Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 1:21 AM By charlio
The Archbishop’s merciful explanation for the truth is not to try to build a political consensus, as if by achieving a majority of right-thinking our side will somehow have “won”. The 70% or so of Catholics who live a lie in their bodies by contracepting, so disrespect the Truth that they lose their ability to discern it anymore, falling deeply into a pit which they have dug themselves. This was a plea for those who can still repent or are not yet corrupted, to save themselves by respecting the truth. It’s not the fulness of the virtue of obedience if you clearly understand every single implication. Somewhere along the way you have to exercise the trust of faith. Look at how men like Archbishop Gomez live, to see whether they lovingly speak the truth. That is the witness God is giving you. If that’s not sufficient, nothing else will prove it to you.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:35 AM By ANNE
There is no greater crime than killing/depriving an innocent human being of his/her right to life. The murder of approximately 53 MILLION innocent babies in the USA since 1973 (averaging more than 1 million per year), is the greatest human rights violation this Country has ever committed. And all those who VOTE for pro-abortion politicans when there is another choice, will also be held accountable by God, for assisting them in their evil deeds – making it possible for them to be in a position to support murder. “Thou shall not kill.” – GOD.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 7:27 AM By Catherine
Thank you Archbishop Gomez! This was a very important clarification. It was necessary for Archbishop Gomez to publicly proclaim that abortion trumps social justice. Canon 915 with respect for the dignity of the Blessed Sacrament should also trump the stagnated massaging of egos of obstinate politicians.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 7:27 AM By tom byrne
The “seamless garment” models accurately one aspect of Catholic social teaching: that all the threads form one piece. But all models (and I know this as a chemist) have limitations, and the SG does not reflect the hierarchy of goods. Bless Archbishop Gomez for recognizing this.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 7:34 AM By Bob
The luckiest thing that ever happened was for you to relinquish this man to LA where he is REALLY needed.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 8:07 AM By k
Why does the Church still try to change people’s hearts and minds about abortion? Because there are people dying and people crying and because God is much offended at the rejection of His gift of a child. This isn’t something that one can re-do and it is a abyss of sorrow. Keep trying.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 8:35 AM By JMJ
I can see the red-hot faces on all of those “street-smart sisters” (you know, the ones that refuse the habit or to be cloistered) as they put abortion low on their radar, but will support birth control and dare to call themselves “catholic”. How long before the bishops Gomez & Dolan will be deported to the Vatican, out of harm’s way, such as what happened Bishop Burke? Let’s face it, most “catholics” don’t want the truth if it upsets their lives. Thank you for giving us some light in this very dark sin-laden world. +JMJ+
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 8:50 AM By Ken M.
God bless Archbishop Gomez. Such a great explanation of the overriding moral issue the USA must address correctly.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 8:59 AM By Ted
The Archbishop’s argument here is the same one that ought to be used in a) denying communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, and b) informing the catholic voters that to vote for a pro-abortion politician is the same as cooperating with every legal abortion. So, when can we expect him to act on this truth ? Don’t hold your breath. The Blue Army would suddenly have a LOT more members !
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 10:11 AM By JLS
tom byrne, the seamless garment idea predates the Church by countless centuries. The at the Crucifixion, the seamless garment that Jesus wore was taken by some pagan guards. Making a theology out of it as a replacement for Catholic theology or an attempt to upstage St Thomas Aquinas has not born any fruit: A. abortion continues in vast numbers, B. peace and justice are no different from before the SG onslaught, C. feeding the poor has not changed. The SG idea is nothing more than hot air, the “yeast of the pharisees”.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 10:40 AM By Paul
What about the clergy who voted for and provided financial support to Obama because they claimed “social justice” trumped abortion. They argued that Socialized Medicine was just as important. Well, now we have Obama requiring the Church provide abortion and contraception in their health care plans. Socialism is evil. Shouldn’t these priests be held accountable and reprimanded publically to put an end to the scandalous division they caused within some parishes in Orange Diocese?
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:02 AM By Ted
Since I wrote my post this morning, I notice how many think this statement of the archbishop is such a wonderful thing. It’s useless unless he DOES something about it. Talk is cheap, which is all the bishops have done to date. Why was Nancy Pelosi not excommunicated ? Why did the article not put Catholics on notice to fall in line with the Church’s teachings or face being denied communion ? Why were not Catholic politicians not warned in the same way, but with open, public excommunication ? teaching is one thing, but standing for the teaching and actually defending the faith against the government is quite another.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:11 AM By Philippe
Ted, you ask the excellent question: “when can we expect him (Archbishop Gomez) to act on this truth?” ..this is where each of us can come into this with a daily recitation for him of what we used to recite aloud after every pre-council Mass to “Holy Michael the Archangel”, as well as to the Holy Spirit to continue inspiring him. Just think of the power if we ALL of us in SOCAL did that!
