Faithful disagreement

Faithful disagreement

There are those who say that the laity should never publicly disagree with their bishop, but should only ever do so in private. Likewise, there are those who say a bishop should never publicly confront a politician who dissents from fundamental teachings of the faith, but should only do so in private.

However, I was struck by today’s Mass readings, especially the first reading, from Paul’s letter to the Galatians (2:1-2, 7-14). In it he recalls a dispute he had with Peter, the first Pope, and how he “opposed him to his face” and confronted him “in front of all.” Why did Paul do this? Why not just approach Peter, the Vicar of Christ, for private correction? Because Peter’s error was causing scandal among the faithful and was leading the faithful to hypocrisy.

The lesson is that sometimes one must confront error publicly, especially if the one doing wrong is a politician or even a bishop or the pope, because the correction is not just for the sake of the one in error, but also for everyone who is lead astray by the public acts of the very public person who is in error.

  • But, Paul was not just a member of the laity though.  He was called by Christ, an Apostle in his own right by virtue of this call and by virtue of the laying on of hands. As Acts 9:15-16 and Acts 12:25 to Acts 13:3 clearly discribe.

    <<While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.>>

    The scriptures clearly state that the laity along with the deacons and preists must comfort and obey their bishop who has the legitimate mandate to teach.  This being said, even bishops sin, and sometimes they forget their election.  If a bishop will not listen to a word of filial correction/encouragement to preach the Gospel, then for the sake of that bishops immortal soul maybe public correction is charitable.  I just beg to point out the difference

  • I offered the reflection on the Scripture in conjunction with an earlier discussion on Canon 212 (I think; I don’t have my Code next to me here.) which says that the faithful have the right to make known to their bishops their concerns.

    And I don’t think that such correction is necessarily limited to those who hold an apostolic office. Certainly, it doesn’t appear to me to limit it.

  • CSSML, may I remind you that God intended to create a “priesthood of all believers” as far back as Moses? That doesn’t mean that ordained priests have no standing, nor that laity can perform the sacraments. It does mean, however, that the laity are responsible for their faith.

    What are truly reverent lay people supposed to do when bishops make errors either in judgement, practice or even in teaching? Just sit quietly and “bear our cross”? Or do something about it? What do you think a Christ who confronted the Pharisees and the moneychangers, or a Peter who confronted the Sanhedrin, would want and expect us to do?

    CSSML, our ultimate loyalty isn’t to the personalities who inhabit an ecclesiastical structure (and that includes the Pope, whomever he may be). It’s to God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, too many Catholics make a fetish out of hierarchial governance. Doing so has hurt this Church; just ask those molested by priests who were enabled by their bishops.

  • The fact is that the Church HAS already ruled on the veracity of the apparitions at Medugorje and had stated repeatedly that there is nothing supernatural happening there. Both standing Bishops of the diocese and a board of bishops from the region reached the same conclusion.

    To be completely informed on the issue, please read the bishop’s letter at

    Also, [url=][/url] has all the related documents released by the bishops regarding thier investigation.

    If you do a google search of the words Medugorje + hoax you will come up with a lot more evidence for doubting the veracity of the claims and the credibility of the seers. Having been a former “Medg head” myself, visiting there twice and falling for the whole thing hook line and sinker, I now realize it is in fact a hoax and a huge money making machine.

  • I don’t know if i followed that but I believe it strengthens my point. The people at St. Albert’s believe that the archbishop made a mistake and instead of just following like slaves to the archdiocese, we are standing up for what is right.

    Never Say Die

  • Dear KeepStAsOpen,

    Where are the people presently attending Sunday Mass?

    God Bless,


  • Dom,

    I wonder who you are trying to bring into this discussion…..hmmmmm?????

    “I offered the reflection on the Scripture in conjunction with an earlier discussion on Canon 212 (I think; I don 23:59:38

    “I think you are making a simple issue unnecessarily complex.”

