|
Post by guillaume on Dec 6, 2008 12:43:22 GMT
I suspect he means it in the same sense that St. Paul speaks of "becoming dead to sin" and "putting on a new life"; not physically but spiritually. By the way, Gabriel, you should differentiate between judging acts and judging the person who commits those acts. A may commit heinous sins and yet through repentance (including reparation where possible) be raised higher than B who never committed such heinous sins but never repented those sins he did commit. Is this what you mean by "crucified"? Exactly. I am reading a great great book for great sinner, like me (in French) called "the Art of using his Faults". It is mainly based on the Spirit and Writings of Saint Francois de Sales. In this book, dedicated to sinners, above all great sinners and people who fall frequently, Saint Francis teach us that God allows some sins, and sometimes serious sins, in order, for us, to remind that "without Him" you cannot do nothing. Humility. Proud leads to sin. End of the Story. However, Saint Francis teach us as well that sinners should never abandon Faith and above all Hope, and never fall in despair, despite their great misery due to their sins. God's Mercy is infinite, never stops. Saint Francis tells us to regret - of course - our sins, to - on some sort - contemplate them with horror, but also not to concentrate too much on them. It is the demon's will, after he managed to lead us into temptation - to lead us into despair. That would be the sin of Judas, who despaired to the end, taken his own life. And proportionally, because of the Mercy of God, great sinners can become great saints, indeed. If their repentance is proportional to the seriousness of their sins. I am not saying that we must sin to become saint ! ;D But because of the Mercy of God, who can make a good from bad, and ONLY because of the mercy and grace of God, some great sinners can become great saints. They are many examples.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 19, 2011 21:30:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cato on Oct 24, 2011 8:47:02 GMT
Of course, whatever about the last one, the next president looks likely to be a divorcee who in a radio interview said that he does not believe in god but does believe in a higher power (whatever that might be). Will he be our first non-Christian president?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 25, 2011 21:22:06 GMT
Douglas Hyde's theological convictions were a bit murky though I think he probably was Christian in some sense, and I confess to being a bit sceptical about what Mary Robinson actually believes in. I might add that - speaking personally - I vote on people's policies rather than their religious allegiance; for example, I would vote for a pro-life atheist rather than an unquestionably sincere Catholic who was pro-choice (such people do exist). In Mr Gallagher's case this is one of many areas in which the electorate seem to be choosing a pig in a poke [i.e. a bag] as distinct from the all-too-visible alternative pigs on public display.
|
|
|
Post by Los leandros on Oct 26, 2011 10:03:34 GMT
Agree with hibernicus. I would much prefer a pro-life atheist than a luke warm wishy-washy nominal Catholic. I could never buy into the tribal, " my family was always Fine Gael/Fianna Fail, therefore I also have to vote for their candidate " ( regardless of the candidates personal qualities ). Does anyone find it annoying the way that socially conservative candidates are always posited by the media with the cliched question about what they would do if they were presented by the " State " ( i.e. D. 4 Liberals ) with legislation they disagreed with ( usually code for abortion or same sex " marriage " ). They never ask " liberal " candidates how they would react to socially conservative legislation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 26, 2011 12:28:13 GMT
The reason the media do this is that they wish their audiences to take for granted (and probably take for granted themselves) that the "liberal" position is the "normal" one, the default which people "naturally" taken, and it is those who diverge from it have to explain themselves. This goes back quite a long way - I remember how in the 1983 pro-life referendum the media regularly emphasised how pro-life activists were involved in Catholic "extremist" groups, wished to ban contraception etc - a great deal of this was true, but they were using it to discredit the amendment as part of a "hidden agenda" pushed by "extremists". In contrast, the media showed very little interest in investigating the activities and beliefs of anti-amendment activists or whether they had a hidden agenda etc. (THe Anti-Amendment Campaign generally avoided advocating abortion and focussed on arguing that the amendment was unnecessary, that there was no possibility of abortion being introduced.) When the SUNDAY TRIBUNE published an analysis of the campaign against the amendment pointing out that many of the activists were on the record as favouring legalised abortion but were playing down their views in the interests of maximising the NO vote, there was a general media feeling that this was bad form - whereas a similar TRIBUNE investigation of the YES campaigners a week or two earlier was treated as unexceptionable, the sort of thing the media should be doing.) Half the battle is getting people to think of your position as the "normal" one and force anyone who differs to explain himself, like a man charging uphill. (I remember some atheists who came on this board used to maintain that the onus should never be on them to convince others that God did not exist but for others to convince them that God did exist, and that this exempted them from explaining their position or even answering arguments advanced against it. One or two of them even declared that they were under no obligation to explain why they disagreed with arguments advanced against them, or to explain what sort of evidence they would require to entertain the possibility of God's existence. I kicked those people off, not because they were atheists but because they were timewasters and ignored the laws of debate and the basic hypothesis/refutation structure of scientific method - but what they were doing was pursuing the same rhetorical strategy, which is a recipe for unreasoning bigotry.)
