On (not) accepting donations from PAGCOR

Bishop Soc to Aquino: Oppose casino gambling

MANILA, June 14, 2010— Archbishop Socrates Villegas on Monday has made his first public appeal for President-elect Benigno Aquino III: stop the opening of more casinos.

In a pastoral letter dated June 14 but was released to the media today, Villegas, known to be closed with the Aquino family, said that gaming is not in the country’s best interests.

Archbishop Cruz asks Aquino to abolish Pagcor

Cruz seeks FOI passage to know bishops getting Pagcor money

MANILA, July 6, 2010— Archbishop Oscar Cruz is seeking for the passage of Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill to trace the bishops receiving donations from a state-run gambling firm.

Cruz said that once the measure is approved, it would be easy to get necessary information from the controversial Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor).

One thing that he would like know, he said, is the name of bishops allegedly receiving donation from the agency which is prohibited by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

CBCP may discuss gambling in plenary

MANILA, July 7, 2010—The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines might include in their agenda the issue of alleged prelates receiving donations from gambling in their meeting this week.

Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar, CBCP President, said there is a possibility that the controversial issue will be discussed if it will be raised during their plenary assembly as a matter of concern.

The bishops’ meeting will be held on July 10 to 11. The Catholic hierarchy meets twice a year, I January and July, where they discuss internal concerns and issues with national import.
...
Odchimar, though, expressed confidence that majority of their members are adhering to the CBCP’s “consistent” stand on gambling.

“Most of the bishops (believe) that it would be better for us not to receive donations and much more not to ask donations from Pagcor since we know what the source of donation is,” he said.

“As often been stated, the end does not justify the means… that is the prevailing sentiment of the bishops because of the evil effects of gambling,” Odchimar added.

Those last two statements of CBCP President Odchimar indicates where his inclinations are and where the wind is blowing. It is interesting though when Bishop Odchimar says "most of the bishops believe...", which leads us to conclude that there are variances among the bishops on the matter of receiving donations from so-called "tainted" sources. As an example, it is of common knowledge that the late Jaime Cardinal Sin and Bishop Francisco Claver (who recently passed away, may he rest in peace) are in favor of accepting donations irrespective of their sources. Mother Teresa perhaps epitomized the position on this aspect when she was reported to have stated : "I know where the money has been and I know where it's going".

It is a complicated area in ethics that gives rise to many questions on the principles of material cooperation, yet the tipping point of the matter lies on the element of scandal (see Catechism #2284-87). Scandal in this particular situation can swing both ways, and it is normally within the judgment of the local ordinary (the diocesan bishop) to decide in accordance with the particulars within his diocese. It remains complicated however, because bishops still have to evaluate the larger repercussions of their local decisions on a national scale. That explains why the bishops are elevating the matter to its national conference.

There are complicated pros and cons to be sure, and I am not about to second-guess the bishops and the CBCP on this one. It would be interesting to see what happens next. It would be helpful if the CBCP comes up with a pastoral document that illuminates the issue. Certainly as CBCP President Odchimar says: "the end does not justify the means". There can be no question about the end - which should inarguably be about material works of charity to the needy. The real difficulty lies in evaluating the morality of the means (accepting donations from gambling proceeds). It is also important to note that any decision that is arrived at would be subject to reference with similar circumstances, meaning that the decision would have its repercussions on the church's acceptance of donations in general - not only those directly associated with gambling. Tough, tough. Let's pray that our bishops be guided.
/

On the matter of endorsing political candidates

CFC WILL NOT ENDORSE ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Related cbcpnews item here: ‘Mainstream’ CFC will not endorse candidates

In this memo CFC merely clarifies its stand to remain non-partisan, to avoid confusing its position with that of the breakaway group who insists on using the CFC name in some form. From a prerogative point of view, it is acceptable for a Catholic lay organization to either support or refrain from supporting particular candidates. As long as it's the official stand of the leadership, I would say it falls under a matter of legitimate prerogative. Of course if there is a particular endorsement, it goes without saying that it should never carry any element of coercion to its members. Endorsement or no endorsement, the bottom line is that in the final reckoning, it is still the individual's conscientious choice that must be respected. In the contentious matter of selecting the best political candidate, reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

