(Page 3 of 5)
* (Realize I am from Maryland) Which party thinks felons deserve the right to vote no matter what?
* (Again, Maryland) Which party thinks it has the right to override gubernatorial vetoes and run roughshod over the voters of its state? (See point six above.)
Also somebody needs to point out that when GOP members are
caught off base, they hang their heads, admit guilt and head for
the dugout. Which party yells, "Prove it!" (See WJ and HR Clinton,
1993-2006.)
-- Cookie Sewell
Aberdeen, Peoples Democratic Republic of Maryland
ON THE YANQUI DOLE
Re: Doug Powers's From
Si to Shining Si:
This is funny, just wait until all these ILLEGALS become citizens then you will see how fast they decide they don't want to do these "low" paying jobs any longer and we have a larger welfare class that we do now. I mean really why work when you can set around and let someone come and hand you money?
I think sometimes of just getting rid of my retirement money and
letting the government take care of me, free health care instead of
the $164 a month I pay now for a SS supplement plus they will throw
in the drug and cost I am now paying for Medicare part A and B.
Believe me I have thought of it, but it just goes against my grain
to depend on other people's money. Remember, the government does
NOT have money it is OUR money.
-- Elaine Kyle
ORTHODOXY'S SLIM PROSPECTS
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge's Catechism's
Comeback:
While it is commendable to write -- and hope and pray -- that there are significant and positive changes, grounded along traditional lines, taking place in the Catholic Church, I suspect that Mark Gauvreau Judge's enthusiasm about these changes, albeit understandable, is not well founded. For what Signor Judge takes to be a "fait accompli," I take with several grains of salt. Previously, I have written in these pages, regarding another matter, that it is my wish, "to provide a realistic overview of what is happening in contemporary Catholic...life." This I hope to do, but first the good news.
It is no secret that the pontiff wishes to re-establish ties with traditional Catholics, whose growing numbers are an embarrassment to the Church's hierarchy. As such, Pope Benedict XVI is to announce this week that "the Mass of Pope Pius V," a.k.a. the Latin Tridentine Mass, will now be permitted in each parish. Since this Mass was never forbidden by Vatican II, but only by individual bishops, this may come as an unwanted intrusion to those who believe that the Mass is a meal, not a sacrifice, that transubstantiation of the Eucharist is symbolic, and that people who attend Mass can dress in culottes, flip-flops, or plunging necklines. Whatever...
But along with the good news, there is the bad, and Judge touches, albeit tangentially, on what is the Achilles heel of the new Catechism: how will this "new" catechism be interpreted by those renegades who control "Catholic" universities, and large -- and small -- dioceses? Does Judge honestly believe that Cardinal McCarrick will enforce, "...the penalty of excommunication," for those politicians who support abortion regardless of what the catechism demands? Will those who, for 40 years, have twisted Catholic theology into a pretzel and made the Church another "meals on wheels" organization, pay the slightest attention to this "new teaching? Time will tell, but if the last 30 years is any indication, I suggest that Signor Judge not hold his breath.
I believe that a notable step may have been taken, but if the USCCB is permitted by the pontiff to stonewall and/or deflect the seriousness of the situation, then, like Ex Corde Ecclesia, the 1991 document of Pope John Paul II which sought to regularize what is taught in theology classes at Catholic universities, this catechism will also gather dust on the shelves. The ball is now in the papal court, and not to act is to consign the catechism and the Church to descend further from what Judge and I accept as the Gospel truth.
Pax tecum.
-- Vincent Chiarello
Reston, Virginia
For 40 years we have heard that the Baltimore Catechism was a poor
teaching tool. Actually, even aside from its religious content, it
was pedagogically excellent. The catechism laid down abstract
principles. Our nuns (this was in the early 1950s, before nuns went
batty) would then provide concrete examples. Learn the right first
principles, apply them to real life situations. It's a powerful way
to think. Of course the liberals had to do away with that
catechism. They could not tolerate the first principles. And, at
least when the nonsense started, they dared not offend parents by
openly espousing false principles. So they taught by presenting
kids with situations and then "guiding" them to the "right"
answers. And now we have a couple of generations of Catholics who
neither know their Faith nor think clearly.
-- unsigned
Another angle on the topic of heresy as raised by Mark Gauvreau Judge comes through The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Roots of the word "heresy" in Greek and Latin are: the act of choosing; to choose; able to choose; that may be taken. It defines heresy for Catholics as "the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church." One might argue that the choosing aspect is highlighted in the "willful and persistent" part of the definition. And it's true that to be a formal, not just material, heretic, one must take a wrong position deliberately and refuse to give it up under warning. However, it seems more to the point to say that choosing is highlighted by the individual person's radically independent choice of a belief contrary to Church teaching (e.g., a belief that adapts to the times too much).
Thus, to be heretical, is to be pro-choice. In addition, to be pro-choice is to be heretical.