “dictatorship of relativism” throughout the western world: the use of coercive state power to impose an agenda of dramatic moral deconstruction on all of society.
Some Catholic commentators charged that Ratzinger’s warning was so over-the-top that he could never be elected pope. Others thought the formula “dictatorship of relativism” a neat summary of a grave threat to freedom and believed that a man with the courage to call things by their true names would make a fine pontiff.
Recent events throughout the western world have fully vindicated the latter.
In Canada, evangelical pastors have been assessed heavy monetary fines for preaching the Gospel truth about the ethics of love and marriage. In Poland, the priest-editor of a major Catholic magazine was convicted of violating a complainant’s human rights and assessed a heavy fine because he described abortion for what it is: the willful taking of an innocent human life. In the United States, health care providers and others involved in the health care system (including employers and insurers) are threatened by the dictatorship of relativism in the guise of the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, as the bishops of the United States have warned.
And then there is Australia, which I recently visited on a 10-day lecture tour.
A summary of opinion polling published in the Australian edition of The Week suggests that Aussies are, well, distinctive. More Australians believe in “human-induced climate change” than believe in God; yet 20 percent more of the folks living Down Under believe in angels than believe in evolution. Go figure.
Amidst the post-modern confusions, however, Australia is like the rest of the West in that the proponents of “marriage equality” are at the forefront of efforts to impose the dictatorship of relativism, in this instance from Perth to Sydney and at all points in between. Moreover, their rhetoric has become brazenly Orwellian. Thus when Prime Minister Julia Gillard (an avowed atheist who makes Nancy Pelosi seem like Margaret Thatcher) nonetheless announced that a “gay marriage” proposal would get a “conscience vote” in the federal parliament, she was accused by her lefter-than-left opponents of being … undemocratic.
For those unfamiliar with Westminster systems, most parliamentary votes are, as the British say, subject to the party whip: that is, members are expected to vote with the party leadership and are subject to severe retribution (such as being “de-certified” as a party-supported candidate at the next election) if they resist the whip. By contrast, a “conscience vote” is one in which parliamentarians may vote as they like (for reasons of conscience, or what they deem political expedience, or both). But according to Senator Gavin Marshall, chairman of the “Left federal parliamentary Labor Party caucus,” writing in The Age, Gillard’s decision to allow a “conscience vote” on “gay marriage” is “not democratic,” because it “exposes individual parliamentarians to powerful conservative lobby groups” and the retrograde opinions of those “stubbornly opposed to all social reforms.”
Imagine that: defenseless “individual parliamentarians” having to contend with deeply held (and often religiously informed) moral convictions. What will those nasty, unscrupulous opponents of “social reform” think of next?
George Orwell—our great pathologist of debauched political speech—would have gagged at Senator Marshall’s op-ed piece. A coerced whip-line vote that imposes a radical and philosophically incoherent agenda on a country not at all sure it wants to go down that road is “democratic,” whereas a free vote on whether the state can re-define a basic human institution at its whim is undemocratic? Please.
If Senator Marshall is right, then the word “democratic” means nothing but willfulness manifest through legislation. That the willfulness in question is based on a deeply confused relativism about right and wrong, and that it chooses to impose itself through coercive state power, only underscores the point Joseph Ratzinger was making in 2005.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
12.7.2011 | 10:06am
bill bannon says:
Hmmm. But the Church right now coerces conscience as to those professors of theology and philosophy who must by canon law (833) swear to affirm the non definitive teachings of the magisterium in the last paragraph of the profession of faith. Cardinal Newman pointed out that the magisterium as a whole was erroneous on Incarnation issues during the 4th century....including one Pope. Athanasius and the laity held up the real Church position. Now we have an oath that would have made Athanasius' life even harder in the 4th century....and his very appearance less likely....and it would have made Bishop Bartolome de Las Casas' dissent against new native slavery less likely and Paul III might not have countermanded his predecessors on that issue in 1537.
We are telling the world coercion in conscience is wrong but the world senses group think and conscience pressure in us when e.g. only non paid Catholics on the internet maintain an affirmation of the death penalty and paid Catholic do not.
Moral relativism anyone?
We are telling the world coercion in conscience is wrong but the world senses group think and conscience pressure in us when e.g. only non paid Catholics on the internet maintain an affirmation of the death penalty and paid Catholic do not.
