Quote

I think there is a valid opinion that the intervention of the government in this case would set a dangerous precedent...allowing the state to control the end of life. Do you allow opinions other than your own?

The government has the obligation to prevent murder.  No one can legitimately support the starvation and dehydration of Terry Schiavo.  No one can legitimately defend government non-interference in the case.  There is no right to do what is wrong.

Sure, and I agree. I don't think the refusal of water or ice chips can be defended at all. I quoted Thomas Fleming because I know there is no pre-existing opinion about him. But you didn't condemn him by name, did you? Why? Did he just have his facts wrong? Or is he a non-Catholic?

 :shocked:

Is SJB Fr. Cekada?

Sorry you didn't like my opinion of Fleming's article, but you posted it.  It seemed to me you were neutral about it.  I am not neutral about euthanasia, nor is the Church.

 :roll-laugh1: I'm not the one whining about "una cuм".

That would be your clergy at SGG who are whining about "una cuм".  Go to an SSPX Mass and see what happens if you try to eneter SGG property.  You know full well that a family was expelled and denied access to the property to hear a talk by Dr. Droleskey, because it is a "grave sin" to go to una cuм Benedict  Masses.  Plus, he was told he may lead to the damnation of others by his very presence.  Why don't you tell them to "take their petty hatred and bother someone else with it"?

I make almost everything into a discussion about Terri Schiavo?   Prove it.  Maybe you just don't like the subject and it feels bad to become informed about it.

Chill out, SJB whoever you are.  You are an aggressive debater-don't dish it out if you can't take it.  :cheers:

:roll-laugh1: I'm not the one whining about "una cuм".

Hey!  Don't confuse me with the facts, woman! :wink:

Quote from: SJB

You assume the worst...Take your petty hatred and bother somebody else with it.

"Hello, Kettle?  This is Pot.  You're black."  I know Elizabeth well, and she is more filled with real love than the vast majority of the inmates of Traddieland could even begin to comprehend.

That may very well be true. I'm not seeing it right here, though, in this venue. But I'm willing to take your word for it. I will say no more on the matter, and try to think the best thoughts.

Quote

You and some of your cohorts call others "non-Catholics" all while whining about "una-cuм". There seem to be some striking similarities between you and those you so dislike. You might want to have a think on that one.

The first sentence contains a gross falsehood: strike one.  Even if it was true, it is not ad rem/germane to the present discussion: strike two.

If I misread what was said. fine. I can't see it right now:

Quote

There's no surer proof that Father Cekada is not Catholic than his position on this.

 :applause:

 

The last part can only be responded to with the same idea above ("Hello, Kettle..."), one I have rightly used as a response to your comments at least four times now (although you never address the fact, nor the fitness of the point I make in using this common saying).

I think you'd have to admit that nobody has really addressed any of the points that I made above either. I was contra-Fr. C on Schiavo. I made it known publicly. I can prove it, but I shouldn't have to, because I just said it.

Have a blessed Sunday, all.

A blessed Sunday for you as well. :)

I was just looking over my first long post here to see if any apology was due to Rama Coomaraswamy ( Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy )?

I do owe an apology to Malachi Martin for saying that he should be under suspicion of peddling disinfo. But I have apologized to him before. It is not suspicion but fact that he portrayed himself as an "insider" and yet was more wrong than sede "outsiders."

Regarding Coomaraswamy, as usual I was far more imprudent back then, but some of the points I brought up are germane; such as how he defends his father, that he hasn't cut ties with Perennialism in a firm and clear way, etc.  

Faithful Mr. Raoul76,

We're addressing quite a difficult topic here:  The question of the "virtuous Pagans."  Please note that no one is referring to holiness in this matter, only to virtue.  Clearly no non-Catholic could ever be holy in any way, but non-Catholics can be and often are virtuous.  So clearly Perennialism is not Catholic, is Pagan and therefore lacks all holiness utterly and forever.  But some Perennialists are and have been virtuous men and their scholarship can be of some benefit to some Catholics.

If Pagans can have no virtue, then on what natural basis do some of them manage to convert to the one true religion?  Grace must perfect nature, but it doesn't destroy and replace nature.  In fact Protestants are also Pagans, so if there were no Pagan virtue we would simply have to annihilate the Prots around us and be done with them.  The existence of Pagan virtue is therefore of more than a little relevance to us (and to the Protestants too!).

There is no such thing as a virtuous Marxist or a virtuous Catholic member of the Freemasons.  Therefore we are in a holy war to the death with those diabolical men, but not all Pagans are so bad as the Marxists or nominally Catholic Freemasons.  As Catholics we are not in any war to the death with Protestants or with other non-Marxist, non-Masonic religions.  That isn't the true teaching of our Church and we need to be clear about this critically important theology.  Extremely vast numbers of lives depend on this moral clarity from us.

Surely it would have been gravely sinful for Fr. Coomaraswamy not to have honored his own father, whether his father were a holy Roman Catholic or merely a virtuous Pagan.  Conversion to the one true faith doesn't obligate converts like Fr. Coomaraswamy to disavow and personally condemn their beloved parents.  The Commandments still apply.

Also clearly Fr. Coomaraswamy was no saint and his false teaching about married priests in the Latin Rite is abhorrent.  But our holy religion also teaches us that sins of the flesh, at least in other people, are nothing like as serious as the sin of heresy.  (In ourselves we probably can never be too ferocious against sins of the flesh, but that's another topic.)  Fr. Coomaraswamy was clearly a public sinner yet, as we Catholics humbly say, "but for the grace of God there go I."  

His respect for his own father's brilliant Perennialist scholarship was not sinful and did not indicate heresy in him in any way.  Rejection of filial piety is usually an even greater sin that the great shame of public sins of the flesh such as priestly marriage.  So Fr. Coomaraswamy was not respectable.  But he was no heathen Perennialist heretic and he did honor his own virtuous Pagan father, as it was his solemn moral duty to do.