The matter is different though, when we talk of an official endorsement coming from the Catholic clergy. The danger lies when such an endorsement is perceived to represent an official Church stand that the faithful must follow. To my knowledge, there is no allowance in the Church's principles for political partisan endorsements. The Church as a matter of principle avoids endorsing particular candidates for public office, as the matter of voter's choice rests upon contingent and controvertible matters that are beyond the scope of certainty as it relates to the articles of faith. It is the role of the Church however, to issue moral guidelines for arriving at a conscientious choice in line with Catholic teaching.

Here are some profitable readings along the line.

DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

- A document released in 2002 by the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger. An interesting portion of the document talks about "moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation". Thus we infer that that voting for persons who unquestionably hold such adverse positions goes against a conscientious Catholic choice.
/
A Catechism on Family and Life for the 2010 Elections

- The voters guide released by the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, which is rather heavy in its admonition against voting for candidates who promote contraceptives. Coincidentally, when the document was released last December 27, 2009, all the popular leading presidential candidates changed their tune and withdrew their support for the RH-bill. Interesting coincidence.
/
Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

- A good explanation by Catholic Answers on the Five Non-Negotiable Issues
/
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues

- A great explanation by Jimmy Akin in his featured article for Catholic Answers, explaining Cardinal Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons".
/
Voters Guide, NOT!

- And lastly, a Voters Guide for the Not-so-Serious Catholics
/

10 days to go and I am still undecided. Sigh.

Notre Shame, again

The student newspaper of Notre Dame has refused to publish Dr. Rice´s regular column "Right or Wrong".

Matt Gamber, the new Editor-in-Chief of The Observer, writes Dr. Rice to explain:

"While your piece was well-researched and I trust the information was factually correct, I did not feel it lent itself to creating a productive discussion, all things considered. I was a bit concerned with certain language as well.... In the future, if you would like to examine this topic, we thought it might be beneficial to do so in a point-counterpoint format, perhaps with an author of an opposing or differing viewpoint."

Dr, Rice, in response, says:

"In a university that claims to be Catholic, I am not willing to restrict my presentation of Catholic teaching to a format that treats the authoritative teaching of the Church as merely one viewpoint or "side" among many."

Below is Dr. Rice' unpublished column, in full. Basically, it echoes the Catechism, Popes Paul VI, and John Paul II, and the Bible. Ah, too biased for Notre Dame?

'Right or Wrong?'

Charles E. Rice

"A big issue at Notre Dame a few weeks ago was "sexual orientation" and the status of the Notre Dame Gay/ Lesbian/ Bisexual/ Transgender (GLBT) community. Enough time has passed to make it useful to review some of the governing principles as found in the teaching of the Catholic Church. That teaching includes four pertinent elements:

"Homosexual acts are always objectively wrong. The starting point is the Catechism: "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. 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." No. 2357.

"Homosexual acts are doubly wrong. They are not only contrary to nature. They are wrong also because they are extra-marital. The Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, issued in 1986 with the approval of John Paul II, said, "It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. To choose someone of the same sex for one´s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals of the Creator´s sexual design." No 7.

"Since homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," the inclination toward those acts is disordered. An inclination to commit any morally disordered act, whether theft, fornication or whatever, is a disordered inclination. "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies," says the Catechism, "is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial." No. 2358. That inclination, however, is not in itself a sin.

"[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies," says the Catechism, "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." No. 2358. In a culture which tends to marginalize and disrespect those with physical or psychological disorders, it will be useful to recall the admonition of the 1986 Letter that "The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation…. Today the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she… insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life." No. 16.

"The prohibition of "unjust" discrimination, however, does not rule out the making of reasonable and just distinctions with respect to military service, the wording of university nondiscrimination policies and other matters including admission to seminaries. As the Congregation for Catholic Education said in its 2005 Instruction on the subject, "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ´gay culture.´" No. 2.

