Thursday, September 1, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
RH bill part II
Santiago cites ‘primacy of conscience’ in defense of RH Bill
Catholic Church opposition to contraceptives 'outdated'
Lots of error in the article:http://ph.news.yahoo.com/catholic-church-opposition-contraceptives-outdated-040002667.html#mwpphu-container
Sen Santiago in black fonts:
Sancta_Rosa in blue:
"With Vatican II, the seeds of a democratic revolution were sown. In the past, Catholics simply obeyed the bishops. But now, many Catholics are no longer willing to give blind obedience to the Church,"
Vatican II, like all other Councils, was the workd of the Pope and the body of Bishops and the Holy Spirit. Not a democratic revolution. Also, blind obedience to the Church has never been required by God of the faithful. We are to use faith and reason to understand that to which we adhere. What many modern-day Catholics are not willing to give is the assent of faith to Church teachings, and so they sin.
"The senator said Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on which the Church bases its opposition to contraception, was based on the minority report. The majority report recognized that "in some cases, intercourse can be required as a manifestation of self-giving love" and not just for procreation."
The teaching against contraception was the definitive teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium long before Humane Vitae. The teachings of the Church are not democratic, so it is irrelevant what the majority or minority believed. See this
Zenit article on HV: http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english
"The teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception is one of the important reasons why the absolute authority of the Church has grown weaker over the years," Santiago added.
That may be true, to some extent. When there is a conflict between inordinate use of sexuality and religion, many choose sex.
Santiago, who has a master's degree from the Maryhill School of Theology, said Humanae Vitae contradicts Vatican II, "which allowed for a wider basis for evaluating the morality of (sex)."
Not at all true. Vatican II also condemned birth control: "Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law." The footnote cites Casti Connubii and Address to Midwives.
Santiago said contraception falls under liberation theology, which sees the Catholic Church as "an earthly community of human beings who have a mission that includes the struggle on behalf of justice, peace, and human rights."
Contraception falls under moral theology. The type of liberation theology cited has been often condemned by the Church, including condemnations by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF. The description of the Church quoted above is heresy, because it omits from the Church, Christ as Her head, Her members in Purgatory and Heaven, Her mission of salvation and teaching (on faith AND morals).
"I humbly submit that the struggle for an RH bill to protect the health and quality of life of the mother and child in the context of unspeakable poverty is part of liberation theology," she said.
Yes, it is a part of a theology that the Magisterium has condemned for its many errors.
Santiago added that Vatican II taught the "primacy of conscience." Conscience is inviolable, and the individual Catholic has a right to follow her own conscience, even when it is erroneous,” she said.
Conscience is subordinate to the teachings of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, through His Church. The human person is obligated to inform his conscience, so that errors are discovered and removed. No one has an objective right to believe what is erroneous, not to act based on error.
Vatican II: "they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel."
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Genealogy
Table below:
The image is large so I have to push it down for easy viewing.
[John]
{19:25} And standing beside the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Standing beside the Cross of Jesus, there were four women:
1. Mary, the mother of Jesus, whose parents were Anna and Joachim (called Heli in Luke 3:24)
2. Maria, the older sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the sister was called Maria of Heli, according to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
3. Mary of Cleophas, the daughter of Maria of Heli and Cleophas (the nephew of St. Joseph)
4. Mary Magdalene (a wealthy, formerly sinful, woman from Magdala; the sister of Martha and Lazarus)
5. Salome, also called Mary Salome, is mentioned in Sacred Scripture (Mk 15:40 and 16:1). She also was among the holy women who followed Jesus.
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich:
“Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph” (Mk 15:40) is the same as Mary Cleophas. She married Alphaeus, and three of their sons were Apostles: Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and James the Less. Matthew (Levi) the Apostle was the son of Alphaeus by his first wife.
Mary Salome married Zebedee, and two of their sons were Apostles: James the Greater and John the Gospel writer.
All the aforementioned Apostles (6 of them) were related distantly. Eluid was a Levite who married Ismeria. Their daughter Sobe was the mother of Mary Salome. Their daughter Anna (wife of Joachim) was the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Maria of Heli, the grandmother of Mary Cleophas, and the great-grandmother to Jude, Simon, and James the Less. Matthew would be related to Anna only by the later marriage of his father to Mary Cleophas, so Matthew was the half-brother to Jude, Simon, and James the Less.
In addition, Acts of the Apostles mentions another Mary:
{12:12} And as he was considering this, he arrived at the house of Mary, the mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered and were praying.
This John Mark was the Gospel writer Mark, who fled with Peter to Rome during one of the first persecutions of Christians in the Holy Land.
Matthew versus Luke
As for the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, Matthew tell us the genealogy of Joseph, who was the legal father of Jesus under religious law, especially since he was betrothed to Mary prior to the Incarnation of Christ.
“According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first, the legal, or true marriage was celebrated, and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought the wife into his own house. Thus, before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her ‘husband.’ ” (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Custos)
In other words, the betrothal was the beginning of the marriage in the Jewish religion.
