Let’s look at this as Catholics should. You want to close the borders to Mexico because there are criminals coming across and there are one million babies aborted in Mexico every year. Up to there, this sound morally reasonable. Clean up your act or stay out.
Jesus does not condone breaking the law… the Bible says to obey man’s laws… The only time its acceptable to break them is whne they violate God’s
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law in 1988. The US? 1973. But one does not need the law struck down to commit abortions. Canadians have been living in Canada as long as Americans have in the US.
Neither does Canada to my knowledge, unless you can tell me otherwise.
No we don’t. A bill in Parliament to legalize it was massively defeated in the House by a count of 228-59.
Probably no more than what US has done.
Touche.
**
Your objections only demonstate your own confusion. It is dire, IMO.Don’t misunderstand my objective here. It’s not an attack on Canada. It’s the fact that someone would say that Canadians are more civilized than Mexicans, becauese they don’t have drug cartels. My point is that you don’t need drug cartels to condone crimes against humanity.
Please, you do not have to apologize to me. I’m a no body. As a Franciscan, I’m supposed to be giving you an example of humility and charity and I fail too often at this.
I think that you and Catharina are saying the same thing, but you’re talking past each other.
You can put all the text formatting in the world around your statements and you’ll still be painfully incorrect.
And likewise it is rife with practical and prudential matters as well - upon which the moral judgments are logically dependent! As the Church herself teaches us, the episcopate can make errors in good faith based on their incorrect understanding of non-theological issues.
No. This is an overly broad declaration that appears to be misrepresenting the faith to attempt to silence discussion and opposing opinions.
As, likewise, can blind and unquestioning obedience lead us out of the body of Christ by encouraging us to sinfully abandon our obligations to apply God-given Reason to inform our consciences.
Thankfully, I am not disagreeing with my bishop’s moral teaching.
Of course. As the Holy Fathers have taught us through the virtue of St. Catherine it is not disrespectful to correct a bishop.
I’d invite you to start a new thread about the binding obedience to pastoral laws. I’d love to hear some details and maybe read some cited sources and teachings. It would be instructive.
I would request you cite specific sources for more informative instruction as to the matter of judging a bishop to be ignorant of non-theological matters. Most bishops are ignorant of string theory, for example. A prohibition against noting them as ignorant of such does not strike me as a logical conclusion one could draw from the Magisterium.
Truly. And when a fire chief declares something to be a fire hazard because he’s been given faulty information as to the composition and flammability of the object in question he can likewise be exhibited as drawing an inapplicable conclusion in good faith - without any disrespect given.
Thankfully, I am not disagreeing with my bishop’s moral teaching on a specific matter.
Of course. As the Holy Fathers have taught us through the virtue of St. Catherine it is not disrespectful, per se, to correct a bishop.
I’d invite you to start a new thread about the binding obedience to pastoral laws. I’d love to hear some details and maybe read some cited sources and teachings. It would be instructive.
I would request you cite specific sources for more informative instruction as to the matter of judging a bishop to be ignorant of non-theological matters. Most bishops are ignorant of string theory, for example. A prohibition against noting them as ignorant of such does not strike me as a logical conclusion one could draw from the Magisterium.
Truly. And when a fire chief declares something to be a fire hazard because he’s been given faulty information as to the composition and flammability of the object in question he can likewise be exhibited as drawing an inapplicable conclusion in good faith - without any disrespect given.
She did inherit the authority to bind and unbind. This applies to moral law.
The Church can never teach moral error. The bishops are saying that there is one point in the legislation that is in conflict with moral teaching. Don’t you think that it behooves Catholics to take a closer look at that point and then at the moral teachings of the Church?
Yes, bishops make mistakes. But Augustine’s teaching applies here. No Catholic may act on a moral issue under the assumption that the bishop has made a mistake unless the fact is proven. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. The only legitimate source of confirmation is the Holy See. So you have to write the Holy See and ask them if you can morally support this law with this one point that the bishops have called into question or you can ask the state to rewrite that point so that it does not cause conflict with moral law.
St. Catherine did correct bishops and popes, but her manner of doing so is not reflected here. She began and ended every communication with a statement of obedience. She always said that she would submit to their decision on the matter at hand. She never made it public that she had a problem with one of them. Her letters were confidential and were not made public until after her death. She did not allow others to say anything that was disrespectful toward the priests, deacons, nuns, brothers, bishops or popes. She defended them tooth and nail. She always showed great love for the Church in her public speech. She never made public a fault of a cleric or a religiuos. She would deal with that privately where no one else would find out.
The bishops aer making an informed moral teaching. If we diagree, the burden is on us to either prove that they made a mistake or commit a sin for acting on an uninformed conscience.
Actually, if you remember when Pope Benedict spoke in NY he said that this is not true. Reason may never inform conscience. Faith must always inform reason. Reason must submit to faith, because reason can be wrong and faith is the presence of truth.
