mindless miters (jun13mm.htm)


June 13, 2005
Monday
vol 16, no. 164






O Canada, Poor Canada!

Why is the Church Allowing herself to be tried in a Canadian Kangaroo Court?

By
Gary L. Morella,

    EDITOR'S NOTE: On this Feast of the holy Doctor with such loving missionary zeal - Saint Anthony of Padua, we pray to him for lost things and lost souls; especially those being duped by the State, particularly in Canada. We share this excellent insight below from Gary L. Morella, who provides commentary on a report from LifeSiteNews.com last week in which an avowed sodomite pol Bill Siksay had the nerve to question Catholic absolutes and what is even worse, the one who should uncompromisingly be representing those absolutes - Calgary's 'Bishop' Fred Henry - gave a weak-kneed response that St. John Fisher would have vomited out of his mouth just as Our Lord treats the lukewarm in Apocalypse 3: 15-16. Gary applies the wisdom of Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas to a situation that badly needs it. Calgary's Henry has been touted as Canada's 'best bishop' for he is one of the few who has consistently spoken out against abortion and sodomy, and yet he is reeling just like all the other conciliar 'bishops' as the liberal antagonists within the Canadian Parliament maneuver to elevate the unnatural hideous sins of abortion and sodomy to a natural right and any one speaking out against these evils - which cry to Heaven for vengeance - will have hell to pay to the state north of the border. Because the Canadian 'bishops' have not been more forceful in upholding Catholic truth, perhaps it is that God is allowing such aberration mainly because the presbyters and 'bishops' have compromised so much in abandoning the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church, beginning with the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Gary illustrates the bitter 'fruits' of the conciliarists for abdicating their authority and recognizing godless organizations like the UN or the State which has usurped God and His Laws. The cancer is almost totally metastasized in Canada, now it is spreading south at a rapid pace into the vulnerable legislative and judicial chambers in the United States which are already in the throes of corruption. Just as Our Lady said at Fatima, only Prayer, Penance and Reparation will save the countless lost souls mesmerized by the world, the flesh and the devil because the safeguards always provided by the Church until Vatican II have been compromised and, even worse, abandoned.

      "Aquinas’s first level of human inclination, common to all beings, is to do good and to avoid evil with the primary good on this level being one’s preservation in affirming life, not destroying it. How are killing innocents, in what should be their safest place of refuge – their mothers’ wombs, affirming life? How is promoting sexual perversion, which leads to an inordinate amount of sickness and death in the homosexual community relative to the total population, affirming life?"

    The Canadian bishops should not be hesitant whatsoever to witness to the Truth Who is a Someone, not a something. What I find very disturbing in the report below is the willingness of bishops to shy away from testifying to the fact that faith and reason are married not divorced. Faith enables a reason, which in turns reinforces faith. How dare pro-sodomite MPs presume to question Holy Mother Church on what she can and cannot do it fulfulling the only reason for her existence - to get souls to Heaven instead of hell!

[Editor's Note: Gary is speaking of the article that appeared in LifeSiteNews.com on June 8, out of Ottawa which reported in part:]

    Calgary Bishop Fred Henry was grilled by openly homosexual MP Bill Siksay.

    Siksay was the MP chosen to replace disgraced gay activist MP, Svend Robinson in his Burnaby-Douglas riding in Vancouver BC. Siksay has been vigorously supporting the proposed legislation and in committee hearings has made no secret of his contempt for religious arguments. Bishop Henry, however, stressed that he had made no reference to religious reasoning but had argued purely from the Natural Law philosophy common to people of any religion or none.

    He said, "I specifically decided not to talk about sacramentality. I haven't quoted scripture, not one verse. I'm simply saying, let's look at this from the vantage point of philosophy, of reason, and natural law."

    Despite this, Siksay persisted in pursuing the issue of religion asking, "Can you be a devout Catholic and still support same-sex marriage? Are there any dissenting Catholic voices?"

