Posted on 12/12/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Land of the Irish
But I think we've hit upon something here. Your and the dominant culture's definition of "freedom" or "liberty" is what is called in moral theology negative freedom ie. the freedom from restriction or restraint. However the Church has always referred to freedom as positive freedom ie. the freedom to do as we ought, from the CCC (unless that is too "old" for you too)
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28
1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1731-1733, 1740
This is in agreement with the encylicals Libertas and Veritatis Splendor
A couple of points from the latter illustrate:
At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth.
"The beginning of freedom", Saint Augustine writes, "is to be free from crimes... such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth. When once one is without these crimes (and every Christian should be without them), one begins to lift up one's head towards freedom. But this is only the beginning of freedom, not perfect freedom...".23
These words of Jesus reveal the particular dynamic of freedom's growth towards maturity, and at the same time they bear witness to the fundamental relationship between freedom and divine law. Human freedom and God's law are not in opposition; on the contrary, they appeal one to the other. The follower of Christ knows that his vocation is to freedom. "You were called to freedom, brethren" (Gal 5:13), proclaims the Apostle Paul with joy and pride. But he immediately adds: "only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another" (ibid.). The firmness with which the Apostle opposes those who believe that they are justified by the Law has nothing to do with man's "liberation" from precepts. On the contrary, the latter are at the service of the practice of love:
There is a great deal more in this extrodinary encyclical, I urge you to study it.
I don't like this at all.
I'll come back later and try again to see if I still feel sick to my stomach reading it.
This is the sort of "logic" that infuriates me. The Papal tiara is no disgrace, some of the holiest men to ever walk the earth have worn such a crown, men who were a hell of a lot more humble than you seem to be. The pomp is meant to be *impressive*, to impress upon both the pontiff and those witnessing certain ideals, such as the awesome responsibility that is being accepted and the supreme obedience owed to the one being crowned.
I could easily turn your own argument against you. Can you honestly say you own nothing that is not essential? Why do you, if you are such a good Christian why not sell all you have and give it to the poor as Jesus commanded? You obviously have a computer and internet service, think how many poor people the money from that would help. Jesus never had such things. He slept on the ground, why don't you sell your bed and do the same? Why not be a servant instead of lording it over all those who don't have all the luxuries you enjoy?
Here I think we have hit on your real grudge. But it is no problem. If you think the clerics are lording it over others, why not became a cleric yourself, they certainly need the manpower.
Long Live the Pope!
I'm a step ahead of you. I'm a permanent deacon. And I don't wear one item of gold, including a gold watch.
As you might surmise, I fully agreed with Paul VI's disposition of the tiara.
Oh, please. When have you ever said anything favorable about the post-Constantine, pre-Vatican II Church?
I suppose you would have preferred that Chartres and St. Peter's had never been built. Why don't you join one of those Calvinist Reformed churches where the buildings are as plain as possible so that there are no "distractions"; you'd fit right in.
The papal tiara and the other royal trappings of the papacy are needed more than ever these days in order to remind the faithful that the Church is not a democracy.
Objecting to the things you object to is Protestant, and that's the nicest word for it.
LOL!! If you like to see bishops wearing white gloves and $10,000 rings, the SSPX has a bishop who does just that, when he's not telling women they're too dumb to go to college.
LOL Very good GG. That was funny.
So what? I don't want to be subject to a move to another parish, or have any administrative responsibilities, as priests do. Preach, teach, administer sacraments, and go home to my wife.
Perfect life.
This puts me in mind of a couple of essays (and several articles on Leo) which I found in this 1895 mambo Catholic Book from Baltimore. I was disappoined when first it arrived because it seemed to be only bios/histories, diocese by diocese. Interesting enough but not what I thought I was getting.
Then I realized there was a whole introductory section well worth the book's seriously hefty postage weight in gold. =)
I'll post some. The duality between the "Know Nothing" reaction and the fervently beating patriotic heart appears just to be beginning. Interesting reads.
You can suppose whatever you want. I would disagree with this supposition.
I do not need it as I am quite secure.
That makes sense. Say something aimless, fail to provide support for it, and then have feelings of security.
Your words too say much...
Come on man, if you have something you want to say, just say it.
I have written exactly and measured as wanted -clearly.
If, on the other hand, you never really had anything substantive to offer to begin with, then sure, perhaps measuring your words carefully really is the best course of action for you. That would be understandable.
ME: "Yet more of John Rao's anti-American drivel..."
YOU: "Whenever you're ready to explain why the author's work is just a whole lot of drivel, I'd be happy to hear it.
In addition to not being pleased with the authors attempted disparaging of Cardinal Ratzinger. The premise of the article itself disparaging Cardinal Ratzinger in 'guilt by association' methodology self-evidently must be anti-American in presupposition.
My opinion is in the broad sense and not as you apparently believe an attempt to discount any specific and or obvious Truth interweaved with the opinion the article contains.
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.