Moral relativism anyone?
12.7.2011 | 10:29am
Randy says:
It goes right to how one wants to define God--All-loving Father of Creation, or just the main character in an over-hyped fairytale. If God is All-loving Father of Creation, then you have to accept and promote His rules, even if you fail to follow them yourself. For a lot of people, and many in power, that's extremely inconvenient. And, that's today's version of a sin--causing shame or inconvenience. If I've delayed your same-sex marriage, then I'm the one who's sinned.
12.7.2011 | 11:13am
PeterG says:
Bill bannon,
Didn’t I see you on that same pony a moment ago doing that same trick?
I would like to read something new from you soon, or I will suspect that that one-trick pony has purchased the farm, yet you carry on in beating it.
Didn’t I see you on that same pony a moment ago doing that same trick?
I would like to read something new from you soon, or I will suspect that that one-trick pony has purchased the farm, yet you carry on in beating it.
12.7.2011 | 1:05pm
bill bannon says:
Peter G
It's not all about you. People who did not read the other article as you did are blessed today by my reformulation of it...the Newman thing only hit me last night.. There could be brand new people to reading this site today. That's why Benedict repeats his hermeneutic of continuity idea here and there. There are new readers on new occasions. Maybe you should tell him to stop because PeterG has heard him. But PeterG actually can avoid reading me and Benedict....it's called "skipping past" reading matter once you see the name of the author....unless you like the indignation feeling.
But it's only twice on the net that you've seen that idea against the oath...yet I'm sure you'll reread "Christians as victims of Islam" articles or whatever draws you in particular...repeatedly. Am I correct? In other words, you are protesting a repetition but you are really mad at the actual content...because repetition of content that pleases you probably is never mentioned by you.
It's not all about you. People who did not read the other article as you did are blessed today by my reformulation of it...the Newman thing only hit me last night.. There could be brand new people to reading this site today. That's why Benedict repeats his hermeneutic of continuity idea here and there. There are new readers on new occasions. Maybe you should tell him to stop because PeterG has heard him. But PeterG actually can avoid reading me and Benedict....it's called "skipping past" reading matter once you see the name of the author....unless you like the indignation feeling.
But it's only twice on the net that you've seen that idea against the oath...yet I'm sure you'll reread "Christians as victims of Islam" articles or whatever draws you in particular...repeatedly. Am I correct? In other words, you are protesting a repetition but you are really mad at the actual content...because repetition of content that pleases you probably is never mentioned by you.
12.7.2011 | 1:11pm
Felapton says:
Totalitarianism does not (invariably) attempt to destroy the Church or reduce her to submission. Franco was one of the best friends the Church had in the twentieth century and Pinochet wasn't far behind.
The world economy has been disintegrating for four years. How many synaptic discharges do you want to waste worrying about "gay marriage?" Me, zero.
The world economy has been disintegrating for four years. How many synaptic discharges do you want to waste worrying about "gay marriage?" Me, zero.
12.7.2011 | 1:55pm
harry says:
"Cardinal Newman pointed out that the magisterium as a whole was erroneous on Incarnation issues during the 4th century....including one Pope. Athanasius and the laity held up the real Church position."
There is no consensus among historians that Pope Liberius freely embraced or freely proclaimed the Arian heresy as Catholic doctrine. See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
There are accounts of forgery and coercion regarding Liberius' supposed support of the Arian heresy. If a Catholic believes that the official teaching of the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit according to the promises of Christ (as Catholics should) then one must assume Liberius never freely, without being coerced by torture of some kind or another, proclaimed the Arian heresy as official Church doctrine, if he ever did so at all.
It is easy to spin Church history to make things look the way you want. For Catholics, attempting to prove what amounts to the Church having officially taught doctrinal error, is to attempt to prove either that Christ doesn't keep His promises or that the Holy Spirit made a mistake. There is a difference between Church policy and official Church teaching. What Christ said of those who sat in Chair of Moses has often applied to those in the Chair of Peter as well:
“All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”
Christ said: "He who hears you hears Me," not "He who sees what you do sees what I would have done."