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:14 AM By charlio
Yes, I saw the “street-smart sisters” (8:35 AM By JMJ) of Loretto High Sacramento when they had their students working the Sacramento Life Center dinner the year Dr. Bernard Nathanson was the speaker. One of their Sisters of Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary was slumming in the back of the ballroom, sneering at the neanderthal pro-lifers. They accepted financial support from private backers and the Diocese of Sacramento before ripping them off by selling Loretto and living high on the hog in retirement.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:37 AM By Andrea
Good job ANNE ! ALL, let us not argue, we are wasting precious energy. All UNITE with our good Bishops to end abortion and defeat all murderous politicians including Obama. Babies are not a disease, they are individual human beings. Obama and his Senate will try to kill the elderly, and mentally and physically disabled next. They do not respect or care about human life. They want those dead who are INCONVENIENT. I hope you are all watching the hundreds of thousands of Marchers on EWTN. There are so many marchers in DC, that the Obama White House put out a statement about protecting ‘women’s choice’. My Bishop is marching. Cardinal-elect Dolan spoke. I don’t remember this many east coast Bishops being involved before. Obama will double his anti-life efforts if re-elected.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 11:42 AM By JanJan
Seamless garment, RIP.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 12:08 PM By Brian S
As the Archbiship writes, we can never disconnect the work for justice and peace from the defense of innocent life, however often and forcefully it is advocated.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 12:53 PM By Steve
The moral demise of a nation always precedes its ultimate demise. At the forefront of our immorality are abortion, euthanasia, and artificial birth control. All three are related to man wanting to be God, wanting to be the Author of Life. Man wants to be able to say when life begins and when it ends (euthanasia and abortion), who gets to live and who gets to die. This is the oldest sin in the book. Remember when the serpent told Eve that not only would she not die, as God promised, should she eat of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, but she would be “like God.” He told her that she could arbitrarily choose for herself what was true and what was not. THIS is what we have in our society in spades. God chastises every son whom He loves. I think God is going to “have enough” pretty soon and we’re going to get the proverbial 2×4 between the eyes, just to get our attention, because I think that’s what it’s going to take. We Catholics have a more serious obligation than non-Catholics, in that we have been given access to the fullness of Christ’s truth, and, indeed, Christ Himself, in the Eucharist. From whom much is given, much will be required. Yet, we have 75% of people in this country who claim to be Catholic who don’t even attend Mass on Sunday’s or Holy Days (except for Christmas and/or Easter)! An even higher percent practice artificial birth control, against Church teaching. They are, in effect, telling God,”We know, that by this act, we may participate in the creation of a person who will live forever. And we know, that this may be Your will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” An in-your-face rebellion! What do we expect God to do? Sit idly by and let the whole world go to hell? I think not. He loves us way too much for that!
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 1:08 PM By Bob
The Catholic Church needs to preach and teach the message of Humanae Vitae. The contraceptive mentality and practice leads directly to an abortion mentality and practice. The almost complete silence on HV since 7/25/68 has got to stop.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 2:12 PM By Tod
If I vote for a politician who later votes for abortion, that does not make me pro-abortion. I believe there’s nobody who is pro-abortion. Pro-choice, yes, but that’s not the same as pro-abortion. Abortion has always been with us and sadly, it always will be. As a church and a nation, we need to offer other choices, like health care and adoption, so women don’t make the choice of abortion.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 2:50 PM By John F. Maguire
WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE? Highly probably, the term social justice, as intending a specific content, was first introduced into Catholic thought by Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio. Taparelli saw clearly that all individual human beings are naturally unequal among themselves in everything that pertains to their INDIVIDUALITY, just as they are naturally EQUAL in all that pertains to the SPECIES.” In light of this formulation, we can appreciate the meaning of the term social justice. Social justice requires (1) rendering due acknowledgement of natural inequality where appropriate, and (2) rendering due acknowledgement to natural EQUALITY where appropriate. Whence the import of the principle of subsidiarity as to (1) and the principle of SPECIES-EQUALITY as to (2). The abortion question triggers both principles, but in the first instance it triggers the principle of species-equality. As living human bodies, do preborn infants belong to the same species as do you and I? Which is also to ask, are living human beings equally juridically PERSONS as are you and I? Since the second meaning of SOCIAL JUSTICE is SPECIES EQUALITY, it is evident that preborn infants have an equal right-to-life as do all human persons — as a matter of social justice. From within this perspective, it would be absurd to suggest that the abortion issue is not a social justice issue. According to one of its primary meanings, social justice means species-equality. On this meaning of social justice, i.e., social justice as species-equality, the question of the right-to-life of preborn infants is first of all a question of the equal nature of preborn infants in regard to their human species-being. This is why the abortion question is the foremost question that sounds WITHIN the field of SOCIAL JUSTICE. No scare-us-off quotation marks needed — the correct teaching is that the right-to-life of preborn infants as SPECIES-EQUAL persons IS the foremost prevenient right WITHIN the domain of social justice.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 2:51 PM By Brian S
The word “trump” and the phrase “second fiddle” don’t appear in the Archbishop’s message, and these headlines don’t properly characterize his message. In it, Archbishop Gomez affirms the seamless garment by explicitly linking social justice and the pursuit of peace directly to the foundation provided by the right to life. It should not suggest “trumping”, or a “second fiddle” when I note that while a great building requires a foundation, a ruin may consist of only that.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:28 PM By JLS
Tod, there are more people who want to adopt than available babies. Health care is available to any woman. Any complicity including sentiment in abortion is the gravest of sins. There are many many people who not only are pro-abortion, but abortion is the anti-Christ sacrifice of their hostile to God religions. One abortion counselor told me she knew abortion is murder but that it is necessary. The abortion industry is making billions of dollars on abortion.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:31 PM By JLS
Well said, Steve, and extremely clearly put!!!