"[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…. are called to fulfill God´s will in their lives, and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord´s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition…. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." Catechism, nos. 2358, 2359.

"The positive, hopeful teaching of the Church on marriage, the family and the transmission of life is founded on the dignity of the person as a creature made in the image and likeness of God. The "gay rights" movement is, instead, a predictable consequence of the now-dominant contraceptive ethic. Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Catholic Church continues to affirm the traditional Christian position that contraception is intrinsically an objective evil.

"Contraception, said Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968, is wrong because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act. If, sex has no intrinsic relation to procreation and if, through contraception, it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any such relation, how can one deny legitimacy to sexual acts between two men or between two women? The contraceptive society cannot deny that legitimacy without denying itself.

"Further, if individual choice prevails without regard to limits of nature, how can the choice be limited to two persons? Polygamy (one man, multiple women), polyandry (one woman, multiple men), polyamory (sexual relations between or among multiple persons of one or both sexes) and other possible arrangements, involving the animal kingdom as well, would derive legitimacy from the same contraceptive premise that justifies one-on-one homosexual relations.

"It would be a mistake to view the homosexual issue as simply a question of individual rights. The militant "gay rights" movement seeks a cultural and legal redefinition of marriage and the family, contrary to the reality rooted in reason as well as faith. Marriage, a union of man and woman, is the creation not of the state but of God himself as seen in Genesis.

"Sacramento coadjutor bishop Jaime Soto, on Sept. 26, 2008, said: "Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression." Space limits preclude discussion here of the "same-sex marriage" issue, which we defer to a later column."

-----
Professor Emeritus Rice is on the law school faculty [of Notre Dame University]. He may be reached at 574-633-4415 or rice.1@nd.edu.

Source: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35679
/
(h/t TE)

Pentecostal Mule

A minister sold a blind mule to a fellow and told him the critter was trained to go when the rider said, "Praise the Lord", and to stop when the rider said "Amen".

The purchaser mounted the beast, said "Praise the Lord", and the mule raced away. Becoming excited, the rider kept saying "Whoah!" with no effect on the animal. Then he remembered, and said "Amen".

The mule stopped abruptly. The rider looked down and found that the animal had stopped right at the edge of the gigantic cliff...
Wiping his brow, he declared gratefully, "Praise the Lord".
/
Today is Pentecost Sunday.

In today's Gospel (Jn 15:26-27; 16:12-15), the Lord said "From the Father, I will send you the Spirit of Truth" . From the day of the Pentecost, the Spirit has acted in the Church. The Acts of the Apostles records how the Spirit worked in the first disciples of Jesus. Before granting miraculous powers, the Spirit gave them joy, peace and mutual love, as well as inner certainty that Jesus has risen and was among them. The Spirit continues to work in every believer, through His bestowed gifts of wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord (CCC 1831). When we allow ourselves to be led by the Spirit, we are actually using these gifts altogether to guide our thoughts and actions. St. Thomas Aquinas says that four of these gifts (wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and counsel) direct the intellect, while the other three gifts (fortitude, reverence, and fear of the Lord or Wonder and Awe) direct the will toward God. The trouble begins when we rely too much on our intellect, especially when it is detached from God's inspiration. The trouble also begins when we rely too much on reckless intuition that is far detached from reason and faith. That is why the Psalmist prays, "Teach me to do your will for You are my God. Let your Spirit lead me on a safe path". Pentecost must remind us to be open to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit and utilize them with prayerful discernment. Otherwise we will be just like a blind mule.
/

Did God create evil?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
- Isaiah 45:7 (King James Bible)

Based on the above passage, an acquiantance in a group mailing list concludes that: "apparently, God did create evil."
/
Well...

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. The KJV translation of this passage seems to present a semantic problem. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shalom, which has many meanings, mostly related to the well-being of individuals. The original Hebrew word Ra'ah translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity.