    Nope, I am not.  This is a complex issue.  This isn’t a black and white issue.  This is something that needs discernment and thoughtful reflection.

    “….public outrage may be the only method to move bishops who have been so entrenched in their positions that theyaithful to the true Spirit of the Church.

    I might remind you, the true Spirit of the Church lies with the Pontiff and his bishops….

    With that being said, I am sorry that you are feeling the loss of your parish, but you should be able to find solace in the Blessed Sacrament.  You can find the Blessed Sacrament at any Catholic Church….The Church is more than the sum of it’s parts….it is the universal acceptance of all of it’s members.  You will be welcomed at any Church you go to, of that I am sure.


  • Early documents on Medjugorje are on line at this site I built a few years ago.  Tripod puts pro-Medjugorje ads on it, which is a laugh.  Please click on them anyway, just to be nice to Tripod.

  • It’s not my reasoning, but Archbishop O’Malley’s from when he first announced the closings. JPW outlined it very clearly in the other thread.

    I quote:
    There are five parishes in Weymouth, including St. Albert>15898
    2004-10-07 12:12:19
    2004-10-07 16:12:19
    Those demos aren’t completely accurate Tom. There are parishes opening in Boston and in New England, just not at the same rate others are closing. Of course, you could say that we’re just catching up with all the parishes that should have been closed years ago as populations shifted further away from the city.

    Also, the US Census also shows a population shift away from New England south and west overall, so it’s not surprising we’d have a population loss.

  • All the people I know who went to Medjugorje came back w/ a renewed faith and a deeper prayer life that has lasted. All of these folks had their lives changed for the better.

    Some witnessed phenomena. All had a deeper conversion.

    That’s good fruit, methinks.

    One could fabricate a hoax that bears good fruit. But the phenomena has to be either from God or the trickery of Satan. Although it’s possible that both types exist side by side.

    I’m inclined to believe by the witness of the aforementioned folks I know and have met.

  • Margie if there is an English version of the letter, I couldn’t find it.  My Croatian is a bit rusty.  (Actually all I can do is order a cappuchino)

    I’m with Dom and Tony on this one.  I’ve been to Medjugorje.  Had the whole experience.  I saw the sun spinning in the sky.  I was able to stare at it directly for as long as I wanted.  Hard to fabricate that experience. 

    Is there a lot of garbage going on over there?  Emphatically yes.  They have more religious gift shops on any block than Starbucks in Times square.  And you can buy some of the tackiest stuff in the world there. 

    I know of lots of people who are obsessed with Medjugorje. So much so that they have sold everything they own for one more trip.  That’s what happens when you take something that is supposed to supplement your faith and make it the foundation for it.  I’ve seen the same reaction from folks who got involved with TEC (Teens Encounter Christ). 

    Do I believe the Virgin Mother is appearing?  Yes.  For a couple of reasons:  The messages are focused on prayer, fasting, and reconciliation.  Reason 2.  I can’t imagine the Franciscans would be smart enough to pull a hoax like this off.  Especially in a communist country.  I used to work with the Franciscans.  Great guys.  Not all that bright.


    The last ruling on Medj is of the second and neutral position – there are three possibilities.  This ruling is usual in cases where there can be further investigation and where the event is ongoing and therefore not allowing a final decision on messages, etc. given.  The original bishops there have given their opinions, but they are only just that since the Holy See took the responsibility out of their hands and created a new commission of regional bishops.  Patience!

    for the Kronzer/Medj conflict:

    Wife’s point of view:

    I believe that Mr. Kronzer is now warring even with his backer who also used his story against Medj.

  • Cam, you say that just because individual members of a class or group act in a certain fashion doesn’t mean they all act in that fashion.

    I take it you haven’t been following the clerical abuse crisis. Victims have made legitimate accusations of enabling sexual predators against a variety of bishops: Law, Mahony, O’Brien, McCormack, Weakland and Moreno to name just a few in this country (not to mention those in Australia, Austria, Ireland, Poland, Latin America and the UK).