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:24 PM By John F. Maguire
N.B.: The word “trump” is a CCD-editorial gloss. Brian, as your post correctly points out, nowhere is the word trump to be found in Archbishop Gomez’s comments — and expectably not. To explain: In keeping with the Taperellian/Leonine concept of social justice — I mean the traditional Catholic understanding of social justice as species-equality — it should be clear to all concerned that the question of the species-equality of preborn infants is at the heart of the abortion debate. Thus, in accord with the Taperellian/Leonine tradition, it is WITHIN the domain of social justice that the right-to-life of preborn infants as species-equal persons — as living human bodies within the compass of humanity — discloses itself as the foremost prevenient right in this domain.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 4:29 PM By The Rose
I agree with Brian S.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 5:42 PM By Robert Bushlow
God bess Archbishop Gomez. The fact is, those who claim to be for Social Justice and yet propte abortion are false. Abortion is against Social Justice.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 10:20 PM By JLS
Jesus did not promote the seamless garment idea, but rather the Holy Eucharist which the SG idea seeks to trump. Ideologies cannot come close to bringing true unity … at best they can point to the Holy Bread and Body of Christ in the Eucharist.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:19 AM By Abeca Christian
Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:18 AM By MIKE
The “Seamless Garment THEORY” was an attempt by a now deceased liberal US Cardinal to circumvent the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life by making social teachings equally important. This of course is wrong because without human life, no other teaching is important. We must beware of those Catholics who promote the evil “Liberation Theology”, since “Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods” and “Thou shall not steal” (forced redistribution of wealth) are God’s commands.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:40 AM By BETH
Maguire, the USCCB, does not clump their Bishop’s Pro-life Committee together with their Social Justice Committee. Their work is separate. These are not the same and are not equal, even though liberals/progressives would like them to be the same. Please do not try to confuse people. Thank you.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:03 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS: Just as in one of your prior posts you mistakenly set the Eucharistic Christ over but also AGAINST the Ten Commandments, so in your present post you mistakenly set the Eucharistic Christ over but also AGAINST social justice. You claim that the social justice concept “seeks to trump” the Eucharistic Christ. REPLY: The concept of the natural and juridical equality of all persons — the concept of social justice — does NOT “seek to trump” the Holy Eucharist, which would not be possible in any event. Nor does the Holy Eucharist seek to “trump” social justice. The real situation, I submit, is succinctly expressed by Nancy Frazier. See Nancy Frazier, “Eucharist Seeks Social Justice,” _The Voice_ (Archdiocese of Miami), Vol. XXIV, No. 25 (July 17, 1981). The Eucharistic Christ has primacy over both the Decalogue and social justice because Christ himself has primacy over all of creation, but this does not preclude the full truth, namely, that the Eucharistic Christ SEEKS social justice, as Nancy Frazier correctly points out.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:01 AM By Brian S.
Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services…. he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability ….widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood. ……. He has the natural right to share in the benefits of culture, and hence to receive a good general education, and a technical or professional training consistent with the degree of educational development in his own country. – Blessed John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:14 AM By Canisius
Does anyone else here get tired of Maguire’s sanctimonious tone?
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:26 AM By Juergensen
Why does the Archbishop not mention that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” while other “social issues” are not? It is the denial of this truth, and the concomitant attempt to equate the abortion issue with other social issues, that led Amchurch to the “Seamless Garment” heresy, which has found its way, most recently, into the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship.”
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:25 PM By John F. Maguire
I hope my tone is militant, not sanctimonious. In as militant a tone as I can manage, I object to the suggestion that Archbishop Gomez does not believe what the Catholic Church solemnly holds to be, to wit, what the Catholic Church solemnly holds to be true in solidarity with the veridical conscience of all persons, namely, that direct killing of preborn infants is an intrinsic evil.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:34 PM By jon
Contrary to Juergensen, the Archbishop’s words are hardly a “denial” of the truth that abortion is an intrinsic evil. Hardly.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:57 PM By Nancy
In the CCC, the respect for Human life and the respect for the Dignity of all Persons is under God’s “FIFTH COMMANDMENT”. Social Justice is under the “Human Community”. The Magisterium knew what they were doing. (See the contents.) As defined in the CCC, both are important, but human life comes directly from God. That is why the title of the article is correct.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:52 PM By JLS
You’ve blown it again, Maguire, in your usual m.o. (modus operandi), which is fractionating the issue and leaving it torn asunder: You say the Archbishop believes, but you fail to say what actions if any follow from his belief.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:52 PM By Abeca Christian
Maguire if you are militant, then who’s side are you on?
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:54 PM By JLS
Brian S, of course man may have a right to temporal things but does man have a right to Heaven? Answer: No, man does not have a right to Heaven.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:33 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Beth: The reason why the USCCB’s does not “clump” the USCCB’s Pro-life Committee with the Social Justice Committee is NOT because the abortion is not a social justice issue (it is a social justice issue) but rather because the abortion issue is the FOREMOST social justice issue. That’s the real reason why the abortion issue is separated out from the point of view of the USCCB’s own division of labor. In addition, the fact that abortion is a social justice issue is beyond dispute as a logical matter. Is it UNJUST to take the life of a preborn infant? The answer is yes. Therefore abortion is a justice issue. Now the question becomes, What type of injustice is involved in the direct killing of a preborn infant? One of the primary meanings of social justice is species-equality. If all living human bodies are naturally EQUAL in their species-being, then it is a SOCIAL INJUSTICE to treat preborn infants as if these infants were not living human bodies together with all other living human bodies. Which is why preborn infants are EQUALLY juridical persons the same as you and I and all the rest of us are juridical persons. It is in this, and just this, sense of social justice, to wit, social justice as SPECIES-EQUALITY, that the direct killing of preborn infants discloses itself as a grievous instance of social injustice. In sum, the reason why the abortion issue is the foremost PREVENIENT social justice issue is that the right-to-life subtends all other rights of the human person.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:51 PM By John F. Maguire
Whose side am I on? By force of circumstance, a substantial number of my posts are written in defense of the American Catholic Bishops. I’ve defended their position on the right to life, on immigration reform, on voting ethics, on the rights of labor and the right of laborers to associate in labor unions, etc. There is a right-deviationist revolt against the Bishops on these matters. I’ve taken the side of the Bishops. On the question of the traditional Latin Mass, I’d like to see the Bishops restore lay access to the Mass of the Ages diocese by diocese, together with solid catechesis. But Abeca, you know all this by having read my posts!