As for the Church being “coercive,” I think it needs to be loud and clear about proclaiming the errors of those who, pretending to speak in the name of the Church, make statements that are heretical. Some people will call that “coercion” but it isn't. It is safeguarding the truth which they have a responsibility to the flock to do. The Church also needs to loudly proclaim to the flock that when Caesar has demanded of them that which which belongs only to God, they must render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, but never that which belongs only to God. There is indeed a time when we must "obey God rather than men."
There is no consensus among historians that Pope Liberius freely embraced or freely proclaimed the Arian heresy as Catholic doctrine. See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
There are accounts of forgery and coercion regarding Liberius' supposed support of the Arian heresy. If a Catholic believes that the official teaching of the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit according to the promises of Christ (as Catholics should) then one must assume Liberius never freely, without being coerced by torture of some kind or another, proclaimed the Arian heresy as official Church doctrine, if he ever did so at all.
It is easy to spin Church history to make things look the way you want. For Catholics, attempting to prove what amounts to the Church having officially taught doctrinal error, is to attempt to prove either that Christ doesn't keep His promises or that the Holy Spirit made a mistake. There is a difference between Church policy and official Church teaching. What Christ said of those who sat in Chair of Moses has often applied to those in the Chair of Peter as well:
“All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”
Christ said: "He who hears you hears Me," not "He who sees what you do sees what I would have done."
As for the Church being “coercive,” I think it needs to be loud and clear about proclaiming the errors of those who, pretending to speak in the name of the Church, make statements that are heretical. Some people will call that “coercion” but it isn't. It is safeguarding the truth which they have a responsibility to the flock to do. The Church also needs to loudly proclaim to the flock that when Caesar has demanded of them that which which belongs only to God, they must render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, but never that which belongs only to God. There is indeed a time when we must "obey God rather than men."
12.7.2011 | 2:03pm
arty says:
You don't have to agree with the marriage redefinition crowd to entertain suspicions that "the word “democratic” means nothing but willfulness manifest through legislation" is exactly correct. not that "democracy" has to mean this, don't get me wrong, but I think it is becoming increasingly clear that in practice, this is what democracy does in fact mean, in our contemporary existence. Maybe it is just that a brief stint living in Vegas a few years ago left me with the impression that I'm living in Rome in 475, but as far as I can see, the barbarians are at the gates, and I'm not hopeful that they will lose.
When I'm 80, I hope I'll look back and have been wrong, but I think Rieff was right, that democracy is just as capable of totalitarianism as totalitarianism ever was.
When I'm 80, I hope I'll look back and have been wrong, but I think Rieff was right, that democracy is just as capable of totalitarianism as totalitarianism ever was.
12.7.2011 | 2:12pm
mcasey says:
By any accepted definition, a dictatorship occurs when one person, or tiny group, has full, autocratic control over the government or leadership of a group or society. Most dictatorships are marked by a fierce obsession with orthodoxy, lest the ideas of the supreme leader be questioned by a thinking populous and potentially shown as invalid, and a paranoid habit of accusing any dissenters of attempting their own dictatorship. The leader can be elected (Hitler), or just grab control (Castro). There are only a handful of such people/groups in the world that currently fit that definition, but the Catholic Church, behind China, is the largest.
Conversely, the big, motley collection of people who might agree to principles of relativism (whatever they are) are about as opposite the definition of dictatorship as one can semantically imagine. There is no single leader, just some people who agree about things. No group of powerful, secret individuals. No orthodoxy, nor fear of free thought. No attempt to make sure followers toe the official line. In short, nothing that would qualify such thinking as a dictatorship. One would hope a man as sharp as Pope Benedict would be aware of such subtleties. If disagreement makes you fear dictatorship, perhaps it is time to look in the mirror.
Conversely, the big, motley collection of people who might agree to principles of relativism (whatever they are) are about as opposite the definition of dictatorship as one can semantically imagine. There is no single leader, just some people who agree about things. No group of powerful, secret individuals. No orthodoxy, nor fear of free thought. No attempt to make sure followers toe the official line. In short, nothing that would qualify such thinking as a dictatorship. One would hope a man as sharp as Pope Benedict would be aware of such subtleties. If disagreement makes you fear dictatorship, perhaps it is time to look in the mirror.