Here is the NAB version of Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Thus, when taken into account, the opposite of well-being (of peace in this context) is woe or calamity, not evil.

When biblical passages seem confusing, it is the bible reader's recourse to compare scriptures against scriptures, as the bible does not contradict itself. Thus, in Genesis 1:31, we read:

"God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good."

God is not the author of evil, but allows it because God created free will. Evil is borne out of man's abuse of free will. However, God does reward and punish on the basis of good and bad behavior. There has been instances in the bible where God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through human authorities) as a consequence for those who sin. Woe and calamity is the consequence of man's actions, but ultimately, God will judge all people.

As a further reference for Catholics, here is section 311 of the Cathechism:

/CCC 311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it./

The Hermeneutic of Continuity

There is a brief yet very informative article by Dr. Jeff Mirus in the CatholicCulture.org on the subject: "Benedict's Hermeneutic of Continuity".

Highlights:

- Hermeneutics is the branch of theology which deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

- When interpreting Scripture, one text cannot be preferred to another or played off against another. Since everything the Holy Spirit intends to teach in Scripture is true, all texts which relate to a given problem must be examined for what they say about it, and the correct understanding will necessarily be an understanding which permits every text to retain its full force

- Because the Magisterium of the Church teaches with the same authority as Sacred Scripture (after all, the same Holy Spirit inspires and guarantees both), a Catholic can properly understand a Christian teaching only if he takes into account everything that both Scripture and the Magisterium have said on a subject.

- Any understanding which fastens on what Scripture says to the exclusion of the Magisterium (as Protestants typically do) or which fastens on this or that statement of the Magisterium in preference to others (as Traditionalists typically do) is doomed to be incorrect. The proper interpretation will always be the one which allows for the truth of all the relevant Scriptural and Magisterial texts.

- Any new development in Catholic teaching, Catholic devotion, Catholic discipline and Catholic worship must be understood as a development which corroborates and confirms what has come before, even as it proposes a new and deeper insight, a more precise formulation, or an important emphasis that has either been overlooked or has special relevance to our current situation.

- This is the "hermeneutic of continuity". It must give rise to a culture of continuity among Catholics which will bear fruit everywhere in the Church.

- Benedict has been at pains to argue that everyone who has been guilty of a "hermeneutic of rupture" must rethink and reevaluate everything according to a "hermeneutic of continuity". This applies particularly to the project of recovering the true purpose of the Council, and it applies to all those who teach and act as if the Second Vatican Council (and all the reforms since that time) are a decisive break with the past, invalidating most of what came before.

- May Benedict succeed in restoring a hermeneutic of continuity within the Church, on all sides, and in all directions.
/
Amen. Read the entire piece here.

It is in this light that the lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX Bishops is best understood.

Also, here is a site devoted to the topic.

A deadly cure for a wrong diagnosis

Solons push for return of death penalty

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:08:00 01/09/2009

MANILA, Philippines—The controversial case of the “Alabang Boys” has triggered calls for the re-imposition of the death penalty, and certain lawmakers were all for it.

Muntinlupa Rep. Rozzano Rufino “Ruffy” Biazon Thursday said he would file next week a bill seeking to restore capital punishment for drug traffickers.

“Even if you jail them, their business continues behind bars,” Biazon said...

“Unlike murderers or rapists who may be reformed, drug lords have the capacity to live comfortable lives in prison while business goes on,” Biazon said.

/
Also earlier today, I had the chance to catch Senator Zubiri being interviewed on the same subject. He said something to the effect that the death penalty should be re-imposed for drug traffickers because when they are caught, they just bribe their jail guards. The re-imposition of the death penalty should solve that.

Hmm. I've been more than 20 years in the manufacturing industry, but right now I think I have to re-learn all over again the correct concept of cause-and-effect analysis, just hearing our solons speak about solving the drug menace problem. Is it a case of right solution for the wrong problem? or wrong solution to the right problem? or wrong on both counts? Or maybe the methodology has mutated?