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:06 PM By Brian S.
Man does not have a right to heaven, JLS.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:24 PM By Abeca Christian
After carefully and in charity reviewing what Obama represents, I find it repulsive for anyone to defend voting for him.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:29 PM By Abeca Christian
jon again it’s your opinion. Actions do speak louder and Juergensen has proven well when some of their actions convey. Even if Juergensen never spoke a word of what some lack, just their lack of taking action, speak loud and sometimes they bring forth confusion, division and lack of direction for the less Catechized.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:45 AM By MIKE
Maguire, read the contents in the CCC. “Thou Shall not Kill”, God’s fifth Comandment, contains the section on abortion. “Social Justice” is in another section entirely. Abortion is the Killing of unborn babies. Do not try to stick MURDER into the same category as RESPECT for the human person. Whether intended or not, you are diminishing MURDER.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:21 AM By Juergensen
jon: I did not say the Archbishop “denies” the truth that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” while other social issues are not. I said he does “not mention” it. And that is true – he does “not mention” it. If you can find “intrinsic evil” anywhere in the good Archbishop’s words, point them out for me. Otherwise, you must needs concede that what I wrote is true.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:28 AM By jon
I beg to differ Abeca. It is fact that the Archbishop’s words DO NOT deny that abortion is an intrinsic evil. There is no where in his remarks above that deny the intrinsic evil of abortion. I therefore challenge you to show where in his remarks he has denied this, and that my point therefore is mere opinion.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:22 AM By John F. Maguire
RULE FOR READERS: That something is not said, does not mean that it is denied.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:35 AM By JLS
Jesus, per Gospels, instructs us that religious leaders are at fault for not living what they preach. He calls it hypocrisy, and provoked the shortest sentence in the Bible, “Jesus wept”.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:36 AM By JLS
Maguire, your latest post shows once again that your theology is “loophole theology”, aka avoidance of responsibility theology.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:56 AM By The Rose
Juergensen, you must concede that your comment implies that the Abp was denying the intrinsic evil of abortion. You implied it by questioning why the Abp didn’t mention that abortion is an intrinsic evil and then you went straight to saying that this truth is being denied. I think this is unfair to the Abp. It amounts to putting words in his mouth.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:00 PM By Juergensen
RULE FOR READERS: To say that something is “not mentioned,” is not to say that it is “denied.”
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:00 PM By Catherine
RULES FOR JOHN MAGUIRE, No seamless garment deviationist revolts allowed. We are not supposed to be on anyone’s left side or right side. None of us, including our bishops, should ever deviate from being on God’s side. See Cardinal Burke’s ‘Reflections on the Struggle to Advance the Culture of Life’ … John, Speaking of deviationist revolts, Cardinal Burke writes, “There IS a DISTORTED moral reasoning called proportionalism or consequentialism.” That something is not said, does not mean it is denied.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:15 PM By Juergensen
The Rose: It is you who is putting words in my mouth. I only asked why the Archbishop did “not mention” something. He did in fact NOT MENTION IT, and none of you have the decency to concede that I am right. The only thing I “implied” is that AMCHURCH “denies” that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” while other “social issues” are not: “It is the denial of this truth, and the concomitant attempt to equate the abortion issue with other social issues, that led AMCHURCH to the “Seamless Garment” heresy.” THOSE are my words. Please don’t twist them again.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:30 PM By John F. Maguire
RULE FOR READERS: To draw a false inference from the fact that something is not mentioned, is to drop a major link of logic.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:39 PM By John F. Maguire
Thre is nothing irresponsible about the careful reading of texts, JLS. Such reading requires a responsive openess to what is being said — and the attendant responsibility of getting right what is being said.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:17 PM By John F. Maguire
Archbishop Gomez writes: “But I believe that one day Americans will also come to see the truth about the humanity of the the unborn child and the human embryo. It is only a matter of time. May it be years and not decades. But the time will come. Because this is the truth. […] So that is why the Church will always remain at the center of this great struggle for the right to life in our time. […] We are called to be the voice of those who have no voice. We are called to help our society see that every human life — from conception to death — is sacred and precious to God.” Implicit in these words is the irremoveable truth that the direct killing of preborn infants is an intrinsic evil.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:32 PM By MIKE
Maguire you are avoiding that MURDER (against God’s Commandment) is NOT the SAME as RESPECT (Social Justice). See my post above. CCC: “888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their FIRST TASK “to preach the Gospel of God to all men, in keeping with the Lord’s command. They are heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers of the apostolic faith endowed with the authority of Christ.” If all US Bishops would have promoted the CCC, the Country would not be in such a mess, because more consciences would have been well formed. Let’s praise each Bishop when he does the right thing, otherwise they may become silent again. Let us support them in this fight against abortion and for freedom of religion against Obama, his Administration, and all pro-abortion politicians. Let us encourage them to publically promote the CCC.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:59 PM By k
Juergensen, you are correct. He does not say that abortion is an intrinsic evil and the others are not. He compares it to slavery and the length of time it took Americans to define that as evil. I think he is responding to the idea that it is a waste of time to keep trying to convince Americans of the evil of abortion-not giving a catechism.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 5:23 PM By Juergensen
Thank you, Maguire, for conceding that from my observation of the truth that the Archbishop did not mention something, you drew the false inference that I was saying he denied that something.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:10 PM By fides
Yes, I agree that what is implied in Juergensen’s comment is a criticism of Archbishop Gomez’ words, that because he did not mention that abortion is an intrinsic evil, he therefore has denied this Church teaching. Juergensen may not have meant it to sound like that, so the best I can say is that one best be careful when writing things here people.
