| Commandment | Conclusion |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Not Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding | |
| Binding |
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Summary 1-20
20. Do not take revenge
The 20th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not take revenge
Where in scripture?
Leviticus 19:18
Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
New Testament Reference
Matthew 5:38-39
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
Romans 12:109
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice. (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 158, 1 ad 3). If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."
Conclusion
Binding on Christians
19. Do not speak derogatorily of others
The 19th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not speak derogatorily of others
Where in scripture?
Leviticus 19:16
You shall not go about spreading slander among your kinsmen
New Testament Reference
Titus 3:2
They are to slander no one, to be peaceable, considerate, exercising all graciousness toward everyone.
Code of Canon Law
Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1853 …The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
Catholic Encyclopedia
Slander is the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent. It contains a twofold malice, that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor's good name and that of lying as well. …The important thing to note of slander is that it is a lesion of our neighbor's right to his reputation.
Conclusion
Binding on Christians
18. Do not oppress the weak
The 18th commandment of Mosaic Law is not oppress the weak.
Where in scripture?
Exodus 22:21
You shall not wrong any widow or orphan.
New Testament References
Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
Matthew 25:45
Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.
2 Corinthians 12:9-10
“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
Early Church Fathers
St. Augustine
If weakness is not an evil, can a weak body be an evil?
Conclusion
Binding on Christians
"Catholic" Politicians - Pat Quinn
“Catholic” Politicians – Pat Quinn
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn reportedly was born into a good Catholic family. His brother is a teacher at a Catholic high school and his 93-year old mother still attends daily mass.
According to Wikipedia, Quinn attended St. Isaac Jogues Catholic grade school in affluent Hinsdale, Illinois. He then attended Fenwick Catholic High School in Oak Park. Quinn went on to graduate from Georgetown University. It is interesting to note that Georgetown is where Illinois Senator Dick Durbin attended law school.
Interestingly six Illinois governors have been charged with crimes during or after their governorships; four were convicted, and of those, one (Quinn’s immediate predecessor) was impeached and removed from office. Quinn first became governor when, as lieutenant governor, he succeeded his predecessor.
While finishing out his predecessor’s term, Quinn ran for governor this past November. One memorable television ad attacked his opponent as being dangerous because the opponent was pro-life.
Quinn was quoted in the press as saying, “I believe in a woman's right to choose, and I believe we must strongly consider all consequences that would result from enacting any particular restriction upon that right, intended or unintended.”
On the other hand, his opponent, whom Quinn narrowly defeated, said, “As a Roman Catholic my personal beliefs are rooted in and informed by the theology of my faith.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
In July 2010, Quinn marched in Chicago’s Gay Pride Parade.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Most recently, the Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1716, which was put on the fast track by the Illinois Speaker of the House, Michael J. Madigan. (Madigan is another “Catholic” politician. He attended St. Ignatius College Prep, attended college at the University of Notre Dame and graduated from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law – all Catholic Schools.)
The bill would legalize civil unions and explicitly grant the unions the same status as marriage in state law. As noted by the Catholic Conference of Illinois, “Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our
Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose. The Church did not invent marriage and neither has any state. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, mutually commit to each other in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
“The legislation also contains the potential for a serious conflict with religious liberty. While the bill states that nothing in the Act should interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body, such language may offer little protection in the context of litigation religious institutions may soon encounter in relation to charitable services, adoption and foster care.”
Opponents of the measure include Chicago Cardinal Francis George and the Illinois Family Institute.
Governor Quinn has pledged to sign the bill. The Springfield Journal-Register quoted him as saying, “My religious faith animates me to support this bill.”
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Springfield Archdiocese responded by saying, “He did not say what religious faith that would be, but it certainly is not the Catholic faith.”
Bishop Papriocki added, “If the Governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative, for which he is accountable to the voters. But if he wishes to speak as a Catholic, then he is accountable to Catholic authority, and the Catholic Church does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law.”
The Chicago Sun Times reported that when Quinn was told of the bishop's statement, Quinn just shrugged and said, "I follow my conscience. … and my conscience is not kicking me in the shins today.''
Quinn’s defiance of the Church is decidedly non-Catholic. His thinking is similar to the belief in sola scriptura (which we discussed in a prior post), which holds that everyone is able to interpret the Bible as he sees fit. Actually, the adage “Let your conscience be your guide” is not scriptural. The belief does not come from God, the Bible, or Sacred Tradition.
It comes from a Walt Disney animated character.
17. Do not embarrass others Pt. 2
The 17th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not embarrass others
Where in scripture?
Leviticus 19:17
Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him.
In a previous post, we discussed how we are obligated to rebuke sinners, but we must not embarrass them in the process.
What if they don’t listen?
According to Jewish tradition, if a person who has been rebuked does not heed the admonition the first time, he should be continued to be rebuked as many times as necessary until he corrects his ways. Tradition says, “Even a hundred times.”
For Christians, the New Testament describes the steps that are to be taken when a rebuked sinner does not listen.
