|
Table of
Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
A Shameful Attempt to Get an Idea to Control the Supreme Court
Dear Supreme Court Observer,
I watched you on cable talking about Supreme Court cases. You seem very thoughtful and well informed.
My concern is the checks and balances that the founders built into our constitution. The Civil War took away the power of states to check the Federal government. The Congress has transferred most of their ability to check the executive by passing open ended laws that give the President the right to decide on and control implementing regulations. Of course, eventually the Congress will wake up and begin putting time and scope restrictions in every bill to reign in the executive. Right now all they have is the power of the purse.
But the biggest problem area is the Supreme Court and its power to have the final say on every phrase in the Constitution, the laws and the regulations. But there is no checking mechanism built into our system for controlling the court when it goes off the rails!
I have a Legal Ethics and Reform web site where I�ve discussed many problems and ways to improve our legal system. However, I can�t figure out what to advocate that would effectively check and balance what the Supreme Court does. If we don�t figure some check, it is only a matter of time before outsized corporate greed and un-natural individual preference, sanctioned by the court, will remake our society so profoundly that revolution will be the only viable check. No one wants that.
Can you think of a check or two, that I might advocate on my web site, which could give the other branches of the government (or perhaps the states) a mechanism that could check outlandish decisions, like Citizens United or Roe, when they occasionally come along?
I know Teddy Roosevelt made a proposal giving Congress a window of time in which to disapprove decisions that involved any kind of Constitutional interpretation. It never gained traction.
Anyway if you don�t think of something I understand, but I hope you have an idea you could share.
Sincerely,
...................... (prepared by Hugh Murray on 10/10/2015)
A Review of Pope Pius's Encyclical Pascendi Gregis about the Doctrines of the Modernists
This encyclical was issued in 1908 in response to several parallel but uncoordinated trends that were negatively impacting the Catholic Church on many fronts. These tended to undermine various long established Catholic doctrines and practices. This undermining process greatly alarmed Pius X who had come from a simple Italian family and was imbued from his youth with what might be called �that old time religion�.
The encyclical, after a brief preface that raises the alarm, has three sections: analysis of modernist thinking in several areas of Church life, a statement of the basic underlying cause of Modernism, and proscriptions for dealing with modernism. This organization is unusual because the examples are placed ahead of the statement of causes, but Pius X is clear he does not think that there is a coordinated modernist plan rather he feels there is a general simultaneous breakdown in the ability of all sorts of scholars to think clearly.
Turning to the various parts of the encyclical there is a preface where Pius remarks that modernism has invaded even the ranks of the clergy who �no longer uphold the safeguard of sound philosophy and theology�. They �brook no restraint and relying on false conscious they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy�.
The first part of the encyclical is detail analysis. It touches on a dozen areas of the Church�s life where modernist ideas have been at work and then it goes into half a dozen sections that describe how modernists do there destructive work within the Church. These 20 sub sections deal with specifics like: philosophy, theology, dogma, doctrine, liturgy, magisterium, church state relations, holy scriptures, the sacraments, the methods of modernists, modernists as synthesizers of heresies, modernists as reformers, modernist as apologist, modernists as biblical editors, etc.
In each of these twenty sections there are very pointed rebuttals to the modernists specific arguments. It might be useful to set a few of these:
- Regarding their view of history - modernists want the divine and human elements of salvation history separated .... they want the accretions which faith has added to fact to be eliminated or separated out and they put themselves in Christ�s shoes and hold that He would never have uttered anything his audience would not have immediately understood.... Pius borrowing from St Paul says ; modernists have become vain in their thoughts, professing themselves wise as they become fools (see Romans 1: 22 - 23).
- Regarding their view of biblical texts - modernists believe biblical texts should be adjusted to make them agree with what we know from science to be true. Out of this belief comes the whole discipline of biblical criticism.
- Regarding modernist�s philosophical foundations - Pius feels they are basically agnostics, or believers in phenomenons, that is people who believe people can only know what one�s senses have taken. Everything else is just feelings without substance including knowledge infused by faith.
- Regarding the modernists use of the term vital immanence - this means coming from within and for them this is the source of all religious belief. For modernists religious truth springs from within the individual and does not have an separate independent existence or reality.
- Regarding dogma and the sacraments - modernists beat around the bush but basically feel these are good because they put some useful ideas into peoples minds - Note: they would be clearer in their statements if the Council of Trent had not specifically condemned the practice of saying sacraments were only instituted to foster faith.
- Regarding the Church - since religion spring from the inner self, the authority of the Church, that holds people together in the faith, is subject to adjustment by the changing wishes of people�s inner urges.
- Regarding Church/State relations - modernists believe the state must be separate from the church and it is wrong for the church to proscribe for citizens any action that the state might wish to control. In other words the temporal can not be made subservient to the spiritual.
- Regarding the Magisterium of the Church and the doctrine of evolution - Modernists encourage Catholic authorities to subject themselves to governmental control while urging Catholics to give lip service to Church teachings while behaving in ways that feels best for them. Modernists also believe that Catholic teaching should be constantly changing to accommodate new scientific knowledge.