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:24 PM By JLS
The denial in our times, as in times past, is in the failure to act, not in the words.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:34 AM By Juergensen
The bishop does not mention that 1 + 1 = 2. Am I saying he denies that 1 + 1 = 2? No. End of class.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:04 AM By Juergensen
k: You are correct in writing that Archbishop Gomez “does not say that abortion is an intrinsic evil and the others are not.” Does that mean that you are saying Archbishop Gomez denies that abortion is an intrinsic evil and the others are not? Of course not. You are just making an observation of a truth, the same observation of a truth I made and for which I have been assailed. This is a symptom of the state of our Church today. A faithful Catholic notes a missed opportunity to teach an eternal truth – the intrinsic evil of abortion vis-a-vis other lesser issues – and supposed “Catholics” chirp in and defend that missed opportunity. You see, these “Catholics” want Catholics to continue believing in the “Seamless Garment” heresy, and vote for supporters of abortion, the high sacrament of Satanism.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 AM By k
Juergensen, no, he absolutely knows that abortion is an intrinsic evil and he is assuming that his audience knows it, too. He is explaining the value of perseverence and using the Church’s time and money to keep trying to change the culture’s mentality-do not give up. It may take decades or even centuries but the truth will win.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:03 AM By Juergensen
k writes: “he absolutely knows that abortion is an intrinsic evil and he is assuming that his audience knows it, too” ~ You mean the audience that voted 52% for abortionist Obama? LOL. Catholics in America, and in particular in California, are so poorly catechized that the notion that they “know” the distinction between intrinsic evils and non-intrinsic evils is truly laughable. Yes, after 40 years of non-catechesis and heretical-catechesis, it’s time for the Church in America to wash its hands and declare catechesis a resounding success and no longer necessary. Hey, maybe this explains the recent action by the USCCB to remove all references to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” from its website, eh?
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:10 AM By Catherine
k, Your last post clearly signifies why it will take centuries for the truth to win! Enablers are a dime a dozen!
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:21 AM By k
My last post did what?
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:21 AM By Juergensen
My last post should have ended “Hey, maybe this explains the recent action by the USCCB to remove all references to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” from its website HOME PAGE, eh?”
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:36 AM By k
Juergensen, I agree with you that Catholics do not know the difference between intrinsic evils and those evils that are not intrinsic. I also would say that many Catholics do not agree that abortion is always evil. On first reading, my jaw dropped when he called those questions “good.” Reading the whole thing again he may have been talking to people who don’t care if it is evil, too. It is not a religious piece; it is about rights and morality. It is not how I think of abortion-I think of it in terms of sin, murder, grief, loss, more of the human and religious issues. So your point is well taken; he did not teach that abortion is evil, but he did call it that; he didn’t go into the other issues of poverty, social justice and peace, at all.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:52 AM By Abeca Christian
Why are people in denial? K why? Don’t you see what Juergensen is saying? He is right you know, he is right.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:03 PM By John F. Maguire
Mike: Because Archbishop Gomez does not, on a specific occasion, use the phrase “intrinsic evil” does NOT mean that he “avoids” the phrase, nor does my NOT using the term “murder” in a specific blog mean that I am avoiding the term. Indeed, isn’t this the term used by the Second Vatican Council, specifically in GAUDIUM ET SPES? Isn’t this the term used in John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter _EVANGELIUM VITAE_ (March 25, 1997)? On the other hand, let’s take care not to say “abortion is murder” when in all actuality what we intend to refererence is PROCURED abortion. Bear in mind: spontaneous miscarriages (as contradistinguished from deliberately induced miscarriages and/or procured abortions), do NOT constitute murder; nor does the indirect killing of preborn infants constitute murder. At the same time, Mike, here, in precise terms, is the Church’s usage to which you make mention: “The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved” (_Evangelium Vitae_ 58). Space precludes my listing these elements, but it is important to keep them in mind so better to understand more exactly the Church’s teaching on procured abortion.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:30 PM By k
abeca, in denial about what? Juergensen is right that Archbishop Gomez did not teach that abortion is an intrinsic evil. I said he was right. He is saying that the archbishop missed an opportunity to teach that some evils like abortion are intrinsically evil-always and everwhere, in every circumstance forbidden. All I was pointing out was that he didn’t write about that. I assumed that he figured people knew that but when I read the whole article again-it just isn’t even in the scope. He never addressed other evils except slavery. Is Juergensen saying that Archbishop Gomez does not believe in the Church’s teaching? I didn’t get that out of it, if he did. Is that what you and Catherine are saying? I’m lost.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:08 PM By John F. Maguire
Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 Note on the “presence of proportionate reason” in the judgment of the voter in electoral decision-making process constitutes NEITHER an endorsement of “proportionalism” NOR an endorsement of “consequentialism.” To suppose otherwise is to confuse [A] the proper use of proportionate reasoning with [B] the very opposite, namely, the abuse of proportionate reasoning. Confusing [A] with [B], Catherine, is no small category mistake.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:08 PM By JLS
A vote for Obama, now as then, is a vote for abortion.