At any rate, Archbishop Cruz of Lingayen was also interviewed in the same morning news show. He says the Church teaching has not changed. Just for refreshers, here is part of what the Catechism has to say:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If non–lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm -- without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -- the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are rare, if not practically non–existent.' (NT: John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)

The Savagery of War

"Nothing is lost by peace, everything may be lost by war"
- Pope Paul VI

Gaza horrors sow seeds for future violence

Death Toll Mounts as Israel Expands Offensive in Gaza

Israel Invades Gaza, Hoping to Pummel Hamas into a Truce

Israeli military surrounds Gaza City

Death toll rises as Israel encircles Gaza City

Gaza Ground War: Day One

Striking Deep Into Israel, Hamas Employs an Upgraded Arsenal

Magisterial perspectives:

Catechism # 2265:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility...

Compendium of the Social Doctrine # 500:
...To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated...

# 504:
The right to use force for purposes of legitimate defence is associated with the duty to protect and help innocent victims who are not able to defend themselves from acts of aggression...

# 505:
The principle of humanity inscribed in the conscience of every person and all peoples includes the obligation to protect civil populations from the effects of war...

/

God save the innocent.

On the Immaculate Conception

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception - December 8

Short history

Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when by the magisterium the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine.

It was clear in the first centuries that only a perfect holiness, including absence of sin, was fitting in view of the dignity of her role. By the 8th century belief that Mary’s holiness was both flawless and immense was firmly established throughout the East, and it was in that century that the feast of her conception was first celebrated liturgically. In the West the belief grew more slowly, but by 1099 St Anselm could write: “It was fitting that she be clothed with a purity so splendid that none greater under God could be conceived.”

The belief in the Immaculate Conception was initially met with theological difficulty. If Christ was the redeemer of all, as the Scriptures affirm, he would have been the redeemer of Mary too. But then how was it possible that she was conceived immaculate and therefore was not in need of redemption? St Thomas Aquinas, unable to resolve the difficulty, concluded that Mary was conceived in original sin but was cleansed from it before her birth.

The decisive argument came from the Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1264-1308), who reasoned that Mary too was in need of redemption, but she was redeemed from the moment of her conception through the merits of her Son’s death on the Cross many years later. Duns Scotus laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed.( more on Catholic Encyclopedia - Immaculate Conception) .

While theologians continued to debate the question for several more centuries, by the end of the 17th century there was practically universal agreement on Mary’s immaculate conception. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals.

The dogma

In the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

...Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
/

Five bishops speak out

"The time to prepare ... is now"

"Corruption in such an extensive degree in the Philippines is a crime that cries to heaven for vengeance. Corruption in this country has become endemic, systemic, from top to bottom in government. Perhaps they may be given the punishment they deserve by the human justice system, but that’s not enough. Someone else in the Higher Authority will punish them as they deserve,"

- Archbishop Lagdameo

Very good and well said, Bishop.

A standout though, is another well-said snippet from one of my favorite high school batchmates.

"We are not here to bring you peace. We are here to disturb you. I’m praying to God that after this meeting, may the Lord trouble you because the trouble that comes from the Lord is going to make you a better person and it’s going to make the country a better country."

- Bishop Soc Villegas

Let's hope and pray that a lot of people are troubled, especially those whose consciences are not "blinded through the habit of committing sin" (CCC #1791)

THE PRIMACY OF TRUTH

"If today you hear my voice, harden not your hearts" (Heb 3:15)

The primacy of conscience must lead us to the objective truth. It is the primacy of truth that we seek.

In a previous post here it is discussed how ones conscience can be erroneous.

When two persons debate on diametrically opposed positions on an issue, they cannot be both true at the same time, only one of them is. The other one stands only on a personal notion that he is correct. Conscience is said to be right or correct when it is in accord with objective truth. When there is disaccord between the two, it is called erroneous.

A good Catholic conscience can never accept a position of dissent against central Church teaching. Moral truth is the key to conscience, and this is very difficult to deny coherently.