Yes, Brother, 100%.…
I would add to this a few points of doctrine, law and traditionl.
**Point of doctrine: If you disagree with your bishop on a moral teaching, you’re disagreeing with your Church, because the bishop is the highest ranking authority in the local Church. Without a bishop, there is no local Church and everyone is doomed.
Point of doctrine: Bishops are the direct successors to the apostles; therefore, theya are apostles. In which case, we may never disrespect them, no matter how sinful or mistaken they are, because we can never disrespect an apostle.
Point of tradition: Bishops have always made laws for the faithful and they have not alwasy been moral laws or theological laws. Many have been pastoral. They are allowed to do that and such pastoral laws are binding under obedience, because each bishop is the shepherd of his diocese.
Point of discipline: The Church has a system for taking one’s concerns to higher authority if one feels that the bishop is truly wrong. Attacking the bishops on a public forum, referring to them as ignorant, dispalying and eagerness to dismiss their position rather than study it, none of these are withing the system that the Church has for dealing with these disputes and disagreements. We either use the system or become part of the Church’s problems.
Point of morals: It is much more likely for the government to be morally wrong on a law, than for a bishop to be morally wrong on a condemnation. The bishops are much better trained in moral law than legislators. When a bishop says beware of immorality, you had better take it as seriously as when a fire chief tells you that something is a fire hazard.**
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I’ll add the ever-obvious caution, central to my own life.**She did inherit the authority to bind and unbind. This applies to moral law.
The Church can never teach moral error. The bishops are saying that there is one point in the legislation that is in conflict with moral teaching. Don’t you think that it behooves Catholics to take a closer look at that point and then at the moral teachings of the Church?
Yes, bishops make mistakes. But Augustine’s teaching applies here. No Catholic may act on a moral issue under the assumption that the bishop has made a mistake unless the fact is proven. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim.** The only legitimate source of confirmation is the Holy See. So you have to write the Holy See and ask them if you can morally support this law with this one point that the bishops have called into question or you can ask the state to rewrite that point so that it does not cause conflict with moral law.
St. Catherine did correct bishops and popes, but her manner of doing so is not reflected here. She began and ended every communication with a statement of obedience. She always said that she would submit to their decision on the matter at hand. She never made it public that she had a problem with one of them. Her letters were confidential and were not made public until after her death. She did not allow others to say anything that was disrespectful toward the priests, deacons, nuns, brothers, bishops or popes. She defended them tooth and nail. She always showed great love for the Church in her public speech. She never made public a fault of a cleric or a religiuos. She would deal with that privately where no one else would find out.
The same is true of Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Philip Neri, Mother Teresa and John Paul II, that’s just for starters. In fact, during the canonization inquiry, this is carefully examined. If the person every made a public statement against a cleric, religious or the Church, they are disqualified for canonization and public veneration. Discretion is a sign of virtue.
The bishops are making an informed moral teaching. If we disagree, the burden is on us to either prove that they made a mistake or commit a sin for acting on an uninformed conscience.
Actually, if you remember when Pope Benedict spoke in NY he said that this is not true. Reason may never inform conscience. Faith must always inform reason. Reason must submit to faith, because reason can be wrong and faith is the presence of truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let’s re-examine this. First of all, as I read the letter, they are not making a moral judgment at all. What they are doing is expressing concern based on several speculations as to how the law might be implemented. Whether those speculations are reasonable or not is a matter of prudential judgment, and we are not obliged to follow the statements of bishops regarding prudential judgments, and certainly not if they are based on speculation.
I know what the theological and moral basis is for their proposals,but some of them have adopted a collectivist and socialistic approach to social justice,which is not what God commands us to do. The commandments are aimed at individual persons,not at a collecive body or at the government. When we delegate to the government the responsibilities of individual Christians,it leads to tyranny. The government gains regulatory control over the lives of the citizens.They are still the apostles and the question that you must alwasy ask them is to help you understand the theological and moral basis for their teachings. Even John Paul II and Benedict XVI have very strong theological and moral foundations for their social teachings. The apsotles teach from revelation. You must always treat them as apostles and be willing to learn from them as the first generation Christians learned from the first apostles. This is the part that is missing in this thread, the recognition that we’re talking about the apostles, not one of us.
Our arguments carry no weight before God when we deny the respect and the attention that he wants us to give to his apostles. Unless they are teaching heresy, they must be heard out and if we do not agree, we must always assume that we are wrong until proven right. Because we do not have apostolic succession to speak on matters of faith and morals, they do.
Let us always assume that there is something that we’re missing, until it is proven otherwise. That is the least the Christ and the saints ask of us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I agree. Freedom means the ability to act or decline from action. Law enforcement should not be mandated to act in situations which are not immediately life-threatening, as this bill does.