12.7.2011 | 2:35pm
Randy says:
Felapton,
A child of God rots from their disobedience (to Him) down. That's where "gay marriage" enters in. One can repent of gay sexual experiences, and should. But planning a lifetime of sin is where everything in life starts to break down. Enter in to same-sex marriage, and you're indicating that the divorce from God is final. That never ends well. And if you happen to be in government, or banking, it might even lead to stealing, or wasting other people's money. Why not? That's on the same road--the wide one, not the narrow one. If you're a committed believing Christian, defying God is a big thing, a dangerous thing. Not a small thing.
A child of God rots from their disobedience (to Him) down. That's where "gay marriage" enters in. One can repent of gay sexual experiences, and should. But planning a lifetime of sin is where everything in life starts to break down. Enter in to same-sex marriage, and you're indicating that the divorce from God is final. That never ends well. And if you happen to be in government, or banking, it might even lead to stealing, or wasting other people's money. Why not? That's on the same road--the wide one, not the narrow one. If you're a committed believing Christian, defying God is a big thing, a dangerous thing. Not a small thing.
12.7.2011 | 2:51pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
Non definitive teachings have no connection to heresy. Check Ed Peters decades long diary of actual Vatican heresy condemnations...they only involve de fide areas. The new oath produces lemmings in the non definitive areas. The new abolish the death penalty campaign of Benedict and Bishops puts inmates lives at risk since gang murders within prison by gang lifers cannot be further punished beyond life and solitary is desired by some inmates. Lifers killed Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer within modern penology.
As to the Holy Spirit's guidance and Popes, I know that is more complex than you or a dogmatic theologian could define in a combox. Can you have it at all when just a signature is in question? It was not present when Pope Leo X condemned Luther's opposition to burning heretics as "against the Catholic faith" in Exsurge Domine in 1520. Implicitly "Splendor of the Truth" section 80 sides now with Luther and against Exsurge Domine since burning at the stake involves torture to the max.
Church historians? They now have Sec. of the Inquisition, Juan Antonio Llorente's 31K executed in the Spanish Inquisition down to a few thousand.
Maybe true....unless they get down to a few hundred twenty years from now.
Then even hyper papal people should question the vector's direction.
Non definitive teachings have no connection to heresy. Check Ed Peters decades long diary of actual Vatican heresy condemnations...they only involve de fide areas. The new oath produces lemmings in the non definitive areas. The new abolish the death penalty campaign of Benedict and Bishops puts inmates lives at risk since gang murders within prison by gang lifers cannot be further punished beyond life and solitary is desired by some inmates. Lifers killed Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer within modern penology.
As to the Holy Spirit's guidance and Popes, I know that is more complex than you or a dogmatic theologian could define in a combox. Can you have it at all when just a signature is in question? It was not present when Pope Leo X condemned Luther's opposition to burning heretics as "against the Catholic faith" in Exsurge Domine in 1520. Implicitly "Splendor of the Truth" section 80 sides now with Luther and against Exsurge Domine since burning at the stake involves torture to the max.
Church historians? They now have Sec. of the Inquisition, Juan Antonio Llorente's 31K executed in the Spanish Inquisition down to a few thousand.
Maybe true....unless they get down to a few hundred twenty years from now.
Then even hyper papal people should question the vector's direction.
12.7.2011 | 3:12pm
Michael PS says:
Felapton
Fanco's and Pinochet's vision of the Church was very similar to that of Charles Maurras's, as described by Maurice Blondel - “A Catholicism without Christianity, a submissiveness without thought, an authority without love, a Church that would rejoice at the insulting tributes paid to the virtuosity of her interpretative and repressive system... To accept all from God except God, all from Christ except His Spirit, to preserve in Catholicism only a residue that is aristocratic and soothing for the privileged and beguiling or threatening for the lower classes—is not all this, under the pretext perhaps of thinking only about religion, really a matter of pursuing only politics?"
Fanco's and Pinochet's vision of the Church was very similar to that of Charles Maurras's, as described by Maurice Blondel - “A Catholicism without Christianity, a submissiveness without thought, an authority without love, a Church that would rejoice at the insulting tributes paid to the virtuosity of her interpretative and repressive system... To accept all from God except God, all from Christ except His Spirit, to preserve in Catholicism only a residue that is aristocratic and soothing for the privileged and beguiling or threatening for the lower classes—is not all this, under the pretext perhaps of thinking only about religion, really a matter of pursuing only politics?"