    Bishop Henry responded: "There are some who call themselves Catholic, but then it gets to be questionable as to whether or not they ought to go parading under that label of devout Catholic. For example, if they were in my diocese, they were a public official, they would be refused communion."

    The exchange continued:

    Siksay: So you would take action to do that?

    Bishop Henry: Absolutely.

    Siksay: Do you do that on other issues as well?

    Bishop Henry: Yes, there are some issues, that if you're a notorious public sinner, you're refused communion also.

    Siksay: Can you give me some examples of what those would be?

    Bishop Henry: I would say, I have told some people, for example, that have acknowledged that they are in abusive relationships that they are not to receive communion until these matters have been dealt with forthright.

    Some time later Conservative MP Jason Kenney asked Bishop Henry jokingly, "Your Grace, it might comfort Mr. Siksay, from the NDP, to know that one nickname the media has given you in the past--if I may--is "Red Fred". Is that not correct?" To which Bishop Henry replied, "Yes, Ted Byfield gave me that one when I got a little too far to the left on some social issues."

    We are talking about more than a sin against the dignity of man, i.e. man's nature. We are talking about a grave sin against Almighty God, a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance per Sacred Scripture.

    We have to think of family all the time in the promulgation of our laws which are rooted in the natural law which is a participation in the eternal law of God. The Ten Commandments can be considered an early warning system. They are not the ten suggestions. If you obey them, you will flourish; if not, you will participate in your own destruction. Civilizations that have played fast and loose with the Commandments, stable marriage, and family life no longer exist. What the reinventers of St. Thomas Aquinas, Sacred Scripture, and Church tradition do not understand is the proper interpretation of Aquinas’ natural law in a metaphysical context. They fail to understand Aquinas’ understanding of nature and its role in his evaluation of ethics.

    There are several fundamental principles that one must keep in mind when interpreting Aquinas’ natural law teachings:

    1) Aquinas understands God to be the author of nature and thus what is natural is good.

    2) The primary meaning of the word “nature” for Aquinas is not physical or biological but ontological in that “nature” most precisely refers to the essence of a substance, in the case of man, to a substance that is a unity of spirit and body.

    3) natural law ethics and virtue ethics are integrally related for virtues are a perfection of man’s nature. All sins are a violation of some virtue.

    4) Since the Fall, man’s physical nature and intellectual nature are flawed and thus can mislead him in his actions.

Aquinas is concerned about what is fitting for man’s telos. What is fitting in this sense is what is ordered to the good, not what is objectively disordered. His concern about this “good ordering” is centered around its leading to the perfection of one’s nature toward this final end, something totally rejected by modernists like Spinoza, which leads to the union of body and soul, the soul being the form of the body. So Aquinas has a very metaphysical purpose in defining nature in that the soul cannot be divorced from the body in an eternal sense.

    Although Aquinas speaks of the good of sexuality as being “the propagation of the species,” the propagation of the human species should not be understood in the same way as the propagation of all other species, since humans have immortal souls, and are destined not just to contribute to the longevity of the species but also possess an intrinsic value in their own right. Humans in generating offspring are not just preserving the species; they are “multiplying individuals,” i.e., they are helping to populate Heaven, not just Earth. Thus, humans not only reproduce; more properly they procreate. They participate in the coming to be of a new human soul. God is the Creator of each and every human soul but He requires the provision of matter by human beings in order to affect the coming to be of a new human being (body and soul). Semen, then, (and the ova) is part of the matter into which God infuses the human soul. To deliberately misuse semen, or the ova, i.e., to use them in a way that prevents them from providing the matter for new human life, is to violate a great good in a metaphysical sense, which is against the natural law. Man is not allowing God to be God. Thus, the “natural” in the natural law for Aquinas not only applies to “natural” in a biological sense, i.e., a violation of the plumbing, but more properly to “natural” in a supernatural sense, where metaphysics is the path of reason to the Divine.