    Sorry, Cam, but your claims of faulty reasoning fall flat in the face of that large a sample. You also have to explain how a Pope (who is a product of this system of hierarchical governance) has so flaccidly dealt with the greatest threat to the Church’s moral credibility since pre-Reformation times.

    Besides, you have no idea about human nature in a group setting. Protecting the group at all costs is the motivating factor for many in authority. Why do you think the clerical abuse scandal has such legs? Moreover, why do you think bishops could move predators around with impunity? Because they could, because nobody could effectively hold them accountable, not even the Pope!

    You talk about scandal. Who’s really responsible for scandal, the faithful who call attention to a decrepid hierarchy or the isolated hierarchy who perpetuates the scandal in the first place?

    Cam, I suggest you read Ezekiel and Jeremiah, particularly Jer. 23: 9-40. See how God thinks about those who misuse power in institutions that He directly created!

  • Joseph,

    “I take it you havenhome, and that he believes that his (I say this for convenience—Keep may be a young lady but I’m not going to get into the “he or she” stuff) faith has been fairly recently “brought to life.”

    Keep is therefore getting much of his information from his parents, (who, thank God and thanks to Isabel for asking) are attending Sunday Mass at Immaculate Conception; from the press; from the former parish’s ringleaders, and, perhaps from his former pastor.

    Okay. Keep writes:

    JPW, I respectfully disagree with you when you say the church wasnuides me…not simply a couple of OT scriptures, which have been fulfilled in the blood of Christ.”

    Joseph: The NT doesn’t “trump” the OT. The OT is an essential part of divine revelation in its own right! (And you call yourself a professional catechist? What do you think the apostles read during the first 50 years of Church history?) The OT doesn’t contradict the NT; they compliment each other. God’s personality as expressed through the OT is every bit as legitimate as that part expressed through Christ. Remember, Christ will return as a righteous judge operating under His Father’s authority.

    Cam, Ezekiel and Jeremiah talk (among other things) about how a righteous God is infuriated by religious leaders who prostituted themselves for personal gain and ignored the legitimate needs of their faithful. Do you not think bishops have behaved in similar fashion? Do you not think God is similarly angered?

    Cam, with all due respect, you sound like that squadron of Catholics who cries “mercy” without discerning to whom mercy should be given. Mercy toward the perpetrators and enablers of evil can be contempt toward the victims of such evil. You apparently advocate mercy toward the episcopal enablers of sexual predators. What about mercy for their victims?


  • Fortunately, we have the teaching Magisterium of the Church to lead and guide us through the murky waters of private revelation, rather than relying on our own clouded judgement of our personal experiences. Here is an excellent article on how the Church’s teaching on such matters applies to Medjugorje:

    Also my link to the Bishop’s letter worked for me in English so here it is again: [url=][/url]

    A direct quote from an interview with Bishop Peric on Jan. 25, 1997 : in response to a question about the Bishops’ Commission and its study of Medjugorje, Bishop Peric replied “The judgement of the CHurch is the same and is still valid. There is no fact, argument, affirmation or miracle which proves that there is a case of apparitions or supernatural revelations.” You can read the whole interview at [url=][/url]

    Some other documents worth reading :
    Fruits of Disobedience



  • Yes, fortunately we do have the teachings of the magisterium and therefore, along with them, we must await any further investigation by the appointed bishops’ commission and must not use biased info which tries to spin a neutral ruling into some condemnation of said site.  As we know, pilgrims are allowed to continue to visit Medj as long as they know they are not to assume that this means any approval has as yet been established.  The Holy Father, by testimonies of reliable witnesses, bishops, priests who have been in audience with him before and after their pilgrimages to Medj. is much in favor of the good fruits and would visit if not pope – before any final ruling.  It’s in that wait and see mode.  So patience is required in order to be objective.