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 19, 2018 20:45:04 GMT
Our one-time Catholic President is now declaring that she has "no intention whatsoever" of going to confession after voting Yes on May 25th. She claimed that “These are man-made rules, these are not statements of an infallible Church.” Sorry, but these are not man-made rules, but the statements of Our Lord, Who gave His Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins. She is also claiming that freedom of conscience trump "the curial Church's idea of a mortal sin", except again, the Didache explicitly condemns abortion and the Bible repeatedly presumes the humanity of the unborn, thus making it wrong to kill them. www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/mary-mcaleese-has-no-intention-of-going-to-confession-after-voting-yes-in-abortion-referendum-37022121.htmlSeparately, she sneered at the Vatican as "miserable people in a tiny empire the size of a golf course" because they don't agree with her views on pseudogamy. McAleese might be a canon lawyer, but from the way she is talking, you would think that she was a sulky teenager. www.buzz.ie/news/mary-mcaleese-pope-289335
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jun 20, 2018 11:20:31 GMT
Our one-time Catholic President is now declaring that she has "no intention whatsoever" of going to confession after voting Yes on May 25th. She claimed that “These are man-made rules, these are not statements of an infallible Church.” Sorry, but these are not man-made rules, but the statements of Our Lord, Who gave His Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins. She is also claiming that freedom of conscience trump "the curial Church's idea of a mortal sin", except again, the Didache explicitly condemns abortion and the Bible repeatedly presumes the humanity of the unborn, thus making it wrong to kill them. www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/mary-mcaleese-has-no-intention-of-going-to-confession-after-voting-yes-in-abortion-referendum-37022121.htmlSeparately, she sneered at the Vatican as "miserable people in a tiny empire the size of a golf course" because they don't agree with her views on pseudogamy. McAleese might be a canon lawyer, but from the way she is talking, you would think that she was a sulky teenager. www.buzz.ie/news/mary-mcaleese-pope-289335Certain phrases come to mind after quickly reading the links. The words are 'pride' and 'evasion' and perhaps 'delusion'. Mary McAleese is unfortunately lost and gone and now has the zeal of the convert (to secularity). In some ways I think she 'doth protest too much' as she tries to evade the truth by alluding to side issues such as clarifying legalities, the primacy of conscience and how sparkling and beautiful some people she has met were. The key question for Mary would be: would Christ, if he were here now, take the surgical and/or chemical instruments, kill and perhaps dismember a child, put it in a bag and dump it or burn it. The answer would never be 'Yes'. No sophistry can change that.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 23, 2018 19:40:11 GMT
Our one-time Catholic President is now declaring that she has "no intention whatsoever" of going to confession after voting Yes on May 25th. She claimed that “These are man-made rules, these are not statements of an infallible Church.” Sorry, but these are not man-made rules, but the statements of Our Lord, Who gave His Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins. She is also claiming that freedom of conscience trump "the curial Church's idea of a mortal sin", except again, the Didache explicitly condemns abortion and the Bible repeatedly presumes the humanity of the unborn, thus making it wrong to kill them. www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/mary-mcaleese-has-no-intention-of-going-to-confession-after-voting-yes-in-abortion-referendum-37022121.htmlSeparately, she sneered at the Vatican as "miserable people in a tiny empire the size of a golf course" because they don't agree with her views on pseudogamy. McAleese might be a canon lawyer, but from the way she is talking, you would think that she was a sulky teenager. www.buzz.ie/news/mary-mcaleese-pope-289335Certain phrases come to mind after quickly reading the links. The words are 'pride' and 'evasion' and perhaps 'delusion'. Mary McAleese is unfortunately lost and gone and now has the zeal of the convert (to secularity). In some ways I think she 'doth protest too much' as she tries to evade the truth by alluding to side issues such as clarifying legalities, the primacy of conscience and how sparkling and beautiful some people she has met were. The key question for Mary would be: would Christ, if he were here now, take the surgical and/or chemical instruments, kill and perhaps dismember a child, put it in a bag and dump it or burn it. The answer would never