Matthew 18:15-17
If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Therefore, scripture tells us that if we rebuke a sinner, and he refuses to listen, we should tell the church and let the church decide.
Let’s take an example and see how it works.
Suppose that a person actively supports gay marriage. Another person feels that gay marriage isn’t scriptural and rebukes the first person. The first person doesn’t listen so scripture tells us that they should tell the church and let the church decide.
….but which church?
For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that both individuals are sola scriptura-believing Lutherans. Let’s also assume that the first person is a member of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the second person is a member of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America condones same-sex marriage. The Missouri Synod believes that “homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments as contrary to the Creator’s design.”
The two people have a conundrum. Scripture is clear that Christ intended to found only one Christian church. However, we have about 30,000 protestant denominations.
The commonly-held belief that there is a single invisible universal Christian church is a myth. The fact that there isn’t a single Christian church is a myth is clearly demonstrated by the above example concerning same –sex marriage. This isn’t just a minor issue. It involves natural law, how scripture is interpreted (generally), and the nature of marriage.
Perhaps the two individuals could resolve their dispute by taking it to the church founded by Jesus Christ himself.
Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
As we know from Scripture, Paul received his authority from Peter and then proceeded to establish congregations throughout the Roman Empire.
For example, he established a church in Corinth. We know from scripture that there was some dissention within the Corinthian church (such as individuals placing too much value on speaking in tongues).
If you were a member of the church in Corinth, and Paul rebuked you because you valued speaking in tongues above all else, what would you do? Would you leave the church and start up a new church that emphasizes speaking in tongues? Or would you accept Paul’s apostolic authority. I have posed this question to many people (Catholic and protestant), and I have never heard anyone voice an opinion that it would be appropriate for anyone to split off from a church that Paul founded. They are also uncertain as to whether a person who split off from Paul’s church would even be considered a Christian.
I then ask whether it would be appropriate to split off from the Corinthian church once Paul died. Again, I have never heard anyone say that it would be appropriate.
I then ask whether it would be appropriate to split off from the Corinthian church after the priest that Paul appointed to lead it died. Once again, I have never heard anyone say that it would be appropriate.
I then ask whether it would be appropriate to split off from the church after the successor priest (appointed by the bishop, who was appointed by Paul, who in turn received his authority from Peter) died. At this point protestants usually don’t answer because they know where the line of questioning is going.
Would it be appropriate to split off from the church founded by Jesus Christ a generation later, or the generation after that? How about 200 years later? Or 1,000 years after that? Every Catholic and Orthodox priest of every church in the world (including the one in Corinth) was ordained by a bishop, who was appointed by a bishop, who was appointed by a bishop, who was appointed by a bishop, etc. – who was appointed by one of the 12 apostles.
Why are there now more than 30,000 protestant denominations when scripture is clear that Jesus established a single church and intended for there to be on single holy catholic and apostolic (apostolic succession) church?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Australian Govt. blacklists Pro-life webpage
Australian government blacklists prolife webpage
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, radio communications, telecommunications and online content. ACMA threatened a web host with a $11,000 per day fine unless it removed a link to a pro-life web page that ACMA blacklisted in January 2009. The web host removed the link.
The blacklisted page, displayed here, showed a graphic photo of an aborted fetus.
There are two issues that I will discuss with this post. The first is why some pro-life websites use graphic photos and the second is the danger of government censorship.
Graphic Photos
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director for Priests for Life feels that the use of graphic photos is effective for the following reasons:
· Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome nature. The procedure is never shown in the media. Too many people remain either in ignorance or denial about it, and hence too few are moved to do something to stop it. Graphic images are needed. A picture is worth a thousand words -- and in this battle, it can be worth many lives as well.
· Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. Some women who have seen the photos have decided not to abort.
· Graphic photos are used in campaigns against tobacco use, against drug use, and to feed starving and malnourished children.
· The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even to speech which is disturbing.
According to Fr. Pavone, if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn't do more to stop abortion itself. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those who speak against it.
Censorship
Despite the fact that there are graphic photos of all sorts of things that can be seen all over the Internet, the Australian government arbitrarily decided that a particular webpage from a pro-life group was disturbing.
Is the Australian government censoring political views with which it disagrees? Based upon the information that is available, it seems to be.
Could the same thing happen in the United States? Could the United States government start to censor pro-life groups?
The U.S. government has recently launched a major crackdown on online copyright infringement, seizing dozens of website domains linked to illegal file sharing and counterfeit goods. There hasn’t been much of an outcry against this because the websites are regarded as being “bad actors,” and were breaking the law.
Perhaps we should be more concerned.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in September 2010. The COICA would be similar to the Australian law. It would create blacklists of Internet domain names.
When we start to blacklist websites we are on a slippery slope.
Would the government use such a law to target pro-lifers?
In April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report on right wing extremism. Among groups the groups listed as being extreme were pro-life advocates.
The current administration has been more supportive of the abortion industry than any other administration in U.S. History. Would it be so unbelievable if it chose to target a group with which it disagrees?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)