For example, how can anyone deny the sacredness of life in all its stages? How can one deny the sanctity of the family as a domestic church? How can one deny the primary right of parents to educate their children? The moment one argues against these moral truths, the more one takes a relativist stance, farther and farther away from the objective moral truth. Catholicism is not a moral supermarket in which one can pick the stances that seem more acceptable to any individual. Rather, it is a religion that has the promise of divine guidance for its magisterium in moral matters, and that, after all, is a better guarantee than the rest of us can claim as individuals. What better guarantee do we need than Jesus himself who asserts : “I will send the Spirit of Truth, which proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26)

ALL SAINTS DAY 2008

(I received this text message early today) 

Tinatamad ka bang dalawin ang iyong loved one sa sementaryo?

Text:DALAW ON

at i-send sa 2366.

At sila mismo ang dadalaw sa iyo!

Text na!

***

Today, November 1, is all Saints day, when Filipinos troop to the cemeteries to pray for their dear departed. Curiously, the ritual is supposed to be observed on November 2 - All Souls Day, while todays All Saints Day is supposed to honor saints and martyrs. How these days ever got mixed up, I have no clue whatsoever. That is not important anyway but the tradition is faithfully observed yearly by Filipino Catholics, not only in remembrance and to offer prayers for their dear departed, but also as a sort of reunion event with family and relatives. The viguor to which this is pursued can be seen by the dogged mass exodus to the provinces, seen everywhere in the teeming, heavy traffic that clogs all major routes to the North and South.

The significance of this practice cannot be described without mentioning the belief in Purgatory: the Church Suffering. In Catholic doctrine, it is the condition of souls which in the moment of death are in a state of grace, but which have not completely expiated their faults, nor attained the degree of purity necessary to enter heaven. How would we know that a soul goes to purgatory, to heaven, or to hell? (God forbid!). We cannot know. Only God knows. Thus we pray for our dear departed on the implicit acknowledgement that their souls have been transported to be part of the "Church Suffering". We hope that our prayers will lighten and shorten their suffering. Our prayers will have no effect on the saints in Heaven, they do not need it as they are already "triumphant". We can only ask for their intercession. Neither will our prayers have any effect on the souls in hell - they are beyond redemption. Our prayers can only help our brethren suffering in purgatory. 

On this subject, the Church defines two truths as the dogmas of faith: 1) that there is a Purgatory, and 2) that the souls in Purgatory may be assisted by the suffrages of the faithful. There are doctrinal questions though, that are under development: 1) the location of Purgatory; 2) the nature of the suffering; 3) the duration of the suffering; and 4) the application of suffrages. We need not concern ourselves too much with these as our hope is enough, and praying for others is an act of charity that is "is pleasing to the eyes of God".

"If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

(1 Cor 3:12-15)

The Erroneous Conscience

Are we called morally good or bad when in striving to follow our conscience, we err?

There is an interesting development of theological opinion on the question.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) , distrusted human knowledge and believed that the root of sin is ignorance. He emphasized the virtue of humility and adherence to the law. Actions contrary to the law and its teaching, even though done out of ignorance, were according to Bernard, bad. Thus if we accept that telling a lie is always wrong, Bernard would say if we told a lie, regardless of our motivation, we sinned.

Theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142), taught differently. He held that the will, in particular its consent, determines actions as good or bad. If we are in error, but we do not consent to it, there is no sin. Thus if we told a lie in order to protect the life of another, Abelard would call us and our action, good. Faced with the question whether the action from a sincerely erroneous conscience is a sin, Bernard says yes, and Abelard, no.

Upon the powerful influence of Bernard, who accused Abelard of 19 errors, the Council of Sens (1140) condemned Abelard, although his sentence was later lifted.

Later, Thomas Aquinas entertained the question whether a person is good when following an erroneous conscience. For Thomas Aquinas, conscience is the act of applying our knowledge of good and evil to what we do (or might do). So in order to know what is a good action or a bad one, one needs to understand how things are naturally ordered by God -- primarily what human nature is, and what things it needs and deserves. Thomas' question concerned sincerity and understanding regarding the error: Could one have known otherwise? Interestingly, Thomas did not call the person good who despite striving to know the right, followed an erroneous conscience; rather, Thomas argued that such a person is "excused" from blame.