The promise that the Messiah would be descended from Abraham and David was fulfilled under the law through Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (though not the father according to the body). The promise was fulfilled according to the body, by physical descent, through Mary. Matthew gives us Joseph’s genealogy; Luke gives us Mary’s genealogy.
{3:23} And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat,
{3:24} who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Jannai, who was of Joseph,
The text says “being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph” because Joseph’s name stands in the place of Mary. Jewish genealogies are through the father’s line, not generally through the mother’s line. As the rabbis say: “The father’s line is a line; the mother’s line is not a line.” The verse says “as it was supposed” to indicate that Joseph is not in this line, he merely represents Mary. So Mary was the daughter of Heli, another name for Joachim (according to Blessed Emmerich).
Also according to Emmerich:
“Joachim was poor and a relative of St. Joseph. Josephs grandfather Mathan had descended from David through Solomon. He had two sons, Joses and Jacob. The latter was Josephs father. When Mathan died, his widow married a second husband named Levi, descendant of David through Nathan. The fruit of this marriage was Mathat, the father of Heli, or Joachim.” (Life of Jesus Christ, Volume 1)
Joseph was the son of Jacob, who was the son of Mathan (a descendant of David through Solomon, as the Gospel of Matthew says). Mathan’s widow married Levi (a descendant of David through Nathan, as the Gospel of Luke says), and their son was Matthat, the father of Heli (i.e. Joachim). So the father of Joachim (Matthat) and the father of Joseph (Jacob) were half brothers. This makes Joseph and Joachim half first cousins.
The Children of Joachim and Anna
Ss. Joachim and Anna had two daughter (no sons) — the Blessed Virgin Mary and her older sister, called Mary of Heli. The second name of a person in that time and culture was often the first name of the father. So Maria Heli is the daughter (not the wife) of Heli.
Maria of Heli married Cleophas (the nephew of Joseph), and her daughter is Mary Cleophas — the daughter, not the wife, of Cleophas. Mary Cleophas married Alphaeus, and their sons included the three Apostles: Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and James the younger (the less).
Alphaeus had a son by his first wife; that son is Matthew (Levi) the Apostle and Gospel writer.
James the greater was called ‘greater’ because he was older than James the younger. James the greater and his brother John the Gospel writer were distant cousins of Jude, Simon, and James the less. The grandmother of James and John was the sister of the great-grandmother (Anna) of Jude, Simon, and James the less.
This explanation of genealogies was revealed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich by God in private revelation. But it is also in accord with Sacred Scripture.
Last Names
Some of the women in the New Testament have an apparent last name; this is not the same as last names in our time. For example:
Mary Magdalene was from Magdala, so her last name is a place. We could also call her Mary of Magdala. Jesus of Nazareth: He grew up in Nazareth. Jesus Christ: He is the Christ, the Anointed savior of the world.
Maria Heli — Heli is the other first name used to refer to Joachim. So Maria Heli is not the wife of Heli, but the dauther.
Mary Cleophas — Cleophas was her father’s first name, not her husband’s first name.
Mary Salome — Salomo was her father’s first name, not her husband’s first name.
This type of last name shows the lineage of the woman, by referring to her father, not to her spouse as some have claimed.
Similar examples can be found of men:
James of Zebedee (Mt 10:3) — Zebedee is the name of his father.
James of Alphaeus (Mt 10:3) — Alphaeus is the name of his father.
Judas Iscariot (Mt 10:4) [is-cariot, meaning man of Carioth, a place]
Simon the Canaanite (Mt 10:4) — Canaan is an area, but Canaanite is an ethnicity.
On the other hand:
Simon Zelotes (the Zealous) — the name describeds his character, that he had a zeal for the Jewish law (this implies also that he was very literate).
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/correcting-confusion-about-the-identities-of-persons-in-the-gospels/
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
RH Bill - Q and A
Posted by Claire:
Abortion is the greatest sin in this world and each of us need to take stand for life, you cannot say you love God, if you are disobeying His commandments, life is precious in Gods eyes.
A piece of advice : Do not allow the world to fool you, you should not listen to those who are refusing to take stand on life. We must protect life and believe that God is who decides who should live or die.
Armor yourself with purity, humility and love. Keep prayer always near...
Claire May Tolentino
{Esther 8:2} ...and she humbled her body with fasting, and all the aspects of her beauty, she covered with her torn hair.
SharlieM..: Why are you talking about abortion?
Charity aka Yidda (my sister) :
Many forms of contraception are abortifacient (able to cause an abortion). Perhaps more abortions occur from abortifacient contraception than from surgical abortions.
Contraception leads to abortion because both are based on a rejection of sound ethics in the area of sexuality and procreation.
Pope John Paul II: "It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".
"But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.