  • honestly to all of you I am just a college kid who didnt care about church until Father Coyne came to St. Albert’s. I am not a good spokesperson for St. Albert’s at all. I haven’t been there in a couple months. I’m just trying to stand up for what I believe in. I just happened across this site and decided to put my two cents in. Try not to hold it against me.

    I dont know where you got the numbers but the numbers don’t tell the story I truly believe that. It is a small parish serving a small area but it is vibrant by my definition of the word. I don’t define vibrant by the number of weddings that take place at a church. I define it by the intense sense of community and togetherness in faith that we have shared at St. Albert’s. It is something that means alot to me and something that I really do not want to see go away no matter what the numbers say.

    Since you hate me and the rest of us so much, maybe we are on the outskirts of the Catholic Church. Maybe we don’t follow everything that you follow word to word. Maybe we are different than all of you. But it is a different place that I am damn proud to be part of.

    Never Say Die.

  • I apologize – the above link to the bishop’s letter does in fact bring you to a Croatian page – my old bookmarked link gives me English ! But if you go to the Theotokos link you will get a link to the letter in English.

    Chris – Can you document any words from the Vatican, particularly coming from the Holy father, which testify that “he is much in favor of the good fruits and would visit if not Pope”. Any references to these statements seem to come from the supporters of Medjugorje but have no proof to back up that they were actually said.

    As for pilgrims visiting, the reason they go is because they believe that Our Lady is appearing, when in fact the bishops have said time and time again that She is not. So how is that a “neutral ruling” ?
    Also, the jurisdiction for determining validity of private revelation rests with the local ordinary, not the Vatican – and the local Bishops, 2 of them succesiively, HAVE ruled, as did the Bishops’ Commission.

  • Melanie asked me to post this for her since it exceeded the character limit. So I’m making an exception for her. (It’s good to date the “boss.”) smile

    I think everyone here who is addressing KeepStAsOpen keeps forgetting that a college student necessarily has a very different perspective. I know, I teach college. College is the time when you start to learn the big picture, the greater context into which the world you grew up in fits. College should give you the tools to see that context, but a freshman simply doesn’t have them yet.

    So to KeepStAsOpen I would like to say:

    First, churches needed to be closed. No one wanted to have to do this, all of us feel pain at that closing. After all those parishes are a part of our body. When radical surgery must be done for the health of the entire body, the whole body feels pain and grief. And sometimes healthy tissue has to be cut along with diseased tissue. The great thing is that, in this case, the healthy tissue can be grafted on elsewhere, that is the fine people of St. Albert’s can become fine people at other Weymouth parishes bringing their unique gifts to their new parishes.

    This isn’t just a metaphor, we ARE the body of Christ.

    Second, yes, your parish was a special place. You have lost a home and it hurts. You should be proud of your parish. And I hurt too, that it had to close, that any of them had to close. Yet I understand that it is a hard reality. We take refuge in numbers because we realize a hard choice had to be made. I know it is hard for you to understand that some parishes have to close for the sake of the Church as a whole. We are asking a very hard thing of you and others like you. And you are right, no one would disagree that the vibrancy you felt had to do with the sense of togetherness. But the hard numbers do mean something, they are an indicator of where the parish will be in the future. If there are not enough weddings and baptisms, it means the population is declining. Maybe the church is full now, but if there are not enough young families taking the place of the old people who are dying, then can you see why there will eventually be a problem? The bishops have to look not only at the now, but at the future and the past. They have to see the bigger picture. And it doesn’t mean they don’t care about you or your pain. And it certainly doesn’t mean anyone hates you.

    But every parish is special to those who belong. And the amazing thing about the Church is we are ONE BODY. I moved to MA from Texas four years ago. I miss my home parish. If it were to be closed I would grieve. But I have found a new home (at Immaculate Conception in Salem).

    I have had the benefit of travel, have been to Europe, to St Peter’s in Rome. And one thing you find when you travel is that one of the greatest gifts to us as Catholics is that home is also anywhere you go. I have been to Mass with thousands of others in St Peter’s square, people praying in dozens of languages. This is the Church that the people here have experienced. The Church universal. I’m willing to bet you have had much more limited experience of the Church. (Please correct me if I’m wrong) Maybe you have really only experienced that sense of belonging at St A’s. But please trust me you will find it other places.