By the 16th century, most theologians agree with Thomas, that a dictate of conscience must be followed under pain of sin and that an erroneous conscience in good faith is, at least, excused from blame. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned all those who taught that an invincibly ignorant conscience did not at least, excuse. Implicitly, Bernard's attack on Abelard is rejected.

We now see Vatican II upholding the dignity of the moral conscience, even when it errs from invincible ignorance. But it goes on to caution: "The same cannot be said of the man who cares little for truth and goodness, or of a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin" (Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Finally, Cathechism states:

1790. A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."
In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1755. A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

In conclusion, it must be noted that describing erroneous actions as "good", as contemporary relativists do, is rejected. Relativists rightly find goodness in the integrity of conscience, but they grossly overlook the need to evaluate what we do out of conscience and how we live. This simplistic description is favored by many in society today who praise people for following conscience but who refuse to measure the resulting activity; that each of us is considerably free from objective evaluation. A person who errs in good faith is a person who has struggled to find the right, has searched heart and mind, and in firm good faith and free will acted with conviction, albeit in error. This person is good, and what differentiates this person from another who strives in the same way but whose conduct is recognized as right is precisely the evaluation of the conduct as wrong. Calling the conduct wrong is the sufficient negative description for the activity of the erroneous conscience.
/

The Development of Doctrine and Humanae Vitae

"When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13)

"Development of Doctine" is defined by Catholics as the increase in understanding - by means of the Holy Spirit, prayer, theological study, and the reflection of the Body of Christ as a whole - of
Christian doctrines that originated from the Lord Jesus himself and which have been passed down through the Apostles, the Fathers, the councils, and the Catholic Church in general (Catechism # 94, 158). Catholics call it the "Deposit of Faith". The meaning of doctrines unfolds over time, but the essence or substance of any particular doctrine remains unchanged. Our extent of knowledge or subjective grasp of any given dogma is what changes. The bible is not "absolutely clear", and requires the interpretative wisdom of the Church.

The Church's teaching against contraception provides a case in point. Throughout the whole history of the Church, it has been been clear and constant in its position on contraception. In fact, all Christian churches were united in their opposition to contraception until as recently as the early decades of the 20th century. It was not until 1930 that the Anglican Church went on record as saying that contraception was permissible, for grave reasons, within marriage. The first clamoring for change appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s with the widespread availability of the birth control pill. Some Catholic theologians began to think that the pill might be a legitimate form of birth control for Catholics because, unlike other kinds of birth control, it did not break the integrity of the sexual act. Amidst such controversy, the landmark encyclical "Humane Vitae" was released by Pope Paul VI in 1968. It clearly defined the intrinsic evil of contraception and even provided prophetic views that has since materialized. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II affirms Humane Vitae with his "Theology of the Body". On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae this month, Pope Benedict XVI states: "The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does not change. Quite the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries, its teaching becomes more relevant and stimulates reflection on the intrinsic values it possesses."

And going back to development of doctrine, it is noteworthy to cite St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Regarding its substance then, Faith does not grow with the passage of time, for whatever has been believed since was contained from the start in the Faith of the ancient fathers. With regards to its explication however, the number of articles has increased, for we moderns explicitly believe what they believed implicitly."

On Cooperating with Evil - a short discourse

In June 2005, the Pontifical Academy for Life, an arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, released a letter entitled, "Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Human Foetuses." Its purpose was "to clarify the liceity of vaccinating children with vaccines prepared using cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses." Although the document is specifically addressed to the pediatric vaccination question, it's treatise would certainly apply to all other issues which pose challenging tests to this principle of cooperation with evil.

The following excerpts are the related salient points of that Pontifical letter.

[begin excerpt]
The principle of licit cooperation in evil

The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person. Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question.
A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted. Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.
[end excerpt]

Note in the third paragraph above, it states that “Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action)”.

