A Fireside Chat with Cardinal George

myself | 8 March 2004 | myself

[patent]

I'd be happy to propose that legal positivism is the root cause and that the Incorporation (14th Amendment) was the proximate cause.

Positivism is a huge problem, IMHO. There are various wings to it, some worse than others.

I think (IIRC) this is why Bork was crucified--he had proposed to migrate from positivism to natural law emphasis--which would have been an atomic bomb in the Progressive Party's lap.

I don’t recall associating Bork with what I consider natural law. patent

[heyheyhey]

it's part of the Council = it's part of what the Council

[patent]

The Catholic Church will destroy the last remaining tiny vestiges of credibility it still possesses when it follows the advice of idiots like Deal Hudson and gets in bed with Republican party charity programs.

Frankly, I don’t think you define the Catholic Church the same way I do, nor the same way the Church does.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

The Five justices decree women's ordination, the result is two churches. One a state sponsored Catholic Church and the other an underground Catholic Church. His actual timeframe was ten years.

There'll be riots in the streets. I can't believe it'll ever happen.

I don’t think there would be riots. Those who are catholic in name only will quietly drift away. Faithful Catholics will hit the catacombs. Some might riot, but I’d be surprised, as these things get imposed gradually.

patent

[WOSG]

"This is a bit hysterical. I'm sure George is hacked over the California decision, where Catholic Charities must offer insurance for contraception."

What an outrage that decision was!

"If the Church continues to crawl into bed with the federal government (read: vouchers, Faith-based initiatives), and takes government money then it will have to do what the government tells it to do."

Malarkey. The Catholic Church only has to do that if liberal activist Judges mis-interpret the law and force secular values on groups that should be free to choose. Government does what Governmental officers tell it too. WE THE PEOPLE need to wake up and smell the coffee, and fix it so Government stops abusing the relationship. Give the charities more freedom. The private institutions dont have to accept anything from the Government, and STILL the secularists will drive them to redefine themselves and obey rules that they disagree with. If you doubt it, go look at how insidious the Federal Government Title IX and other rules are applied to *private* Colleges. It's draconian - it's wrong!

That California decision was a travesty, and you should pin the blame on the liberal activist judges where it belongs, not on the fine charitable organizations that do what they can to stretch their money to do good.

BTW, it is totally ABSURD to talk about religious health care organizations withdrawing from Governmental 'support' when the majority of healthcare dollars are spent via our semi-socialized health care system. Dont doubt for a minute that if charitable catholic organizations withdrew, the problem would get worse and 'more Govt spending' would be demanded by the socialists.

Both vouchers and faith-based initiatives are GOOD THINGS. They deflate the LIE that we have to descriminate against social service organizations that happen to have a religious basis. We dont. We shouldnt. A religious school serves a public JUST AS WELL IF NOT BETTER than a secular school. So it has every right to be funded for the public purpose. In fact, no religion should be harrassed into doing something against its moral viewpoint just because they are providing socially useful services. The PROBLEM is the excessive regulation (and the secularist moral agenda trying to undermine religious groups), not the participation by the religious organizations.

This hits home because in our city the city council pro-aborts are trying to make the Catholic hospital do abortions in exchange for 'getting' the city contract to manage the city hospital.
But wait, the Catholic hospital saved the city from disaster by taking over this city hospital that was grossly mismanaged and had lost tens of millions! the city went to them! The city knew the rules and what the Catholic hospital just will not do, and after the fact tries to twist arms and change it. They are immoral thugs if you ask me. The Catholic hospital is sticking to its consistent and moral position.

If you think the answer is for Christian groups to run away or hide under the covers, you really dont have a clue.
To buy into your argument is to *invite* the kind of harrassment that secularists unfairly use to drive a wedge to banish religious views from the public square
and to undermine morality. I am sure the secularists just love to have you on the 'other side' playing right into their hands on the issues!

[johnb2004]

Sometimes even the best of Catholics have trouble telling friend from foe, it's part of the Council of Trent called "concupiscence."


You are referring to George, right?

[patent]

...the result is two churches. One a state sponsored Catholic Church and the other an underground Catholic Church.

I have been predicting this for years. But I never thought of the government initiating it. I always figured the Amchurch modernist freaks would just get more outlandish with their gay masses and clown masses and abortions and divorces and cohabitating and contracepting and everything else they do at the same rate as the pagans around them, until we get a Pope who wants to be a shepherd and try to reign them in and make them come to resemble Catholics in some small way.

Those folks lost years ago. They will thrash about in their death throws for decades to come (everything moves slowly in the Church) but they’ve lost and know it. Absent getting a Cardinal Mahoney elected Pope, they are done.

patent  +AMDG

[heyheyhey]

You are referring to George, right?

No, I was referring to Brady, of the Roman Catholic Voice of the Faithful. Good person, but confused at times.

[Loyalist]

Cardinal George is not being hysterical; if you understand the fervour and zeal of convinced secular transnational progressivists, you will understand that theirs is a crusade aimed at stamping out all opposition, if not to a one-world government, then governments worldwide under the secular progressivist principle.

The Catholic Church is the only body which can claim the same sort of worldwide reach and loyalty as the secular. For that reason, they will spare no effort to destroy it.

And if they think splitting the Catholic Church into state-run churches will do the job, they will.

They'll appeal to the patriotism of conservatives such as yourself to lure people into an American Patriotic Catholic Church, even as they appeal to the liberals with promises of easy morality and government money.

[RobbyS]

What he says is perfectly consistent with the purpose positivism of the Massachusetts decision. Sodomy is not un unnatural act, because there is no such ting as an unnatural act. The family is not a natural institution, because every social organization is simply what the state says it is.

[Rutles4Ever]

There'll be riots in the streets. I can't believe it'll ever happen.

If California can mandate Catholic Charities hand out contraceptives, why not?

[presidio9]

Thanks. Please respond to THIS POST.

[sinkspur]

I am sure the secularists just love to have you on the 'other side' playing right into their hands on the issues!

You advocate that the Catholic Church line up at the government trough, and I don't, yet I'M the secularist? I'M the liberal?

[Dumb_Ox]

I think (IIRC) this is why Bork was crucified--he had proposed to migrate from positivism to natural law emphasis--which would have been an atomic bomb in the Progressive Party's lap.

As I recall, Bork got in trouble for *denying* natural rights and natural law reasoning. Sure you're not thinking of Thomas?

Plenty of contemporary Catholic natural law theorists are opposed to natural law/natural rights reasoning in the judicial branch of the government, thinking it best left to the legislature. I believe Bork would still side with them even after his conversion.

[ninenot]

Regrettably, I cannot find a History of USCCB which includes their past Presidents.

However, at the time in question, it was called the NCCB (nat'l conf. of Cath. Bishops) and I think it was Bernardin who was the EVP or Pres. Maybe Dearden, who was just as malevolent.

[ninenot]

It's a nullity, kind of like the union between a polygamist and his second and subsequent wives.

Gay "marriage" is like Female "priests." In the first case, the State does NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare such a "marriage;" in the second, the Church DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to effect such an "ordination."

[ninenot]

So in your humble opinion, "saving souls" means summarily dumping jackasses into the arms of the Methodists?

[ninenot]

As I recall, Bork got in trouble for *denying* natural rights and natural law reasoning.

Looks like I missed the call on Bork.

But if natural law reasoning belongs to the Legislature, should not the courts adopt similar reasoning in determining Constitutionality of legislation?