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:10 PM By JLS
k, you say, “I didn’t get that out of it” … bingo, exactly, that is the effect of modernist rhetoric. k, I think you’re on to something.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 1:46 PM By MIKE
Maguire, thank you for telling us what we already know. – That abortion is MURDER, not “Social Justice” (respect for human persons). That is the way it is in the CCC as well.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 3:47 PM By John F. Maguire
On the other hand, Mike, it was insinuated that I don’t know “what we already know” just as it was insinuated that Archbishop Gomez does not regard, or might not regard, procured abortion as an intrinsic evil.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 5:34 PM By Brian S
Some folks are hard to satisfy. Write and publish a blunt, straightforward piece on the fundamental importance of the right to life only to suffer snide attacks of ignorance, distortion, or inaction.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:38 PM By JLS
Brian S., you need to toughen up. The best thing is strengthen your faith in Jesus.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 8:29 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Archbishop Gomez is definitely one of the better bishops, but he falls horribly short when it comes to enforcing Canon 915 and reforming the scandalous Religious Education Congress. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 11:17 AM By k
Mr. Fisher, I was looking at the REC workshop list and a lot of them look really interesting. I have a couple of questions. I understand that you organize a protest outside of it every year because some of the presenters are heterodox. Are you outside because you are not permitted to enter because you don’t live in the diocese? Has anyone ever dialogued (as they like to say) with you about your concerns?
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:34 PM By John F. Maguire
An “en haut au bas” judgment about another person’s strength of faith is tamtamount, JLS, to a pretense to a cardiognostic insight that we are NOT given, that is, short of receiving infused knowledge from the Holy Spirit.
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:15 PM By JLS
In other words, Maguire, you simply do not know.
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 11:07 PM By Abeca Christian
k I don’t know but sometimes when I read your posts, I get the feeling that you go both ways and that is why I feel that you may be in denial, sometimes you seem like you want to explain the other side’s point of view even when they are wrong and it seems like it is working against the reality of What Juergensen is trying to convey which is right! I know you don’t see or are in denial of all the facts that he has exposed. Oh well never mind, I give up, I wanted to back up what Catherine suspected but I am not able to convey well. So I can’t help you, but I get what Catherine means. I really do!
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:43 PM By John F. Maguire
The operative word in my post, JLS, was “we”: “We are not given such knowledge, that is, short of receiving infused knowledge from the Holy Spirit.”
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:45 PM By k
abeca, thank you for your answer. I understand that other posters do not like me. I think there is in your post the answer. You say I go both ways, you say I want to explain the other side. I didn’t take sides. I actually verified for Mr. Jeurgensen his observation, I did not side with the people criticizing him. Then tried to explain that the Archbishop did not support his thesis. Not justifying it-just an observation.
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:38 AM By Abeca Christian
k it’s not personal, it is not about whether people do not like you or do. It’s not about that. It’s how you come across to those who are consistent in defending the faith overall. So it’s not that they don’t like you, believe me, God loving folks do not dislike you, they love you enough to point out the obvious but I don’t know how one can help you because you don’t see it, or are in denial or are fooling us? Who knows? Well anyhoo, let’s move on. For the record, I don’t dislike you. : ) Go in peace. God bless!
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:11 PM By k
abeca, I think I have figured out some of what I am doing and some of the misunderstanding. Some of the people that you claim are consistent in defending the faith are not defending the faith. They are defending something they read somewhere or heard somewhere that is not exactly what the Church says. They may be defending the faith of 500 years ago, which is not inappropriate, but there has been 500 years of grace since then. Many times the discussions are about things that the Church has not yet adaquately explained or dealt with or where the sources we have from the church leave some ambiguity. Many people post CCC teachings to confirm us in grace. People have strong opinions and present them and argue for them which is fine. I do not want to argue. If I find something pertinent to the discussion, I will post it. It is information. I am not taking sides. If the information supports a certain person, that’s how it is. If I find information that supports the other person, I post that too. I see how you could think that I was going both ways.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:38 AM By Abeca Christian
k I have to disagree with your analogy and therefore leaving us with square one, you refuse to look at yourself, when one keeps making those excuses, of course there will be lacking improvement of self. I would have to go back to my original thoughts which are what I have said in the past. Lets move on. It was a low blow when you used the word “claim”. I knew then what I was dealing with. Best we just keep each other in ones prayers, for those prayers won’t go in vein, they’ll be poured upon those who embrace them. Prayer is good. With a sincere heart, God will be the judge of that. God loves us and if we do not see, he will show us and discipline us with love. That is why I am with the believe that we are dysfunctional without our Lord’s graces! I’m not too proud to admit that I am a broken person without them! I pray for an increase of virtues and an increase of faith upon us all!
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:04 AM By k
I will certainly retract the word “claim” and change it to “said”. Wasn’t trying to offend. I don’t know how to make you understand. This isn’t about me!
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:30 AM By k
abeca, maybe I don’t understand what you think a person should be posting? Do you feel posts should be restricted to certain viewpoints or purposes?
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:16 PM By Abeca Christian
k no it is not about restrictions, it is about how you come across, k you seem to quote a lot of church docs and faith but sometimes when an issue is for the good of the faith, you sometimes try to present what the opposition feels. This shifting can bring forth confusion but k, like i also said before to Catherine is that I am not good at pointing about how you come across, she did well on that but you still deny her comments. So I just want to let this go now. It’s getting us now where. I think that some here dislike the back and forth and feel that some of your comments are actually working against the faith. That is all. You are right, I didn’t want to make it about you but you keep asking me questions and I am trying to reply as best as I can. I’m failing, so sorry. Keep the faith and pray.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:47 PM By Catherine
Abeca, Heart, soul and gut instincts are there for a good reason!