"The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13)
www.gmanews.tv/story/212992/catholic-bishops-our-stand-on-the-rh-bill-is-like-edsa-1
Joe wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:
Really? Then why did Pope John XXIII and later
expanded by Pope Paul VI created the Pontifical Commission on Birth
Control? A commission whose sole purpose is to study if the church can
change its stand on this issue without the Pope's Infallibility taking a hit.It
took the experts and clergy assigned in this commission two years from
1964 to 1966 of study and what was the majority's conclusion? In 1966,
majority of this commission basically concluded that "artificial birth
control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be
allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed".
The voting in this commission went 60 - 4 (laity)
for change, 9 - 6 (clergy) for change. The majority added that the
Pope's Infallibility will definitely take a hit but to change is the
right thing to do.
Pope Paul VI did not act on it immediately but when he did, he took the minority conclusion and the rest they say is history.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/220667/nation/palace-to-bishops-dont-turn-rh-bill-issue-into-personal-war-vs-aquino#comment-204304669
Yidda :
The person quoted above is mistaken about the commission. See this article for accurate information: http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english
The claim that they were concerned that 'papal infallibility would take a hit' is false and absurd. The commission was studying the new form of birth control that had recently been invented, oral contraceptives. There was no prior magisterial teaching, infallible or non-infallible, specifically on oral contraceptives because it was a new invention. So there could not have been a prior use of papal infallibility on the subject.
The basic ethical question was: Are oral contraceptives morally the same as other forms of artificial birth control that had long been condemned by the Church.
Grisez: "But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned."
"Q. why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority -- nine of 16 -- of the cardinals and bishops?
"Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission's final report, he studied it.
"After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority's case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception."
Church teaching is not determined by a majority vote. What if the Jews of Jesus' time had voted as to whether or not He was the Messiah? Most Jews did not convert to Christianity, so we can conclude that most would vote, 'No.'
Joe wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:
And below is the minority conclusion/report, co-authored by a Cardinal who would later on become Pope John Paul II:
"If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself,
then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on
the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti
Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives),
and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists
in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that
for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a
large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.
This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme
imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding,
under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be
sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same
acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by
the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at
least not approved."
Yidda:
The above quote reasons that the Holy Spirit could not possibly have abandoned the teaching authority of the Church, and therefore, the teaching of the Church against contraception must be a true teaching. Since this [at the time] new form of contraception is morally still a type of contraception, it too must be immoral. So the reasoning of this quote (attributed to Pope John Paul II when he was a Cardinal, but I cannot confirm this) is sound.
MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:
But the MAGISTERIUM (teaching authority) of the Roman Church is NEVER primary nor more powerful than the very CONSCIENCE OF MAN itself! My conscience tells me that my bishops are WRONG on the issue of the RH Bill. The right of the State to ensure the health of its citizens and give them education and legally recognized options to plan the growth of their individual families should never be deemed evil nor damnable by the Church. I admonish the bishops to listen to the COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCES OF ITS MEMBERS - the Body of Christ - who suffer the effects of poor education on this subject matter.
Yidda :
The Magisterium teaches either infallibly (no possibility of error) or non-infallibly (limited possibility of error). The Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium in teaching on faith and morals. The Magisterium teaches from infallible Tradition and infallible Scripture. So the teaching of the Magisterium is above the conscience, which is unable to teach infallibly or even non-infallibly.
The expression 'the collective consciences of the faithful' is merely a way to suggest that the faithful could vote, and by a majority overrule the Holy Spirit teaching through the Magisterium. But the majority of the faithful can go astray, they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit as the Magisterium is.
Catholics are morally obligated to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. For the teaching of the Magisterium is the teaching of Christ. Should the listeners of Christ preaching, during His ministry here on earth, have been able to vote to see if a majority agreed with him?
MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:
Claire, the election of a pope is a fruit of a "majority opinion". When you use the Word of God to make a point, I suggest you contemplate on it first. I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!
Yidda :
When a Pope is elected, only Cardinals vote. Currently, all Cardinals are Bishops. Also they are not voting on what is moral and what is immoral. But if they were voting on questions of morality, they are Bishops, so they can exercise the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not at all the same as having a majority of the laity determine what is or is not moral by a vote.
MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:
Claire, before the MAGISTERIUM, there is the HUMAN CONSCIENCE! And my conscience is already tired of seeing so many children born from parents who have not planned their future ahead of time. Authentic respect from human life begins with PROPER FAMILY PLANNING!
Yidda:
The Magisterium is above the human conscience, because the Magisterium has the guarantee from Jesus that His Spirit will guide the teaching of the Magisterium to avoid error.
Cardinal Ratzinger: "Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good." (CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 38.)
The bad consequence that children are born in difficult situations cannot cause contraception to become moral, because contraception is intrinsically evil. It is a type of act that is wrong by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances.
Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
[...]
"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Casti Connubii, n. 54-56.)
Pope John Paul II: "Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church 'is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.' And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral 'every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.' " (Familiaris Consortio, 32; inner quote is from Humanae Vitae, n. 12, 14.)
_____________
there how it goes the discussion in GMAnews etc... posted here for easy reading ~ ClaireMay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)