12.7.2011 | 3:19pm
harry says:
Hi, mcasey,
“In defending her own freedom, the Church is also defending the human person.”
– JP II
The Church insists on the inalienable rights of humanity, like the right to life and liberty, including religious liberty. This is not the mark of a dictatorship. China has all the marks of a dictatorship. Far from respecting the inalienable rights of humanity its agents hunt down pregnant women and forcibly abort them. China, like all the atheistic dictatorships of modern history, has killed millions of innocent human beings. I am not sure where you are coming from, but here on planet Earth it is possible to distinguish between dictatorships practicing brutal, lethal, godless social engineering and those institutions insisting on the inalienable rights of humanity, chief of which is the Catholic Church.
“In defending her own freedom, the Church is also defending the human person.”
– JP II
The Church insists on the inalienable rights of humanity, like the right to life and liberty, including religious liberty. This is not the mark of a dictatorship. China has all the marks of a dictatorship. Far from respecting the inalienable rights of humanity its agents hunt down pregnant women and forcibly abort them. China, like all the atheistic dictatorships of modern history, has killed millions of innocent human beings. I am not sure where you are coming from, but here on planet Earth it is possible to distinguish between dictatorships practicing brutal, lethal, godless social engineering and those institutions insisting on the inalienable rights of humanity, chief of which is the Catholic Church.
12.7.2011 | 3:40pm
Mes says:
"... The new abolish the death penalty campaign of Benedict and Bishops puts inmates lives at risk since gang murders within prison by gang lifers cannot be further punished beyond life and solitary is desired by some inmates..."
So you are in favor of putting them to death, yes? In favor of executing a prisoner because he may hypothetically be inclined to commit a crime at some point in the future? Because, if there is no immediate risk, large risk of escape, or ability to continue criminal activity from within the prison, there is really no justification for capital punishment within Catholic tradition.
So you are in favor of putting them to death, yes? In favor of executing a prisoner because he may hypothetically be inclined to commit a crime at some point in the future? Because, if there is no immediate risk, large risk of escape, or ability to continue criminal activity from within the prison, there is really no justification for capital punishment within Catholic tradition.
12.7.2011 | 3:54pm
harry says:
Hi, bill bannon,
So are you saying Christ doesn't keep His promises or that the Holy Spirit makes mistakes? ;o)
The whole idea of Catholicism is that we can trust the Church (the Body of Christ, which is not a corpse but a living body animated by a spirit -- the Holy Spirit) to preserve and proclaim for all time that which makes up the deposit of faith, received by the Apostles from Christ and preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit, Who deepens our understanding of it over time, but doesn't ever reverse it or contradict it.
Yes there has been sin in the Church on the part of Church officials. Christ Himself hand picked twelve guys and one of them turned out to be Judas Iscariot. We can't expect to do any better.
So are you saying Christ doesn't keep His promises or that the Holy Spirit makes mistakes? ;o)
The whole idea of Catholicism is that we can trust the Church (the Body of Christ, which is not a corpse but a living body animated by a spirit -- the Holy Spirit) to preserve and proclaim for all time that which makes up the deposit of faith, received by the Apostles from Christ and preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit, Who deepens our understanding of it over time, but doesn't ever reverse it or contradict it.
Yes there has been sin in the Church on the part of Church officials. Christ Himself hand picked twelve guys and one of them turned out to be Judas Iscariot. We can't expect to do any better.
12.7.2011 | 4:29pm
bill bannon says:
Mes
I favor putting a life sentence murderer who then murders again in prison to death.
That was a no brainer for most Popes from the year 1253 til 1952. Try Romans 13:4. Because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it just might have more cache on judgement day than the non definitive sections on the death penalty in EV....just might. And it is not about protecting anyone explicitly but about executing God's wrath...a topic presaged in Romans 12:19.
Your list of hindrances to execution in the Catholic tradition is an internet myth.
Google: Bugatti Papal Executioner Wiki. From 1796 til 1865 the papal executioner,
Giovanni Battista Bugatti executed 516 criminals in the papal states. You would have us believe that the papacy did that because the papacy could not prevent 516 men from escaping/ being an immediate risk/ or continuing criminal activity in the papal prisons of the papal lands which encompassed all of central Italy.
