Era Might Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Just now, Nihil Obstat said: Pope Pius XI would probably resent your implication of blasphemy. 12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship. A great passage, for a different reason..."legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi" strikes me as a perfectly materialist view of reality! But in the interests of keeping Phatmass Catholic, I'll not go into a whole critique of the idea of Christ the King of a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 We have two hypothetical societies, identical in every way except that in Society A abortion is illegal and socially unacceptable, and in Society B it is both legal and considered unremarkable. Which material reality is superior? There is no amount of existential obfuscationism that can possibly change that answer, if we are committed to Catholic principles. Recognition of the sanctity of life is an unavoidable consequence of recognition of the social authority of Christ and His Church. And in some sense I would agree that the opposite is true, at least implicitly: without a recognition of Christ's authority, recognition of the sanctity of life is not possible. Implicitly, mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 45 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: We have two hypothetical societies, identical in every way except that in Society A abortion is illegal and socially unacceptable, and in Society B it is both legal and considered unremarkable. Which material reality is superior? There is no amount of existential obfuscationism that can possibly change that answer, if we are committed to Catholic principles. Recognition of the sanctity of life is an unavoidable consequence of recognition of the social authority of Christ and His Church. And in some sense I would agree that the opposite is true, at least implicitly: without a recognition of Christ's authority, recognition of the sanctity of life is not possible. Implicitly, mind you. The hypothetical assumes that laws are "reality"...even from a New Testament perspective, I would argue that law is nothing except a witness to sin and subjection. And the hypothetical is also idealist, assuming that people have abortions or don't have abortions because it is legal or illegal...just the opposite, law is inherenthly repressive...its function is to prevent virtue, which is always a free act...it would be like a husband locking his wife in a dungeon and imagining that's why she's virtuous, or that she's virtuous at all. The lawmaker claims the freedom of the individual for himself, and that's where ideology comes in...once people exist through laws or any social control, ideology is concocted to make sure they always submit to whoever wields the structure. The pharisees were the keepers of the holy, which is precisely why they could never recognize the Messiah in their midst...to recognize the Messiah would topple their social control which depended on the coming of the Messiah. Their benefit was in waiting for the Messiah, not recognizing him...the law was everything for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 8 minutes ago, Era Might said: The hypothetical assumes that laws are "reality"...even from a New Testament perspective, I would argue that law is nothing except a witness to sin and subjection. And the hypothetical is also idealist, assuming that people have abortions or don't have abortions because it is legal or illegal...just the opposite, law is inherenthly repressive...its function is to prevent virtue, which is always a free act...it would be like a husband locking his wife in a dungeon and imagining that's why she's virtuous, or that she's virtuous at all. The lawmaker claims the freedom of the individual for himself, and that's where ideology comes in...once people exist through laws or any social control, ideology is concocted to make sure they always submit to whoever wields the structure. The pharisees were the keepers of the holy, which is precisely why they could never recognize the Messiah in their midst...to recognize the Messiah would topple their social control which depended on the coming of the Messiah. Their benefit was in waiting for the Messiah, not recognizing him...the law was everything for them. I do not think you will find any support in Catholic social teaching for this notion. The exact opposite in fact. Obedience to just law is true freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said: I do not think you will find any support in Catholic social teaching for this notion. The exact opposite in fact. Obedience to just law is true freedom. The truly free man has no need for laws. It would be farcical to take pleasure in virtue because one has obeyed a law. The pleasure in virtue is precisely in being free to act otherwise. Law's only function is to regulate communal behavior, that is, to create a material reality that benefits communal objectives, regardless of the individual's virtue or lack of virtue. Law is inherently repressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 8. Foremost in this office comes the natural law, which is written and engraved in the mind of every man; and this is nothing but our reason, commanding us to do right and forbidding sin. Nevertheless, all prescriptions of human reason can have force of law only inasmuch as they are the voice and the interpreters of some higher power on which our reason and liberty necessarily depend. For, since the force of law consists in the imposing of obligations and the granting of rights, authority is the one and only foundation of all law - the power, that is, of fixing duties and defining rights, as also of