be 'Yes'. No sophistry can change that. Agreed totally, Assisi. Meanwhile, she's back in the papers again, this time denouncing the practice of infant baptism. Once again, she declares that "conscience is supreme" as if somehow this invalidates Church teaching, and completely glosses over the fact that said teachings are for our own wellbeing. Notice as well that she makes demands that she knows will never be met, such as her demand that the Church essentially disband itself (which is essentially what is being pushed for amounts to). She also denounces the upcoming World Meeting of Families as “reinforcing orthodoxy”. That will be news to those who are setting up a rival conference across the road because they don't think it is orthodox enough! (I think that there has indeed been too much equivocation on the part of the organisers of the WMOF on the issue of same-sex "couples", but I think the other conference (which will coincide with the WMOF) will only confuse people who think it is an official WMOF event. www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mary-mcaleese-baptised-children-infant-conscripts-1.3540624
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 23, 2018 20:39:07 GMT
Certain phrases come to mind after quickly reading the links. The words are 'pride' and 'evasion' and perhaps 'delusion'. Mary McAleese is unfortunately lost and gone and now has the zeal of the convert (to secularity). In some ways I think she 'doth protest too much' as she tries to evade the truth by alluding to side issues such as clarifying legalities, the primacy of conscience and how sparkling and beautiful some people she has met were. The key question for Mary would be: would Christ, if he were here now, take the surgical and/or chemical instruments, kill and perhaps dismember a child, put it in a bag and dump it or burn it. The answer would never be 'Yes'. No sophistry can change that. Agreed totally, Assisi. Meanwhile, she's back in the papers again, this time denouncing the practice of infant baptism. Once again, she declares that "conscience is supreme" as if somehow this invalidates Church teaching, and completely glosses over the fact that said teachings are for our own wellbeing. Notice as well that she makes demands that she knows will never be met, such as her demand that the Church essentially disband itself (which is essentially what is being pushed for amounts to). She also denounces the upcoming World Meeting of Families as “reinforcing orthodoxy”. That will be news to those who are setting up a rival conference across the road because they don't think it is orthodox enough! (I think that there has indeed been too much equivocation on the part of the organisers of the WMOF on the issue of same-sex "couples", but I think the other conference (which will coincide with the WMOF) will only confuse people who think it is an official WMOF event. www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mary-mcaleese-baptised-children-infant-conscripts-1.3540624So taking away a baby's right to refuse baptism is against its human rights, but taking away its life isn't. That's bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 22:54:05 GMT
The most interesting thing I see in that article isn't even mentioned in the brief text of the article at all. The photo in the heading bears the caption "Former president of Ireland Dr Mary McAleese was installed as Lay Canon by Dean Dermot Dunne at a Service of Choral Evensong in Christ Church Cathedral." So has she gone full Protestant now? So much for her recent statements on Sean O'Rourke about not wanting to (or having to) leave her Catholic religion. That "change of religion" further demeans anything she has to say about orthodoxy or Catholic teaching for me now. Perhaps she is still trying to reconcile Protestant and Catholic differences, by claiming a sort of dual-nationality. A foot in both camps, but allied fully to neither. She seems a bit theologically and spiritually disoriented, frankly. I wonder, in a religion where - as she says - "conscience is supreme", is there room for God above it? Does she see nothing questionable in a change of religion where God is no longer supreme? She's fast becoming yet another example of how one can go awry when divorcing oneself from the instructive teachings of the Catholic Church, and (ironically) in so doing makes a strong case study for the necessity of said Catholic teaching authority in our spiritual formation. I really wonder what is driving her late stage notorious rebellion, that seems so intent on leading others astray. Will Rev. McAleese next be recruiting like-willed disgruntled sheep for her fold?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 25, 2018 21:25:02 GMT