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:12 PM By k
abeca. OK we’ll drop it. God bless you.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:40 PM By JLS
Maguire, an “operative” word is a verb, not a pronoun.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:42 PM By JLS
Maguire, you bog down too much, critically too much, by straining at concepts such as “infused knowledge by the Holy Spirit”. Communion with God through the Holy Eucharist provides us with the resources of God, one of which is knowledge.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:34 PM By Abeca Christian
Catherine I agree completely. You nailed it!
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:39 PM By Nan
All posts by Catholics must be in accord with the teachings of the Faith as stated in the CCC or a Catholic Bible when they use public media such as CCD. We are all responsible for leading souls to heaven, not to confuse or lead them away from the Church. Unless there are errors we should strive toward UNITY when possible. That is why everyone needs to know their Faith. See the section on UNITY in the CCC- 821 “…..it is the unfiathfulness of the members to Christ’s gift (our Church) which causes divisions”
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:59 PM By k
Nan, thank you for your post.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:07 PM By JLS
In reality, Nan, unity is not achieved by reading or adhering or whatever; Unity is granted by God through Holy Communion, which unites us with God and thus with one another. Of course true doctrine is required both in thought and in one’s actions. But it is the Holy Eucharist which creates the union, not what you know or how much you know. “Unfaithfulness” acts through the reception of Holy Communion … without faith or with unfaithfulness, the grace of the Sacrament may not happen, depending on whether it is mortal unfaithfulness or venial and if venial then how serious, weighed on scales with one’s virtues as well, ie acts of charity.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:57 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Nan, I wish all posts by Catholics on CCD were indeed in accord with Catholic teachings. I think if that day ever comes, I will be but an earthly memory, having expired quite unexpectedly of severe shock.
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:39 PM By k
JLS, venial sins are wiped away by reception of the Blessed Sacrament. CCC 1394
Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:51 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS and Maryanne great comments to Nan. Love it!
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:53 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: INFUSED KNOWLEDGE is a traditional term in Catholic theology. It pertains especially to the question of the knowledge of Christ. Christ’s knowledge is acquired as the knowledge of all men is acquired, but Christ, in his sacred humanity, also possesses prophetico cardiognostic knowledge, that is knowledge “infused” by his own Divinity co-eternal with the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the term “infused knowledge” is a term that belongs to Christology, especially this domain’s study of Christ’s prophetic/cardiognostic knowledge. QUESTION: Has the Catholic Church anathematized those who deny that Christ’s human soul, beyond acquired knowledge and short of beatific knowledge, is in receipt of prophetic and cardiognostic knowledge, that is, INFUSED KNOWLEDGE? The answer is Yes: Those who deny that Christ is in receipt of infused knowledge have been anathematized by the Church and famously so, under their title AGNOETAE (from the Greek agnoetae, to be ignorant of). See “Agnoetae,” _Encyclopedia Brittannica_, 1911 (“AGNOETAE… is a monophysite sect who maintained that Christ’s human nature was like all other men’s in all respects, including limited knowledge. […] This sect was anathematized by Gregory the Great”). Contrary to the Agnoetae then, simultaneously present in Christ are three types of knowledge: “BEATIFIC — the divine Word always knows God directly in Essence; INFUSED — the human soul of Christ receives knowledge directly from His Divinity; ACQUIRED — the human soul of Christ experiences and learns through nature, as all human persons.” Source: Fr. John Echert, “The Son’s Knowledge,” _EWTN Catholicf Q&A_ (November 18, 2003). Fr. Echert reminds us that intances of evidence of “the infused knowledge of Christ abound in all four Gospels and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the knowledge our Lord possessed in His humanity [is] of that [type] which He could only know from His divinity, as infused knowledge.”
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:46 PM By JLS
k, the guilt of venial sins is wiped away, so long as there is no mortal sin on the recipient. But the damage from the sins remains … which includes dimming of the conscience and lessens the potential union with God through the Sacrament … except in the rare case of “complete” contrition.
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:02 PM By Sally
Getting back to the article – ABORTION and EUTHANASIA trump other Social Justice Issues in the USA today. It is sinful to vote for pro-abortionists when there is another choice. “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” – God.
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:00 PM By k
abeca, when I was looking for a school for my child, we looked at a Christian school with classical education. My concern was how a Catholic would be treated. I was told honestly that on a day to day basis it would not be an issue, but in a disagreement that is the first place the kids would go to needle him. I have thought a lot about what you said and, though I know we agreed to drop it, I would like to tell you my thoughts. There are disagreements on this website that come up time and time again. The disagreements are not personal; they are doctrinal. Often times, people try to manipulate the church’s doctrine or decisions to support a political or cultural agenda. When someone else posts that it is not correct or accurate, that is when it gets personal. Accusations of bad Catholic, leftist, modernist, inconsistent, whatever, are hurled in an attempt to undermine the person who is standing with the Church. Occasionally, even outright lies like homosexual apologist or homosexual or Obama supporter are made. The attack on the poster is actually an attack on the Church’s doctrine or decision which they don’t want posted because it is not supportive of the agenda. Sometimes, the people who are being attacked, respond in kind. All of this is very sinful. I do not believe it is a conscious thing that the posters are doing, I am sure it is a habit or reaction that is not thought completely through. It works as a smokescreen to keep Truth and Sanctity from being promoted. I know that is not the intention, but that is the result.