- Regarding intersection of faith and science - Since science deals with facts knowable by man's senses and faith deals only with things that are believed, science must be given precedence whenever the two come to view certain situations or actions differently.
Pius X notes that Modernists in their books, articles, and presentations mix sound doctrine and faulty ideas in various ways thus defying any attempt to find a common, universal definition of Modernism. .
In the next section the encyclical points to the causes of modernists thinking and the reason for their success. Here Pius is quite brief he says these people are moved somewhat by the new knowledge and ways of thinking but mostly by pride in their self styled intellectual superiority. They dominate elite publications and educational institutions. They use their positions to freeze out traditionalists who attempt to put forth established teachings. Modernist also hold mass meetings with out the approval of their bishops where they fill the attendees with their confused mix of ideas.
Finally, Pius sets forth steps which might be taken to control modernists in the ranks of Catholic clergy, teachers, and laity: 1) insist that all seminarians throughly understand scholastic philosophy, 2) those tainted with modernism must be removed from any Church office and any authority, 3) all Catholic publications must be carefully reviewed and suspect articles excluded, 4) Catholic clergy must not publish religious material anywhere but in controlled publication or as approved by their bishop, 5) any public meeting where a priest is asked to speak has to gain the approval of the bishop, 6) each diocese should have committees of trained lay people that look for and report on modernist ideas popping up in parish discussions groups, and 7) finally this encyclical imposed upon all bishops, and the heads of religious orders, the obligation to report to the Vatican on the state of modernist penetration in their area of authority.
A year after this encyclical was published Pius imposed an obligation on all teachers in Catholic colleges to swear to teach only in accord with established Catholic doctrine. Paul VI lifted this obligation to swear, but John Paul II reimposed it at the urging of Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI). .......... (prepared by Hugh Murray on 10/12/15 )
Pope Francis Understands Mercy but Does He Understand the Church's First Mission is to Save Sinners -
The Catholic Church is blessed to have Pope Francis. He is a man of love and goodwill toward all. His election is a Alleluia moment for the Church
Unfortunately modern man is so plagued by sin, by the selective acceptance of religious doctrines, and even by secular humanism that the world�s principal religious leader must speak clearly and firmly in support of right action and true belief. Any attempt to water down Catholic doctrines or practices may give a temporary increase in Catholic attendance, but it dooms the Church to a flock filled with people who selectively adopt doctrines and practices, while leaving priests confused about what is, or is not, sinful behavior.
Pope Francis, a good hearted man, can�t imagine that his modernistic urges toward inclusiveness could be harmful. He says to himself �go out and bring them in� over time they will evolve into fully informed, fully committed Catholics. We shall speak of mercy now while playing down the reality of sin and let the Holy Spirit worry about tomorrow.
Of course, since Vatican II the church has marched a good way down this same road. Only a third of Catholics go to Sunday Mass regularly. Nearly all those present go to communion and yet few go to confession. Sin has become a dead letter, or at least an old fashion idea. Yet the new Pope says we must go further down this road, entertaining proposals that would perhaps see adultery and sodomy classified as venial sins. Recall venial sins need not be confessed before going up to receive Holy Communion at Mass.
So the Church has a pleasant smiling Pope who is advocating an even larger dose of a medicine that has already weakened his Church. What is the average committed Catholic to pray for at this point? It is hard to know. If Francis remains Pope for say 15 years, the Church�s doctrines regarding morals are likely to be significantly looser. The Pope is likely to appoint Cardinals that share his emphasis on love and mercy. So the College of Cardinals, particularly those in the age cohort that will be allowed to vote in 15 years, are likely to be significantly more likely to elect another Pope with Francis� preferences.
With the forgoing in mind, it is probably best to pray that God calls this good, but misguided, Pope, to his heavenly reward in the near future. ....... (prepared by Hugh Murray on 11/15/2015)
Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia Puts Mercy in it's Proper Relationship to Sin
The link at the end of this paragraph is a link to a replication of an article from The Wanderer (Nov 30th, 2015 edition) which sets forth Archbishopr Chaput's view of all the recent talk of mercy, mercy, mercy, etc. Everyone who has interest in this subject should click here. (Access to this article is made possible through the generous permission of The Wanderer , 201 Ohio St; St. Paul, MN)
................ (prepared by Hugh Murray on 9/17/2015)
.
-
...................
-
- ................. (prepared by Hugh Murray on x/xx/2013)
.......... (prepared by Hughn Murray on x/xx/20)
...............(prepared by Hugh Murray on x/xx/2012)
.
..........................
(prepared by Hugh Murray on x/xx/2012)
.
(prepared by Hugh Murray on x/xx/2012)
.
- .............. (prepared by Hugh Murray on x/xx/2012)
.
............ (prepared by Hugh Murray on x/xx/2012
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. This page hopes to bring a common
sense, old fashioned view to today's news. The comments displayed
on this page were prepared by
Hugh V. Murray, who can be reached at hvm@aol.com
|
.......