Posted on 03/06/2014 6:12:44 PM PST by ebb tide
I haven’t read the whole article yet, but I know from long experience reading CFN that it is a Feeneyite paper.
Ok, just an observation here. Three thousand plus words here, and reads like securities trial motion hearing brief. Why do so many catholic things read this way? Every position of controversy seems to be accompanied by long dense tomes of research.
Is this a recent phenomenon? Where has the simplicity gone?
Is the writer of this verbal hissy fit, Brian McCall, JD, a lawyer, a member of the pro-sodomy persuasion?
It seems odd for any real religious scholar to claim, even just by implication, that The Roman Catholic Universal Church is a democracy, subject to modification by random and arbitrary consensus and popular vote.
For me, the validity of a religious challenge is not proportional to the number of words used in the "argument."
If there is no clear understanding of right and wrong, and its susceptibility for arbitrary change, it can't be much of a religion.
” He then traces the origin of the single greatest attack on the family, divorce, to ideas originating in the Reformation.”
Yeah,,, God likes it better when you call divorce “annulment”. At least kids of divorce can know that they were born in wedlock, though it later ended in divorce. Kids of annulment are basically told they are little bastards, because their parents marriage was NEVER legitimate to begin with.
Classy.
“Brian McCall, JD”
Juris Doctor,,,, answered my question. Lawyers really do screw up everything they touch. Id like a catholic sunday school teacher to explain this. I might not agree,, but at least I could follow his argument.
“the validity of a religious challenge is not proportional to the number of words used in the “argument.””
Truth tends to be simple. Obfuscation often indicates a bill of goods.
I hope you are joking. Catechism teachers get a little syllabus and outline they study for a half hour before class and basically fill in the words. They are not theologians, authorities on canon law, or philosophers (with a few exceptions).
Care to back up that accusation? Because I don’t believe it.
This is not true. The Catholic Church has no canonical category, label, or designation of "bastards," nor even the concept. All of a man's and woman's begotten children are called their "natural children." That's all.
"Bastard" is, in this context, a term of CIVIL law for aperson whose parents were not legally married. It does not mean not Sacramentally married. If a child comes from the union of a man and a woman who are not civilly married, maybe there exist civil documents which would call him a "bastard," but no such thing exists in the eyes of the Church.
The same would be true of anybody born from any kind of non-canonical marriage. For instance, say two Buddhists are married and have a child. Or two atheists. Or two Mormons. Their marriage is not a a Sacramental Christian marriage, but their children are not "bastards."
Read back issues.
I’ve been reading every issue for the past seven years. Never saw a hint of it. Care to prove me wrong?
I have some sympathies to FMC, but there is definitely some hyperventilating. Anyone who believes in the sacramental validity of the Post-Vatican mass couldn’t possibly call being required to use the Post-Vatican mass an “interdict.”
Also, there is another option besides censorship here. Dr King could simply correct Dr. Dudley, or the false impression of those who the author believes have misinterpreted Dr Dudley. Simply asserting the validity of the post-Vatican mass and Vatican II would have “distanced” himself from the allegedly false understanding that Dr Taylor has.
As for Dr Taylor, I was highly suspicious when I first read Dr Taylor’s letter. He describes how everyone quit because Dr Dudley spent the endowment fund and proceeds from the sale of the college property on real estate, as if that’s somehow inherently shady. But that’s exactly what I would expect him to spend those funds ON: a new campus! Describing a new campus as a “real estate scheme” is shady, itself.
I think Dr Taylor has perhaps decided it’s best for his career options at mainstream, traditionally leftist colleges to distance himself from Dr Dudley and Dr King.
St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas between them put paid to brevity long, long ago. Prolixity, that’s the Catholic way.
Canon law = "small-minded rules".
"Refusing to censor" sounds like a cry that would come out of a place like DePaul, Marymount, Georgetown, or Trinity, not out of a faithful, traditional educational institution.
>> St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas between them put paid to brevity long, long ago. Prolixity, that’s the Catholic way. <<
The encyclopedia is a Catholic invention, by St. Isidore of Seville. In his footsteps, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica is not verbose, merely extremely comprehensive; it is meant to serve as the theologian’s equivalent to a law library. It answers literally thousands of questions, most in less than a page, and all quite practical. (Erasus’ mocking assertion that it debates matters such as how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is devious nonsense; What is really taught is that armies of angels take no space at all, the notion of immateriality which you probably simply take for granted.)
Your first point is well made; Ex Corde Ecclesiae establishes the obligation to correct false theology (although the case is being made that the theology represented the alleged heretic’s sincere and reasonable understanding of Vatican II’s own claims.
But your second point underscores why this story is alarming to me even though I am not a Capital-T Traditionalist: Why no interdict of DePaul, Georgetown or Trinity?
(I’m not sure why you pick on Marymount: are you from Northern Virginia? For all I know the theology classes might be terrible, but as a former grad student there, the priests doing the masses and confession are excellent ... enough so I continued to attend mass and confess there on occasion for years after I was finished.)
” But your second point underscores why this story is alarming to me even though I am not a Capital-T Traditionalist: Why no interdict of DePaul, Georgetown or Trinity?
(I’m not sure why you pick on Marymount: are you from Northern Virginia? For all I know the theology classes might be terrible, but as a former grad student there, the priests doing the masses and confession are excellent ... enough so I continued to attend mass and confess there on occasion for years after I was finished.)”
Two points on this:
1) A comment made on some blog regarding this (may have been Fr. Z’s combox, but don’t remember 100%) is that you expect more from an elder son than from a younger son — that is that a place that actually claims to be traditional would really adhere to tradition. Reminder St. Ignatius’ quote about adhering to the Bishop? What could be more traditional than that?
2) There are a lot of Marymounts out there. See this piece: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6813 — though I haven’t heard anything good about the one located in Ballston, the one listed in the above piece is what I was talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.