    Aquinas’s first level of human inclination, common to all beings, is to do good and to avoid evil with the primary good on this level being one’s preservation in affirming life, not destroying it. How are killing innocents, in what should be their safest place of refuge – their mothers’ wombs, affirming life? How is promoting sexual perversion, which leads to an inordinate amount of sickness and death in the homosexual community relative to the total population, affirming life?

    The second level of inclination, common to all animals, was the preservation of family and children. How is aborting children preserving them and perfecting the family? What does the celebration of homosexuality have to do with any sane concept of the traditional family as opposed to a bastardization of it? How can homosexuals have children when the very act of homosexuality carried to the limit guarantees their extinction?

    The third level of inclination is distinctively human as a political being, the forming of associations, acknowledging the good and fairness of getting along with others with concomitant concepts of justice. How is killing human beings for the sake of expediency for specious reasons of female “reproductive rights” going to provide for political associations when humans are eliminated? Where is the justice for the unborn? What about their rights to existence? What associations can be formed among homosexuals that will lead to societal common good given that homosexuality has been proven to lead to physical and psychological ruin? In regard to the final level of inclination, how can the truth about God be known by violating His commandments, which is what abortion and living homosexual lifestyles do?

    The natural law is an ethics that requires much observation of the world around us, and penetrating insight into the nature of things. This insight is gained through a process of induction that leads us to recognize that man is a rational animal. Through the experience of man we learn what his natural inclinations are and to what goods he is naturally inclined. Next we must discover and determine what are good means of achieving these goods.

    The fundamental tenet of all human thought is the principle of non-contradiction, something cannot “be” and “not be” at the same time and in the same respect. To deny this is to verify it. Natural law theory works on the same premise. We should all act for the good at all times. “Do good and avoid evil.” This leads to the following initial natural law principles:

    1. All things have a nature, essence or purpose – a telos (an end or goal), a principle which is relatively uncontroversial.

    That nature in question is good; all things have an internal principle that makes them tend towards what is good. It is good for things to act in accord with their nature. The natural law is based on man’s ability to make generalizations about things having natures, what they are, what is good for these natures and acting in accord with them. If a person did not believe in God he still would know how to treat a person in a certain way through a realization of the natural law.

    Expanded to the supernatural level God is the author of all nature. As such the natural law becomes a law of God written on the hearts of men. In recognizing the truth of the natural law we will have more reverence for God’s creation and the Creator as He is behind the great ordered universe making it His will that we live in accord with the natural law.

    How can we know what is in accord with the natural law? All non-rational created things participate in the natural law by inclination only, by instinct. All rational creatures participate by inclination and rational free will. In considering the natural inclination to things, experience telling which are good or bad, the rational reflection upon what to do, and the rational ordering of the doing, we see a natural algorithm that human beings follow in determining what is good or bad, an algorithm that is unique to human beings.

    God did not intend for the state to be some disinterested observer in regard to man's redemption. He did not intend for man to live in solitude but rather socially with his neighbors whereby the common good is promoted naturally by the state leading ultimately to a supernatural end. In that regard the state has an obligation to be advised by the eternal immutable truths of Holy Mother Church. This is traditional Catholic teaching.

    The bottom line is that no Catholic, in particular Catholic bishops as successors of the apostles, should be reticent to relate the natural law to the Decalogue. They should not let themselves be intimidated by the disciples of the devil in this regard. Rather, they should unashamedly profess that which they are solely called to do as priests, i.e., their only reason for existence as priests - to preach Christ crucified to the world for the sake of its conversion to the one true faith per the end of Matthew's Gospel. They certainly should put the devil on notice that he has no rights, i.e., who is he [Siksay or any of the other Canadian MPs] to arrogantly question the Church that Christ founded upon the Rock that is Peter?

Gary L. Morella



mindless miters
Monday
June 13, 2005
Vol. 16, no. 164