Actually, there have been several instances in recent years of Anglican cathedrals installing Catholics (including clergy) as canons as some form of ecumenical gesture. I am not quite sure how it works but I presume it is compatible with continuing Catholicism or there would have been a controversy over it. (There may be some sort of mediaeval legal device which the Anglicans never got round to abolishing) that separates holding a canonry from performance of its specifically religious duties. Mary McAleese's fall is indeed a terrible sight. However heterodox and irritating she may be, I never thought she'd sink so low as to vote to legalise abortion. In yesterday's SUNDAY BUSINESS POST Tom McGurk had an eulogy of her, containing much rhetoric about how modern women will no longer accept being subordinated and humiliated by male superiors, be they Weinsteins or Popes, and ending by speculating on the glorious consequences if Mary McAleese decides it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. What he omits is that to make such a choice generally leads to serving in hell. She is also plugging in to the network of microgroups like We Are Church, inhabited by Fr Tony Flannery and his fan club. Note BTW Fr Flannery's meaky-mouthed admission that he also voted Yes but claims to feel miserable about it. I have more respect for McAleese's brazenness, to be honest. www.tonyflannery.com/my-reflections-on-the-bratislava-conference-and-a-few-words-about-the-mary-mcaleese-interview-at-the-we-are-church-agm/ Meanwhile, the Vatican authorities' desire to suck up to powerholders led them to allow MAry McAleese to study canon law at the Vatican, even though it was blindingly obvious that she meant to use these studies to cause trouble. Rome is left looking like the man who warmed a viper in his bosom and got bitten, except that in this case the viper was accommodated in the Irish College and given guided tours of the Vatican. HEre we have a nice example of a Catholic commendably ignoring baptismal commitments and man-made laws in favour of being guided by his own conscience when carrying out post-natal abortions: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdmYXoXL3Wc
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jun 26, 2018 3:06:16 GMT
HEre we have a nice example of a Catholic commendably ignoring baptismal commitments and man-made laws in favour of being guided by his own conscience when carrying out post-natal abortions: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdmYXoXL3Wc[/quote]Perhaps it's my ancient phone but all I am getting from the above link is a trailer for a John Travolta film called 'Gotti'. When President Mary McAleese 'took communion' in a protestant service in the North, her Archbishop at the time (Desmond Connell) was asked about it on an rte programme. His answer was to the effect that it wasn't a real communion and couldn't be since the protestant ministers weren't validly ordained - didn't have the apostolic links. He didn't say that she had excommunicated herself by her actions but I guess that she probably did. Anyway, the bould Mary nearly took the head off him and far from apologising, said she was obliged by her office to honour all faith groups (or something similar). Matters rested so. Archbishop Connell got his red hat for his work on the encyclical affirming that the Catholic Church was the true Church founded by Christ and while other groups of baptised Christians were the equivalent of prayer groups they weren't churches in the true sense. When Cardinal Connell died, I thought it strange then that Protestant clergy had such a prominent part in the ceremonies. Mary McAleese was out of her depth as President and still is (out of it).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2018 15:48:33 GMT
Yes, wrong link. Whoops.
Mary McAleese? Serve in Hell? Not very likely. If she thinks the Popes are horrible, misogynistic bigots, wait till she gets a load of the other guy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 26, 2018 20:56:52 GMT
Actually, it is the right link. I was being ironic and making the point that if you take Mary McAleese's exaltation of individual conscience (for which read individual desire) over external moral authority, and accept the view (implicit in her denunciations of infant baptism) that nobody can be bound by moral obligations which they have not individually accepted, then psychopaths can do no wrong and gangsters like John Gotti become heroes and martyrs. Of course Mary McAleese would not take this view (at least I hope not) but it's the logical conclusion of her principles, which is why this type of argument is called reductio ad absurdum.
The point about serving in hell is that you don't get a choice in the matter. (I am not implying anything about Mary McAleese's eternal destiny,BTW, simply playing with Tom McGurk's rhetoric.) The writer Alice Thomas Ellis remarked somewhere that while certain feminists like to portray God as a woman, they are somewhat less enthusiastic about depicting Ms Lucy Fur.
|
|