cmotherofpirl Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Cheryl, The letter was in [u]The Montgomery Advertisor.[/u] I am enclosing a copy of the letter as it originally appeared last Sunday. I waited to reply because I was waiting to see if any of our local priests would reply but so far nothing. I'll let you know if there is anything from the local church leaders in tomorrows paper. May you stay in God's love, Sally This is the letter that appeared in the Letters to the Editor last Sunday. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pope's stand not consistent Pope John Paul II trumpets human dignity and claims that the dictatorial church over which he reigns promotes it, yet in religion he dictates what Catholics should believe, say, and do. Such hypocrisy. In this crucial American election year his minions tell Catholic politicians, of whichever party, that they may be denied communion, if they believe in reproductive choice, abortion rights, stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, etc. Being denied communion is momentous for Catholics, because without this alleged food (or medicine) of immortality, their (presumed) souls are at risk of damnation. Dictatorial religions dread two possibilities: that their members may break the dictates of the faith and not feel guilty and even worse, that their members may not only not feel guilty, but may feel liberated. It is a testimony to the efficacy of Roman Catholic catechizing (or brain warping) that modern, well educated Catholics should fear postmortem punishment over having been denied participation in ritual cannibalism (eat my body, drink my blood, I Cor. 11:23-30). American Catholics who believe in the separation of government from religion, in reproductive rights (including abortion), stem cell research and therapeutic cloning ought to exercise the human dignity the pope trumpets by dismissing the threats of their dictatorial religion. Not only should they not feel guilty in relying on personal, conscientious convictions, they should also feel liberated. Delos B. McKown Auburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 what type of publication is this? would this newspaper be the place to defend the Real Presence or should one concern themselves solely w/ the pope's consistent defense of human dignity and the role the Church plays in national affairs? holla back, cmom. i'll take a stab at it, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Geez, Can see she studied hard... :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 wow. just...wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 That letter has shaken my faith. I'm leaving the Church. I feel liberated. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 [quote name='thedude' date='Aug 2 2004, 03:24 PM'] That letter has shaken my faith. I'm leaving the Church. I feel liberated. Not. [/quote] hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 JMJ 8/3 - Eighteenth Tuesday Is the following a summation of her argument? I've posted inferences where I've, well, inferred stuff. 1.) The human person has dignity. 2.) Human dignity carries with it certain rights. For instance, my human dignity carries with it the right to an education. (inf.) 3.) A basic human right is the right to believe what appears to be true. (inf.) 4.) Pope John Paul II claims to be the defender of human dignity. 5.) No defender of human dignity can violate human rights. (from 2) 6.) Therefore, no defender of human dignity can violate the basic human right to believe what appears to be true. (from 2, 3, 5) 7.) But Pope John Paul II tells his followers that they cannot believe what appears to be true, namely, the apparent truth that abortion, birth control, &c., are goods for our society. 8.) Therefore, Pope John Paul II is no defender of human dignity. (from 6, 7; contra 5) 9.) If 8, then no one should follow his word (as his word is hypocritical). (inf.) 10.) No one should follow his word. (from 9) I think that is the argument that we have to beat. I think that there might be a problem with premise 3; however, according to St. Thomas, "the erring conscience binds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 prrrsht! what a lovely little article (or whatever it was). I should also like to reply to thuch thilliness. where did this come from cmama? peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 [quote name='thedude' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:54 AM'] That letter has shaken my faith. I'm leaving the Church. I feel liberated. Not. [/quote] I think if I say such a thing, Ill be in big trouble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 [quote]I think that is the argument that we have to beat. I think that there might be a problem with premise 3; however, according to St. Thomas, "the erring conscience binds." [/quote] To the best of my knowledge, you are correct to say that premise 3 must be considered, but I would also point out that some additional inferences could be made. These are the following: 2.a) Human dignity carries with it certain callings, the following of which complete the person. 3.a) The calling towards Truth is one of those callings. 5.a) No defender of human dignity can knowingly refrain from aiding others in their callings (from 2.a) 6.a) Therefore, no defender of human dignity can knowingly refrain from aiding others in the calling towards Truth (from 2.a, 3.a, and 5.a) Also, with regards to St. Thomas, I am not certain, but wasn't he saying that a fully formed conscience, after prayer and meditation, that still is in error is indeed binding? It seems to me that to simply say that a "conscience" whether in error or not, is binding would refute the idea of formation. If he [i]is[/i] talking about a conscience fully formed, then this has little (though still some) impact on the discussion, right? - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Good stuff bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 4, 2004 Author Share Posted August 4, 2004 Here is the address of the paper: montgomeryadvertiser.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 JMJ 8/4 - St. John Vianney [quote]2.a) Human dignity carries with it certain callings, the following of which complete the person. 3.a) The calling towards Truth is one of those callings. 5.a) No defender of human dignity can knowingly refrain from aiding others in their callings (from 2.a) 6.a) Therefore, no defender of human dignity can knowingly refrain from aiding others in the calling towards Truth (from 2.a, 3.a, and 5.a)[/quote] You'd have to do some slick talkin' to get people to accept 2a; you use funny language - I'd instead say... 2a.) All rights have corresponding duties. 3.) A basic human right is the right to believe what appears to be true. 3a.) A duty corresponding to that right is to believe what is actually true. You can take it from there. And yeah, St. Thomas says that one's conscience always, [i]always[/i] binds - however, an erring conscience does not always [i]excuse[/i] sinful behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 I'd reprimand the paper for publishing such a blatantly offensive letter. That is truly ridiculous and unprofessional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Knight, La Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 it isn't a human right to believe as true what appears to be true but rather it is a human right to not be denied access to the actual truth, you may say it is a human right to accept as true that which hasn't been disproven but i think even that falls short 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