    No one here questions whether St A’s was a place that nurtured your faith. That’s what the Church is, Our Mother.

    But we are challenging you to see that that isn’t completely lost. We are all one family, and like a family we have misunderstandings. And the internet is a hard place to try to work out our problems. This would be a much different conversation, I am convinced, if we could all see each other face to face and correct misunderstandings as they arise. If you mis-read any of these words, then I will have no idea where I went wrong. (As an English teacher I am painfully aware that the written language is a fragile thing and communication is difficult.)

    If you are sensing hate from these posts and are feeling misunderstood, try to blame the impersonal medium and not the people who I believe do have good intentions. We want to ease your pain by helping you to understand our perspectives. Of course you are grieving, you are right to grieve. And I sympathize with the urge to fight for what you love. but there is more to love about being Catholic than any single parish can contain. As you grow and learn more about our faith and more about the history of our Church, I hope you will understand more clearly why these difficult decisions have to be made.

    I admire your passionate conviction and hope you will discover that we are more than a collection of individual parishes.

    Pray to Our Lady who suffered with her Son at the foot of the cross that she will help us through this difficult time in history. She knows the Church has gone through other hard times, but that it is filled with the Spirit and will not die.


  • Pssst Cam

    You’re arguing with a guy that wants to shoot all the bishops.  S-H-O-O-T. 


    I can’t speak for everybody around here but I don’t think anybody hates you or the folks at (formerly) St Alberts.  I think its great that the community means so much to you and to the rest of (formerly) St Alberts.  You’re absolutely right in the fact that stats have no bearing on community.  It doesn’t matter if you have one baptism or fifty if there is a strong bond among parishioners. 

    If we continue to work on our faith, there is always one lesson that our faith will eventually teach us, humility.  (Granted if you come back here on a regular basis, you may notice a few folks who haven’t picked up on that lesson yet).  But lousy things happen that are out of our control.  We get conked on the head with that reality every so often.  And while it is right and just that you and your family is upset with the closing, the actions taken by the parishioners is neither right or just. 

    The passion that your community has given you is yours now.  (this is important) I hope and pray that you realize that while your home parish can be taken away, that passion can’t.  It can only be given away.  Syracuse is a great place.  I hope you find more folks to find community.  Now, if you choose to, you can help empower others to take ownership of their faith. 

    Heck, Jaime and I arenph,


    No, but he is the leader and above reproach.  Why?  Because he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth!!!!  Geez O’ Pete!!!

    “Your apathy in the face of this Pope/wp:comment_author_url>
    2004-10-09 21:24:21
    2004-10-10 01:24:21

    Thanks for the return to sanity…..I hate squirrels in my attic too!!!  LOL

    But, on a more serious note, they will wish they had been shot when God gets done with them for running rampant in your attic!!!!

    No really,  I have read Dei Verbum, which means Word of God in Latin, for all of you non-Latin scholars out there.  I have never said that the OT is not the Word of God, I am just saying that it is trumped by the salvific act of the blood of the Lamb.


    Look at this, “Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 2 Cor. 1:30; 3:15; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts.” (DV 7)

    Where does it say that He commissioned the Apostles to preach the OT?  Oh yeah, silly me, it doesn’t.

    “But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.” (DV 7)

    Gee, didn’t I say something very close to that??

    Here is the kicker….“God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and that the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant with His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the meaning of the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 3:14-16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it.” (DV 16)

    Jaime, this one is for you….BOOYA!!!!!!

    So Kelly, thanks for reminding me of this document.  I had almost forgotten it.  I think that just about ends the conversation on the OT and the NT.

