![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Notre Dame, and consistency
I just left a comment (awaiting moderation) at Pewsitter (a Catholic bloggy thing: sort of a Groupnews/HuffPo sort of deal, for the more conservative members of the US Church).
The author is praising the protest of Former Ambassador Glendon. She is refusing a Medal from Notre Dame University, because it offends her Catholic soul to see someone who isn't as opposed to abortion as she would like him to be to be graced with the chance to speak; as well as an honorary degree.
He made his point most forcefully: Catholics are no longer going to tolerate secular interpretations of our most sacred Catholic principles. Either you are Catholic in your beliefs, or you are not. There can be no middle ground.
So I asked if the author was as condematory about Boston College not rescinding the honorary degree they gave Condoleeza Rice, and the one Notre Dame gave to Michael Mukasey, as both of them support activities the Church is against.
CCC 2297: Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
(props to the Church, she admits to previous error; which leaves the door open to the possibility the present teachings on Birth Control and Abortion are also products of their age, and not of ineluctable Truth)
We shall see if it gets released.
The author is praising the protest of Former Ambassador Glendon. She is refusing a Medal from Notre Dame University, because it offends her Catholic soul to see someone who isn't as opposed to abortion as she would like him to be to be graced with the chance to speak; as well as an honorary degree.
He made his point most forcefully: Catholics are no longer going to tolerate secular interpretations of our most sacred Catholic principles. Either you are Catholic in your beliefs, or you are not. There can be no middle ground.
So I asked if the author was as condematory about Boston College not rescinding the honorary degree they gave Condoleeza Rice, and the one Notre Dame gave to Michael Mukasey, as both of them support activities the Church is against.
CCC 2297: Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
(props to the Church, she admits to previous error; which leaves the door open to the possibility the present teachings on Birth Control and Abortion are also products of their age, and not of ineluctable Truth)
We shall see if it gets released.
no subject
no subject
Render unto Caesar, etc. Nothing requires a Catholic to do things which aren't in keeping with their faith. If a job requires it (say being a pharmacist), then get another job.
The real meat of the matter is the people who say things like that, don't mean it. They are all for the unbreakable obedience thing when it is in keeping with the things they like, but they cast it aside when it doesn't fit their desires.
Rice, and Mukasey, were solidly behind things the church (and both the popes sitting in Peter's Chair denounced) when they were given those honors, there was no hue and cry. They sat without a peep, in the audience, on the podium, with people prosecuting an aggressive war, and one of them was known to have said tortures were fine and dandy.
no subject
There's also the meat that most of the Catholics (& other Christians) I've known have had the attitude that they are not Called to (supposedly) save the souls of others by compelling them to follow specific religious/moral practices. Some of them try to persuade (even unto the point of becoming somewhat obnoxious), but Christianity in general seems to have been moving away from Conversion by Force during most of my lifetime. I'm sorry to see this thread being picked up and woven into the tapestry again (not that Fundamentalists ever dropped it, but they used to be a very small part of society, and could pretty well be ignored).
no subject
Or quit the bench.
Take it a bit further: isn't he an oathbreaker?