I favor putting a life sentence murderer who then murders again in prison to death.
That was a no brainer for most Popes from the year 1253 til 1952. Try Romans 13:4. Because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it just might have more cache on judgement day than the non definitive sections on the death penalty in EV....just might. And it is not about protecting anyone explicitly but about executing God's wrath...a topic presaged in Romans 12:19.
Your list of hindrances to execution in the Catholic tradition is an internet myth.
Google: Bugatti Papal Executioner Wiki. From 1796 til 1865 the papal executioner,
Giovanni Battista Bugatti executed 516 criminals in the papal states. You would have us believe that the papacy did that because the papacy could not prevent 516 men from escaping/ being an immediate risk/ or continuing criminal activity in the papal prisons of the papal lands which encompassed all of central Italy.
12.7.2011 | 5:00pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
I had 16 years of Catholic school. Dogmatics escapes your shorthand avuncular
version of same. Here is Ludwig Ott from the Introduction to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (online) showing infallibility (which implies perfect guidnce by the Holy Spirit) to cover less than many on the net believe since many on the net are converts.....it wouldn't surprise me if half the bloggers are converts.
" With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error."
In short even in morals according to Ott who was THE dogmatic source for generations of Catholic priests...even in morals the Holy Spirit is only guaranteed where there is infallibility which covers abortion by the way (sect.62 of EV with the infallibility word formula in that case and euthanasia's case and one other) and from the Holy Spirit is every biblical injunction since they are inerrant.
I had 16 years of Catholic school. Dogmatics escapes your shorthand avuncular
version of same. Here is Ludwig Ott from the Introduction to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (online) showing infallibility (which implies perfect guidnce by the Holy Spirit) to cover less than many on the net believe since many on the net are converts.....it wouldn't surprise me if half the bloggers are converts.
" With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error."
In short even in morals according to Ott who was THE dogmatic source for generations of Catholic priests...even in morals the Holy Spirit is only guaranteed where there is infallibility which covers abortion by the way (sect.62 of EV with the infallibility word formula in that case and euthanasia's case and one other) and from the Holy Spirit is every biblical injunction since they are inerrant.
12.7.2011 | 6:17pm
harry says:
Hi, bill bannon,
The infallibility of the Church, in more detail than most Catholics care to know about, can be studied at the links found on the following web page:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/infallibility.asp
In its essense, the infallibility of the Church springs from the Holy Spirit being present in the Church. Consider the following from the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy's *General Catechetical Directory*, the purpose of which, the document asserts, is to, "provide the basic principles of pastoral theology—these principles have been taken from the Magisterium of the Church, and in a special way from the Second Genera! Vatican Council—by which pastoral action in the ministry of the word can be more fittingly directed and governed. This explains why the theoretical aspect is given primary emphasis in this Directory, although, as will be evident, the practical aspect is by no means neglected. Such a course of action was adopted especially for the following reason: the errors which are not infrequently noted in catechetics today can be avoided only if one starts with the correct way of understanding the nature and purposes of catechesis and also the truths which are to be taught by it, with due account being taken of those to whom catechesis is directed and of the conditions in which they live."
HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS TO BE OBSERVED IN CATECHESIS
In the message of salvation there is a certain hierarchy of truths, which the Church has always recognised when it composed creeds or summaries of the truths of faith. This hierarchy does not mean that some truths pertain to faith itself less than others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higher priority, and are illumined by them.
On all levels catechesis should take account of this hierarchy of the truths of faith. These truths may be grouped under four basic heads:
-- the mystery of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Creator of ail things;
-- the mystery of Christ the incarnate Word, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and who suffered, died, and rose for our salvation;
-- ** the mystery of the Holy Spirit, WHO IS PRESENT IN THE CHURCH, sanctifying it and guiding it until the glorious coming of Christ, our Savior and Judge; **
-- and the mystery of the Church, which is Christ’s Mystical Body, in which the Virgin Mary holds the pre-eminent place.