    Wanna keep talking about the scandal, go ahead…..I am not listening….it will pass….just like the Inquisition, the slavery issue, alleged Anti-Semitism, Galileo, etc…..they all pass….and what are we left with???  The Church, still incorrupt, still perfect.  Again, the details of the current scandal don’t really matter…they will pass and the Church will still be there,  THANK GOD!!!


  • Margie, I think you better read the reasoning behind the three rulings allowed in studying apparitions sites.  The second ruling, which usually makes the statement that no supernatural findings were made is pretty usual in ongoing apparitions sites.  The same was made of Our Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam at one time and now it is fully approved.  Neutral just means that further investigation is permissable if or when the commission decides to do so.  Meanwhile, everything remains without finality.  The third ruling is a condemnation – such as Bayside.  The faithful are then warned to not have anything to do with that particular site.  This, of course, is not what is being asked of the pilgrims to Medj (obviously knowing that pilgrims have a certain bias toward this particular site – common sense)  The statements by bishops, etc. are put forth by believers, yes, but these persons quoted have not denied the statement when questioned again about how they were quoted nor registered any complaint with these sites, knowing some of the people running them.  Are you saying, then, that these reliable witnesses are lying and that the faithful are liars as well who quote them with their permission?  If one weighs the evidence given, tests it and then still refuses to accept good fruit, then I would say that some prejudice to a favorable outcome or ignorance is the underlying reason.  I think you do know that the Holy See has authority over the bishops and has, in this case, made a rather unprecedented move, understanding the prejudice of the local bishop (and the one was at first one of the most positive and supportive of the visionaries….until he had a row with the local Franciscans) – due to the history of the region and felt that objectivity was missing.  Thus, the commission of the bishops of the region was placed in control.  One can go on taking sides, but one must consider the complete history and the rationale of the Holy See as well as its authority here.  Are bishops therefore not to be obedient?

  • Chris, perhaps if you read Bishop Zanic’s list of reasons why he does not believe Medjugorje is a true apparition it will give you food for thought. One situation he brought to light was that of a Franciscan priest who impregnated a nun, caused public scandal, had his faculties removed, continued to celebrate sacraments disobediently, and Vicka (alleged seer) proclaimed Our Lady tells her the priest is innocent and the Bishop wrong to discipline him. Hmmmm. I could go on but you really should do a little more investigation. There are pleny of similar inconsistencies which the Bishop speaks of.

    As for [url=][/url] – the site is owned an operated by Steve and Ana Shawl ( I know them personally and have travelled to Medugorje with them) They make their living bringing pilgrims there so any information on that site must be weighed against what the bishops have said. Ask any Medg supporter about the Bishop and you get the same line – “Well, he supported it in the beginning but then the communists got to him.”

  • BTW Chris, I too await a decision by the Vatican on the Medjugorje question, however Bishop Peric says the finding of the commission stands and the Vatican has no plans to study it further. He goes so far as to say he wished they would (again read the whole interview entitled Medjugorje: The State of the Question at [url=][/url]

    I have accepted the finding of the Bishops commission and do not expect any change. However, if in fact the Vatican did rule negatively on it, I wonder if the ardent supporters who have made Medjugorje the center of their spiritual lives would accept it ? So far the evidence seems to the contrary as you never find any of the Bishop’s findings on the Medjugorje sites.

  • Joseph isnccupation of Italy?????  That is what I was referring to, c’mon….

    “You seem more infatuated with the institution than with the Founder of that institution (and I
    Cam, how many of those bishops resigned as a result of the private correction you advocate? Didn’t Cdl. Law finally resign after more than a year of public scrutiny? Didn’t Absp. Weakland resign when his “hush fund” to disguise his homosexual liason had been publicly exposed? How many times did JPII have to be remined by Polish and Austrian bishops (who, btw, were facing public pressure) to reprimand epicopal enablers? This is all a matter of public record, if you care to look.

    Your suggestion of due process (both criminal and canonical) for epicopal enablers is all well and good. Do you seriously believe that such enablers would even face due process if it weren’t for public pressure?