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:09 PM By JLS
k, often the disagreements are personal. Catholicism is not a gnostic thing about doctrines, but a personal thing about individual salvation. You are the target of salvation, not your ideas.
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:36 PM By k
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:38 PM By JLS
k, arguing with someone is not a sin. Describing someone in “colorful” language is not a sin either if it expresses a fact and moves towards the truth.
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:40 PM By JLS
k, also each individual is responsible for his or her salvation. If there is a smokescreen, then what are you going to do? Are you willing to gamble that St Peter at the Pearly Gates will buy your pitch that you went astray because of a smokescreen?
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:51 PM By k
JLS, there are legitimate disagreements. There are disagreements based on ignorance. Discussion is necessary. Arguing can be sinful. It is on the list of some examinations of conscience. Describing someone in colorful language is an imperfection or a sin, depending on what is said and why it is said. Remember James 3:1-18. As for the smokescreen, if an innocent is misled he who misleads them will bear the punishment. Matthew 18:6
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:49 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: You post a claim to the effect that Catholic Christianity is “not a gnostic thing about doctines, but an individual thing about personal salvation.” REPLY: Although your claim contains a basic truth, your reductively individualist — I would even say pietist — way of putting the matter has been redressed by many writers, not least Jean Cardinal Danielou (see J. Danielou, _The Salvation of the Nations_ [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1950). ~ A second obvservation: To demote doctrine as a mere “gnostic thing” in favor of “personal salvation” dirempts the notion of saving knowledge, or true gnosis. Put differently: in referring to Catholicity as not “a gnostic thing about doctrines,” straightaway you miss the traditional distinction between true gnosis and false gnosis, authentic gnosis and inauthentic gnosis. In an important text, we read: “[St. Clement of Alexandria’s] catechesis accompanied the catechumens and the baptized step by step so that with the two ‘wings’ of faith and reason they might reach intimate knowledge of the Truth, which is Jesus Christ, the Word of God. Only the knowledge of the person who is truth is the ‘true GNOSIS,’ a Greek terms which means ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding.'” Accordingly, “authentic gnosis is a development of faith inspired by Jesus Christ in the soul united with him” (Benedict XVI, _Great Christian Thinkers: From the Early Church through the Middle Ages_ (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2011, p. 16).
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:37 PM By JLS
k, and you know where to draw the line between what one can say and what one is damned by saying?
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:51 PM By JLS
Maguire, I expected you to jump on my “individualist” post, and thus did not word it more fully because the topic deserves some discussion. Although I know what I’m trying to convey, I also know that I have yet to develop a clear means of conveying it. Yes, the Church saves nations, but a nation is an array of individuals, not all of whom are saved even though the there are enough saved that the nation retains its identity as a nation, although a Catholic nation. Since you, Maguire, consistently confuse ideas with people, I have brought up the criticism directed at this problem and use the concept of gnosticism … a religion based on knowledge instead of faith. More profoundly speaking, Catholicism is based on love, which necessitates faith and hope; whereas, it is not based on knowledge: no one can “know” his or her way into Heaven, but depend on faith, hope and love. When Jesus says “know the truth” He is telling us to love, not to read a book or attend a class. Jesus is truth and love; we come to develop our knowledge through reception of the Holy Eucharist; total human knowledge does not unite one with God, but only the Eucharist does this, and we do not really even have to know this to faithfully receive and be united to God through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the way we unite with God; we know Him when we commit an act of love. Those who love unborn babies do not vote for the Obamas of this world, nor do they argue a case for doing so.
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:02 PM By JLS
A simple way to look at it is this, Maguire: Ideas do not receive salvation, but individual souls. Organized groups of souls can coincidently individually receive salvation. All one soul can do for another is persuade that other towards salvation. Jesus died and rose for our salvation, but it is we, individually, who have to accept it; otherwise, the individual simply does not receive the welcome through the Pearly Gates. Personality matters, group affiliation does not ultimately count. By “personality” I mean individual souls. There are key Gospel accounts of what Jesus says that bring out this truth that salvation is of souls and not of ideas: for example, a group of people is an idea which describes some common characteristic of those in the group. A group can be saved, but this “group salvation” is only coincidental, even though each member of the group may have been instrumental in persuading one or others to follow Jesus all the way to the end. The Pope recently called the bishops to “become holy”: Maguire, they each have to do this, which is much more than basking in some idea that their positions have guaranteed them Heaven.
Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:25 AM By John F. Maguire
To the contrary, nations are moral realities, not mere ideas. Nations as nations then fall within the total social fact we know and acknowledge as the Redemptive Incarnation. (See Jean Danielou, _The Salvation of the Nations_ [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1950]). JLS, the fact that Christ is the Lord of history; the fact that Christ is the salvation of the nations, are two fundamental aspects of the “true GNOSIS” to which Clement of Alexandria and, after him, Benedict XVI refer. The reason why these two fundamental aspects of the Christian gnosis involve personal salvation in a primary and intimate way is that personal salvation is a social reality. How, in all actuality, could personal salvation not be? Human persons are always already social beings.
Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:25 AM By k
JLS, one is damned by saying? OK, If one is not sorry and does not confess, and one knows the action is evil and does so with full intent, the sin in arguing probably involves how one argues, if one is causing harm not just to peace but also to the psyche. And of course, if one resorts to other grave sins such as telling large or premeditated lies, serious gossip, detraction or calumny, which is revealing faults of another or harming their reputation without serious reason, violating a confidence without a good reason and being an accomplice to a sin of another. Obviously, if you are arguing in favor of a grave sin and someone believes you, with all the conditions mentioned above, that would be a mortal sin.