The infallibility of the Church, in more detail than most Catholics care to know about, can be studied at the links found on the following web page:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/infallibility.asp
In its essense, the infallibility of the Church springs from the Holy Spirit being present in the Church. Consider the following from the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy's *General Catechetical Directory*, the purpose of which, the document asserts, is to, "provide the basic principles of pastoral theology—these principles have been taken from the Magisterium of the Church, and in a special way from the Second Genera! Vatican Council—by which pastoral action in the ministry of the word can be more fittingly directed and governed. This explains why the theoretical aspect is given primary emphasis in this Directory, although, as will be evident, the practical aspect is by no means neglected. Such a course of action was adopted especially for the following reason: the errors which are not infrequently noted in catechetics today can be avoided only if one starts with the correct way of understanding the nature and purposes of catechesis and also the truths which are to be taught by it, with due account being taken of those to whom catechesis is directed and of the conditions in which they live."
HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS TO BE OBSERVED IN CATECHESIS
In the message of salvation there is a certain hierarchy of truths, which the Church has always recognised when it composed creeds or summaries of the truths of faith. This hierarchy does not mean that some truths pertain to faith itself less than others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higher priority, and are illumined by them.
On all levels catechesis should take account of this hierarchy of the truths of faith. These truths may be grouped under four basic heads:
-- the mystery of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Creator of ail things;
-- the mystery of Christ the incarnate Word, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and who suffered, died, and rose for our salvation;
-- ** the mystery of the Holy Spirit, WHO IS PRESENT IN THE CHURCH, sanctifying it and guiding it until the glorious coming of Christ, our Savior and Judge; **
-- and the mystery of the Church, which is Christ’s Mystical Body, in which the Virgin Mary holds the pre-eminent place.
12.7.2011 | 8:12pm
Felapton says:
Hi Randy.
Abortion is tragedy; gay marriage is farce. The "gay marriage" fad will pass away of its own absurdity, just as pet rocks did. The very anthropology behind the movement is nonsense. There are no "gay people" and (pace Lady Gaga) nobody is "born that way," anymore than people are born smokers or litterers. That rhetoric is a transparent effort to co-opt the authenticity and credibility of the civil rights movement.
Even where it is permitted, there will be very few "gay marriages" and those which are contracted are destined to fall apart as quickly and frequently as other gay relationships do. In fact, support for the movement is largely heterosexual. It is driven, financially and rhetorically, by people whose main interest is in discrediting all restrictions on the marital act: purveyors of pornography, politicians who do not want their live-in girlfriends or extra-marital affairs to adversely affect their electability, teenagers protesting parental disapprobation of their sexual activities, etc.
Making it an issue in a national campaign is like classifying the nerf ball as a nuclear weapon.
Abortion is tragedy; gay marriage is farce. The "gay marriage" fad will pass away of its own absurdity, just as pet rocks did. The very anthropology behind the movement is nonsense. There are no "gay people" and (pace Lady Gaga) nobody is "born that way," anymore than people are born smokers or litterers. That rhetoric is a transparent effort to co-opt the authenticity and credibility of the civil rights movement.
Even where it is permitted, there will be very few "gay marriages" and those which are contracted are destined to fall apart as quickly and frequently as other gay relationships do. In fact, support for the movement is largely heterosexual. It is driven, financially and rhetorically, by people whose main interest is in discrediting all restrictions on the marital act: purveyors of pornography, politicians who do not want their live-in girlfriends or extra-marital affairs to adversely affect their electability, teenagers protesting parental disapprobation of their sexual activities, etc.
Making it an issue in a national campaign is like classifying the nerf ball as a nuclear weapon.
12.7.2011 | 8:34pm
Gil Costello says:
One of the many great miracles of the past 2000 years is that Peter's battered and bruised ship, from within and without, keeps sailing on course, safe as ever, as promised.
12.8.2011 | 3:12pm
Mes says:
@ Bill Bannon
Your interpretation of Romans 13:4 is irrelevant. In this matter, the Church has publicly staked Her claim. The death penalty, in our society, is almost always impermissible.
Unless there is a strong, compelling reason relating to the inability of the authorities to control the incarcerated, there is no justification for ending his life. For instance, the act of killing another man in self defense can be justifiable. If you shoot an attacker who is trying to end your life, your intent is (or, ideally, should be) to stop him from doing so. Your intent is not, per se, to end his life. What is your intent, in this case, when executing the criminal? To punish, or to directly prevent immediate harm?
