Please read my latest post at the Register that can tell you the "One Weird Trick Can Make You Holy"
It is not to be missed. As always, and particularly these days, I appreciate your support there.
3/07/2014 09:53:00 AM
http://www.communio-icr.com/files/dlschindler40-2.pdfHere's an article by David Schindler in Communio which touches on the topic of Dignitas Humanae and how Karol Wotyla's interpretation of it is closer to tradition than John Courtney Murray's. I have some doubts - I'm no lover of John Courtney Murray, but my instinct is that his understanding of DH is correct. Freedom means you get to do what you want, when you want. That's the most basic meaning of the word, and using it in another sense risks confusing people. But I think the article is worthwhile.
thanks for the warning. Satan is trying to make good on his promise to destroy Christ's Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Unregulation, unlimited and consequence free sex is the sacrament of the secular. Whatever stands in its way is destroyed. (all the while complaining that they are victims...cant forget that part of their dogma)
Just another Protestant denomination. You cannot be Catholic, and be outside the Roman Catholic Church. They pretend to be what they are not: "...the American National Catholic Church is a valid expression of Catholicism..." Nonsense.
I thought the Episcopal Church was the American national Catholic Church.
Gee, MAYBE its because abstinence only education has proven not to work. Ask Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas. Huge failure.
Pat,Nice try. Get over it!
I am not surprised by something like this. Satan is very good at deceiving people. Here is a story talking about a Catholic church that is really not a Catholic Church. People who are not familiar with the ANCC will think that is a real Roman Catholic church so they will believe that the church has changed her stance which is not the case. If he can use Bible verses to try and deceive Jesus in the desert, what is going to stop him from using a church to deceive the American people.
Pat I am the one you deleted and that's fine it is your website and your right. So you don't need to explain. I was simply trying to explain how many folks feel but what concerns me more is why either you or your brother can write an open letter to a Bishop or the Pope about the SSPX, but I can't express my views? FYI I will after today not come to post on this website anymore because apparently you don't believe in free speech and free expression of viewpoints. Goodbye and God Bless.
Oh, David...while you are most correct that the definition of freedom you cite IS the most basic meaning of the word, the ability to do what you want when you want is NOT freedom at all, but slavery. Not only is Wotyla on the money, his views on freedom are in line with the mind of the Church going back to .True freedom is the ability to do what one OUGHT. Moses initially asked Pharoah for the freedom of his people to go our into the desert to worship God. When Jesus said. "The truth shall set you free!" He most assuredly did not mean it as you state. You can't seriously believe Jesus offers Salvation through the ability to do whatever you want, when you want. You are correct, however, to note the cognitive dissonence between true freedom and its popular but distorted meaning. On the surface, the kind of freedom Murray postulated seems instinctively desirable. Instead, living it delivers us into slavery to the very things we believe we want to be able to do unfettered by any restraint. Attaining such "freedom" is an illusion which usually is dispelled only when we discover that most of what beckons us is not of God. For some this may take a lifetime, tragically. It is in the pursuit of doing whatever WE want that we enter into a life which inevitably transforms our self-absorbed pursuit of freedom into slavery; first to the objects of our interest and ultimately into sin. Beneath it all, we find we have separated ourselves from God. Murray - may God rest his soul - is responsible for leading many into sin because of this falsehood.I wrestled with this concept for a long time, and it is no accident that understanding true freedom was central to my study of the Theology of the Body. My return to total chastity 6 years ago is a primary fruit of my acceptance of this reality.There's way more to discerning true freedom, and reading Karol Wotyla is a great way to do it because he gets it. Murray simply does not, and given the widespread damage he has done to American Catholic morality I recommend he only be studied to analyze the roots of this damage. Otherwise, junk him.
That one struck home, and is very appropriate for the First Week of Lent when we hear of our Lord overcoming the three temptations in the desert.
David,The actual meaning of freedom is not, "you get to do what you want, when you want." It has always been understood, at least in society's that haven't given up the ability to think for themselves, in this sense, I am free to use the roads in America as long as I am licensed and I do nothing to violate that freedom, if I do, I loose the freedom to use the roads. So the correct understanding is that with every freedom one must be willing to sacrifice. I would suggest that because our modern hippie society has given it your meaning we must be careful not to attribute the same understanding to someone like Pope John Paul II of happy memory.
To be clear, I believe in freedom as Augustine would have it. I also believe it's important to maintain the traditional pedagogical method of moving from the more to the less obvious. The most obvious definition of freedom is freedom from restraint - you can frame that as a hippy thing, but I would prefer to call it a child thing. Children understand freedom as being able to do what they want - and that isn't wrong, it's just incomplete. When we look at the bigger picture, we are still "doing what we want" it's just that what we really want is the Beatific Vision. Pursuing that goal can include enduring many restraints - which is why I find the council's rejection of coercion in all cases surprising. I would have thought that freedom as we believe it would include a positive vision of strong moral leadership in the Church and State. I am much more comfortable with Pope Leo's model of tolerating evil for the sake of a proportionate good, but strictly speaking evil has no rights. My beef with the council is that it expects everyone to be able to understand freedom in its less obvious sense. We can blame the 'culture' for misrepresenting the council, or we can take responsibility for the ambiguities. Anyhow, I was trying to be positive by posting the Schindler article. Schindler at least attempts to do some long overdue damage control on Dignitas Humanae by moving beyond John Courtney Murray, who most certainly did understand religious freedom as religious licence.