assigning the necessary sanctions of reward and chastisement to each and all of its commands. But all this, clearly, cannot be found in man, if, as his own supreme legislator, he is to be the rule of his own actions. It follows, therefore, that the law of nature is the same thing as the eternal law, implanted in rational creatures, and inclining them to their right action and end; and can be nothing else but the eternal reason of God, the Creator and Ruler of all the world. To this rule of action and restraint of evil God has vouchsafed to give special and most suitable aids for strengthening and ordering the human will. The first and most excellent of these is the power of His divine grace, whereby the mind can be enlightened and the will wholesomely invigorated and moved to the constant pursuit of moral good, so that the use of our inborn liberty becomes at once less difficult and less dangerous. Not that the divine assistance hinders in any way the free movement of our will; just the contrary, for grace works inwardly in man and in harmony with his natural inclinations, since it flows from the very Creator of his mind and will, by whom all things are moved in conformity with their nature. As the Angelic Doctor points out, it is because divine grace comes from the Author of nature that it is so admirably adapted to be the safeguard of all natures, and to maintain the character, efficiency, and operations of each. 9. What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals, that human law, promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law. The precepts, therefore, of the natural law, contained bodily in the laws of men, have not merely the force of human law, but they possess that higher and more august sanction which belongs to the law of nature and the eternal law. And within the sphere of this kind of laws the duty of the civil legislator is, mainly, to keep the community in obedience by the adoption of a common discipline and by putting restraint upon refractory and viciously inclined men, so that, deterred from evil, they may turn to what is good, or at any rate may avoid causing trouble and disturbance to the State. Now, there are other enactments of the civil authority, which do not follow directly, but somewhat remotely, from the natural law, and decide many points which the law of nature treats only in a general and indefinite way. For instance, though nature commands all to contribute to the public peace and prosperity, whatever belongs to the manner, and circumstances, and conditions under which such service is to be rendered must be determined by the wisdom of men and not by nature herself. It is in the constitution of these particular rules of life, suggested by reason and prudence, and put forth by competent authority, that human law, properly so called, consists, binding all citizens to work together for the attainment of the common end proposed to the community, and forbidding them to depart from this end, and, in so far as human law is in conformity with the dictates of nature, leading to what is good, and deterring from evil. 10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: "I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law."(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society. 11. Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vee Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 My thoughts on that meme? I dont care about it, I like this one better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 1 hour ago, vee said: My thoughts on that meme? I dont care about it, I like this one better. I believe that is a carpet, not a rug. But hey, common mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not The Philosopher Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Having "Meme" and "Thought" in the same sentence is like trying to divide by zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 11 hours ago, Josh said: . . . I think it's just as silly and idiotic as most political internet "memes." Some doofus who wants you to vote Democrat stuck some pictures and words together incoherently and posted it on teh interwebz. So what exactly is it that you think worthy of discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 7 minutes ago, Socrates said: I think it's just as silly and idiotic as most political internet "memes." Some doofus who wants you to vote Democrat stuck some pictures and words together incoherently and posted it on teh interwebz. So what exactly is it that you think worthy of discussion? Does Isis represent Islam? Does Trump represent Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I'm so over politics. We have no power. The sooner we recognize this the sooner we can start using our energies to actually fix some of the problems we are constantly debating over instead of hoping for elected officials to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 1 hour ago, Ice_nine said: I'm so over politics. We have no power. The sooner we recognize this the sooner we can start using our energies to actually fix some of the problems we are constantly debating over instead of hoping for elected officials to do so. The idea of government 'of the people by the people for the people' was always a pipe dream, and IMO not a very compelling one. We, those not called to rule, do not need power. We need Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Regardless of how someone feels about Republican rhetoric or politics, it's ridiculous to compare it to beheadings, terrorism and burning people alive. This meme is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I don't think that is what it's saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now