If you say the killer careening towards his victim, shank in hand, it may be permissible to shoot him in an attempt to prevent his attack (i.e. prevent the potential victim's bodily harm or death). If the killer is standing against the wall, hands cuffed, the victim cordoned off, it is unacceptable to walk over, kneel him down, and administer a bullet to the back of his head. Really, this is the choice that must be made. Once you begin permitting men to kill others as payment for their deeds, we are really left only to quibble over where we should draw the line, for what should we execute. This is, I think obviously, unacceptable.
If you are in favor of taking a man's life as payment, retribution, for his crime, then we will just have to disagree. I do not believe in that. The proper use of violence is only found within a strict, sometimes unreasonable, framework of necessity and defense (the prevention of harm), not retribution of revenge.
Lastly, I found your interpretation of Romans 12:9 interesting. You mean to say that when God proclaims that He will one day have vengeance, He really means that He is employing several proxies? In that case, perhaps we should attempt to modify our economic theories to incorporate the effect of an unexpected positive flux of what are surely highly rewarding (though likely lacking substantial monetary compensation) jobs, available to what we would all agree are extremely under qualified workers. Seems even His duties are susceptible to outsourcing.
Your interpretation of Romans 13:4 is irrelevant. In this matter, the Church has publicly staked Her claim. The death penalty, in our society, is almost always impermissible.
Unless there is a strong, compelling reason relating to the inability of the authorities to control the incarcerated, there is no justification for ending his life. For instance, the act of killing another man in self defense can be justifiable. If you shoot an attacker who is trying to end your life, your intent is (or, ideally, should be) to stop him from doing so. Your intent is not, per se, to end his life. What is your intent, in this case, when executing the criminal? To punish, or to directly prevent immediate harm?
If you say the killer careening towards his victim, shank in hand, it may be permissible to shoot him in an attempt to prevent his attack (i.e. prevent the potential victim's bodily harm or death). If the killer is standing against the wall, hands cuffed, the victim cordoned off, it is unacceptable to walk over, kneel him down, and administer a bullet to the back of his head. Really, this is the choice that must be made. Once you begin permitting men to kill others as payment for their deeds, we are really left only to quibble over where we should draw the line, for what should we execute. This is, I think obviously, unacceptable.
If you are in favor of taking a man's life as payment, retribution, for his crime, then we will just have to disagree. I do not believe in that. The proper use of violence is only found within a strict, sometimes unreasonable, framework of necessity and defense (the prevention of harm), not retribution of revenge.
Lastly, I found your interpretation of Romans 12:9 interesting. You mean to say that when God proclaims that He will one day have vengeance, He really means that He is employing several proxies? In that case, perhaps we should attempt to modify our economic theories to incorporate the effect of an unexpected positive flux of what are surely highly rewarding (though likely lacking substantial monetary compensation) jobs, available to what we would all agree are extremely under qualified workers. Seems even His duties are susceptible to outsourcing.
12.8.2011 | 3:19pm
Nicodemus says:
Well done. George, could not agree more! The question is, what can we do about it? Pray, of course; act, yes but probably not alone for then we can be picked off for our rationalism. Enter the realm of ideas, yes, important, too! Still, whatever happens, the love of Christ can compel us to act, and one day soon justice will roll and Jesus will return and in that we can rejoice for whatever happens beyond death we shall all one day know, for sure!
3.13.2012 | 5:17am
Yonkers says:
For Catholics, attempting to prove what amounts to the Church having officially taught doctrinal error, is to attempt to prove either that Christ doesn't keep His promises or that the Holy Spirit made a mistake. There is a difference between Church policy and official Church teaching. If a Catholic believes that the official teaching of the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit according to the promises of Christ (as Catholics should) then one must assume Liberius never freely, without being coerced by torture of some kind or another, proclaimed the Arian heresy as official Church doctrine, if he ever did so at all.
Furthermore, the totalitarian State tends to absorb within itself the nation, society, the family, religious groups and individuals themselves. In defending her own freedom, the Church is also defending the human person, who must obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29), as well as defending the family, the various social organizations and nations — all of which enjoy their own spheres of autonomy and sovereignty. …
Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."
– JP II, Centesimus annus, May 5th, 1991