    Cam, evil loves to hide in the secret places where it can’t be exposed. That’s why your suggestion about private correction doesn’t fit with reality.

    As far as your fears of “scandal” are concerned, tell me: Would the counter-reformation have happened if it weren’t for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al? Or, save for these brave men, would the institutional Church have kept sweeping its corruption under the rug? What good did such good men as Erasmus and More do? Though they wrote passionately about Church corruption, the bishops and the Pope were free to ignore them (and did so). They couldn’t, however, ignore the would-be Protestants who were attracting adherents—and money and political support. Those are the things that hierarchs (indeed, all men who view themselves themselves too highly) tend to value. Threaten those things and you get action. And you can’t threathen those things quietly.

  • Correcting the link the previous reply

    Chris, it seems to me that Medugorje has become irrelevant in the big picture.  None of those quotes have a source for what the Pope says independent of the backers of the supernatural cause of the apparitions.

    What is motivating its backers to try to get Catholics to believe the apparitions have a supernatural origin at this point in 2004 after 23 years?

    I have to agree with MargieOh that the Church’s finding that nothing supernatural is taking place there is final and not likely at this point to be changed or reviewed in the future.

    How does the Blessed Mother appear and speak about so many banalities in addition to the call to conversion throughout the 1980’s while that region of the world is about to explode in a bloody, ugly genocidal war that will have Croatian Catholics kill and be killed in tens of thousands?

  • Dang just when I get a good rant going.. half of it disappears!

    Ok lets see if I can remember the first part

    Cam, you and Jamie are truly amazing…… Do you have a degree in psychology as well as in theology?

    First off its Jaime J-a-i-m-e (Doug never got this either) Not a big deal except there is a Jamie that posts on this site.  Second, I while I don’t practice, I do have a graduate degree in psychology.  And I would love to interpret the scales of your MMPI.  (note: I realize one can claim anything on the internet, but I do have a my DSM-IV by my side in case you want to quiz me about the criteria of particular dysfunctions and how to assess them) 

    You say that we have yet to show compassion to the victims.  Well how in the world does shooting all the bishops help the victims to heal?  Is this how you define compassion?  I said it before, that kind of crazy a** statement does nothing to help.  It only makes things worse!!

  • Joseph,

    Your whole idea of God allowing evil is way too simplistic…not to mention you are misunderstanding the idea of evil.

    There are varying kinds of evil.  This is deep, see if you can keep up…“Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.”

    Following so far…God is not the cause of evil.  My point from earlier.

    Now, the order of the universe requires, that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. (ie humans)  Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.

    Ok, so we can see something important here…are you seeing it yet???

    The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.

    So, here we can see that God isn’t the cause of evil as you see it…the formal participation…nor does He allow it.  It is done outside of Himself, in otherwords, in spite of God.  That is sin, and he doesn’t allow it.  It happens in spite of him. 

    The evil that is attributed to God is accidental.  It is a by product of a good.  What you are speaking of as evil is defecient of good.

    What is the most simple definition of God, goodness.  So, God doesn’t allow evil…Evil is done in spite of Him.  He doesn’t author it nor does he allow it…it is done in disobedience of his redemptive love.

    Evil has a deficient cause in voluntary things otherwise than in natural things. For the natural agent produces the same kind of effect as it is itself, unless it is impeded by some exterior thing; and this amounts to some defect belonging to it. Hence evil never follows in the effect, unless some other evil pre-exists in the agent or in the matter, as was said above. But in voluntary things the defect of the action comes from the will actually deficient, inasmuch as it does not actually subject itself to its proper rule. This defect, however, is not a fault, but fault follows upon it from the fact that the will acts with this defect.

    So, my ultimate point…God doesn’t allow Evil…just as a parent doesn’t allow a child to disobey.  It is done in spite of better judgment.

    And your understanding of evil is way too simplistic.  You attribute all evil to one thing…it simply is not the case.  For just as water is evil to fire….sin is evil to God.  It is not allowed, but nevertheless it happens.