[begin excerpt]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect .
[end excerpt]

Additionally, it is pertinent to assess the possibility of scandal when applying the principles. The USCCB bishops directives for “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” is a good reference point:

[begin]
#71 "The possibility of scandal must be considered when applying the principles governing cooperation.Cooperation, which in all other respects is morally licit, may need to be refused because of the scandal that might be caused. Scandal can sometimes be avoided by an appropriate explanation of what is in fact being done at the health care facility under Catholic auspices. The diocesan bishop has final responsibility for assessing and addressing issues of scandal, considering not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision.”
[end]

A footnote to #71 gives a description of "scandal" quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil" [no. 2284]; "Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged" [no. 2287].

/
With these definitions in mind, the traditional teaching concerning cooperation in evil may be summed up according to the following principles. (1) Formal cooperation is never permissible because the intent that the sinful act occurs is itself an objective violation of God’s law. (2) Immediate material cooperation is never possible because by cooperating in the sinful act itself, one is also violating God’s law even though he cooperates for some other reason. (3) Mediate material cooperation may be permissible, provided that the action of the cooperator is not itself a violation of God’s law and provided that the cooperation is done for a proportionately serious reason. In deciding this last point, various factors must be taken into account: (a) the more serious the harm of the sin, the more significant must be the good sought to justify cooperation; (b) the more proximate or necessary the cooperation, the more significant must be the good sought. Further, the scandal involved in such cooperation must be seriously considered.

/

Conscience and the Denial of Sin

I once heard it said that if there is one thing worse than sin, it is the denial of sin.

But how does one come into a denial of sin?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, states:

“1792. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”,

herein which I will attempt to parse:

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel

I surmise that ignorance is brought about when you are in the boondocks and isolated from the rest of humanity and civilization. No TV, no books, no teachers, and no Google. But for the greater mass of people, especially those who are in a position to make a difference in this day and age, ignorance can only be decidedly voluntary. One is supposed to be obliged in conscience to seek the truth and not be content with what is personally comfortable from a conveniently “practical” point of view, yet it is so convenient and comfortable to make a shortcut. I therefore call this conscience a quick and easy “Do-It-Yourself” conscience.

Enslavement to one’s passions

All slaves have masters, and in this case, the master is one’s passions. The distinction being that this is a self-inflicted slavery that shuts out discernment and with it – freedom. Indeed the flesh is weak, and that is why the Lord instructed us to pray “lead us not into temptation…”. On the other hand those who become slaves by choice invite temptation and then wallow in it, and therefore I call this conscience, a “pawned” conscience.

Bad example given by others

When “everybody” is doing it, it must be acceptable and therefore “right”. This is heightened by peer pressure within the close confines of one’s social circle, or even of one’s subjective and personal perception of what is considered acceptable by the larger social sphere. Notions of acceptability prevails and liberal fad rules. I call this conscience a “Popularity Contest” conscience.

Autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority

The conscience exists in a vacuum, whose discernment does not include an outside point of reference.
As a case in point, it is dangerous to choose a car without dutifully consulting car-buying guides and mechanics. In the spiritual sense where the stakes are much higher, it should be imperative to be even more conscientious in seeking guidance from external authorities, especially from those whose knowledge and wisdom is drawn upon a studied foundation of more than two-thousand years of consistent teaching. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong, the problem is much more likely with us. Maybe I’ll call this conscience a “clueless” conscience.

Lack of conversion and of charity

I have stated at the onset that the denial of sin may be worse than sin itself, and come to think of it, the only sin might be denial itself. The adamant refusal to be open to correction could be in fact the only barrier to conversion and charity. This is characterized by a spirited self-righteousness that can only be perhaps corrected by a bolt of lightning, which is not entirely impossible, to those of us who have heard of the road to Damascus. Anyway, a less dramatic conversion could just as well be effective, which is what all of us should be working at in this season of Lent. Also, the first among the St. Matthew’s Beatitudes is something to ponder at, as we all evaluate our spirited selves.

/