July 13th, 2008

Shownotes Episodes 81

The Anglicans have stepped up to superbishops!

Louisiana Politics gone astray, new laws; new drama. The CCC retorts.

Our Picks

Fr. Ryan is fed up with what he calls the new age “religion of environmentalism”

Fr. Chris is loving agnusimages.com

Joshua is picking ParishNetwork.org

The cu|metro

  • Damien of Molokai to become “Hawaii’s Saint“
  • Bishops Stare down the Length of the New Missal and laugh
  • The Pope is thinking about making some changes in the Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass

Backchat is still on vacation in fiji, but we answer the question: “Does Catholicism have variations?”

The Schools of Spirituality (Our own list)

  • Early Monastic \ Ascetic \ Apophatic spiritualies of self-denial and meekness (St. Benedict, St. Anthony of Egypt, The Movie Into great silence)
  • Later Monastic Benedictine Traditions of Ora et Labora
  • Mendicant spiritual schools of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic
  • Spanish School of St. Theresa of Avila & St. John of the Cross
  • “Little Way of St. Therese” & St. John Vianney
  • The lay spirituality of St. Josemaria Escreva
  • The Spiritual Exercise of St. Igantius of Loyola

Also, there are other “sui iuris” Churches which are Catholic.

The Music

Michael Gomez, Wake Up

Fluid Boys, Melody of Life

Red Runs Deep, Until You Love Me

Us

Fr. Ryan | Posted in shownotes | 9 Comments »

  • http://catholicboard.com Carson Weber

    It’s St. Josemaria “Escrivá”

  • http://markadams@gmail.com Mark Adams

    Whoa!!! Hold up on there. The CCC reference does not show what you seem to think it does. You may not use “morally unacceptable means” for the purpose of regulating birth. But something that would be morally unacceptable for regulating birth may be morally acceptable for another reason: a hysterectomy for the purposes of birth control is certainly immoral but it is not immoral for legitimate health reasons.

    Just because castration as a form of birth control would be wrong does not make it intrinsically immoral — at least under CCC 2399 (nor do I think the Louisiana law would be prohibited under CCC 2297).

  • http://fatherryan.tumblr.com Fr. Ryan

    #2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

    Hey Mark,
    Regarding the first citation, Josh was making a parallel. His argument is that the one paves the way in the mind for the other. A more direct citation might have been #2273 which notes among other things “Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

    I think it’s clear that the CCC makes no room for anything which unnecessarily disintegrates the human organism.

    Also,

    #2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

    This citation certainly does apply, I don’t think we can simply state that it’s obvious that it doesn’t.

    #2297 is not limited in the last sentence to kidnapping or terrorism, it’s a universal statement. Also the Louisiana Law assumes innocence, or the lack thereof, and civil justice to be identical. We know that this isn’t the case. It’s a first time sentence… Given the guesswork and the guilty-until-proven-innocent atmosphere that is connected with so-called child sex abuse crimes, the law certainly rejects the integrity of the human person (and it does so rather lightly) and so, I firmly believe, is immoral according to the CCC.

    More discussion is welcome.

  • http://members.cox.net/pmoroney3/ hopeless case

    I can see where one might call chemical castration therapeutic if it could prevent further child abuse.
    My question is, does it work?

  • http://fatherryan.tumblr.com Fr. Ryan

    I see where you’re coming from, but to consciously mis-construe the meaning of the word is a logical fallacy. It’s revisionism. Therapeutic here is clearly ordered to the integrity of the organism and so cannot be applied to the possible effects of that organism on others. In other words, it’s clearly not speaking of a sociological therepy, but a medical one.

    To the actual issue, I’d say it doesn’t work. There are an infinite number of ways to fulfill the disordered rape\child abuse psychosis, sexual expression by the predator is only part of it. It’s disgusting and tragic, but any abnormal psych student\prof is going to say that this isn’t going to stop 99% of predators.

    If you do a RISK analysis, it’s also pretty problematic. When you start to calculate the effectiveness versus the cost (and the effect on the possibly innocent).

  • http://members.cox.net/pmoroney3/ hopeless case

    Whoa, Fr. Ryan,
    I assure you that I only misconstrue unconsciously.
    I think it is a terrible law for legal, moral, and biological reasons.
    I think the politicians just wanted to have something that looked good on their resume.
    I was surprised there was not more of an uproar about it.
    There are a couple of priests in our diocese who are experts on ethics and child abuse, respectively. I can ask them about it when they have some time.
    Pax tecum.

  • Mark Adams

    I don’t think we can simply state that it’s obvious that it doesn’t.

    Sorry if I implied that I thought it was obvious that #2297 does not prohibit the LA law. What I was trying to say that whatever one thinks of #2297 (or any other relevant CCC cite), #2399 is not an argument against the LA law. My remark about my belief that #2297 doesn’t apply was offered without any supporting argument because it was only meant as an aside indicating my position.

  • Mark Adams

    Fr. Ryan,

    I appreciate your responses. I hope to continue the conversation in the next couple of days.

  • http://fatherryan.tumblr.com Fr. Ryan

    @hopeless in Hapsburg

    No worries, I’m also shocked that no one made a big deal about this. I’m sad to say that I hadn’t really heard about it until Josh brought it to my attention – it really is atrocious.

    @mark in Middlesburg

    I hear you.