    “Have you ever considered the possibility that More was canonized to spit in English Protestantismd>15941
    2004-10-12 16:17:14
    2004-10-12 20:17:14
    Joe, Joe, Joe,

    “Summa Theologica II-II, 25, 6 ad 2”

    When one reads the Summa one cannot generalize, because one may make a folly of one’s statements….

    Do you have any idea <objection that justifies WIZARDS!!!!  Not too many of them running around these days…

    Obj. 2:  Further, “love is proved by deeds” as Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. xxx). But good men do no works of the unjust: on the contrary, they do such as would appear to be works of hate, according to Ps. 100:8: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land”: and God commanded (Ex. 22:18): “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.

    Reply to Objection 2:  As the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ix, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friendship. When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.

    Notice something though???  The death penalty is a last resort!!!  For it says, “….when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friendship.”

    Finally it says about the death penalty, “When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, <b>and become incurable,</b> we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways.”

    So, Joe, let’s see…..first we are to afford them every opportunity, then if they be deemed incurable, according to the norms of the early 1200’s, then they may be judged…

    See, that is still the case today, but the causality is so rare, that it is almost unforeseeable.

    And there is nothing to say that Aquinas can’t be wrong…he did support usury and slavery, after all.


  • Sorry about the double post Dom….I try like crazy not to do this, but part of my post didn’t post…maybe you need to look into that glitch or explain why it is happening, so we stop….anywhoo!!!

    It should start out, “Do you have any idea that Aquinas was talking about WIZARDS?  Right, he was talking about a specific type of sin that took place in teh 1200’s, wizardry.  He wasn’t talking about anyone who did something heinous….”

  • I’m sorry Cam. There is a bug in the software and I’m waiting to hear back from the developers. I think it has something to do with the use of HTML tags in posts, but it’s obviously not consistent and I’m trying to figure out what’s happening.

  • The only time that I’ve found it to be buggy is with multiple tags within one post. 

    I’ve now taken the habit of previewing the posts to make sure all is well

    Ok I’m off to mail wine (stupid yankees)

  • No problem Dom…

    I love the format, it is the easiest by far…I will say a prayer to St. Isidore of Seville…ya know, the hastily canonized saint of the Internet!!!

    And that darned nepotism…he succeeded his brother to the Archepiscopacy of Seville.  Man, what a corrupt family he was from….or….what a great man, he helped to create the Mozarabic Liturgy….


  • Cam, do you seriously believe that the quotes I cite from Aquinas concern wizardry exclusively? Do you not think murder is a greater sin in God’s eyes that “wizardry”?

    Then again, you believe that because God “allows” something means that God actually promotes or causes that same something. Did not God allow Satan to afflict Job? Of course. Now, did God cause Satan to afflict Job? Of course not. Satan had the idea in his head already and relied on God’s permission to execute his plans. And God restrained Satan by making Job’s life untouchable.

    So much for your tortuous “logic.”

    Cam, the fact that God allows humanity to commit all sorts of evil does not mean that God is silent (cf, moral precepts dating from the OT) or that God will do nothing (cf, the Last Judgement), let alone that God commits evil Himself.

    If God does not allow evil, then you still have to explain (in terms that people can understand) how evil exists, and why God even bothered to formulate a protocol for atonement and redemption in the OT, let alone supply a Savior.

    And if you can’t do that in terms that people can understand, then you really have no basis for your case.

  • Joe,

    “Cam, do you seriously believe that the quotes I cite from Aquinas concern wizardry exclusively?”

    I don’t know, he’s too simple for me remember???  Give me a break.  I understand Aquinas completely.  I know exactly what he was dealing with….8 years of stugdy will get you there.

    “Then again, you believe that because God wp:comment>
    2004-10-06 10:28:11
    2004-10-06 14:28:11
    One should have more than a few reservations until the competent local authority pronounces POSITIVELY—an event that has yet to occur.